"My parents didn't fight off communism..."

reply to post by Seeker PI


Ha, thanks for the laugh. China isn't anything close to communism when it comes to economics. This is why the US doesn't have a trade embargo China like we do with North Korea and Cuba.

Originally posted by Brood

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Brood

 

. I am worth 6 million, though, and I would be thrilled to pay 5% extra tax for having a higher than 100k income to assure that everyone has food, shelter, water, and somewhere to go to the bathroom. I also think responsibility of employment should not be solely on the citizens, especially in a society that is run by money. This whole "every man for himself" method is very stupid if you think about it critically.

well just wait, if any more laws get passed like obamacare.
and you want have that 6mil.
thats what communism is everybody has the same stake.
so they will take your and give it to me.

My parents escaped Cuba. Any country you have to escape is not doing anything right. Communism has not worked for Cuba, Fidel Castro even admitted as such, and now the Cuban government is being forced to lay off hundreds of thousands because of budget constraints tied to the global financial crisis.

I'm tired of hearing college kids and pseudo intellectuals telling me that "real communism is this and real communism isn't that". B.S.

We have several examples of communism world wide, and ALL OF THEM HAVE FAILED. But you can live in your little pampered dream world hoping for economic equality that will never come. Economic equality means we're all poor, except of course, for the Fidel Castros of the world. Who live comfortably while the people scrape by.

I still have family in Cuba. Family I still talk to. I would be happy to have them post here except the government doesn't allow access to sites like this...They don't want the minds of good little communist serfs getting poisoned by any ideas of Liberty.

Screw communism. And screw anyone who thinks any kind of success can come from it. You people remind me of kids who wear Che t-shirts, thinking they know what this man stood for.

reply to post by Brood

Yes... and capitalism is not an effective fight against this. Capitalism changes it to simply "From/To each accord to their capabilities" instead of "to each according to their needs, from those who can afford it; to each according to their own accord for profit beyond this".

It is not clear what you hope to communicate with this thought, but it should be noted that capitalism does not seek to change the ideal of communism, and only seeks to offer an economic system based upon private ownership of goods and services, where investments are determined by private individuals, and prices determined by massive competition in a free market. In order for capitalism to be capitalism, three basic tenets must be in place; a free and unregulated market, massive competition, and a currency backed by wealth where all can agree upon its value. Any form of economic system that eschews one or more of these tenets is not capitalism.

Capitalism does not argue that every persons needs will be met, but does argue that under a free market those who are capable have the best chance of negotiating a fair and equitable rate of exchange based upon their ability. The theory of capitalism also argues that when every individual can compete in the market place without any state interference, and because of this, massive competition is fostered, that the quality of goods and services is maximized while the prices are minimized due to this massive competition. Further, because there is massive competition under a capitalist system, absurd notions such as "too big to fail" become moot, and whatever failures of business exist are too small to be noticed in by the general aggregate, which it is postulated is the best possible system. The recent bailouts of banking institutions that are demonstrably wrecking economies suggests that this postulate is better than what has currently been lauded as sound economics.

This is exactly why capitalism doesn't work, but let's not pretend communism was completely evil with no ideas whatsoever that we could use in modern society.

You are deflecting instead of addressing the valid question I ask. Under the ideal; "to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities", who decides what peoples needs are, and who decides what peoples abilities are? Certainly not a free market. Thus, what does your attack on capitalism have to do with my question?

Wow. I'm worth 6 million dollars when my parents kick the can. I worked for none of it. My oldest friend has worked 6 days a week since he was 15 years old; paycheck to paycheck.

This is yet another deflection and hardly an indictment of capitalism, for surely under communism you would not inherit what you claim you will, and it is very likely that both of you would be working 6 days a week living from pay check to pay check.

Guess capitalism's huge vice exists in capitalism too. He's lucky he has a friend who has money and isn't a corrupt neanderthal that is incapable of showing acceptance to the middle class for their struggles for this life that is, quite literally, just a huge game of luck.

Capitalism's huge vice exists in capitalism too? Your game of class warfare has nothing to do with capitalism and "the middle class" is a game of class warfare. Your haughty view of "the middle class" undermines your self proclaimed benevolence, as you clearly insist on separating yourself into a different class than those who you place in "the middle class" and since you are clearly placing your friend in that "middle class", this undermines your assertion that he is living from pay check to pay check. The so called "middle class" does not live from pay check to pay check, poor people do.

