A quick question for communists before bed...

reply to post by ANOK

Good reply, and yes that is what I mean. That is what socialism really is.

No it is not and no it isn't! Nope, it is not! Please read my previous comment to see why not... You are lying, why?

Answer me this, do you or do you not think it is okay to steal someones means to production? In fact you want to steal ALL the means of production, don't you? That is what you told me! But you said it was not stealing to take back what was already stolen from you, right?

Well the people in the video OWN the business that makes profit! They are no different from any other business that owns the means to production, are they?

Being owned by ALL is common ownership, so yes I would agree. We are all workers, unless you are a capitalist.

What utter crap... Capitalists don't work? Yes that's right, owning and running a business takes zero effort, building a business takes zero effort in your world too! Man I hate unethical businesses as much as you but you lump them ALL together as one, crazy! Especially as you are telling me about all these privately owned co-op's

Worker ownership is the common ownership by ALL people who work. If you choose not to work that is your right, in Spain [during the revolution] for example those who didn't want to join a collective were given a plot of land big enough for them to live off.

When you say common ownership what you mean is no-one owns anything, don't you... If you don't want to be in the "collective" you were shipped off out of society, nice... Can you imagine that today? I live in the uk, there is no room!!! lol

reply to post by Trustfund

Most countries. But let me guess, you're one of those people that say things like "real capitalism"? lol

Wait, so just calling yourself capitalist makes you capitalist? Even if your actions are that of a socialist? Whatever mate...

reply to post by Kali74

Some are, most aren't.

I can only go by my experience and most of the people I met were indeed socialist/communist... Anyway it is beside the point, there are enough communists/socialists to achieve what I am talking about...

I've never met anyone in my entire life that thinks such, or thinks that is what communism means. I think you should probably learn the variations of Leftist Ideologies from actual Leftists.

Ha, let me quote another chap is this very thread..

On a side note, I had a former co-worker who would proudly proclaim she was a communist and stated her belief that everyone should have the same things and make the same wages. When I told her I didn't believe her, she asked why. I said if she was really a communist she should live like it, if that was her true belief. She made well over minimum wage, I suggested she donate her salary above that amount to people who made less than her. She had a new car, new clothes, ect, I thought she should donate those items as well and take public transportation. Her only response was that other people make more than her so until they give up their luxuries she wasn't going to. I said yes but they aren't communists you are. She walked away and never brought up the subject again with me.

You will find his comment on page 8... Seems I am not the only one to hear this then... Just because YOU haven't heard it doesn't mean it isn't said...

reply to post by NihilistSanta

Communism I completely believe is designed to fail for the workers and merely has the workers transfer power to a new oligarchy that dress up tribalism and institutionalize it as communism. . Communism works on a small tribalistic/communal scale because of the connections people make that drive them to do things they don't want to do (work) for the benefit of their friends and family. Once you have institutionalized these tribalistic concepts and adapted them for a large populace you remove that connection and you end up with the reason why it will always fail on a mass scale. There are examples of businesses though that could be considered communist-esque. Churches and non-profits probably fall in here as well as co-ops and such but they aren't successful if placed in a capitalist system because they lack the resources to compete (ad revenue, R&D, personnel etc). Other comparable systems are usually military or theocracy based these are systems that use internal senses of duty etc to instill the bonds that family and tribe also create but eventually the guys who hold the keys to the food make all the rules and become corrupt. The goal should be to decentralize as much as possible so that no one entity has control and have opposition/competition counter their influence this would be almost a neo-tribalist move from the current and former models of "Big Government/The State"

Great comment... Yes I agree with you totally... This is kinda what I want to get across... People like anok are for the large scale implementation of socialism/communism and not small groups getting together like he is making out... I am all for small groups that want to get together voluntarily and do whatever they like. I vehemently oppose the use of force.

reply to post by ANOK

That is why it is important to understand what it actually is, or what all economic and political systems are. So that those seeking power cannot trick you into supporting something that isn't what they claim it is.

What like now where we are told we have capitalism and free trade and democracy?

Communism wasn't designed that way, there is no 'design' for communism. Those seeking power simply used a bastardised version of Marxism to take state power. Calling themselves "communist" doesn't mean they actually were. Too many people are easily lead by authority, no more so than in today's society.

Hmmm I want to agree with you here but you did tell me that there is a PROPER definition of communism, you went to great lengths to tell me it, then here you say there is no design... Which is it? Come on, there are core principles of communism but you want to hide from them when it suits you... Other than that I do agree with you here.

reply to post by FyreByrd

Look at the Mondragon Corporation in the Basques Region of Spain for an example of a 'collective' that works well.

Just poking through their website now... It seems that this is a huge corporation, they own assets of 33 billion! Those assets and means of production are taken away from "the people". This is a private business/corporation that is more ethical than the others, on the surface at least.

