Most Socialist/Communist countries don't last more than 10 years

reply to post by thehoneycomb




Most of the one's in "your" list are more than ten years?

So your own list works against you....

China... still going.

Cuba...

Korea...

Laos...


Whether we like these nations or not, they're still going.


And also communism is not the same as socialism, one is an economic system and one a political system.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


True Marxist communists believe in a stateless society, anarchy.
However, they differ from Anarchists in that they believe that society must go through various transgressional stages, including Socialism, before reaching a position of communal and common ownership.

Socialism is very much an economic system.

Anarchism is about the total absence of state and private ownership.

Numerous ideologies have since developed, including Anarcho-Socialism etc.

MSM has helped spread an incredible amount of disinformation about them all.

reply to post by blupblup


The reason I did not list the current communist/socialist nations is because their fate is still somewhat undecided.
So who is to say how long they will actually last?
That is why they are omitted.

reply to post by Freeborn


In anarchy their is still ownership of property. However it is up to you and the community around you to defend it.

reply to post by thehoneycomb




But even those on your own list show most went on for ten years?

reply to post by blupblup


No the reason is because it is economically unstable.

Thats why I stated earlier that communism and socialism don't work without capitalism, capitalism helps prop it up and in that sense capitalism is guilty of causing discontent around the world. We should stop propping up social political economic failures.

reply to post by blupblup


Some last more some don't I used ten because it looks like an average amount of time for their systems to collapse.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


Firstly, I've never met an Anarchist or read any anarchist literature that advocated anything other than a minimal amount of common ownership.

Secondly, you insist upon the notion that capitalism has propped up any communist and socialist state.
Even if this were true, something which I'm certainly not convinced of, you continue to ignore the pain, suffering, injustice and inequalities that capitalism is both built on and thrives upon.

reply to post by thehoneycomb




Well this is kind of an odd and boring conversation really.


Have fun

reply to post by Freeborn


Thats easy for you to say. But have you ever lived in the US?

I am not talking about your stance about what America does around the world and I don't agree with all of it, I do agree with some of it. Have you ever experienced american life?

reply to post by blupblup


ok

Thanks for stopping by.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


I'm not quite sure about the relevance of that.

reply to post by Freeborn


It's understandable that you may have feelings of discontent about America, so do I.

But from an outsider looking in there is more than meets the eye.

Have you ever visited at least?

reply to post by thehoneycomb

It's understandable that you may have feelings of discontent about America, so do I.

I am not anti-US at all.

At times US foreign policy disgusts me, at other times I understand why they have taken a partcular stance.
At times I even support it's foreign policy.

Yes, the US has made some bloody and terrible mistakes and it has a tendency to both compound them and repeat them....but, and it's a massive but - the world is a better and indeed safer place because of the US and it's foreign policy.

I could discuss Americans and Americanism at great length but now is not the time or place.
If you start a thread on that then I will gladly contribute.

Suffice is to say that American self-obsession and self-aggrandizement, generalisations that they admittedly are, really piss me off, as they do almost every other non-American I've ever discussed them with.

And I really don't get this pathological fear of anything left-wing, (I loathe labelling and pigeon holing anything), and socialist or communist.
It really is irrational and could almost be described as indoctrination.

But from an outsider looking in there is more than meets the eye.

I'm absolutely sure there is.

Have you ever visited at least?

Despite travelling quite extensively around Europe, including several former Eastern bloc countries, I have never had the opportunity to visit America.
It's certainly on my bucket list.

There as some specific places I would love to go and people / things I'd love to see, however, I would also like to travel about off the beaten track and away from the tourist trail and spend some time meeting 'real Americans' going about their everyday lives.

There is a slim chance I'll get over to the east coast next year to see a couple of bands, we'll see.

reply to post by Freeborn


Cool, well I've met alot of visitors from the UK here, alot of them really like to visit and when they do visit we treat them with the same hospitality as we would an american citizen.

That said your always welcome here. Maybe you should plan to make visit while it's still a free country.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by ANOK

 

The redistribution of wealth and power, the establishment of communes etc were all leftist, communist inspired policies.
Everything was initially intended to help China move towards becoming a truly Communist state.