If you were born with downs syndrome, how well do you think you would be in the business world? You're right, those who need the most are rarely those who are capable, which is exactly why capitalism fails, because it demands action of those who are incapable of providing it.

Your arrogance knows no bounds. First of all there are people born with down syndrome who are capable of supporting themselves.

www.janecameron.com...

www.sujeet.com...

users.psln.com...

www.bernadetteresha.com...

www.chrisburke.org...

www.gleefan.com...

www.karengaffneyfoundation.com...

These are just a few people with down syndrome who have gained notoriety, not for being afflicted with down syndrome, but for excelling in some form in spite of the down syndrome they were born with. How well do I think they would do in the business world? I think they will do as well as they decide they want to, and under a system that doesn't declare them needy and helpless, but instead rewards them for their ingenuity and effort, they will do much better.

You, on the other hand, declare people with down syndrome to be incapable of providing for themselves, in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

By the way, I have no such friend, just some actual perspective.

A very narrow perspective.

I am worth 6 million, though, and I would be thrilled to pay 5% extra tax for having a higher than 100k income to assure that everyone has food, shelter, water, and somewhere to go to the bathroom.

You have all ready pointed out that you are "worth 6 million", although it is clear that you are basing your worth on what you expect to inherit instead of basing it upon your actual production. Further, there is nothing at all preventing you from donating 5% of your net worth to a charitable foundation such as The Karen Gaffney Foundation, yet instead you would be "thrilled" to pay taxes that would be imposed upon everyone, and not just you. Apparently you do not find any value in simply using your own money to do good, and would rather that every person be taxed in order to achieve your ideals.

I also think responsibility of employment should not be solely on the citizens, especially in a society that is run by money. This whole "every man for himself" method is very stupid if you think about it critically

The "whole everyman for himself" method is a false paradigm put forth by communist propaganda. Capitalism does not advocate "every man for himself", and instead advocates rational self interest. When one is thinking critically, it is not so difficult to understand that rational self interest dictates that that is in one's best interest to facilitate the prosperity of as many people around them. The more that prosper, the better it is for all. If communism actually facilitated prosperity rather than punish those who do prosper it would be much more popular than it is.

Diagnosis of physical and mental diseases? Things have change since the time of Marx, try applying his teachings instead of regurgitating them. And let's not pretend its impossible to have communist ideas like providing obs for the citizens without having the state take away the right to choose where you work.

Ah, and here we get to the heart of who decides and how. Those who refuse to work will be diagnosed with a mental disease according to your paradigm.

One does not have to apply manure to their nose in order to know it stinks.

Your persistence in deflection is not at all helping your arguments.

Even in this highly capitalist country, we have non-profit organisations to fund ideas that people have. People will still express their ideas through the business world -- I know, I am in a creative profession and I do it in my spare time just to create and see what people do with it; the problem here, again, is not with communism, but the way it is enforced.

The United States is no where near a "highly capitalistic country". In the United States there is no such thing as a free and unregulated market and government from federal down to local insists that all people must obtain a license to do business, there is less and less massive competition, which is why propaganda such as "too big to fail" exists, and our currency is not backed by any wealth. This is not capitalism.

Further, if it were a capitalist society non profit organizations would have an easier time surviving because there would be no regulatory system controlling how they operate. Under communism, it is fairly presumed that there would be no need for "non profit" since presumably no one would be making a profit.

They must be allowed to produce to actually produce

Your operative being "allowed" which reveals your own proclivity towards tyranny as if people can only do what someone else allows them to do.

that is the only problem it has had in the past.

Past efforts at establishing communism have suffered far more than dictators not allowing people to produce. Where capitalism embraces greed as a natural proclivity of people, communism pretends that greed can be eliminated. Yet past and current communist paradigms reveal that greed remains quite prevalent in communism, just as it does in any economic system.

Also, the government could issue grants to people who come up with innovative ideas to promote growth. No forcing involved, except, of course, in forcing the public to know that such a communist idea could work.

