It is what inevitably happens when communism is attempted. To date we havnt seen a single exception.

Marx's ideal cant exist in the real world. it might as well be fiction.

If the proletariat votes on every bit of minutia, then they would not have time to work and produce. The only way to avoid this is by electing representatives to make descisions for them by proxy. If this happens, it is no longer a classless society.

The obvious alternative to this is totalitarianism in various degrees.

Communists look at the end result without explaining how they will achieve it. Until they can explain this, no one will take it seriously.

So much for free speech. What if the non-bourgeoise masses want to revert back?

Assuming everyone was communist...BFD. You could say the exact same thing about Capitalism and democracy. Actually you could probably say that about any ideology.

No communist society would be completely egalitarian. There would always be people with slightly better living conditions/food/whatever. Therefore, there would be "poor" people even then.

What incentive would they have to work to their ability if they get the same reward no matter what?

Yeah, I can see how what I said could have been a little ambiguous. I'm talking about national economies, not the global economy. In the third world poverty is definitely a problem, but I can assure you that people aren't starving in America.

The reason there have to be poor people for an economy to function is that some people simply do not have the skills to perform tasks that a worth a large amount of money, because these jobs are easy to do. Those individuals in an economy without the skills are capable only of performing these simpler jobs which pay less money, and therefore they are poor.

Lets say job X is worth $100,000 a year, and job Y is worth $25,000 a year. The reason that X is so much more valuable than Y is because there are four times as many people capable of performing job Y than job X, and chances are that job Y is four times more common a job than job X.

It's all a pyramid.

One is poor when their income is significantly below the mean income, and/or they are unable to afford more than basic necessities with few luxuries.

Non-capitalist economies don't function, because they violate the very principles of supply and demand which govern all exchange of goods on the planet.

Sure, the wealth might be distributed amongst the proletariat, but there will be so little wealth the be distributed that everyone will be as poor as the poorest were in the previous capitalist society.

WORKING FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE!!

__________________
"Nothing is true. Everything is permitted." - Hassan-i-Saba

Things can be defined by their opposites; hard and soft, light and dark, rich and poor. If there are no rich people, there can be no poor people. In a classless communist society this is the case.

You have used the term 'poverty' rather than 'poor', which I did not use. There is a clear distinction between these two terms. 'Poverty' is when people cannot survive in the conditions they are in; i.e. no housing, food, clean water, healthcare, education etc. Poor is a relative term. Lets use an example. You live in America. One person earns $17,000 p.a. working at McDonalds. They can barely afford to keep themselves fed with a roof over their heads. They have a poor education and health care. Another person earns $50,000 p.a. working at an insurance firm. They have a nice house, a nice car, can easily afford food and clothing etc. They have a good education and health care. Compared to the McDonalds worker, they are rich. The CEO of, lets say, Dell, might earn $1,000,000 p.a. The person at the insurance company is poor compared to the CEO, even though the insurance worker lives comfortably and wants for nothing.

The idea of a 'necessary poor' (to paraphrase you) in a capitalist society comes from the very principle of capitalism. People are free to own places of work (bourgeoise owning bourgeoise property). The capital resulting from the products created by the labour of others is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoise. They then pay the labourers enough money so that they can exist and reproduce, creating more means of producing capital. The concentration of capital in the hands of the bourgeoise means that they have more money than those who do not own bourgeoise property. This creates a system by which some people gain more money than others. As not everyone can own places of work because there will always need to be people to work in these places of work, this creates the idea of 'necessary poor'

In a communist society, based on the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", the comparison of people's living conditions would be so tiny (lets say, someone owns a thicker duvet or has a larger collection of stamps than someone else) that the term 'poor' would be irrelevant. You must also bear in mind that money would not exist in a communist society as there would be no need for it.


It is true that there have been no exceptions to the Cuba/China/Russia form of 'communism'. However, it is not an 'inevitable' consequence of communism. Marx said that in order for a communist revolution to occur successfully, the proletariat would need to be very developed, with a great deal of established political revolutionary thinkers to lead the way. He also said it was necessary that a bourgeoise revolution (i.e. overthrow of the feudal system) must occur before the proletarian revolution can occur. If we look at Russia and China, thier revolutions occured at times when there had been no true bourgeoise revolution and both countries were extremely economically backward. In Cuba, although there had been a bourgeoise revolution to an extent, it was mostly controlled by America, and the populous was still very poor and undeveloped, with few true revolutionary thinkers. These are not the ideal conditions for communism to take hold, resulting in perverted 'communist' states. In advanced and rich countries such as Britain and the US, communism has a better chance of succeding. However, with a bourgeoise stranglehold on the media, the possibility of a communist revolution ever occuring has been effectively eradicated.