The worker members that make up 85% of the workforce own 2.20 billion in shares... So not that great really when you consider what the corporation owns...

So far this looks like capitalism to me..

But I think you are confusing Communism with Democratic Socialism. Strict Communism isn't truly possible and what we call Communism is really a single party autocratic rule with central economic comtrol. The various forms of Socialism are more decentralized and democratic. As I said I don't want to go into a diatribe - I'm tired and I'll make mistakes that the nit-pickers will tear apart to say I'm wrong and not listen to a word.

What are you basing that on?

Yes I agree that strict communism or communism isn't possible...

"Communism is really a single party autocratic rule with central economic comtrol" Not just economic control but control of where you work and what job you do and what you can own etc etc... It is just complete tyranny.

Try looking up Collective business, employee-owned business, kibutzim, there are endless examples but Mondragon may be the most successful.

Depends on what you class as successful? It's a successful capitalistic corporation that also looks after it's workforce...

reply to post by ANOK

Not sure how accurate this is, but it still shows that people do want worker ownership imo...

When have I said people do not want worker ownership? I am self employed, I am a worker/owner...

More than 13 million Americans have become worker-owners of more than 11,000 employee-owned companies, six million more than belong to private-sector unions.

This is great right? So you have what you want already, it is the majority... You can just go work for one of these companies and be happy... No? Btw all the companies are PRIVATELY owned aren't they?

And worker-owned companies make a difference. In Cleveland, for instance, an integrated group of worker-owned companies, supported in part by the purchasing power of large hospitals and universities, has taken the lead in local solar-panel installation, “green” institutional laundry services and a commercial hydroponic greenhouse capable of producing more than three million heads of lettuce a year... ....And while the American public has long supported the capitalist model, that, too, may be changing. In 2009 a Rasmussen poll reported that Americans under 30 years old were “essentially evenly divided” as to whether they preferred “capitalism” or “socialism.”

But everyone I have looked at so far ARE capitalist! They are privately owned! Even if that is by the workforce...

Check these out...

This corporation was put forward as the most successful worker owned cooperative but just look at the figures!!! lol

I think you are really confused anok...

reply to post by ANOK

I don't care what people want to call this, worker ownership is the goal.

This is just not true from what you have told me previously... Capitalism embrasses worker ownership! You have even told me that TODAY in what you call capitalism there are millions of people in worker owned businesses... But this is NOT what you want... You told me that you can not have private ownership to the means of production!!!! Even if a million people owned and worked at a place it would still be a privately owned business!

Honestly you are really a hypocrite...

reply to post by MrInquisitive

Uh...ever hear of a co-op? There are also some very successful employee-owned companies in the US, although I can't give you their names off hand. At least one is high-tech and another is in the food industry. I also used to work for a successful engineering company, which one became vested in, but management screwed up and bought some unprofitable companies in related fields, which had skeletons in their closets, i.e. big, hidden debts. This caused my former company to then get bought up by a very large engineering/construction conglomerate that provides much poorer benefits.

I have seen a few examples so far and the examples I have seen are all capitalistic... They all make profit, they all have private ownership etc... This is not socialism nor communism...

What you describe to me is a good capitalistic company vs a bad one... Sure there are good and bad...

reply to post by ANOK

Can not guarantee these are all strictly worker owned, but even a little is better than nothing eh?

Yes but it is not communism nor socialism... Not that you advocate anyway... You would want to "take back" the means of production from these people...

I am totally for people joining together and starting a business and becoming really successful and make lots of money for themselves! They can share out the wealth how they see fit and then people can CHOOSE which company they want to work for... This is what I was saying to you but you told me no! That they (business owners) hold the means to production from everyone else... Well that is what these worker owned companies do...

I think your gripe is with unethical businesses, and I am behind you there 100%.

reply to post by kera1337

China is proof of comunism working, china is going to be the new leader of the world, oh she allready is heh.

Working? For who? The people certainly don't seem very happy... I actually saw this article today after reading this comment... I did laugh a little...

Check it out, the wonderful china

Would you like me to get you the articles about Tibetan monks setting themselves on fire?

reply to post by shansen


Thank you for sharing your experience... I honestly can't believe people actually call for communism, it boggles my brain... Just read this thread, it is unbelievable... They spin and lie and ignore, it is pathetic to say the least... You just can't have a civil convo with most of these people...

Glad you got out anyway and good luck for your future..

reply to post by Bone75

The only way it would work and preserve many of the luxuries we enjoy today, would be on a grand scale.

See that is my problem, I don't want any political ideology forced upon me... And certainly not one as vile as communism... I'm sorry but giving government complete control of everything is a recipe for disaster. Just read shansen's comment... You want that???

reply to post by milominderbinder

Sure. I thought it was self-evident...but I'll spell it out for you.

Why thankyou...

