Marx suffered from a seriously dangerous illness: idealism. He claimed to have come up with a way of thinking that would benefit the working class, yet he himself was not a member of the working class. I find that a bit ironic. He never had to work for himself because he always had someone to provide for him (I have found that a lot of socilists come from this sort of background and a lot of capitalists are self made men and women).

i want ask some question about the communism way
i want to know if some country implement the communism way
its entire that who that work nvm where! and who defined unemployed Get total money equal.
If the answer is: yes Its so freak
i mean if i am a worker that spend my life in my bussines or in my job
and i am get xxxx money and someone that spend his life in a sitting on the chair get the same total money its so unfair ?
so now the question is:
this is the communism ?

You have to remember force that i'd also abolish money. When i say seize assets i mean seize land, tools, good etc. that they own. The wealthy can therefore leave the country at there will. They can take there paper currency, there digital bank accounts with them. They can't take the factories, the fields and the workers with them though.

There is no real transfer of power. I don't think a revolution is necessary. Just running in local council elections. A government to rule over all council's never has to established. But let's say someone does get into there local council with the intent of bribing some mercenaries to seize power. The'd have a number of huge problems.

1) There's just not enough wealth in a constituency of around 70000 people to support a large military force.

2) They have no money to pay off the mercenaries with. They could only promise the military power afterward.

3) Even if they did manage to seize power in there local area they would still be surrounded on all sides by hostile soviets.

4) If they were found to be plotting the'd be removed from there council seat straight away, further enforcing the fact that have to make promises as if they did try to filter any goods they would stand a good chance of being found out.

Also bear in mind that if someone was desperate for power they could just run against the communists.

As far as collective incentive goes i think it easily matches capitalist incentive. Do you think that the average walmart worker cares where you shop? Do you think they try there hardest everyday? or do you think they know there never going to get anywhere and resign themselves to doing a half assed job? there is very little incentive for average workers in capitalist society. The real incentive is there for entrepreneurs and business owners.

In a communist society this is reversed. The workers have allot of incentive as working hard directly affects there local community and them. As labour would be organized at the council, you can also pick your job (to a certain level) so that never end up in a job you truly hate.

There's also the point that in many ways the economy being controlled by the community could strengthen the economy. Jobs like telecommunicator would no longer exist (why do people get payed to irritate and harass people over the phone?), this labour could be put to good use elsewhere in the economy.

Of course some people are just phycotic, but in a communist society what's best for individual is also best for the community.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

If the wealthy are allowed to take their wealth, they should also be able to take the factories since that is their property.
I just don't think the communist labor system could work either since there are some jobs no one would take without compensation. The thing about the average WalMart employee is true, but that is because the person is not compensated.
The more local the unit, the more the person will take interest. Localities are more important to the person than cities or states, but not as important as the family or the individual.
So I can agree on decentralization of government, the more the better. But I don't see where removing all personal incentives will work to produce growth. If a person is stuck in a locality and the locality is the smallest unit, then the individual can be oppressed by the tyranny of the majority. The individual must be free to seek fortune, destiny, whatever the driving force or personal goal, wherever it may be.
Capitalism is unfortunately the best we have to enable this individualism. But unfortunately we've become lazy capitalists, addicted to material more than freedom. Communism is not the answer. It's even more materialistic.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Actually, yeah, it does.

They wanted power. They were closet aristocrats. NONE of them were in favor of a direct vote on policy. They wanted to be part of an oligarchy that made all the decisions on behalf of the masses. They may or may not have been sincere in their desire to see the will of the masses done, but their actions make it clear they did NOT really want to surrender their power. A slave is still a slave, no matter how benign the master may be.

In short, they were hypocrites.

I felt betrayed. It is one of the reasons I hate them so much.

Who gets to decide when it is time to move on to the next "stage"?

Yeah, except that you dont really want free speech. That is part of the lie. By "education" they mean indoctrination. They want to limit what information the masses have access to.

And if they dont "see" this, then that must mean they are being manipulated somehow...right?

