Why has Communism failed everywhere ? A chance for commies to explain

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kontiki
From what I've read, he's also summed up your philosophy.

Minus the exploitation part.

It seems you guys not only aren't on the same page with respect to communism, you're not even reading the same book.

Would you rather we march in lock-step and all argue as if we were one person? I see the fact that we have differences as health, even if Kid and Odin are wrong when they disagree with me.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kontiki
From what I've read, he's also summed up your philosophy. It seems you guys not only aren't on the same page with respect to communism, you're not even reading the same book.

There is as much variety among Commies than among capitalists. Both you and Floyd are capitalists, yet you don't see us using the argument "but Floyd said something different! You capis are really never on the same page"

[Xin Yu]

The first modern society, IMHO, was the French republic during the French Revolution late 18th century, which failed to accomplish its goals -- Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. However, the idea greatly inspired later societies.

Democracy: Liberty is valued the most; equality is limited to voting rights and some basic human rights; fraternity is deligated to salvage army type organizations instead of being enforced by the government. Under democracy people FEEL (i.e., are cheated into believe) that they have total liberty, equality, and fraternity, although they only enjoy limited rights.

Communism: Liberty is abandoned but equality and fraternity are enforced. Actually communists are telling the truth, which are a) nobody can enjoy true liberty (you can cast a vote every 4 years which makes little difference in your life), and b) liberty is frequently used by the rich to exploit the poor. The communist society therefore abandoned liberty, and thus they are doomed, maybe because 'telling the truth makes one unpopular'?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Xin Yu
The first modern society, IMHO, was the French republic during the French Revolution late 18th century, which failed to accomplish its goals -- Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. However, the idea greatly inspired later societies.

Democracy: Liberty is valued the most; equality is limited to voting rights and some basic human rights; fraternity is deligated to salvage army type organizations instead of being enforced by the government. Under democracy people FEEL (i.e., are cheated into believe) that they have total liberty, equality, and fraternity, although they only enjoy limited rights.

Communism: Liberty is abandoned but equality and fraternity are enforced. Actually communists are telling the truth, which are a) nobody can enjoy true liberty (you can cast a vote every 4 years which makes little difference in your life), and b) liberty is frequently used by the rich to exploit the poor. The communist society therefore abandoned liberty, and thus they are doomed, maybe because 'telling the truth makes one unpopular'?

You can have a democratic communism. You do need to have individuals who believe in it and are willing to contribute to it. That's not impossible. Mentality makes a big difference.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Exploitation, in the Marxist sense of the word, is when you do not get paid the full value of what you produce. In slavery or feudalism exploitation is much easier to recognize. ...The laborer does not get paid the full amount of the value he produces, but instead a portion of that value is appropriated by the capitalist. That appropiration is what Marxists call exploitation.

So, the Marxist never pays anyone the value of what they produce and somehow this is not exploitation? We earlier had the example of the communist doctor paid the same as the communist nurse even though the doctor has a degree, has more skills and works more hours. Now, from my view, this is outrageous exploitation, fundamentally unfair and a perversion of justice.

But this is rational communism for you.

It also illustrates the fundamental dialectic of the "philosophy." Divert attention, never admit the truth and lie like a dog.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You can have a democratic communism. You do need to have individuals who believe in it and are willing to contribute to it. That's not impossible. Mentality makes a big difference.

Kid, the problem is that communism does not permit dissent and requires all to comply -- or else. People who do not agree cannot leave. They are shot or sent to a gulag.

Communism is the worst philosophy ever conceived. Its promises are lies and its implemetation is cruelty personified.

The French revolution is an example of what happens with ideologues get control. Heads role by the tens of thousands. The French revolutionaries were just the first example of extremists taking power in the name of socialist ideals. Others include Stalin, Mao, Ho and Pol Pot. In all cases, heads rolled and rolled and rolled.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned


Kid, the problem is that communism does not permit dissent and requires all to comply -- or else. People who do not agree cannot leave. They are shot or sent to a gulag.

