I joined the Communist Party

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by brukernavn

There has never been a country which practices communism (workers owning the means of production), hence I cannot have experienced such. Try harder next time.

The party line is always that the workers DO own the means of production, because the government owns them, and being generally described as a "democracy", the people own the government and run it, therefore owning everything the government owns.

That has always been the explanation for "worker ownership of the means of production" in every actual communist theoretical democracy that has so far ever existed. going by their logic, there's not a flaw in the theory of it, the flaw is in the implementation.

there is a flaw in the implementation of everything correct?

Originally posted by krossfyter

please the score---- it was a joke. it was intended to be sarcasm.

true this has been an enlightening conversation from the ANOX and the OP and those that are or have been civil towards them.

I dunno. I thought it was funny, so I gave it a star, even though I'm on the "losing" side of your stats. *shrug*

Originally posted by krossfyter
...
there is a flaw in the implementation of everything correct?

Yeah...what a COINCIDENCE that EVERY TIME socialism/communism is implemented it ENDS ON THE SAME THING... Another cocialist dictatorship...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


But again none of those problems have anything to do with communism.

Cuba does not have worker ownership and is not communist, it was never supposed to be.

The US started the communist BS after Cuba ousted Batista and the American corruption going on there. The US called them communist because when the US refused to do business with them they turned to Russia, and did business with them instead. The US responded by placing embargoes, which is the reason they are poor not communism lol.

It was never a communist revolution, it was once again a nationalist revolution.

Jeez you're so wrapped up in this anti-socialism thing you 're blind to even the history of your own country. If you slowed down a little and quit with the emotional reasoning and look at the facts...

BTW *yawn* yourselves, go do some research instead of these silly claims that do not relate to socialism in any way other than through propaganda you blindly believe.

The Cuban Revolution of 1959 was a broadly based nationalist revolution against a corrupt government.

Modern History Sourcebook: Fidel Castro: Second Declaration of Havana, 1962

If it walks like nationalism and quaks like nationalism, it probably is.

He did have the support of the majority of Cubans and it was a better system than Batista. If it wasn't for the embargo you would have a completely difference view of Cuba. If you had lived during Batista's time you would have supported the revolution. I'm not saying I support a nationalist dictatorship, I don't, but I do support changing from a bad system to a better system, no matter what it is as long as it is better. Any system can be improved or changed to something better. Is that not reasonable, or is it all still all evil lol?

But you can never reason with blind hate.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by krossfyter

please the score---- it was a joke. it was intended to be sarcasm.

true this has been an enlightening conversation from the ANOX and the OP and those that are or have been civil towards them.

I dunno. I thought it was funny, so I gave it a star, even though I'm on the "losing" side of your stats. *shrug*

there is the X factor!

Originally posted by krossfyter

there is a flaw in the implementation of everything correct?

Pretty much. There are always knots to iron out, and some of them become apparent sooner than others. The knot in implementations of communism so far can be boiled down to centralization - centralization of government, banking, and centralized planning. That centralization concentrates too much power in the hands of too few people, in spite of the alleged democratic system of government they claim.

The same centralization is currently ongoing in the US right now, at this very moment.

If you work on getting rid of the centralization in it, and move towards more local autonomy, you may arrive at a workable system. I (along with a self avowed communist to present the other side) participated in the development of a system similar to what I describe a year or so ago here at ATS, but can't find the thread at the moment. It allowed for either communism or capitalism, depending on what the local autonomous regions preferred. If you didn't like one, it was a short (and unrestricted!) trip across the state border to experience the other, and "central government" was restricted to mostly defense and international matters, rather than the overbearing behemoth we have now interfering in the matters of locals.

Originally posted by brukernavn

In the USSR, China, North Korea, and Cuba the workers own/owned the means of production? Link please.

Like always, you seem to forget that the ROAD to the final goal of communism "supposedly is long"... There are many stages, even within communism, which makes many countries COMMUNIST/socialist despite them not reaching some of the claims made by Marx...