Government granting money have to get that money from somewhere and they usually get it through force. Involuntary taxes are exactly that, involuntary, which means they are collected by force or threat of force.

Not a good enough reason to forget the whole idea of communism entirely, though.

It is as if you don't even bother to read what I wrote. I assert that under a free market system those who wanted to form their own commune adhering to communist principles could and let communism work or fail based on its own merits without forcing the rest of society to fail or succeed with them, and you somehow turn that into me advocating forgetting the idea of communism entirely?

reply to post by Brood

This whole veil that many Americans have over their eyes that labels communism as the enemy is really just silly.

Being afraid of something because it hasn't always worked in the past is not healthy

I totally agree. I can see many benefits of communal living.
We are a small planet with limited resources.
"Spaceship Earth" as Bucky Fuller calls it.
What is wrong with a little cooperation?
Just because something did not work in the past doesn't mean it could not work now.
Modify it. Address concerns and perfect it.
People make things so much more complicated than they need to be.


It is late and I am a little tired now...but I am 100% in agreement.
Didn't think that was possible... but when you're right, you're right.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Seeker PI

 

"Someone needs to tell the Chinese that communism doesn't work and maybe that will bring an end to their incredible economic fortunes."

Are you referring to the Ho Chi Min trail manned by the C.I.A. selling cadmium, lead and other poisons and unpalatables to the U.S.?

edit on 2-10-2010 by luxordelphi because: Edit to add quotation marks to the quote.

Or gunning down "dissidents" in Tiananmen Square. Or forced sterilization.
JIC second line.

reply to post by DogsDogsDogs

Or gunning down "dissidents" in Tiananmen Square. Or forced sterilization.

There you go.
Not getting it.
Criminal activity of defective regimes is not part and parcel of "communism."

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by DogsDogsDogs

 

Or gunning down "dissidents" in Tiananmen Square. Or forced sterilization.

There you go.
Not getting it.
Criminal activity of defective regimes is not part and parcel of "communism."

Fair enough!

Can you cite a single communist nation that wasn't plagued by a "defective regime"?

human greed will always kill any chance at communism. greed by the government who will always find a way to exploit the system and by the well to do people who would rather flee the country than give the government their money becuase of trust issues and rightfully so i might add.

now if there was a system where the government was absolutely fair and honest with its people i think the redistribution of wealth could work if the well to do could trust the government and stay and continue to work hard motivated by the betterment of society as a whole as opposed to being motivated by aquiring more wealth than one could posssibly ever need.

I was born in The Peoples Republic of China, That was my Home, My World and where I meet my husband.
we both worked for our Governments and that is how we meet, not because we worked together, more because we worked against each other.

To make a long story short, YES, China is a Communist Country, and their people live under Communist rule and YES, the Internet is monitored and controlled.
But what China does Economically in the World is Governed by the Central Committee and their Card Carrying Communist Presidents of their Central Banks, They know how the play the world stage financially, but I and most of my friends believe this new found middle class in China will not last and will crumble and be a disaster for China's Economy.
Never for one minute in your daily life believe that Communism Works. It has not worked in China and you can believe all you want that it has. Just don't expect the best treatment at our major hospital with out hard cold cash!

My husband and I married and I came to America, I AM An AMERICAN and I'M DAMN PROUD of my Adopted Country and my husband and all the Veteran's that have fought and gave their life for the freedoms I enjoy in my life now, that I did not have in China. THANK YOU!
You Spoiled Young Americans need to live or walk in my shoes or the poster above from Cuba, Walk in our shoes for the first 30 years of our life, Eat, Breath and Live Communism every day.

reply to post by rusethorcain


Well, the North Koreans are certainly a fat n happy lot (Not!). Or the Cubans. They will risk their lives trying to get away. (The island & the lifestyle there look beautiful & idyllic *to an outsider*. Apparently, the reality is not) Venezuela isn't looking real thrilled here lately. And I suppose the Soviets risked defecting because they just needed to get away for awhile (other than Siberia, I mean).
I, too, would like to hear just one success story. (It clearly failed in Greece. It failed in France. I'm not sure where Italy's at right now).

