It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I joined the Communist Party

page: 28
28
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by brukernavn

By saying that Russia was communist, you are implying that the people owned the means of production and not the state? Link please.


AGAIN, what is the main thing about socialism and communism?... NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO OWN OR CONTROL ANYTHING HENCE THE WORKERS DO NOT OWN OR CONTROL ANYTHING... Instead the Communist Party/the state, owns and controls the means of production in the name of the workers... After all the Communist Party elite were once part of the "workers"...


Can you show me where, in the works of Marx, he states that a person cannot own or control a single thing? I must have missed that in my studies.




posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by toolgal462
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


They can't. The answer will continue to be that all the "so-called" communist countries are not really Communist. It's a pointless argument at this point.
IMHO many people here have argued quite convincingly why Communism will never work on a large scale. The pro-communists just keep repeating that "REAL COMMUNISM" has never been tried.

It's getting old.


Actually what is getting old is the emotional arguments based on misunderstandings.

If you research what socialism actually is, not what TPTB have told you since the 1950's, and research the economy of so-called "communists" countries, it's obvious they are not socialist, they are centralized nationalism.

And again the confusion comes from the out of context quotes from Marx. First off Marxism is NOT socialism, it is NOT communism, it is a political path to get there. It advocates a temporary state system and nationalization of industry, the transitional period. This was supposed to allow industry to increase production in order to meet everyone's needs, at that point the state is supposed to dissolve. The transitional period described in the 'CommyFesto' has been used by the right as the definition of communism. That is why people call nationalism socialism/communism. It's a simple misunderstanding spread by TPTB.

A question I keep asking that doesn't seem to get answered is, why are Anarchists socialists and communists if it is a state system?

People need to learn what is an economic system and what is political. Socialism is an economic system that needs no government. The term has been politicized to confuse and demonize the ideas.

No one has made an argument that communism can't work because they're not even talking about communism. They're talking about nationalistic state dictatorships, not worker owned and controlled industry.

It's not trying to make excuses for an argument, this is fact.

Do you know that since the end of "communism" in Russia things are worse than they were?


"Russia had by 1999 become a looted and bankrupt zone of nuclearized anarchy” Dick
Armey, then Republican House majority leader
.



Bernard Sanders (1998), the socialist congressman from Vermont, described Russia’s economic performance in the 1990s as a “tragedy of historic proportions”; liberal reforms had produced only “economic collapse,” “mass unemployment” and “grinding poverty.”


www.economics.harvard.edu...

I guess because they're not labeled "communist" anymore it doesn't matter if their economy improved eh?

It's ridiculous to use so called "communist" countries as an example of the socialism that real socialists actually want.


Many of these changes, though, have come at high human cost. The same economic changes that produced the new rich have created a vast new underclass. Beggars and homeless persons are frequent sights in the cities, and many come from the old Soviet white-collar class*. Hundreds of thousands of refugees now live in Russia, some from Chechnya and others fleeing wars in neighboring states. Street crime, kidnapping, murder, and even terrorism - once virtually unheard of - are now features of Russian life. The nature of the "new" Russia is a subject of debate for all who lived in or near Russia, or are otherwise concerned with it. Even now, nearly eight years later, there is little agreement


*Middle class.

Russia After Communism, by Anders Åslund and Martha Brill Olcott

Russia is now just like the US with a large disparity between those with and those without, and rampant violent crime. Well done capitalism!


edit on 6/14/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
SWTOR calling cannot read entire post so apologies. If repeating, reiterating
‘communists’ make the mistake of having an anarchist shell around a totalitarian nut. communism is estimated at having 94 million kills… OP: read Pawns in the Game.

Ancient Greek: anarchia, meaning "absence of a leader”.