Communist democracy would be more involved and active than capitalist democracy, by which we vote for leaders every 4 years, and during this time they can do pretty much what they (*)(*)(*)(*) well please and get away with it. The representatives in a communist democracy would actually be 'of the people for the people' due to the absence of money-related and contact-related influence on the democratic process. Because they are truly 'of the people' they would not form a seperate class and a classless society could persist.

After a time of repressing the bourgeoise, the proletariat would begin to reap the benefits of the wealth created by communism. The only reason the proletariat would want to revert back would be due to the bourgeoise using their influence and wealth to run a media campaign trying to convince them they were better off being suppressed by the bourgeoise.

Yes, assuming everyone is communist, thanks for pointing that out (thats sincere, btw). You cannot apply that to capitalism; as I have already explained above, in capitalism, there are antagonisms between classes due to the unequal distribution of wealth. In a world of Free Trade, capitalism can be applied on an international scale, where bourgeoise countries subject proletarian countries to their rule (as can be seen by globalisation today; e.g. America and Indonesia etc). This creates antagonisms between countries in the same way it creates antagonisms between classes within a country. Whilst antagonisms exist, there can be no peace. If we were all communist, i.e. a global equal distribution of wealth, there can be no antagonisms between countries, and so there can be no war.

See above

Hmm, this is a tough one and is a fundamental problem with communism.

Here is my view on it; we, in the west are conditioned to be individualistic (don't care about anyone, out for ourselves), whilst other, generally poorer countries are more collectivist (care strongly about their family and friends). If you want me to post more information on this distinction I can. After the initial revolution, the communist media will work hard to make people care more about their friends and neighbours and not be so internal. Once this 'collectivist' mind-set has been established, people will no longer work for individual rewards and will work for the benefit of their community. If you think this 'conditioning' idea is immoral, please be aware that every day you are conditioned by the current capitalist system to buy the products of capitalism through advertising.

__________________
"I see no reason why...there should not arise a United States of Europe" Winston Churchill, 1946

When you sacrifice freedom for security you lose both and gain neither--Benjamin Franklin. Everyone on this topic is an idiot except nawbut.

__________________
“Capitalism cannot reform itself; it is doomed to self-destruction. No universal selfishness can bring social good to all.” —Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois

..wrote wishful-thinking fiction. Not even believable fiction as his ideas obviously go against human nature. Why do people consider his writings "science"?

It is as far as we know.

You are making the claim that it is possible to make communism work without it degenerating into totalitarianism, but you have not presented any evidence as to how that might be accomplished. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that such degeneration is inevitible.

It isnt as if it has not been tried many times. We arnt talking just once or twice. It has followed this pattern every single time.

What if this never happens? If Americans (or democracies in general) can elect whatever leaders they want, how will this ever occur?

Certainly you will need the support of more than half the population. That will never happen under the current system(s), because half the population will always get the leaders they want into power.

Congradulations. I am sure he'll be happy to know that happened in America a long time ago. The rich do not elect our leaders. They must have our consent.

Perhaps we should send him a card.

The "bourgeoise stranglehold on the media" is there with the consent of the masses though. Your only solution seems to be government control of the media, which most people will (rightly) see as much worse.

So you are saying it would still be a representative government? So much for a classless society eh?

How exactly is that different from what we already have?

It would not be a classless society, because some people would have more power than others. You just said that these representatives would be able to do "pretty much what they (*)(*)(*)(*) well please and get away with it".

So much for free speech. What if the non-bourgeoise masses want to revert back?

So you are saying they would never have the option of reverting back, no matter how many of them want it. So much for the power of the people huh? So because you cant imagine a reason why they would want to revert back, it should never even be an option?

btw - who exactly gets to define what is "reverting back" anyway?

Irrelevant...that doesnt necessary mean it will lead to war. What is your evidence to the contrary?

These so-called "subjugated" nations experience higher standards of living than do communist nations. And they still have the option of breaking trade with other capitalist nations if they want to. The "losers" are still better off than the winners of communist nations.

And, just like the antagonisms within classes in a country, they dont necessarily lead to war. In fact, they almost never lead to war. How often has one capitalist nation attacked another over economic issues?