Look. Communism, socialism & fascism are extremely repressive ideologies. Inevitably, there is a militaristic bent to forcing their "citizens" to uphold their ideals. Probably because it is unsustainable & that's the only way to keep people imprisoned in it. While their overbearingness may produce good athletes, they are profoundly stifling in creativity & self expression. It is no place for the individual or the non-conformist. Communism & socialism are drab, dull, monotonous & lifeless. I can certainly see why someone would risk their life to get away from it. There is nothing to live FOR but the hope of escape.

Maybe George Soros will buy you guys an island.


Guohoa, Welcome home!! So sorry it's such a mess!! Surely, it will get better.

ACK!! Guohua!! I'm so sorry.

This is quite funny, I just had a discussion about this same topic with my mother in law yesterday.

I believe there never was a real war against communism.

American culture has twisted the definition of communism, and made the average citizen believe those countries were living in a communist state and saying see see, look how bad communism is, we don't want that do we?.

Those people were living in a military dictatorship where they were essentially forced to work as slave labour with little to no benefit to themselves.

There a fundamental difference between living under a military dictatorship in fear for your life and living under communism where individuals work for the good of the community and you aren't a slave to the state. and the overall effort of the community benefits the community equally.


The capitalists at the top of the pyramid here in the west would not want true communism to come because it throws capitalistic ideals out the window and they would have to actually work like the rest of the people. I believe this fear of communism was deliberately engrained here to stop it for that reason

I am simplifying it I know, but there it is.

reply to post by Brood


Excellent post.........starred & flagged.

Your comment, says it all.

The problem is not with concepts of how countries should be run (communism), it's with the stupid people we let try and do it.

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.


OK The first definition is the one I refer to....with a small c.
And instead of the state...substitute the planet.

We need to think globally, act locally. It is critical. This is a piece by Bucky Fuller and the mindset I am convinced we need to adopt. It reeks of communism... with a little c.
Why allow past attempts and failures of individual nation to stop us from recognizing our association and community as a people on the planet and move toward cooperation?

www.futurehi.net...

When individuals shunt the comprehensive cosmic regeneration into exclusive advantaging of only their own survival and enjoyment and succeed in prolonged local short-circuiting of cosmic regenerativity, they disqualify the invention "human" as a reliable function of regenerative Universe.

They are just as irresponsible in the cosmic system as the company employees who pocket the cash register contents for their own account.

This is cosmically true of a childless multimillionaire maneuvering himself into a position to make a big profit involving "hardheaded," absolutely selfish decisions that will knowingly and legally deprive many others of survival necessities — "to hell with the next generation" — which deal will win him the applause of other powerfully rich individuals because it makes them feel more comfortable about their own summa cum selfishness.

If you ignorantly believe there's not enough life support available on planet Earth for all humanity, then survival only of the fittest seems self-flatteringly to warrant magnaselfishness.
However, it is due only to humans' born state of ignorance and the 99.99 percent invisibility of technological capabilities that they do not recognize the vast abundance of resources available to support all humanity at an omni-high standard of living.

We have now scientifically and incontrovertibly found that there is ample to support all humanity.

But humanity and its leaders have not yet learned so in sufficiently convincing degree to reorient world affairs in such a manner as to realize a sustainable high standard of living for all.
There are three powerful obstacles to humanity's realization of its omni-physical success:
1. The technical means of its accomplishment exist altogether in the invisible realms of technology.
2. The experts are all too narrowly specialized in developing the invisible advance to envision the synergetic significance of integrating their own field's advances with other fields' invisible advances.
3. The utterly different, successful ways of metabolic accounting, dwelling, self-employing, cooperating, and enjoying life are unfamiliar and nonobvious.

Because of ancient arms-accomplished seizure of land by the most physically powerful and the subsequent arms induced blessing of the seizures by power-ordained "ministers of God," royal deeds to land were written as assumedly God-approved and guaranteed covenants.

