Barney fife wrote Since I vehemently HATE rice I am glad that I am 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"

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.

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.

Well, I did ask you for your definition, so I must accept it for what it is. And believe me, I am trying to understand your logic here. So... as an example, everyone in this communist society might be impoverished, but no one would be poor... because there would be no rich people = the opposite removed, by your definitional standard.

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'

This is where the theory begins to run into realistic problems for me. Many of the shareholders/owners of publicly traded (and non-public) companies are the employees. At the "richest of the rich" (the Fortune 500), that opportunity is extended to the overwhelming majority of employees. I don't just mean the executive level managers. I mean floor level people, right through middle management. Lady Lazarus was quite close as she described the hiring and wage functions of corporations. Part of this is employee retention. And part of that is to make the employees more closely tied to the organization. Will they become rich? Well, since some will take a matching option and wind up with a million dollars or more in share wealth over 25 years (as an example), and someone else will not take the option and wind up with no shares, I guess one can become rich. Taking this option may not be practical for the impoverished, but it's certainly practical (and wise) for the poor (again, using your definition here) - so they can become rich. So why would they want to go with communism? By your definition, they don't have to golf with Trump to be rich now.. just drive a nicer car than the guy down the block. Communism would take away their rich moniker and replace it with average. I don't think that sounds very appealing. Will this apply to everyone? Well, nothing applies to everyone, except death. But I believe you're saying the object should not be on rich, or rich vs. poor or poor, but on all being equal in economic terms. Is that roughly correct? While I might be less well off than some (poor), better off than some (rich)... I believe I'd still rather take my chances. I mean, you're going to have to sell this idea. And so far, it doesn't sound very attractive. Sounds like all communism can promise me is an average life. Average? I'd just as soon be dead. Er... speaking of which, what's going to happen to troublemakers like me anyway?

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.

I can't speak about Britain, but in the U.S., I believe there are far too many people who do not see themselves as "poor" - so they would not see the benefit. And I'm using your definitions as I present that... not the bourgeoisie or the media. Like myself, they'd rather give it their best shot, on their own and let the cards fall where they may at the end of the game. To be honest, my desire was never to be equal. And I don't think I am alone. So uh, what does happen to me and my ilk anyway?

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.

Since this is an ideology that I wouldn't (peacefully) go with, I will ask this. So humor me, please. Yes, I'm familiar with the from each according to his ability bit. But who would know my true abilities... except me? What I'm getting at... my workmate gives it 100% and makes 50 widgets for the state each day. My way of getting back at being forced into this deal might be to (appear to) try my lil heart out and also make 50 widgets a day. At the end of the day, I haven't stressed myself (though I certainly do look tired)and I'm actually in a good mood (cause I got mine the easy way). My time with my state allowed 1.75 children and my state supplied mate is more enjoyable than my tired workmate's. Am I not richer?

Try as you might, I just don't see that human nature can be defeated. The history of man is what it is. There have always been chiefs and there have always been followers and warriors. My joke about snatching an opportunity or two in another thread to SporkLord was barely in jest - that's how it's typically happened. The resulting chaos of forcing a communist society on the masses would simply offer opportunities to many. Competition and (controlled) greed are beautiful things, IMO. I believe we should continue to take care of those who cannot do for themselves. But those who simply won't do for themselves... well, that's why God made Darwin.

If not for the human factor, idealistic theories, like communism, would probably have a chance at success. But so far, these theories have only worked on paper... never in reality. Communism has had enough tests, but has always failed. That it seems to need an ideal, perfect storm type environment to succeed, suggests to me that it is not a very robust theory to begin with. It does provide a fascinating discussion though. Thanks.

__________________
"Tweeter was a Boyscout before she went to Vietnam and found out the hard way... nobody gives a d@mn."

Well, yes, that is true. However, the communist way of living would produce just as much wealth as is produced in a capitalist society, but this wealth would be created through collectivist intiatives rather than individualistic rewards.