Dying in a war doesnt = murder. Not sure where you got that idea.

The American government doesnt execute people who disagree with it. Communist nations do that however. Tienamen anyone?

He'll probably grow out of it on his own. But it needs to be explained to him WHY it is wrong. If someone had done that with my I would not have languished under the Communist illusion as long as I did.

He is young, and young people want immediate solutions to everything. Immediate solutions usually require extremism.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Try it. You will never be dead enough.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

It's true that the wealthy couldn't take real property with them, but they could take anything movable (i.e. personal property). I can see how eliminating money might reduce the likelihood of a power-mad dictator seizing power (though it would still be a significant possibility) but it would also cause the economy to grind to a halt. The barter system just doesn't work. As for collective incentive, that wave of fear I wrote of would get in the way. If there is a scarcity of resources (as there would be regularly in anarcho-communism), each person wants to hoard their goods. If the scarcities became severe enough, I can see the utopia descending into looting and chaos. I don't see why people would cooperate in hard times unless forced to do so by a government, and then there would be another authoritarian socialist state. That is just my prediction. I don't like capitalism, but I think John Kenneth Galbraith summed it up best when he said:

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite."

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

No, capitalism has us fighting eachother for the crumbs of the pie while the capitalists keep the bigger pieces for themselves but instead of competing against eachother communism would have us working together so everyone gets an equal share. The motivation is that the economy depends on us and if we dont work our hardest nothing will ever be accomplished; our combined labor contributes to the greater good.

__________________
“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

[quote="Sadistic-Savior";p="203841"]When the second stage (socialism) begins is all determined by the economic conditions at the time. As for free speech, its always neccessary in order to have a functioning society because without it we cant be criticized and if we arent criticized we wont know what problems or mistakes are taking place. When I first started on the politicalforum I was uneducated and naive but because of criticism I was made to get off my high-horse and study the controdictions, because of that Im a better debator and a better person; the moral of that is that we must listen to all oppinions even if we disagree with them inorder to succeed. Youre smart to be suspicious when I say education, I would be to if I were in your place because revolutionaries are notorious for propaganda. However Im different and by education Im talking about seiously teaching the masses about economics, politics, etc. and if they disagree they should be listened to; if their right then changes should be made on my part but if their wrong then correct them. The important thing in education though is to make sure that all the information is given, by limiting information it shows cowardice in the teacher but a true teacher never cencors anything and allows everyone to see all aspects of the subject inorder for them to make up their own mind, even if their decision is not the one you hoped for. S-S is right though when he says that people who dont know if their being oppressed are manipulated, its true. That fascist tactic was used by both the U.S.S.R. & the Nazis and is still used by N. Korea, China, and Cuba. Its nothing more than propaganda used by those afraid of losing their grip. On mass murder, if you die in an unjust war and youre leaders continue on with that war then its mass murder on their hands which is why I mentioned WWI, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. I'll agree that the U.S. hasnt done anything like Tienenman Square but with civil liberties at stake like they currently are I wouldnt be suprised if it happened. I have nothing against S-S for changing his views and, (oddly enough) I kind of see S-S as an old friend and the fact that he disagrees with me and hates my politics makes all the better. Besides, without opposition politics is no fun and it becomes a bland, tastless subject.

__________________
“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

Putting aside the social problems that communism causes, the most basic economic problem with communism economically is that it would eliminate risk taking, which is what drives any economy. A person could only fare as well as their community. I understand that some communists want to eliminate money, so I'll refer to economic "units" for the sake of convenience. If, by my efforts, I can make 1 economic unit in communism while I could make 100 economic units in capitalism (let us say a commune had 100 people in it), I am likely to work much harder under capitalism. Of course, there is more potential for loss in the short-term, but most people think the risk is worthwhile. There are rare circumstances (e.g. the Great Depression), in which modestly increasing government control of the economy is justified, since most have abandoned such risk taking, but even those measures should be cautious and temporary.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)