Communism

[Laz]

no. the workers would control those industries.

---

(06-25-2012 05:07 PM)1871 Wrote:  

china is capitalist, north korea is a dystopia. neither are socialist.

---

humanitarian wise cuba has it better then almost if not all capitalist nations. their economy is handicapped by the sanctions but considering the imperialist obstructionism, it does very well. although i am very critical of the bureaucracy.

(06-25-2012 05:59 AM)1871 Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 12:24 AM)Mechmeret Wrote:  I agree with you on many of the points you make; There has not been any communist nations in this world as of yet / in the modern history. Saying that the communist nations' politics during the cold war were fascist however is exaggerating.

No it definitely isnt.

i don't think you know what fascism means. could you define it?

(06-25-2012 05:59 AM)1871 Wrote:  

Quote:If we look at China and Cuba, the laws which were implemented during the supposedly communist form of government HAS saved hundreds of thousands of lives, and we can thank communism for what is left of the welfare state in Cuba

No - actually millions upon millions of lives were destroyed due to communism.

why is china and cuba in the same sentence here? anyways, stalinism (communism is still an abstract concept, never been achieved), elevated china from a third world undeveloped country into a world power. with genuine socialism, capitalism would have never been able to be restored, but the achievements of the chinese revolution even with the crippling bureaucracy weighing it down is a demonstration of a planned economy's superiority.

i already addressed cuba, but its worth noting that without the cuban revolution, cuba would be a monsanto sandbox.

(06-25-2012 02:22 PM)jdudetheweasel Wrote:  I know this is off topic but what variant of Communism do you believe I'm more of a Libertarian Marxist influenced by Rosa Luxemburg. Also I'm learning a shit ton!

check out marxist.com. luxemburg type theory. you'll enjoy it.

(06-25-2012 02:08 AM)Younes Wrote:  The Nordic model is actually taking huge hits now a days, because the economic turmoil in Europe, the Danish government are starting to make cuts in the public sector and on the paycheck of welfare recipients such as early retirees, retirees, cash assistant recipients, etc. etc. etc.
That is because in the face of economic recession, unemployment and etc., the natural response is to cut down on the welfare, in Denmark there are debate now about how the welfare model which was mainly developed in the 60'es and 70'es is gonna adapt to the times now, where we are restricted by EMU, problems with employment and so on.
There are places that could be needed to be patched up, but as you said, I am also a supporter of the Nordic model, and in terms of Unions and Worker's rights, you should check out the continental welfare model which is mainly in use in Germany and France, though I guess it boils down to having something between that and a flexurity job model...

There are many holes and many things we still need to test out...

social democracy will always fail because the means of production remains with the bourgeois. marx wrote a great critique of it here

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wor.../index.htm

[Boboulas]

Quote: but the achievements of the chinese revolution even with the crippling bureaucracy weighing it down is a demonstration of a planned economy's superiority.

I don't think the merits of a planned economy can really be directly linked to communism in China. The Witte program for instance in tsarist Russia is an example of the success of a planned economy (for a while anyway) but there's no relation to communism there.

[Rick Ross 187]

(06-25-2012 01:19 PM)HamishFTW Wrote:  Did you know that the general affluence of Britons has increased yet their general happiness has decreased over the past sixty years?

attempts to measure happiness are bullshit

also 60 years ago it wasn't acceptable to talk about how sad u are and get all emotional in public now its like everyone fucking does it, everyone wants to cry or whine about something

---

(06-26-2012 03:00 PM)Introcluse Wrote:  "communist state" is an oxymoron

communism = no states

except when people say 'communist state', they usually mean the states that were ruled by Communist Parties that claimed to be leading their countries towards Communism.

[Boboulas]

But ricky, THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH!

[Rick Ross 187]

(06-27-2012 02:05 PM)Boboulas Wrote:  

Quote: but the achievements of the chinese revolution even with the crippling bureaucracy weighing it down is a demonstration of a planned economy's superiority.

I don't think the merits of a planned economy can really be directly linked to communism in China. The Witte program for instance in tsarist Russia is an example of the success of a planned economy (for a while anyway) but there's no relation to communism there.

its true

I don't think many people would dispute the benefits of a planned economy in industrialising a nation. however it usually requires super exploitation and the forceful extraction of surpluses from the state upon the peasant classes, and a collapse in consumption for the already existing small working class - at least if we look at the example russia.

planned economies are good at building an industrial base, or producing 'capital goods', even a basic economic textbook will admit this. planned economies though are very shit at much else. they can build a ton a steel factories, but can't make them more efficient, update them, or put to the steel to much good use, and provide consumer goods for the general population.

[Boboulas]

Don't forget they can build railroads like there's no fucking tomorrow!

[1871]

Quote:(06-25-2012 05:59 AM)1871 Wrote:
(06-25-2012 12:24 AM)Mechmeret Wrote:
I agree with you on many of the points you make; There has not been any communist nations in this world as of yet / in the modern history. Saying that the communist nations' politics during the cold war were fascist however is exaggerating.