Communism is the worst philosophy ever conceived. Its promises are lies and its implemetation is cruelty personified.

The French revolution is an example of what happens with ideologues get control. Heads role by the tens of thousands. The French revolutionaries were just the first example of extremists taking power in the name of socialist ideals. Others include Stalin, Mao, Ho and Pol Pot. In all cases, heads rolled and rolled and rolled.

Of course you have to comply, just like in a capitalist system. You have to comply to survive. However, people shouldn't be shot for exercising free speech or freedom of association. No one here believes that they should be. You really need to understand that.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Exploitation, in the Marxist sense of the word, is when you do not get paid the full value of what you produce. In slavery or feudalism exploitation is much easier to recognize. In feudalism, after you spend five days working your own land, you are required to work a day on the Lord's land. That exploitation is very easy to see, and in slavery, you don't even get to work your own land, all the work you do is for the owner. In capitalism, exploitation is more difficult to see because you get paid for your time (except in the case of piece work, but the principle is the same). The same principle applies in capitalism, though. The laborer does not get paid the full amount of the value he produces, but instead a portion of that value is appropriated by the capitalist. That appropiration is what Marxists call exploitation.

Che I know-- But just because a marxist or anyone else chosses to use this ( in my view ) warped definition does not mean that I have to accept it. I will continue to refuse to accept it. My comment was not ignorance of kid's theoretical model but a rejection of it.

[Xin Yu]

Originally posted by Ned


So, the Marxist never pays anyone the value of what they produce and somehow this is not exploitation? We earlier had the example of the communist doctor paid the same as the communist nurse even though the doctor has a degree, has more skills and works more hours. Now, from my view, this is outrageous exploitation, fundamentally unfair and a perversion of justice.

I think you should take into account that the Doctor's education was paid by the government. He/she takes less share of the pie to pay back the education cost, which is not so unfair.

[Xin Yu]

Originally posted by Ned


Kid, the problem is that communism does not permit dissent and requires all to comply -- or else. People who do not agree cannot leave. They are shot or sent to a gulag.

Communism is the worst philosophy ever conceived. Its promises are lies and its implemetation is cruelty personified.

The French revolution is an example of what happens with ideologues get control. Heads role by the tens of thousands. The French revolutionaries were just the first example of extremists taking power in the name of socialist ideals. Others include Stalin, Mao, Ho and Pol Pot. In all cases, heads rolled and rolled and rolled.

I think that should not be the sole reason for communism to collapse. There are a lot of non-communism brutal monarchy countris which did worse but survived longer. For example, Saudi, Indonesia, etc. Even Saddam Would have survived if the US did not invade Iraq. My conclusion is: if the US were not so powerful and at the same time so eager to eliminate communism, commies could have survived.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Show me where the law even claims to make exploitation illegal. Minimum wage is a set wage. It's impossible to set a wage that is not exploitive unless it was so high that there would be no employment. Exploitation is the driving force of capitalism. It's necessary to it's survival.

I reject how you define exploitation. Under any dictionary definition, the combination of labour standards, minimum wage and other labour legislation would make REAL exploitation illegal.

Originally posted by Kidicious

That's not really what I'm talking about. The system of exploitation is defended by force. I'm not talking about defending people's property, only their right to exploit people.

THis is what I don't get. No force is applied to anyone to make them work for a capitalist. Lots of people choose not to work at all and live off of the welfare institutions. Other people own their own business. Its called freedom and I like it.

I know that you will respond that they must work or starve but thats simply not true given available social institutions. . . and they definitely don't need to work for any given capitalist

Originally posted by Kidicious

Lack of resources prevent me. Not to mention that I'm not the only concern. My concern is for the proletariate as a whole.

Oh right the proletariet!! They are busy down at Walmart buying that Gamecube for their children. . .. Seriously . . . your dogma needs some new terms.

But on lack of resources . . I guess it would be impossible for you to work and acquire those resources?? You seem to always assume that a person's condition is fixed. I don't.

