21-01-2005 23:21									#91
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Communism within a capitalist system.. hahahah.. since when was charity a communist idea? That's laughable at best.

	21-01-2005 23:22									#92
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Kid, do you hear a gnat buzzing?

	21-01-2005 23:22									#93
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara There's no such thing as a mixed economy. The term mixed economy is used by some because people confuse state ownership of the means of production with socialism. It's not. In a society geared around production for exchange-value, state ownership of the means of production is state capitalism, which is still capitalism.

I disagree. With democracy you have the possibility to make reforms to a system that are not consistent with that system or it's principles. Welfare to the needy are those reforms.

	21-01-2005 23:25									#94
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Kid, do you hear a gnat buzzing?

Not until you said something.

	21-01-2005 23:33									#95
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Income support for the needy is communism.

Great-- Then you have succeeded and the revolution is unnecessary

Seriously though-- when I support capitalism, it is not the unadulterated free market that I support-- Instead it is the system that has grown out of capitalistic democracy where there is regulation and taxation and a rule of law which affords some protections to everyone.

	21-01-2005 23:33									#96
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Flubber Seriously though-- when I support capitalism, it is not the unadulterated free market that I support-- Instead it is the system that has grown out of capitalistic democracy where there is regulation and taxation and a rule of law which affords some protections to everyone.

	21-01-2005 23:35									#97
	Get a bigger avatar today!

To answer the OT:

It depends on the type of communist. There are various variants of communism, with Marxism being the most famous, with Leninist, Stalinism, Maoism all being new derivatives.

The simplest answer would be the Marxist answer: society has not yet reached the peak of Capitalism which brings about thge revolution. All Communist regimes in the world have been brought about by a party vanguard who took over the leadership of a revolution. They were all Leninists (Bolsheviks).

In essence then the Marxist would say that all attempts at Communism have occured in places in the world not ready to handle communism, which early Marx at least believed could only come into being in advanced industrial societies, and hence it was going on in places not ready for it, ie, pre-industrial or early industrial societies.

	21-01-2005 23:35									#98
	Full PM-box? Change here!

As a moderate (non-marxist) socialist, I think a TOTAL command economy is unrealistic because a few industries, mostly entertainment, do not lend well to government control and would work better as co-ops or syndicates. Also, all the sucessful commie revolutions were in poor, undeveloped countries, a BIG no-no; A country needs to be wealthy, have a strong middle class, have a highly educated population, and have lots of natural resources if it wants to transition to socialism.

	21-01-2005 23:35									#99
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious With democracy you have the possibility to make reforms to a system that are not consistent with that system or it's principles. Welfare to the needy are those reforms.

Exactly. and if enough people exert enough influence, taxes go up to provide even higher levels of welfare support. People who don't like this result have the freedom to move elsewhere

I'm never sure how I happen to agree with kid on anything

	21-01-2005 23:38									#100
	Support Apolyton

BTW, I'd also like to point out that "Communism" has only existed in countries that were poor to begin with.

But having said that. "Communism" or more specifically, Stalinism, took a peasant nation (Russia) and made it a superpower. One of the major reasons the Soviet Union collapsed is because it was going up against a stronger Superpower in the United States. Had the Soviet Union not had a rival, I suspect it would have been more successful.

	21-01-2005 23:40									#101
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Flubber Great-- Then you have succeeded and the revolution is unnecessary

I didn't even say that welfare for the poor works good in a capitalist system. I agree with Che that it does not. For one, there is always the threat of it being taken away, and for another thing it is dependent on people being personally reponsible without providing the means for them to do so. For example, some women are force to leave their children home alone and work. Sometimes they get their children taken away when they are just trying to do what they are suppose to. Communism creates jobs and provides for needs like adequate child care and training.

quote: Seriously though-- when I support capitalism, it is not the unadulterated free market that I support-- Instead it is the system that has grown out of capitalistic democracy where there is regulation and taxation and a rule of law which affords some protections to everyone.

You are walking the fence.

	21-01-2005 23:43									#102
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Sava BTW, I'd also like to point out that "Communism" has only existed in countries that were poor to begin with. But having said that. "Communism" or more specifically, Stalinism, took a peasant nation (Russia) and made it a superpower. One of the major reasons the Soviet Union collapsed is because it was going up against a stronger Superpower in the United States. Had the Soviet Union not had a rival, I suspect it would have been more successful.

That's true, but there was a lot of corruption in the USSR. I don't think they would have made it anyway.

	21-01-2005 23:48									#103
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious That's true, but there was a lot of corruption in the USSR. I don't think they would have made it anyways.

Only with a strong dictator like Stalin.

I must admit my own ignorance however... how corrupt was the USSR under Stalin? Did fear work in keeping people in line?

If not, then I'd argue that not having a strong leader with a cult of personality is what lead to the fall of the SU.