A valid point. However, the floor-workers that own these shares still do proper, hard work and even if, when they retire, the amount of money they get from these shares will be much less than the CEO might 'earn' in year doing sweet F.A. in his office.

Why must you use the guy down the road as an object of your comparison? Where does this idea of averageness come from? At a national level, the whole populous would be a lot better off than the country next to you because of the equal distribution of wealth and superior methods of production. So, in global terms, you would not be 'average' you would be 'rich'.

How does 25 years in a salt mine sound?

Point 4 of the Communist manifesto is 'Confiscation of the property of all ... rebels.' Whether or not this idea of property extends to the ownership of your own body is a matter of semantics, but, if you were trying to revert the country back to capitalism, you would be suppressed.

This individualistic mindset is a result of conditioning by the bourgeoise controlled media. In a communist society, it would be obvious that helping others through sharing work equates to helping yourself. So, even though the mindset would be much more collectivist, it can be argued that an element of individualism would persist.

Let me ask you; did you have a job when you were a teenager working at McDonalds or some other god-forsaken shop for a pitence of a wage? Did that not bore you to the limits of your own sanity? Surely that is the same as making 50 'widgets' a day when you know you can do a hell of a lot better. Furthermore, if you want to make 50 widgets a day, go ahead, nobody's going to force you to do something else; after all, in a communist society you are free to do what you want.

'Human nature' is a philosophy dreamt up by the ruling class of every society. In feudal times, 'human nature' would be that you are born into a caste and you must abide by that; i.e. no social mobility. Nobody argued with that for 100s of years. Nowadays, 'human nature' is a yearning for democracy, equality before the law and personal freedom, and most people wouldn't argue with that. I have no doubt that the established idea of 'human nature' will change repeatedly before we all kill ourselves/we kill the planet/the sun explodes. Also, you may argue that Darwin provides irrefutable evidence that capitalism (survival of the fittest etc) is a 'natural' way for humans to exist. However, there are a number of problems with this. Firstly, it is completely irrefutable; how can you argue that his theory is true when you would need to observe several thousand generations to prove it. Then there are the oddities of nature; why do we sleep? Surely this period of time in which we are completely defenceless against predators should have been selected out. Why is the male urinary tract so long and twisted up; this makes men suscpetible to infection; why haven't long urinary tracts been selected out? Darwinism is an almost perfect reflection of capitalism. As Darwinism has its flaws which suggest it is not a perfect explanation of evolution, so capitalism has its flaws which suggest it is not a perfect or 'natural' way for humans to live.

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

FR33 STUFF Pl3az

I'm a noob

__________________
Job 13:5 (New International Version)
If only you would be altogether silent! For you, that would be wisdom.

All it's a clear example of is the state of our school system and the fact that there is a lot of crappy parenting in this country. Of course it also leaves out that our standard of living for the poor is FAR higher than most countries. I guess it's also a clear example of being unable to critically analysze something stated in a book.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

There is very little(I'm talking almost non existent) poverty in America that is not by choice. Poverty in America can not exist, except by choice. That is why America is the greatest nation on Earth. There is not a person in America that does not have the opportunity to at least make a comfortable living. The problem is that many people do not do it. They can do it, they just choose not to.

Most unemployment is by choice. Although, Illegal immigration is a factor in this. Again, it is America. If someone can come to America from another country with nothing in there pocket and build a successful business(it happens everyday), then any American citizen can at least find decent employment.

This is why America is so great, it is also why there are many people in America who are poor(by American standards), and it is why Socialism is far inferior(actually it can not work) to Capitalism. Even the poorest Americans have(or have the opportunity to obtain readily available) food, shelter and the means to sustain themselves. Poorer nations do not have this. In America, the poor have options to sustain themselves on for periods of time. They are also given incentives to sustain themselves and they have many opportunities to do so. Therefore, if they starve to do death, the responsibility falls directly on their shoulders. It was the choices they made in life that put them in that place.