But none of that actually happened, you can't blame an idea for peoples failure to express that idea. Redistribution of wealth in socialism is not forcing others to give up their capital at the threat of violence. The redistribution of wealth comes about from the workers owning the means of production, and the profits made from their labour belonging to them instead of a third party 'owner'.

That they lost their way somewhere along the path, as did the Soviet Union etc who also set out with the same intentions and also failed to establish a truly Communist or even Socialist state, gives some support to those that claim Communism / Socialism will never work.

The path was never really set because the forces at work during those times didn't want worker control of labour, but totalitarianistic control for their own elite benefit. It was all propaganda.

There will always be a bit of the Anarchist in me.
Unfortunately, like Communism and Socialism there is only one thing wrong with Anarchy - human beings.

Well whatever system we have there will be Human Beings, kinda hard to get away from that one.
Capitalism creates more instances for exploitation of others and corruption than any system there is. When someone has huge amounts of wealth they have huge amounts of power, that is the problem. Capitalism puts huge amounts of power in the hands of fewer and fewer people. With this economic power they control the governments, they control the press (they are the press), they control education, they control what you see of the real world. Think about what you would do if you had so much capital that you had control over others, who have control over others, who have control over others, down and down until we get to you and me, and the rest of us working slobs. Would you not control world affairs in order to maintain and improve your power level? Everyone would, because as you said, we're people.

When social needs are privatized we have no say in what goes on.

WHoa we just had a good shaker as I was writing this gotta go.......

reply to post by ANOK


I'm no lover of capitalism I assure you.

I don't profess to have any of the answers.

But I do know that we need urgent and radical reform along side open and honest debate.

Where about are you at?
Excuse my ignorance but I'm assuming that by a 'good shaker' you meant earth tremor of some sort?

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by ANOK

 

But I do know that we need urgent and radical reform along side open and honest debate.

You got that right brother. I don't know what the answer is either, the population has been so dumbed down they wouldn't know what to do without the state holding their hands.

Where about are you at?
Excuse my ignorance but I'm assuming that by a 'good shaker' you meant earth tremor of some sort?

Bay Area Cali. Yeah we had a 3.9 on the Hayward fault, really shallow. It was a short sharp jolt more than a shake. Scared the hell out of me lol. The whole building just jumped, almost threw me out of my chair.

OK back on topic.

We have two choices, either private or public (worker) ownership of the means of production. Other than a non-market economy that is our limit of choices, socialism or capitalism.

The problem lies in how to implement those system to be fair, and not exploitative to large sections of society. Capitalism is implemented with authority, it has to be because it marginalizes huge sections of society, and creates huge divisions in wealth and power. Being a private owner, and hiring labour, makes you an authority and is why it could never be anarchistic. Anarchism is not simply 'no government', it is apposed to hierarchical top-down systems of any kind. Capitalism without a state system would be obsolete chaos, as those who already have the capital power could do whatever they wish with no over-site. You only have to look at the industrial revolution to see how that would be. We the people have no say over private entities, at least with a state system the people have some say, however limited.

In a stateless socialist economy we would not need to have a say, because we would by subservient to no one, and we would have a part in making the decisions. Full democracy.

How we could ever get there though is whole other debate.

reply to post by ANOK


There are still leadership positions in anarchy, it is more tribal for instance think of indian tribes and chiefs.
Whatever system you go to their will always be hierarchy. Break this down to a family. The man and the wife are dominant over children, they teach their young to be self sufficient.
The problem is that mankind as a whole has not shown the ability to be self reliant.
In such a system their would still be a group that would try to dominate.

Capitalism simply allows supply and demand to determine the market. Socialism tries to replicate capitalism by trying to determine or influence where markets to go or where they want it to go and by they I mean the government. The problem with it is that it simply can not do that without first running algorithms that still fail, because the market itself is ever changing and what is in demand today, may not be so much tomorrow.
The simple concept of money alone only allows those to trade goods independent of a bartering system where those only trade good for good.