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

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


There you are right on cue.

I reject that assertion.

I find it hilarious that a worker could be fairly paid at$30 per hour if that was the total value of their production but unfairly paid at $ 300 per hour if that wasn't the complete value of what they produced.

I also don't see workers giving back their paychecks if what they produce is of no value

No one really cares if you reject it. It isn't just an assertion. If you get to exploit me, but I don't get to expoit you than that's unfair by any reasonable standards.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Since your quote was about capitalists eating babies and since my views align pretty much with a democratic system supported by the vast majority of the 30 million people here, I am quite comfortable in the reasonableness of my views.

What democratic system? There has only been one democracy in history and it was a failure. Not that conflict is any less inherent to democracy than republic. You still have competition for resources and conflict that results from it.

[Xin Yu]

Originally posted by Flubber



So thats it -- technology solves everything-- Tell you what-- I'll support your theory the dau I pick up my free private flying saucer ( BTW what a waste of resources to give one to everybody )

That is not my theory. I said before that I was not for or against it. I just want people to know about what communism is really about before attacking it.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kidicious


What democratic system? There has only been one democracy in history and it was a failure. Not that conflict is any less inherent to democracy than republic. You still have competition for resources and conflict that results from it.

My interest is piqued - what was the one democracy in history?

[Berzerker]

Kid

Actually natural selection does not require stronger individuals to kill weaker individuals. The weaker individuals die off because they have been denied resources.

Who do you think the stronger eats? And I didn't even say that, I said survival of the fittest includes killing the competition. Is this false? There are no animals that kill competitors? If you see lions eating up all the grass thereby denying it to Zebras, report it to Nature asap and get in line for a Nobel prize.

Boshko

Berzerker: voluntarism is a necessary condition for a good society, but its not a sufficient condition. I'm sure you can imagine plenty of theoretical voluntaristic societies in which you really really really wouldn't want to live.

You're describing anarchism to which I am certainly sympathetic, but to your hypothetical, I'd love to live in such a society.

Agathon

Libertarian motto:

"Why kill them, when you can let them starve to death."

Communist motto:

"30 million murdered... and counting"

Btw, you are letting people starve to death right now.

UR

That's a contradiction. If you embrace freedom (the sort of freedom Libbies espouse), you cannot reject the destruction of the competition - companies must be free to do what they want.

Sigh, you changed what I said and then declared it a contradiction. I said "killing", not "destroying" by winning over more consumers. You are now equating killing others with a higher marketshare. Yes UR, freedom includes the potential of driving me out of business by giving my customers a better deal.

A capitalist hires workers to make money for him. The money he makes comes from the surplus values the workers produced. If the workers were not exploited, there wouldn't be any surplus values, and the capitalist wouldn't make any money.

You're ignoring that the worker wouldn't be making as much without the capitalist to buy equipment, so the "exploitation" is a 2-way street. The employer makes money from the worker's labor and the worker makes money from the employer's equipment - both benefit more by working together than either would make on their own.

che

Unless you're a libertarian, there is a fundimental disagreement with them over what capitalism is.

In this debate I have cited the actual definitions of capital(ism) from the dictionary, not Laissez Faire capitalism which better reflects the brand of capitalism favored by libertarians.

For them, it's the free market, plus private property with no government interference.

Not true, the government's role is just limited to certain behavior like fraud, pollution, civil suits, etc.

They would reject certain basic premises, such as capitalism being inherently violent, the cause of wars, etc. while most people would recognize the latter at the least, and when shown sufficient evidence, at least agree that the former has been true at times (if not fully agreeing with it in order to avoid drawing the logical conclusions resulting).

Humanity is inherently violent and that is the cause of wars.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kontiki


My interest is piqued - what was the one democracy in history?

Ancient Athens

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid

Who do you think the stronger eats? And I didn't even say that, I said survival of the fittest includes killing the competition. Is this false? There are no animals that kill competitors? If you see lions eating up all the grass thereby denying it to Zebras, report it to Nature asap and get in line for a Nobel prize.

You don't seem to know much about Darwinism. The weak within a species are not usually killed by the strong in that species, but the weak can not survive because the strong take all the resources.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Xin Yu
In communism there is no riches and poors, because money is eliminated.

You can't eliminate money. Marx was talking about a theoretical future society. You don't have to eliminate money to eliminate exploitation. People exploit people, money doesn't.

[DinoDoc]

Commies remind me of creationists with their war against reality.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



I hope you are

Good post by the way. Its nice to see a communist that can acknowledege that capitalism has adapted

Of course it has adapted, because it is flawed. It's going to keep adapting until it becomes evident that they entire idea is flawed and is abandoned completely.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Be excellent to each other.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Commies remind me of creationists with their war against reality.

You remind me of Hitler in your war against reality.

[DinoDoc]

I call Godwin on you!

[Kidlicious]

Another law for the capitalist pigs for purposes of exploiting us.

[Berzerker]

Kid

You don't seem to know much about Darwinism. The weak within a species are not usually killed by the strong in that species, but the weak can not survive because the strong take all the resources.

That's nice, but where did I mention "within a species"? I said, and I repeat again, survival of the fittest includes killing the competition. How am I wrong? Answer without changing what I said, please. And you're still wrong, if killing within a species occurs, and it does, then survival of the fittest does include killing members of your own kind. And if the strong take all the resources causing the weak to die, how do you explain babies?