Homelessness in America is (again, for the most part) a lifestyle choice. There are some legitimate people who are dealt some hard times that put them in a situation like that, but those are very few. But those people are usually the ones who work their buts off to get themselves out of those situations. My point is this: In America, people fall on hard times, people put themselves in hard times, but there are to many options for these people to either: work their way out of it, or not to put themselves there in the first place.

So you can't compare Socialism to Capitalism. Capitalism grants choices. Socialism takes them away.

__________________
"It aint over, till it's over"

Yes. They can choose to watch whatever they want...even foreign sources. No one is forcing them to watch Fox or CNN...which seems to be your implication.

They choose to watch it, and therefore (indirectly) make them wealthier. Thats the part they play. And it is a part they play willingly.

Fox and CNN are not even free...they have to PAY to be able to watch them.

So who decides what "unbiased" is?

No, I define class as a different socio-economic bracket. No matter how egalitarian you try to make your society, there will always be differences to some degree. There will always be, for example, places to live that are more in demand than others. You cant make everything completely equal, therefore, it is not classless.

This goes for politics as well. Some people will have more power to make decisions and change things than others. Therefore you will have classes there as well.

So I ask again...how will it be different from what we have already?

Well...that and they would also get more power to make decisions than everyone else.

You make the assumption that money is the only way they can become corrupt. Since everything is not perfectly equal, other things will replace money as a form of barter (better living conditions, better food, more attractive mates). Not every place will be equally desirably to live. Not all food will be of the same quality. Dont fool yourself...money will just exist in a different form.

Maybe. Who would have been a better choice?

How did you determine that Bush's success was due to his money and exposure, and not his political positions?

Yes they would. They would be the ones making the decisions, right? Otherwise, what is the point of electing them?

What do you mean by transparency of government? Do you mean the masses will have to vote on every little issue?

How do you know they are not right though? Who determines what is "bourgeoise" conditioning, and waht is the real will of the masses? It sounds to me like a flavor of totalitarianism; someone decides up front what the masses are and are not allowed to change.

Yes. I am not afraid of what the "bourgeoise" have to say. Why are you? If people are as easily led as you seem to believe, how do you knwo the exact same thing wont happen under communism?

Even as they said that, they designed the government with expandability in mind. Ther is NO law that cannot be changed. None. Every single facet of our government can be changed if the masses will it.

That is not true under communism according to you. There are things the masses CAN'T change. So essentially, they are allowed on those choices that whoever sets up the system allows them. Right?

btw - It is a mistake to assume that because I am a neo-con I idolize the founding fathers. I dont. I consider their culture primitive and inferior to the one we have now. I pretty much feel that way about all the previous versions of America. When I say we are better than everyone else, I mean previous states of our own evolution as well.

How is it supressed under capitalist rule? Unlike your communist society, we can change any unjust laws as we see fit. By contrast, our options are more limited under your system...there are things we CANT change, even if everyone agrees they should be changed.

This is an example of why communism wont work. It goes against human nature. Capitalism simply channels human nature.

I dont share your assumption that it would remain classless. But if you are so certain that it could be done, why are you afraid of giving the masses the option?

Fine...expalin to me how you know standards of living would be better if they dont exist? What evidence are you basing your assumption on?

You seem to expect everyone to share your assumption that everything will work out perfectly as planned...but you dont really know that.

So am I correct to assume you cant think of any examples in the last 100 years? The only example I can think of at all is the Faulklands "war". 1 minor war between democracies in a century...not a bad record huh?

Not that I would necessarily even count the 18th/19th centutries, since those nations were not democracies by our standards today.

Therefore communism could not realistically exist (according to you), because there will always be inequities, however minor...right?

And if they arent...they SoL? Explain to me how that is different from totalitarianism.

So if I was to say to you "communists will have to be convinced that capitalism is a better way of life than communism in order for capitalism to work", how would you react to that statement?