I believe the only thing that will shock the system is free energy, which has undoubtedly been invented by numerous people and suppressed; most likely Tesla was the first. After this, anarchy will naturally evolve. communism assumes human beings should ‘work’. Very soon we will be at a point of full automation and then advancements in quantum computing will take every other job. Suppression is the only way to have a ‘system’, communism is no different. Appeal to ignorance.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
94 million kills you say? Can you let us know how many people global capitalism has killed, is killing, and will kill. If we really want to talk about total kills lets talk about christianity. The third world poverty mixed with imperal wars to maintain capitalisms dominance makes 94 million look rosey. These arguments are so weak lets get into labor theory of value or use value vs. exchange value. How about inefficent pricing model? Come on lets at least call Marx a racist or sexist. Were are the capitalist supporters who didn't learn econ from glen beck.
edit on 14-6-2012 by jcrockva because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2012 by jcrockva because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jcrockva
 





Furthermore your utopian idea of free market capitalism is so far from reality that it borders on delusion. I suggest you read Adam Smiths theory of moral sentiments to understand the possibilities of problems with the capitalist system. Externalities and the business cycle exist and the market itself is not always able to fix these issues. Finance free market capitalism nearly bankrupted the world and destroyed our entire system


Nowhere have I said capitalism is utopian or perfect!

For someone who claims to be as well read as you your above statement proves you have no clue what your talking about. We have not had free market capitalism for at least 80 years. What has bankrupted the world is oligarchic socialism/communism/corporatism that has engulfed the world.

You sure seem to be defending communism pretty hard for someone who claims to advocate free enterprise capitalism. Especially after you claimed it was a utopian delusion when I advocated it.

Call it what you like the end of the communism argument is freedom: i.e. as long as I am not harming anyone leave me the hell alone, don't tell me what to do with the fruits of my labors and my property. If I worked for it put my time talent and resources into creating or acquiring it I own it. If I make what you think is too much money off it it is still mine to do with as I please as long as I earned it through my labors. If I want to keep what I earned all to myself that's my business. If I want to cooperate with others on any venture I'll chose whom I do it with and they me.

No one is entitled to anything except what they can earn for themselves by their labors. The communist party is just a front for totalitarian wannabes who are recruiting dupes with romantic utopian stories about freedom and worker owned paradises etc. If they were really interested in creating a better society they would get off there collective asses and start several of those cooperative businesses one of them mentioned here or even cooperative communities and show everyone how it is done so the rest would want to emulate them. Why haven't they done this?

The communist in this thread are more interested in arguing over the definitions of terms then getting off their asses and creating a working model/proof of concept venture. Why must they get everyone to agree with them when they can go out and do it right now? The only reason they don't is because they want to wrest power and force everyone to their view. That is why the countries they claim are not really communist have all failed. They all told all the same stores and BS to their people while rising to power and then when they came to power they slammed the gates of tyranny shut on their own people and killed millions!

So to all the communist on this thread your arguments hold no water and are moot until you get off your ass and go do it. Go start a cooperative business or even a community that operates in the total freedom you claim communism represents and prove it. Then come back and say see we told you so. Cause if it is true people will want to emulate it. That is the right way to create peaceful revolution. Light a candle instead of cursing the darkness! Till then put a sock in it.


edit on 14-6-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
I didn't claim to be anything and i could care less what you think of me or the way i think. This love it or leave it crap your spewing doesnt sound like freedom to me. I'm not sure who you think wants to take the value of your labor, but this is an interesting argument considering a communist would point out capitalist ownership is theft of labor value.

The reason we have not had free market capitalism for the last 80 or so years is due to the work of Keynes. His diagnosis of the business cycle required monetary policy to intervene. The validity of his work General Theory can be debated, but after the last crash most are not so quick to dismiss it. Remember we had what was dubbed the "free market revolution" under Regan and Bush Sr. We did enjoy a return to somewhat less of a regulated market. These policies were for the most part carried over by Clinton, and we saw a large amount of growth surrounding the dotcom boom. However we did have a subsequent bubble and crash. This once again made Keynes seem relevant. Finance capitalism and the fictitious value created by it i.e. derivative market worth ten times total world GDP almost beg for regulation. This is unfortunate and it should be debated whether this fictitious value is created out of necessity( late stage capitalism) or due to isolated pockets of greed. This would help us alot with the argument over Marx's relevance to today's economy.
edit on 14-6-2012 by jcrockva because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   


I didn't claim to be anything and i could care less what you think of me or the way i think. This love it or leave it crap your spewing doesnt sound like freedom to me. I'm not sure who you think wants to take the value of your labor, but this is an interesting argument considering a communist would point out capitalist ownership is theft of labor value.