Or so you assume...but it has never been put to the test. The truth is that no matter how egalitarian your society is, there will ALWAYS be differences in (for example) living conditions. Some areas will be in higher demand than others. This will equate to wealth...meaning some people will be "wealthier" than others, because they will get to live in the higher demand areas.

You dont believe this will lead to strife?

So, in order for the system to work, you will have to hope people become less individualistic?

What happens if the conditioning never takes hold? You have removed the ability for them to revert back to what they had before, right? So how would the end result be different than slavery?

Oh yeah, anyone who disagrees with you must be an idiot. Thats not liberal at all.

Joke's on you. I'm really Stephen Hawking.

__________________
Just because I have a short attention span doesn't mean

http://www.communism.org/#human_nature

I beg to differ. Directly, perhaps not, but I don't think you can argue with the fact that they effectively elect them indirectly. There is a well-proven theory that exposure to someone will increase our trust of that person and influence how much we trust them. Exposure requires accessing the public, essentially by the media. Here we can make 2 points. 1) Getting on television, the radio, in newspapers, on billboards etc requires money. As you can only use so much government money (well you can in the UK, I don't know about the US), you need more money to get more exposure. Where is this money going to come from? Unless you have immense personal wealth, this money is going to come in the form of donations, the bulk of which will come from the rich. If the rich don't like you, they won't give you money, and you won't get exposure, so you don't get elected. 2) Getting on television, radio, in newspapers, on billboards etc also requires support from the rich people who own these media. If these rich people don't like you, then you won't get access to their media, you won't get exposure, so you don't get elected. In this way the rich do indeed have a very large effect on how we vote. Therefore the proletariat are subject to the preferences of the bourgeoise.

The consent of the masses? What part do the masses play when Fox or CNN or any other media giant decides to consume yet another small, independent news organisation? I do not consent to government control of the media, which would indeed be worse; a large number of independently owned news organisations that are not run by their sponsors is the best way to ensure transparency of the government in a capitalist democracy.

You seem to define 'class' as 'different type of job'. These representatives would get the same benefits from the communist society as everyone else, except their election by the proletariat would not be subject to the same money-related and contact-related influences that are part of todays democratic system. Do you think Bush would have gotten to the White House without financial support from so many coorporations and his father's contacts? Also, in accordance with Point 8 of the Communist Manifesto (equal liability of all to labour) these people would return to work once their period of election had ended.

These people will have no power over others. They will merely state their views to the proletariat, and, whichever policies the proletariat prefer, they will help implement. These policies will flow from principles that are already embedded in everyone's conscious, and so will be the benefit to all, even if they do differ slightly.

Representatives from our current capitalist democracy are able to do pretty much what they (*)(*)(*)(*) well please and get away with it. The greater amount of democratic involvement and greater transparency of the government would prevent that in a communist democracy.

The bourgeoise maintain their position as the ruling class by conditioning the populous to believe that they way they are living now is the best possible manner of existence, that they way they live now is 'natural' for humanity. This is the same philosophy adopted by every ruling class that has ever existed. In this age, the bourgeoise employ the media to reinforce this message on the proletariat. The bourgeoise must be suppressed because these lies will eventually revert the new transitional socialist society to the old capitalist society. Do you not idolise freedom? Did the Founding Fathers not write "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? Are these rights achieved under conditions of suppression, as under capitalist rule, or under conditions of freedom, as under communist rule?

I would have thought the definition of 'reverting back' would be obvious. If communism is a classless society where there exists no money and all wealth is shared out equally, then surely any perversion of this, in which money continues to exist and becomes concentrated in the hands of the few as in capitalist society, would be 'reverting back'?

THERE ARE NO COMMUNIST COUNTRIES!!! How many times do I have to say this?

Most of 18th/19th century European history is a history of war over economic issues.

What you are basically saying here is that class antagonisms resulting from unequal distribution of wealth will lead to strife. Yes, that is true. However, that is capitalism, not communism. However you want to put it, ANY DIFFERENCE IN WEALTH whatsoever is not communism.

People will have to be convinced that collectivism is a better way of life than individualism. This will not be a passive shift but an active one. It will become self evident once people realise that sitting around doing nothing means that they are harming the growth and development of themselves and their community.

__________________
"I see no reason why...there should not arise a United States of Europe" Winston Churchill, 1946

Barney fife wrote Since I vehemently HATE rice I am glad that I an not Cuban or Communist.

ps Castro bought the Rice Cookers from China, Communist China, and and large % WERE DEFECTIVE !!!! HAHA HE HE HO HO

__________________
"I was born at night, but it was not last night night"