1. "Most" of the OWS protestors are not "communists", given that the only two hold-outs for Communism left on planet earth are Cuba and N. Korea. It's a defunct boogeyman. Everybody likes owning stuff, OWS included. In fact...the reason they are protesting is because a privileged class of career criminals have stolen the property that legally belongs to the Middle Class year, after year, after year.

This is one of your points? Really... They advocate communism, If I can't say MOST are you can't say MOST are not, unless you have done the research that you require from me... Have you? This kinda covers 3...

2. Who in this country believes that "everyone should be paid the same"? Certainly no mainstream element of American society that I have observed. Yes...there are MANY who believe that it's categorically discriminatory to pay groups of people less than other groups of people for doing the same work...but again...that just means that these individuals are strong supporters of the Constitution. It doesn't mean that they are "communists".

Allow me to point you to another chaps comment on page 8

On a side note, I had a former co-worker who would proudly proclaim she was a communist and stated her belief that everyone should have the same things and make the same wages. When I told her I didn't believe her, she asked why. I said if she was really a communist she should live like it, if that was her true belief. She made well over minimum wage, I suggested she donate her salary above that amount to people who made less than her. She had a new car, new clothes, ect, I thought she should donate those items as well and take public transportation. Her only response was that other people make more than her so until they give up their luxuries she wasn't going to. I said yes but they aren't communists you are. She walked away and never brought up the subject again with me.

It seems only communist apologists don't hear it though... Funny that...

Basically on the most topic, yes it was a bit of a sweeping statement, but it is fueled by MY experience going to the london occupy event... I feel you are splitting hairs a little, it doesn't matter if there are most or quite a lot or even a few.. The point is they can still practice what they preach TODAY...

reply to post by milominderbinder

I'm more or less with you on this with one exception...I think we STILL need SOME SORT of standardized currency and that currency needs to be backed by TWO things. #1 - Itself. Every dollar in existence needs to ACTUALLY be printed. No more digi-dollars. As it stands only 3% of the US dollars in circulation are printed. The rest ONLY exist only as abstract strings of 1's and 0's. Basically...it's the same idea as paper ballot. It's just a lot harder to "invent" all that cash when you are required to have a paper (money) trail.

Well I think that is where the problem starts, it allows for a small number of people to monopolize the market.. I mean why not let people trade how they want to trade? That is freedom, right?

I'm with you on the rest, our current system is a complete corrupt sham... That is why I want no government, no monopolies...

Matt Taibbi from Rolling Stone magazine has done the best job I've seen thus far explaining how BOTH "regulation" AND "de-regulation" has been used to screw over essentially the entire global human population in the last 20 yrs or so in his book entitled "Griftopia".

Interesting, i'll check it out, thanks... But I advocate total deregulation, not just picking and choosing to help out whoever you (not YOU but whoever has that control) feel like.

reply to post by DocHolidaze

well anything sounds better than what we have now, maybe there is some sort of hybrid system to still be invented that doesn't have an expiration date.

Well I think the big problem is government, get rid of that and ride out the initial upheaval and I can guarantee that we will figure out the rest...

reply to post by daskakik

Whatever.

Lickshot! That showed me...

Because you addressed it by saying it was missing when in fact it was included. The rest of your post is so twisted that I won't even waste my time pointing out your errors. Since I don't advocate any system, then I really don't care what you think is better or what you think you have.

Selective reading yet again! I said that "through a state apparatus" does not mean what you are saying it means... You are implying it means that the states can bail out corporations... But it is talking about people working through a state aparatus... Couid be a state ran school or hospital etc...

So nothing from you at all then, lol... Not exactly that surprising...

reply to post by Unrealised

If People were capable of working for others and the greater good and then the benefits of all this work were split among the whole and if everyone worked equally hard...I would agree with you.

Sadly people are not capable of being so Honorable. The reality is that Communism will NEVER WORK because people are greedy, always looking for the easy way out and any Leadership of a Communist System have been shown by History to take advantage of the benefits created by the whole.

In a perfect world perhaps communism would work....but the World IS FAR FROM PERFECT. Can you GRASP THAT!? LOL!

Split Infinity

reply to post by mee30


Well since you keep saying that the examples of socialism offered are really capitalism there isn't much to say. You keep wanting to force your definitions of things upon everyone else.

Your wrong and can't or don't want to acknowledge it. Oh well.

reply to post by daskakik

Well since you keep saying that the examples of socialism offered are really capitalism there isn't much to say. You keep wanting to force your definitions of things upon everyone else. Your wrong and can't or don't want to acknowledge it. Oh well.

Wait, so I use the definition YOU provided yet I'm just trying to FORCE my definitions onto people via the internet... You know what force is right? You know that it is not MY definition if YOU provided it right?

It is so crazy how you won't debate but just claim me as wrong...

Debate me on how I used YOUR definition in relation to the people in the video... PLEASE, I look forward to it...