Why I think a communist revolution is a pipe dream in United States.

[MrFun]

But skywalker, didn't Chegitz say that he rejects the historical models of the USSR and China?

Chegitz would never advocate the horrible governments that those two countries established.

[Kuciwalker]

Well, then there has NEVER been a Communist government. Why should we impliment a completely untested economic system on the entire world? Just because you say so?

[MrFun]

Just because something has not been proven yet to work, does that mean that it is impossible??

Maybe people have just gone the wrong way about it up to this point, but there is a successful way??

[Kuciwalker]

First, there are a lot of logical problems with communist theory, but I'll ignore that.

Just because something works on paper, doesn't mean it'll work in the real world. And so shouldn't we TEST the theory on a small scale, rather than implement it on the ENTIRE WORLD? Wouldn't that be a lot less risky?

[MrFun]

Like what?

Use a smaller country to start with, or a segment of a regional population within a country?

You can't organize and set up social changes as a lab experiment. Part of the human experience in history, is that social changes are not externally controlled (maybe there are exceptions) -- they emerge out of a wide range of socio-economic factors.

[Jon Miller]

I am pretty sure that there have been working examples of communism

and they have all been on the small scale

Jon Miller

[Kuciwalker]

Well, going back the chegitz's assertions that those countries weren't communist, is that true? They tried to be communist. However, the very nature of communism ensured that they ended up a totalitarian state.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I am pretty sure that there have been working examples of communism

and they have all been on the small scale

Jon Miller

If so, tell us about them (and provide sources).

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Velociryx
You guys on the other hand, have YET to have even ONE successful Big Red Run.

The central flaw in Communism is that it is based upon the erroneous assumption that humans are virtuous, that people will produce according to their maximum ability while taking only what they need.

The central flaw in supply-side economics is that it is based upon the erroneous assumption that corporations are virtuous, that corporations having monopolized the wealth of the world, will let some trickle down to their employees and consumers.

[Kuciwalker]

The central flaw in supply-side economics is that it is based upon the erroneous assumption that corporations are virtuous, that corporations having monopolized the wealth of the world, will let some trickle down to their employees and consumers.

Supply-side economics != capitalism.

Plus, corporations don't have to be virtuous. All we need to do is make acting virtuously in their best interests. (seriously)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
Well, going back the chegitz's assertions that those countries weren't communist, is that true? They tried to be communist.

That's a good summation of my position on the USSR and China.

However, the very nature of communism ensured that they ended up a totalitarian state.

This ignores that every single one of these states was under seige from the moment they took power. They never got a break to try and settle things down and actually develop. If you were trying to invent something, and everytime you got close to making it, I sent a bunch of thugs over to your place to smash things up, would that be evidence you were a bad inventor? No.

From the moment workers and/or peasants seize power anywhere in the world, the armed might of the imperialist world is there to confront them, arm and thrain their opposition, and cut the revolutionaries off from trade and aid. If you're at war, suffering from terrorism, and don't have the resources to meet all your needs, you are going to become a police state.

Finally, not every attempt at revolutionary socialism ended up a dictatorship. Sandanista Nicaragua didn't. With the exception of the U.S. State Department, ever monitor of the 1984 Nicaraguan elections certified them free and fair, despite the massive monetary aid the U.S. gave to the opposition (an act which would be illegal in the U.S.). Fortunately, and also in an historical exception, the Contras didn't engage in a slaughter of Sandinistas when they came to power in 1990.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
And so shouldn't we TEST the theory on a small scale, rather than implement it on the ENTIRE WORLD? Wouldn't that be a lot less risky?

If we could have, we would have. However, the capitalists have deliberately intefered with each and every attempt. It's difficult to prove the efficacy of your system when you're being invaded, terrorists are burning your crops and factories, destroying your bridges, cutting you off from foriegn trade, etc. I'd wager you'd be unable to successfully take a test if someone had a naked girl wiggling in front of you while someone else was smacking in the back of the head with a 2x4. Does that mean you're an idiot?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
White and black church groups (and not just the SCLC) made up the bulk of the vocal opposiotion to jim crow, the majority of the protester, and the majority of the money used during the movement.

I don't deny this. Non-socialists make up the bulk of the anti-war movement. What we bring to movements are organization, leadership (sometimes direct, sometimes indirect), historical lessons and perspective, etc. We are the leading edge of the movement, not the whole of the movement.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
EDIT: And out of curiosity, which part was I making up? That most wars have their genesis in ideology, or that capitalism ISN"T an ideology?

The former. Wars largely have their geneses in material, concrete reasons, like control of oil, diamonds, people tired of being slaves, etc. It's true that many wars have an ideological component. The Iran-Iraq war was both about revolutionary Shia Islam and control of the Shat al Arab and the security of Iraq from Iranian terrorism. But very few wars are fought for ideological reasons alone or even as the most important reason. If there's no material reason for the war, there won't be a war.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
This ignores that every single one of these states was under seige from the moment they took power. They never got a break to try and settle things down and actually develop. If you were trying to invent something, and everytime you got close to making it, I sent a bunch of thugs over to your place to smash things up, would that be evidence you were a bad inventor? No.

From the moment workers and/or peasants seize power anywhere in the world, the armed might of the imperialist world is there to confront them, arm and thrain their opposition, and cut the revolutionaries off from trade and aid. If you're at war, suffering from terrorism, and don't have the resources to meet all your needs, you are going to become a police state.

Nope...

We were never at war with China or Russia. Yes, we fought wars through their proxies, but those wars were INITIATED BY THEM. We didn't start them. Moreover, the tyrants came to power BEFORE external aggression started.