And if it is not self evident? What then?

You are correct. No-one is forcing them to watch it. However, every time one news organisation is enveloped by another there is less choice. In the end, there are so few news organisations that they effectively have a monopoly over all political thought, so people will have no choice but to use a news organisation that expresses only very limited views. Please note; I did not use the word 'force'; people are not forced to watch it, but they have no choice other than watch it and get some information or not watch and get nothing. Also, you could argue that people could set up their own news organisations. However, if someone did do this, expressing a view contrary to the news monopoly, it would be shut down by its competitors very rapidly.

No-one. If many news organisations exist then the probability is they will have a large range of opinions. If one or two news organisations exist, then only one or two opinions can exist in the public domain. Obviously this cannot fully cover the range of opinions that can/do exist.

In today's capitalist democracy very little democracy actually occurs. You vote for your leaders, they take this as a mandate that all their ideas are the same as your ideas. Going back to the thing about news organisations; only 2 major parties exist. You are a conservative, are you not? Look at the Republican manifesto. Do you agree with all of it? Is there some that you disagree with? Look at the Democrat manifesto. Is there not something on there that you agree with? In an ideal world would you not pick and choose your best bits from each? This is what I mean by the abscence of true democracy and the problem of a central elected government; the political view points of the populous cannot be expressed by 2 parties.

OK, this is going to sound weird and might contradict what I've already said. Please bear in mind my study of communism is in it's infancy, and that my ideas and understanding are developing constantly, which is why I am enjoying this debate, as a matter of fact.

A government would only exist as a transitional form during the movement from capitalism to communism (i.e. during socialism). It would 1) protect workers from attempts by the bourgeoise to revert back to capitalism 2) implement the 10 points identified by Marx (I can post what they are if you want) and 3) control the economy during the time that capitalism is superseeded by communism. This comes from an interesting idea I have found. Once the rule of the proletariat has been established, three economies would exist; private capitalism controlled by the state, state capitalism, and communism. The communist economy would start off small and disorganised, but would grow and develop and eventually be able to absorb both state and private capitalism. Please don't ask me to explain how, I'm still studying that.

Once the communist economy takes over there would be no need for the government and it would dissolve. After all, what is the government? A means of conveying authority over society. Once the communist mind-set has taken hold (please see the point I made about collectivism; again I can post more info if you want) there would be no need for the government to exist. Let me explain further. Let us use an example; Big Brother (sorry, its the best I can think of, believe me I loathe that programme). These 12 (?)idiots spend a long period of time in a house with no one constantly directing their actions. Let us remove the ability of the network to intervene even in serious circumstances. These people live together. Do they kill each other? Do they rape or attack each other? Do they deliberatley vandalise one another's property? No. Even with no-one influencing their lives they do not do these things. Why? We all have social norms that are effectivley imprinted on us that prevent us doing certain things (i.e. rape, murder etc). It is how society is able to function; a 'social contract' that we have with one another that allows society to function. In individualistic society, it is necessary for a government to exist to maintain and administrate these rules and make examples of people who break these rules because of the relatively primitive nature of the social contract. In a communist society, the social contract is so well advanced that people see others as themselves (the true ideal of love thy neighbour). This advanced state of the social contract extends even to economic measures; people will (almost) instinctively know what economic policies will best advance themselves and their community. These will be implemented by general consensus. There will be no need for an administrative body to tell them what to do. Please don't infer from this that all people will be robots with no individual identity. There will of course be indivualism in a communist society. That is truly part of human nature. However, this individualism will not extend to a situation where people harm each other to show their individualism, due to the advanced social contract.

Oh come on, I know you're conservative but do you really think Bush would have got anywhere without the money he inherited and was then ploughed into him? That is just an ostrich mentality gone haywire.

I am not inferring this, and am sorry if you believe I am. The Founding Fathers are important to all Americans, and that the stuff they wrote is the FOUNDATION for today's America, that was what I was trying to say.

