Communists. Enlighten me.

[Urban Ranger]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Sprayber
I'lll ask the question that I've asked many times before. Given the track record of communism and the seemly lack of concern that it's past representatives have demonostrated for the real welfare of the people, why should we give them any serious thought as an alternative to the system that we already have.[/qoute]

First of all, capitalism has a lot more failure cases. In fact, the failure rate of capitalism is appallingly high, yet you still endorse it. Why?

Secondly, what do you mean by "real welfare?"

Thirdly, the sort of Capitalism we see today is not pure (laissez-faire) Capitalism. Pure Capitalism does not work.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Saras


You hsould have your head examined.

Well, he admitted to being a fascist. So...

[Sixchan]

On the bright side, it's not Kimism!

[Saras]

Man, your bright side is so dark it's hard to tell

[Sixchan]

*heavy breathing*
[sixchan is wearing a tacky cereal box painted black as a helmet, with a black bedsheet as a cape]

Saras, I am your mother. Come with me...to the dark side...join me on the extreme right.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Given the track record of communism and the seemly lack of concern that it's past representatives have demonostrated for the real welfare of the people

Well the NEP period of the Soviet Union was highly successful (che has heart attack after reading Imran said something good about Communism ). It depends on what form of communism you are talking about. The NEP DID have some private property, however, the organizations were controlled by economic democracy. Basically it was a form of capitalism, just that corporations were controlled by the workers and their voting power. That kind of communism appeals to me much more than the rest.

[Sixchan]

Like if the workers are all equal shareholders in the company? So, it is technically communism with a capitalist free market! The two aren't as unreconcilable as many believe!

[faded glory]

"Like if the workers are all equal shareholders in the company? So, it is technically communism with a capitalist free market! The two aren't as unreconcilable as many believe"

This is a good middle middle-ground. I definately would like somthing like this. Not only does it further enrich me, as a worker. It doesnt destroy my job and kill my boss. Nor does it in anyway restrict competition.

Oh and there is already private companys out there like this. Check out UPS and Ben and Jerry's icecream. It works atleast. If you worked with UPS in 1960's, you have a nice retirement nestegg of 500,000$ +.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by faded glory
"Like if the workers are all equal shareholders in the company? So, it is technically communism with a capitalist free market! The two aren't as unreconcilable as many believe"

This is a good middle middle-ground. I definately would like somthing like this. Not only does it further enrich me, as a worker. It doesnt destroy my job and kill my boss. Nor does it in anyway restrict competition.

Oh and there is already private companys out there like this. Check out UPS and Ben and Jerry's icecream. It works atleast. If you worked with UPS in 1960's, you have a nice retirement nestegg of 500,000$ +.

also look at Enron... they have a nestegg of inflated funds...

[faded glory]

"also look at Enron... they have a nestegg of inflated funds"

Good point, but Enron's employees knew there business was going down. Look at what they did? Traded Surplus energy! That in itself should of been illegal. there should of been policing.

As for Ben and jerrys and UPS. I recommend you read about there worker-friendly enviorment before you compare them to a bunch of slimeballs the likes of Enron and Worldcom.

[Sixchan]

Well, it works! When you want Ice Cream, where do you go? Ben & Jerry's!

We used to have a Ben & Jerry's in Glasgow, but they closed it and put in a sandwich bar. We have a little America type street, and that's where it was. We have a coffee shop, a Burger King, A pizza parlor called 'little italy', and of course, it wouldn't be an American street without...STARBUCKS!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Like if the workers are all equal shareholders in the company? So, it is technically communism with a capitalist free market! The two aren't as unreconcilable as many believe!

Well, it isn't really a middle ground. It IS communism, or well, a form of it. Worker democracy is a very old communist ideal. Maybe it'd be better to call it socialist, though in this time and age, one wonders if any of the terms actually mean anything.

[Sixchan]

I believe it is called Guild Socialism or Council Communism. That's what it says on the Red Vocab page.

COUNCIL COMMUNISM: Form of Leninism; also referred to as "Luxemburgism". It is a theory developed upon by Rosa Luxemburg and other founders of the German Spartakus Bund, which would later become the German Communist Party. Council Communism holds onto most of the traditional views of Leninism, including the necessity of insurrection against the bourgeois capitalist state and world revolution. Where it breaks with traditional Leninism is on the issue of economic organization after the revolution. Leninism sought a centralized "dictatorship of the proletariat", but Council Communists sought a less-centralized alternative. They felt that each industry would be run by a workers’ council and this decentralized workers’ government would be managed by an executive council. Luxemburgism never was attempted in the real world, and its ideas were later shadowed by the battle between Stalinism and Trotskyism. However, most Trotskyist organizations at least give credit to the ideas of Rosa Luxemburg. These organizations include Solidarity and Socialist Action.

GUILD SOCIALISM: Belief that, whenever socialism is controlled by the few within the government, it won't work. Instead, the means of production should be controlled by the workers in a guild format. These guilds would be democratically run and organized efficiently. During the early part of the twentieth century, Guild Socialism was quite prominent within the labor force of Britain. Perhaps the most well-known populizer at the time was G.D.H. Cole. In the twenties, however, Guild Socialism disappeared and was later replaced by the theories of the Labour Party. The ideas of Guild Socialism have recently been incorporated into Libertarian Socialism.

[Monk]

Shi,

Nazism(actually a form of communism because it's national socialism) = EVIL

Hell no, my dear friend

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Given the track record of communism and the seemly lack of concern that it's past representatives have demonostrated for the real welfare of the people

Well the NEP period of the Soviet Union was highly successful (che has heart attack after reading Imran said something good about Communism ). It depends on what form of communism you are talking about. The NEP DID have some private property, however, the organizations were controlled by economic democracy. Basically it was a form of capitalism, just that corporations were controlled by the workers and their voting power. That kind of communism appeals to me much more than the rest.

I think this is the form communism must take to be successful. Combining the worker controlled corporation with the dynamic elements of a market economy. Like NEP or Jugoslavia.

Sixchan, that´s really my form of communism (well, one of them...)