Originally posted by Kidicious

I see ethnic and other divisions much more of a problem for capitalism. War and nationalism makes sense in an irrational system like capitalism, not communism.

Ethnic and national divisions predated capitalism and I find it humerous that you don't address the issue at all. Do people all magically hold hands and sing "kumbiya" on the day of the revolution.

Originally posted by Kidicious



Of course you do. You want to mainatian the right to exploit because it benefits you personally.

NO I work for a wage that is less than the value of what I produce. I have no problem with that since I see the other costs associated with my employment. Also I see that benefit that the firm has provided in obtaining large clients in the areas that I work. If my share of what I produce was insufficient I would leave my firm and go elswehere. We are actually currently in salary negotiations and bonuses will soon be paid. It actually a VERY good time.

Right now I employ no one myself.

But I do find that the current system works for me. Why? Because I am in a job that rewards skill and effort. But I believe in the system even when that is not the case like when one of my prior firms folded. I firmly believe that people that work hard will get ahead in the long run. Its a matter of perseverence.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Xin Yu


I think you should take into account that the Doctor's education was paid by the government. He/she takes less share of the pie to pay back the education cost, which is not so unfair.

My problem with any "equal pay" type model is that there are certain harder jobs that there will no longer be any incentive to do. Also what financial reason would there be to study something difficult like medicine?

Not all jobs are equally hard.

Even in an office environment there would be less incentive to excell. Personal motivations only go so far.

I believe that most of the communists on here have rejected the equal pay model and have moved toward different but less unequal pay. Of course some communists see pay and currency as unnecessary

[Xin Yu]

Flubber,

Communism pays according to contribution at first. However the ultimate goal is to eliminate pays. This can be achieved if 1) nobody is greedy and 2) there is aboundance of products.

For example, if there are billions of houses, each is equally good in quality, then you don't need money to buy a house. You just pick one for free. Communists believe that through hard work and education people can achieve the two conditions, thus realize the final stage of communism. I'm not for or against it (not for it since it looks hard to achieve; not against it because I do not have a better idea).

[Berzerker]

Gepap

Corporations are very new devices (only about 400 years old), and what you speak of needs currency to even be a possiblity, and currency itself was invented about 3000 years ago tops.

It doesn't matter when corporations came into existence, and currency is not 3000 years old. Currency existed for eons before the advent of "money" in the form of gold, silver, or some other valued commodity. Implicit in the word is "current" connoting a currently valued commodity, just because we recognise coins/paper today as having value does not mean people 8.000 years ago did not have what to them was a currently agreed upon ~universally valued commodity.
Maybe you're thinking of coinage...

A, NO, its not just that. There is a massive difference between a capitalist and an indentured farmer capable of going to market to trade his chicken for a hammer.

I say free people and you say no because of indentured farmers?

So for capitalism you need the concept of capital, and that concept is relatively current in the history of man.

Where did you hear the concept of "capital" is ~new? No, capital is very old as well:

Capital - Wealth in the form of money or property, used or accumulated in a business by a person, partnership, or corporation.

Material wealth used or available for use in the production of more wealth.

Capital was born the first time someone produced more than they could use so they sold off the surplus to expand their production. Think of a guy mining iron ore, exchanging it for land or mining equipment to expand his operation. Change the product to cows and dairy products and you can easily see a farmer selling extra cheese/milk to buy more cows and expand.

UR

Not quite. People in ancient societies were also free to exchange their goods, e.g. China. Would you say, hm, the Qin Dynasty was capitalistic?

From indentured farmers to dynastic China? You guys couldn't just address what I said? If they were free to exchange their goods, then that was a capitalistic system.

[Berzerker]

Odin

The assumption that capitalists make is that natural selection takes place at the level of individual, hence the dispicable notion of "Social Darwinism" used by the libertarians.

Social Darwinism is about survival of the fittest which includes killing the competition. Libertarianism rejects this and embraces freedom and the autonomy of the individual - 2 principles (actually one) social darwinism rejects as can be seen by any nation-state incorporating it into their national ideology, like in Nazi Germany.