Well let me quote you slick


Originally posted by jcrockva


Now to address the idea that i have not read the manifesto and im a "neo-communist" whatever that is. I have read the manifesto, capital vol1 (working on 2), poverty of philosophy, the German ideology, his dispatches to the new york times, his letters to Abraham Lincoln, ect ect ect. I have a degree in economics and i have also read Smith, Hayak, Ricardo, Keynes, Mises, Schumpeter, Mill ect ect. I am not a neo-communist in facti advocate free enterprise capitalism until a better system is available.


edit on 14-6-2012 by jcrockva because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2012 by jcrockva because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2012 by jcrockva because: (no reason given)


Well gee lets hear you spin that quote? "i advocate free enterprise capitalism"

And just where have I said love it or leave it? Just pulling crap out of you ass seems to be your MO of course that's what all the communist do redefine terms and claim things mean anything they want at any given time and anytime anyone argues against them they just redefine things and say that's not true communism. You guys are real pieces of work you know...



edit on 14-6-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
The idea that members of a capitalist society can just go make a magic little communist collective is impossible. The reason im defending the point of view opposite yours is because your not making arguments reguarding the structure of capitalism vs. communism as was intended by their inventors. I however disagree with you that communism and it supporters are so wrong and evil. There are positives and negatives to every system im aware of, and until we find utopia none of us can conclude who wins.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
That was in responce to the well read comment slick.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jcrockva
The idea that members of a capitalist society can just go make a magic little communist collective is impossible. The reason im defending the point of view opposite yours is because your not making arguments reguarding the structure of capitalism vs. communism as was intended by their inventors. I however disagree with you that communism and it supporters are so wrong and evil. There are positives and negatives to every system im aware of, and until we find utopia none of us can conclude who wins.


Really well your buddy Anok pointed out there are 1100 of them in the US so how is it impossible? He has been strangely silent on them since I called him out on why he or the communist party hasn't started any.

What is stopping you? There are many cooperative communities in the US. if pure communism is ultimate freedom as some claim here what is stopping them from practicing it? NOTHING!

I never said there as not positives and negatives to any system. Nothing is perfect so maximum freedom makes the most sense. No harm no crime. Communism and has been a magnet for some of the most evil totalitarians leaders in history. I was merely pointing out that the communist party shows signs of heading in that direction.
edit on 14-6-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
I can see this is heading towards an insult contest, and since im not even a communist supporter i will remove myself from this discusion. If you would like to debate any individual principle of capitalism vs. communism i would love to respectfuly participate. I have no issue with you or your point of view, i believe it makes the most since considering where our society is today. I only ask the same respect until i do something that warents loosing it. That being said i was merly disagreeing with you because i found fault in some of the arguments you were supporting.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Not my buddy, don't know him from adam. I used the wrong phrase. I should have said they couldn't ever hope to be a success on the scale you asked them to be. I draw this conclusion based on the fact Marx said capitalism could not exist along side socialism. He concceds that capitalism will swallow these islands.

Wow just went back and saw your edit, im not sure what i said to get any of that. You seem to be hell bent on attacking me for some reason, not sure why you think this agression is helping. You have yet to address economics in this thread. My aim was to move this conversation towards theoretical conversation of competing economic systems. Lastly your not going to upset me calling me a communist. I have stated im not a communist and furthermore its not a negative word imo.
edit on 14-6-2012 by jcrockva because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jcrockva
Not my buddy, don't know him from adam. I used the wrong phrase. I should have said they couldn't ever hope to be a success on the scale you asked them to be. I draw this conclusion based on the fact Marx said capitalism could not exist along side socialism. He concceds that capitalism will swallow these islands.


Well to me I define capitalism as maximum freedom and that is how it has been defined since the 19th century for the most part Marx not withstanding until recently and it's now being redefined and being blamed for all the evils of the world. So call it what you will maximum freedom is the answer.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
well could it be that capitalism (or something that tries to be it) is by far more evil and corrupt?

it makes you think u have freedom when u really dont. the poor get poorer and the minority rich get richer while we all think we have freedom but in reality it is nothing more than re-packaged slavery?


we are slaves to the 1%, bankers, corporatists and elites etc.


just curious. i guess they developed the perfect system to keep people dependent and down and not do anything about it because they are too blind and comfortable to do anything about it. to make it better for the middle class and the poor? just wondering here. i dont wish to get into a pissing match with anyone. that solves nothing. im just here to learn. im respectfully posting this.



edit on 14-6-2012 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
I don't really understand what my quote had to do with what you said. I personaly define capitalism as private ownership of the means of production. Im not sure where your definition comes from. Before you freak out and call me a name i didnt say you were wrong just that im not sure what text your getting that from.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jcrockva
Not my buddy, don't know him from adam. I used the wrong phrase. I should have said they couldn't ever hope to be a success on the scale you asked them to be. I draw this conclusion based on the fact Marx said capitalism could not exist along side socialism. He concceds that capitalism will swallow these islands.