Landlordism, first woven into the fabric of everyday life by royal fiat and thousands of years of legal process precedent, has become an accepted cosmic phenomenon as seemingly inevitable as the weather. Humans have learned to play many of its games. Land "ownership" and its omni-dependent comprehensive thing-ownership involvements and their legal-documents-perpetuations constitute the largest socioeconomic custom error presently being maintained by a large world affairs-affecting segment of humanity. Nothing new about all that. But what is new is that humanity has gone as far as it can go with this significant error and is in final examination as to whether it can free itself from its misconditioned reflex straightjacket in time to pull out of its greatest-in-all-history, error-occasioned tailspinning into eternity.

reply to post by hippomchippo


True communism is a small Elite Super Class of rulers while everyone else is "Equally" held in serfdom. 100% State Authority and Totalitarianism! Not "blaming" communism because it has never been implemented "properly" is STUPID! How many times do you have to see it being implemented, fail, genocides, failure, more failure, more death, more misery, before it registers in your thick heads that "MAYBE" it isn't such a great idea?

Do you all think we should try out National Socialism (Nazi) because Germany didn't "Do it right?"

Jesus, what the hell is up with people, how many times must something fail before you concede?

What is the definition of insanity? So called "intellectuals", more like educated idiots.

Your pipe dream of communism is exactly that. Communism only works on Ants because that is a true communist system. Communism is an excuse to revolt and give the peons a "feel good" message, only to find your new leader is the same Dictator except he tells you your all equal.... Equally Screwed.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I've clearly stated many times that I am not pro-communism, I am pro-not-retarded-writing-everything-off-because-its-labelled-"red".

I do not think we should be communist, that's insane. I am, however, saying that people don't ven want to talk about "red" ideas because they fear communism. That is what this thread is about. It's a shame im the only damn person in here talking about it while everyone else simply goes on about their fears of communism; strange how everyone has helped me to prove my point -- I don't mind that I've been attacked about things that I've never believed in along the way.

So, if everyone is done bitching about communism as if nobody knows it will never work, it would be nice if we could get back on topic.

Your arrogance knows no bounds. First of all there are people born with down syndrome who are capable of supporting themselves.

www.janecameron.com...

www.sujeet.com...

users.psln.com...

www.bernadetteresha.com...

www.chrisburke.org...

www.gleefan.com...

www.karengaffneyfoundation.com...

These are just a few people with down syndrome who have gained notoriety, not for being afflicted with down syndrome, but for excelling in some form in spite of the down syndrome they were born with. How well do I think they would do in the business world? I think they will do as well as they decide they want to, and under a system that doesn't declare them needy and helpless, but instead rewards them for their ingenuity and effort, they will do much better.

You, on the other hand, declare people with down syndrome to be incapable of providing for themselves, in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

There are different severity levels of down syndrome. I suppose now you're going to go on and tell me that thousands of mentally challenged people aren't withering away downtown right now because these websites told you that they are capable of working? I suppose now you're going to tell my foster daughter, age 56, that she should join the work force and start providing for herself? Guess you could, not that she'd know what you're trying to say to her, she's mentally 2 years old. Maybe if I wasn't so arrogant, I could integrate her into the workforce; she deserves to be part of the grind.

Communism might look a wonderful doctrine and credit to Marx, The Communist Manifesto is a piece of literature worth reading. I highly recommended - it's a masterpiece. However, in pratice it does not work.

Common ownership, abolishment of private property, never occurs and nor does the eradication of the State. That is what communism advocates. A classes, stateless society. All wealth, means of production and distribution is controlled and organised by the people. We make, we sell and we buy what we want - without a market or a government dictating us.

But, as we saw in Soviet Russia and all communist regimes - the elite control the country. Not the people.

Israeli kibbutz are the closet social structure, that can be defined as communism.

reply to post by infolurker

We have now scientifically and incontrovertibly found that there is ample to support all humanity. But humanity and its leaders have not yet learned so in sufficiently convincing degree to reorient world affairs in such a manner as to realize a sustainable high standard of living for all.

From Bucky Fuller. True too.

So all previous attempts to implement communist governments have been unsuccessful blood baths, so what? That's no reason to fear Communism. Let's try it a few more times.

Originally posted by RKWWWW
So all previous attempts to implement communist governments have been unsuccessful blood baths, so what? That's no reason to fear Communism. Let's try it a few more times.

edit on 3-10-2010 by RKWWWW because: (no reason given)

Nah, I'd rather let the fear encompass everything I decide based on this idea that has not worked. We couldn't possibly tweak all the clear problems there are with, it didn't work, let's not bother talking about it.

Why are "red" ideas the political witch?