But you have to ask yourself, if "Communism" can only "succeed" when you have a strong dictator... is it really that good of a system?

Personally, I oppose Communism because I don't think it's realistic. And it requires almost the entire population's support to work. Maybe that's the reason Communism has never evolved out of a Democracy.

	21-01-2005 23:52									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Nah, it never evolved out of a democracy because when they tried to do that, the military overtherw them.

	21-01-2005 23:57									#105
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Nah, it never evolved out of a democracy because when they tried to do that, the military overtherw them.

Do you think it could EVER evolve out of a Democracy?

	22-01-2005 00:04									#106
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I think it is theoretically possible, but won't ever happen. Basically, the capitalists would have to surrender without a fight, which is something they've never done. Unless the communist movement taking power democratically is so overwhelmingly powerful, that the capitalists realize that it's futile to fight.

The problem with that scenario is that in order to get to that size, the communists would have to deliver when they were weaker, which would probably invoke an economic reaction from the capitalists, which would either cause the communists in power to retreat or cause the economy to tank. Then the commies either move forward with a more extensive program, which would probably lead to civil war and they do nothing extra, and get tossed out in the next elections.

	22-01-2005 00:14									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I tihnk the communists need to try and get in with the military

I think that that is a nessecary part of democratic recolution

JM

	22-01-2005 00:15									#108
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Sava Only with a strong dictator like Stalin. I must admit my own ignorance however... how corrupt was the USSR under Stalin? Did fear work in keeping people in line? If not, then I'd argue that not having a strong leader with a cult of personality is what lead to the fall of the SU. But you have to ask yourself, if "Communism" can only "succeed" when you have a strong dictator... is it really that good of a system? Personally, I oppose Communism because I don't think it's realistic. And it requires almost the entire population's support to work. Maybe that's the reason Communism has never evolved out of a Democracy.

Stalin did limit the corruption of the state a great deal, but Russians are always going to be Russian. I don't want to sound prejudice, but they have never really been good at govt.

	22-01-2005 00:21									#109
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller I tihnk the communists need to try and get in with the military I think that that is a nessecary part of democratic recolution JM

Absolutely.

	22-01-2005 00:23									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Sava Do you think it could EVER evolve out of a Democracy?

It does require the whole polulation. It was not supported in the SU. Individuals did not work for the greater good, the managers were corrupt and the govt was evil.

But the thing is that the capitalists are so good with the media and propaganda in schools and stuff that it's hard to get support. The support comes when the capitalists fail, and their propaganda no longer works. That's when they use their military to start wars or take away people's rights.

	22-01-2005 02:34									#111
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious You are walking the fence.

Perhaps but I think it is a fence worth walking. Unregulated capitalism has never been advanced by me and I doubt it could be seriously proposed by anyone. There are reasons for minimum wages and workplace standards and environmental regulation etc etc. We know that the market alone is insufficient to deal with many long term issues.

But communism ??? I have seen several flavors proposed and none of them seem preferable to me. heck most of them don't even rise to being even acceptable. One basic problem is that many versions seem to disconnect even further the difference between a person's effort and what they get to take out of society. Currently, I know that my additional efforts will be rewarded . . . I haven't seen that in most proposed communist societies. I also have serious reservations as to how personal freedoms would be impacted.


Probably my greatest issue comes from the uncertainty. We are told that every communist society we have seen wasn't truly communist so that there are no prior examples. But on inquiring questions about simple issues go unanswered. I went around through hundreds of posts exploring kidicious's communist vision and still have never gotten a straight answer as to how people are paid or whether my wife would "have to " work or whether she could choose not to work. I don't want to go read a hundred pages of theory written 200 years ago . . . Instead I want to hear how it would actually work in a real world.


Call me paranoid but if the proposed system has never existed and is not explained, I for one am not about to embrace it with open arms.

However if you are proposing something like current day Canada, I'm fine with that.

	22-01-2005 03:40									#112
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Flubber But communism ??? I have seen several flavors proposed and none of them seem preferable to me. heck most of them don't even rise to being even acceptable. One basic problem is that many versions seem to disconnect even further the difference between a person's effort and what they get to take out of society. Currently, I know that my additional efforts will be rewarded . . . I haven't seen that in most proposed communist societies. I also have serious reservations as to how personal freedoms would be impacted.

You know your additional effort will be rewarded? How so? You ASSUME it will be, and it may, or may not. After all, you may die in 20 minutes for all you know. Tommorrow the people ou work for could go bankrupt due to actions having nothing to do with you- a fire could gut your apartment and leave you on the street- you can not possibly KNOW that further efforts mean further monetary rewards.

quote: Probably my greatest issue comes from the uncertainty. We are told that every communist society we have seen wasn't truly communist so that there are no prior examples. But on inquiring questions about simple issues go unanswered. I went around through hundreds of posts exploring kidicious's communist vision and still have never gotten a straight answer as to how people are paid or whether my wife would "have to " work or whether she could choose not to work. I don't want to go read a hundred pages of theory written 200 years ago . . . Instead I want to hear how it would actually work in a real world.