Marx was wrong though, worker ownership can work along side capitalism, and could eventually be the dominant economic model.



Chomsky says we have state-capitalism, as he says capitalism without the state would fail.



Maybe we should stop using the term socialism, and use a term that's not so provocative, like cooperativism.


...I suspect that those who find this frightening assume that ‘in the community as a whole’ means BIG GOVERNMENT (always in frightening capital letters). But the interesting thing is that there are already many, many examples (some of them very innovative) in the US of cooperative or community ownership that have nothing to do with Federal, or even state, government. For example, Gar Alperovitz, a professor of political economy at the University of Maryland, wrote a really excellent, thoughtful op-ed piece in the NYT last month about just this fact. He notes, for instances, that 130 million Americans participate in the ownership of co-op businesses and credit unions, and that more than 13 million Americans have become literal worker-owners of more than 11,000 employee-owned companies...


Are We Wandering Toward Socialism?

To save the economy, and make it stable, we need to start cooperating, and stop the ultra-competitiveness that is tearing society apart. Worker ownership, socialism, is the only way forward.


edit on 6/14/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
First of all lets not refute Marx with Chomsky, that is an insult to Marx. You have to understand that Marx whos ideas the system is based upon says that socialism before capitalism can not possibly produce at a level that can provide the amount of resources needed for true freedom to occur. In other words only when capitalism has served its purpose and created enough surplus goods can an egalitarian society develop in a time post scarcity. The validity of this argument can be argued by not from the point of view that socialism can spring up with in capitalism. Keep in mind Marx analysis of base and superstructure, the prevailing attitude of the population would never choose socialism over capitalism. Socialism without authoritarian control can not equal capitalist production. This is why authoritarian control was needed in the U.S.S.R, to attempt to compete with capitalism.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
By the way im not trying to pick a fight with you Anok. I like that we are actually discussing theory. From your posts here i think you would enjoy the book "Envisioning real utopias", its all about participatory economics which you seem to be very into.
edit on 14-6-2012 by jcrockva because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jcrockva
First of all lets not refute Marx with Chomsky, that is an insult to Marx.


Chomsky was not refuting Marx, did you even watch the vid?

And why would that be an insult to Marx? A lot of history has gone by since Marx died, and a lot of the Marxist ideology is no longer relevant to today's economy. There were no cooperatives in the times of Marx, no liberal social safety net either. You have to understand what he says in context of the times.


Socialism without authoritarian control can not equal capitalist production. This is why authoritarian control was needed in the U.S.S.R, to attempt to compete with capitalism.


That is a fallacy. Russia had authoritarian control because it was a nationalist nation, not a nation on the path to socialism.

Worker owned companies compete with capitalism just fine, otherwise there would not be 11,000 worker owned companies in the US. There is no reason a company has to be owned by a private individual, or group, in order to be successful. Success is not based on ownership.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I must admit i did not watch the video i can't stand Chomsky, i just assumed it had to do with my argument. First of all list for me the companies that are worker owned truly don't count profit sharing and stock options these are class compromises not examples of socialism that are "powerful". I mean industry leaders, this is the true test, can they outproduce capitalist enterprise.

Marx did have social democrats in his time and he hated them. He said class compromise would delay the inevitable fall of capitalism. Your are talking about class compromise which is fine just don't wrap it in communism or anarchism.

You can't make the argument that the USSR was an authoritarian state because it was an authoritarian state.That is like using the word in the definition. There were reasons why top down control was needed, one was because they could not compete in an arms race. Socialism is not designed for an arms race however capitalism loves them. This does not take away from the possibility of a socialist world one day it just can't happen parallel to capitalism. What your advocating is begging to repeat the past.
edit on 14-6-2012 by jcrockva because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2012 by jcrockva because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2012 by jcrockva because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2012 by jcrockva because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join