No, you are correct in the fact that I myself do not know the answer to this question. However, like I say, I am still studying communism, and I am sure that I will find an answer to this.

You said capitalist countries, not democracies. I was thinking of editing it to include the 20th century but then I realised I couldn't be bothered. Now, what wars between capitalist countries have occured in the last 100 years?

http://home.earthlink.net/~wagc/hisrecon.htm#1900-2000

I'm sure there is more than one capitalist-capitalist war here. Please remember between capitalists, not democracies.

Firstly, what is SoL

Secondly, you are daily persuaded that your capitalist lifestyle is best through advertising. Although advertising is not a direct comparison against communism, it is indirect by the fact that they are promoting one lifestyle over any other. Do you live in a totalitarian society?

I would say that if a communist society was turning into a capitalist one, this comment would be true. However, if it was a true communist society, that situation would never arise.

To put it bluntly, society collapses and they have only themselves to blame.[/quote]

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

What views are not being represented?

First of all, you are assuming that news organizations can control our thoughts...they cant. They may be biased in one direction or another, but that is true of every news source.

Second, we have access to sources outside the country. Monopolies cant control everything...it costs almost nothing to put up a website or print your own newspaper.

You could make the argument that the larger organizations are more likely to be heard, but there is a very good reason for this; more people want to know what they have to say. They DO have choices...but people would still rather watch CNN than listen to NPR, even though NPR is completely free and widely available.

Your system, by contrast, would heavily censor what people could say. They could not say anything pro-bourgeoise. Am I wrong?

That is false. They can easily get access to newspapers or any number of websites. All the local public libraries in Denver, without exception, offer free internet access to view websites.

Give me an example. What ideology is out there that doesnt have a media presence of some kind? Even if it is just a website?

They arnt there not because they have been "shut down", but because no one wants to hear what they have to say.

So I could start up a station and spout pro-bourgeoise? If not, your society already has fewer options than what we have now.

And if they are restricting my pro-bourgeoise speech, then that means someone has to be in charge of defining what pro-bourgeoise is. Who gets to do that?

I agree. Fortunately, that is not even remotely the case. Thousands of news organizations exist. The only ones you seem to feel "count" are the big ones. But they dont exist in a vaccum.

...because most people want to vote for the two major parties. But they are not the only choices. Even on the ballot itself they are not the only choices.

For all intents and purposes, yes. I agree with more of it than any other ideology I have seen so far.

The only alternative is to become a politician myself. Since I do not want to be a politician (for many reasons) I choose to compromise and support them, even though I might only agree with 80% or 90% of what they stand for. They are closer to what I want than anyone else.

Compromise is a choice. Choice is good.

How would that be different from what I have now? Give me an example on how it would improve the situation I already have now.

Why would I vote for someone that agrees with me on one issue but opposes me on 20 more?

Probably. But we have more than two parties. Most people simply choose not to vote for them.

How do you plan to implement this without resorting to totalitarianism?

Thats pretty much my entire point. Communists can see the utopia in the distance, but they cant find a road to get there. Until they do that, it is reasonable for us to assume a road does not exist.

And again, before you can make plans against the bourgeoise, someone has to define what the bourgeoise is. Who gets to do that?

But there would be inequities; some people would gain more than others. This would re-introduce classes into your pristine classless society. Other items of barter would replace money. Favors, better living conditions, better food, rare items (or access to rare items), more attractive mates, whatever. It will never be completely equal. Some people will always have more than other people.

And the people in power (the ones who get to make the decisions) will always have more control.

I have to ask, because the "how" is the key to making it work at all. If there is no "how" there is no communism. You end up with what happened to the Soviets.

"Trust me, we'll figure something out" is not a sufficient reason to change from a system that we already know works.

How do you know they dont?

Some people are not bound by these norms. That is why we have laws to deal with them. It is an outgrowth of our survival instincts. Greed is natural. Violence is natural.