Why would people have to be paid? Man lived 90% of his existance with the concept of 'pay' not in existance. And most importantly, why should the point of your work be to get paid? Why not "work" because its want you love, without having to worry that you must work in order not to starve or die cold on the streets?.

quote: Call me paranoid but if the proposed system has never existed and is not explained, I for one am not about to embrace it with open arms.

You mean like Smith with capitalism? In the end, communism with lower c is more of a theory of life, much as capitalism with a lower c is.

	22-01-2005 05:11									#113
	Support Apolyton

quote: There are several. The capitalist countries did all they could to destabilize them.

Which just means that the capitalists were just better than communists also in this matter

	22-01-2005 05:15									#114
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Heresson Which just means that the capitalists were just better than communists also in this matter

Communist countries did not try to destablize capitalist ones, at least not after Stalin's "theory" of socialism in one country. After that, communist revolution happened in spite of the USSR, not because of it, excpt, of course, in areas occupied by the Red Army.

On the other hand, we commies tried to do all we could to destabilize capitalism. But since we're ametuers, we didn't have a lot of success.

BTW, you should provide a link in your sig to your wonderfull frog thread. I love your frogs.

	22-01-2005 05:28									#115
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Thanks

Done!

	22-01-2005 05:32									#116
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Uh, no. How should it be done?

	22-01-2005 05:54									#117
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by GePap You know your additional effort will be rewarded? How so? You ASSUME it will be, and it may, or may not. After all, you may die in 20 minutes for all you know. Tommorrow the people ou work for could go bankrupt due to actions having nothing to do with you- a fire could gut your apartment and leave you on the street- you can not possibly KNOW that further efforts mean further monetary rewards. .

If I am dead my family would get the rewards. For me they are clear and written as I take a percentage of everything I bill. Employees have first dibs on funds in a bankruptcy and I have insurance for the fire-- next?? Oh ya and a meteor could hit earth and destroy mankind but I prefer to have an economic system that works for me if we all happen to be here tomorrow.

quote: Originally posted by GePap Why would people have to be paid? Man lived 90% of his existance with the concept of 'pay' not in existance. And most importantly, why should the point of your work be to get paid? Why not "work" because its want you love, without having to worry that you must work in order not to starve or die cold on the streets?.

I am aware that pay structure may not exist in some versions of communism. Thats fine. But people are pretty vague on who does the necessary work. If we assume that work is unnecessary since society has functioning robots or something, thats fine. In the current world I do not believe it is possible just to do what we love and still produce the things we want and need

quote: Originally posted by GePap You mean like Smith with capitalism? In the end, communism with lower c is more of a theory of life, much as capitalism with a lower c is.

Again fine--but I don't embrace or accept some theoretical capitalism . . . what I accept and support is the country of Canada and its economic system. I don't say its perfect and it will and should evolve but I like the basics. . .. an economic system where the market plays a part, personal freedoms, opportunity for advancement and a decent social safety net. So my model is not some vague theory . . . its a working country of 30 million people. As I say, NOT perfect and given divergent viewpoints, I don't think it ever could be perfect .

	22-01-2005 05:58									#118
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Heresson Uh, no. How should it be done?

Type:
[ url="XXXXXX"]My Frog thread![ /url]
where XXXX is the link. Remove the empty spaces in the [ url] tags

	22-01-2005 05:59									#119
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo Communism is not successful because it does not take into account the people, and seeks to imprision millions under authoritarian rule. Communism is fatally flawed. Most people who believe in communism these days don't know what their own system entails. It brings tyranny, poverty and corrupt rule.

Points to China. Communism is successful when it adopts capitalism.

	22-01-2005 06:09									#120
	Remove this text

Stalinism |= communism

Communism is, at it's most fundamental level, just an "ism" for when people collectively work together... hence there are big communist elements in capitalism, nazism, popularism etc. For sure, Stalin (indeed to a lesser extent this also happened back with the Bolshevics) bastardised this notion but it in no way taints the name of such like libertarian communism/socialism, anarcho-communism and the like.

But I think perhaps that's sidetracking a little from the jist of your question. Any political theory that fails to take human nature into account is doomed to failure. Hence any political system that survives for more than 40 years in any particular manifestation is deemed successful. In the case of Stalinism, it was so far away from Marxism that human nature was irrelevant, and where it was utilised it was done in a way VERY similar to democracy... where human nature is politically turned back on itself, hence popularism (national socialism) results. That is of course the conclusion of both communism and democracy, in the latter case it is both the cause for its longevity and it's biggest flaw, which I believe we are seeing now as the environment, overpopulation and the rich-poor divide will bite us in the arse.