1871

No it definitely isnt.

Laz

i don't think you know what fascism means. could you define it?

Its a dead wood idea of a bunch of sticks being tied together to form a 'stronger' whole.

As in;



"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever."

- Orwell.

Imagine a dot at the top of a circile go left to be a leftist and more left and more left round to the right and youll end up at the dot. Thats fascism. The irony is that two forms which are supposed to be opposed are infact more or less identical.

This is fascism;

http://www.immortaltechnique.co.uk/Thread-Holodomor

The best fascists have been communists. Fascists of the left dont call themselves fascists - they call themselves Communists.

Quote:1871 Wrote:
Quote:
Mechmeret
If we look at China and Cuba, the laws which were implemented during the supposedly communist form of government HAS saved hundreds of thousands of lives, and we can thank communism for what is left of the welfare state in Cuba

1871
No - actually millions upon millions of lives were destroyed due to communism.

LAz

why is china and cuba in the same sentence here? anyways, stalinism (communism is still an abstract concept, never been achieved), elevated china from a third world undeveloped country into a world power. with genuine socialism, capitalism would have never been able to be restored, but the achievements of the chinese revolution even with the crippling bureaucracy weighing it down is a demonstration of a planned economy's superiority.

Complete nonsense. Stalinism did nothing of the sort. It caused tens of millions of death in China. China eventuially became more capitalist because of the complete failure of its 'planned' communists economy. Deng Xiaoping launched a form of market-oriented communism(really oligarch kleptocracy capitalism) because Maos policies were a catastrophic failure. Both were despots and today Chinas thriving economy comes at only devastating consequences for large sections of its population - though its brought benefits also due to those later reforms - but China is capitalist ruled by oligarchs which achieved its significant and benefical (to many but not to all) economic advance due to capitalist policies it implemented. In the past couple of decades it had to make better economic decisions. The level of income inequality is very high in China. Eventually -and one way or another -you will see a resurgence of the spirit of Tianamen and pro democratic rebellion in China. Material prosperity is worthless without basic democratic freedoms and people with material prosperity are mere drones unless they have - and demand - democratic freedom.

[Fuzzly Bear]

(06-27-2012 02:05 PM)Rick Ross 187 Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 01:19 PM)HamishFTW Wrote:  Did you know that the general affluence of Britons has increased yet their general happiness has decreased over the past sixty years?

attempts to measure happiness are bullshit

also 60 years ago it wasn't acceptable to talk about how sad u are and get all emotional in public now its like everyone fucking does it, everyone wants to cry or whine about something

---

Ah, back in the day it was better because I was younger.

[Rick Ross 187]

(06-27-2012 06:06 PM)HamishFTW Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 02:05 PM)Rick Ross 187 Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 01:19 PM)HamishFTW Wrote:  Did you know that the general affluence of Britons has increased yet their general happiness has decreased over the past sixty years?

attempts to measure happiness are bullshit

also 60 years ago it wasn't acceptable to talk about how sad u are and get all emotional in public now its like everyone fucking does it, everyone wants to cry or whine about something

---

Ah, back in the day it was better because I was younger.

im not saying that (i wasn't around in the 50s), but that it was much less acceptable to express your own personal depression or unhappiness then, than it is today

i mean, look at the therapy and depression industry and how much it generates in modern times, which (for good or bad, take your pick) is a pretty 21st century thing

[1871]

um.....

the thing is that the State interferes far more in peoples lives now that it did forty years ago. Its nothing to do with either 'whining' or nostalgia. What you never knew you wont realise. Someone born a captive wont realise what has been lost as much as those sold into it. In the UK Thatcher changed a lot (and the EU changed things througout Europe - though the changes go back further). In the 1950's and 1960's in the UK it was a commonplace sight to see many gypsy caravans and horses along the roads, even in fairly urban areas. Its a good indicator. Nowadays they would be run off automatically - straight away - back then there was far less State power by the Government over 'their' citizenry. In Ireland this persisted much longer until recently. There has been a gradual strengthening and intrusion of the State over peoples lives (which is what Communism and Statism/State Capitalism means). It isnt really realistic to ignore this or just say that there is more freedom for people to express themselves - in fact the very opposite is often the case.

[Introcluse]

[/quote]

except when people say 'communist state', they usually mean the states that were ruled by Communist Parties that claimed to be leading their countries towards Communism.
[/quote]

these were often totalitarian leaders who marketed themselves as "communists" because it was considered a popular theory at the time(the same way dictators now make out they're democratic, cos the concept of democracy is the popular ideology of today) but more accurately would be identified as state capitalists who were mainly interested in increasing their own resources ie Stalin

Hitler called his party a socialist party and he was as far from being a socialist as you can be..

[regzus]

My parents said that in Yugoslavia people had a jobs,place to live,and were happy.
Today in free Croatia people are starving,every single day 2-3 factories selled out,and every day +100 unemployed people are protesting on the streets.
And soon we will be part of European Union,cant wait.