If you ask the Cuban elite, and even someCubans off the street, they will tell you the means of production is owned by the people, but the state, "for the good of the people", decides what to do with the means of production...

Yes, the U.S.S.R. China, North Korea and Cuba are/were communist... Now the Soviet union is becoming something else...

BTW, no matter how many times you, and other socialist/communists, who really know nothing about socialism/communism, want to claim that these countries were/are not "socialist/communist" doesn't make it true...

It is EXTREMELY telling and funny how socialists/communists love to claim the U.S. is completely capitalist, even thou a FREE MARKET HASN"T EXISTED IN THE UNITED STATES FOR A LONG TIME... Yet despite this they keep calling the U.S. as "capitalist" and "imperialist"...

But isn't it ironic that because they want to "play semantics" with socialism/communism they WANT TO CLAIM socialism/communism has not been tried when this is not true?...

IF socialism/communism has never been tried, then capitalism has never existed...

Oh and btw, corporations don't own everything either... The United States, nor other western countries are not being governned for the benefit of corporations either... You want to "play" semantics right?...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by brukernavn

In the USSR, China, North Korea, and Cuba the workers own/owned the means of production? Link please.

Like always, you seem to forget that the ROAD to the final goal of communism "supposedly is long"... There are many stages, even within communism, which makes many countries COMMUNIST/socialist despite them not reaching some of the claims made by Marx... At least in a way.. If you ask the Cuban elite they will tell you the means of production is owned by the people...but the state, for the good of the people, decides what to do with the means of production...

Yes, the U.S.S.R. China, North Korea and Cuba are/were communist... Now the Soviet union is becoming something else...

BTW, no matter how many times you, and other socialist/communists, who really know nothing about socialism/communism, want to claim that these countries were/are not "socialist/communist" doesn't make it true...

It is EXTREMELY telling and funny how socialists/communists love to claim the U.S. is completely capitalist, even thou a FREE MARKET HASN"T EXISTED IN THE UNITED STATES FOR A LONG TIME... Yet despite this they keep calling the U.S. as "capitalist" and "imperialist"...

But isn't it ironic that because they want to "play semantics" with socialism/communism they WANT TO CLAIM socialism/communism has not been tried when this is not true?...

IF socialism/communism has never been tried, then capitalism has never existed...

edit on 16-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

No, it is not funny. In fact, it is extremely sad. These dictators run under the guise of communism, but in fact they are against it. If they truly were in favour of communism, they would be favour o f worker ownership, not state ownership. Again, your logic fails.

Originally posted by INDOMITABLE

I am truly interested in the worker keeping the fruits of his labor.

The reason is because I stumbled upon a verse in the Bible that spoke about when you are in heaven you will receive everything you sow. It basically said when you sow, you will sow only for yourself. There are verses that speak very badly about someone who reaps where he doesn't sow.

It also says you're not supposed to muzzle even a donkey or an ox when it's running a grain thresher to keep it from eating the grain, because "the workman is worthy of his hire".

Originally posted by brukernavn

No, it is not funny. In fact, it is extremely sad. These dictators run under the guise of communism, but in fact they are against it. If they truly were in favour of communism, they would be favour o f worker ownership, not state ownership. Again, your logic fails.

My logic doesn't fail... It is yours that does... AGAIN, tell me, how can the workers own the means of production when NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO OWN ANYTHING?...

If the workers owned the means of production, then it means it is their PROPERTY..., but PROPERTY is abolished under socialism/communism...

You see, you get LURED by lies, but you have to read the fine line to TRY to understand what socialism/communism is...

And btw what is extremely sad is that to this day there are people, who like you, fall for the SAME lies and deception used by socialists/communists of old...

Oh, and BTW there is a BIG difference between IRONIC, and funny...

reply to post by brukernavn
i'm still hoping to see a logical argument for such a stance but instead, words like these are supposed to be what exactly, comforting ??

If they truly were in favour of communism, they would be favour o f worker ownership, not state ownership.

since communism is built around no property rights, who would "own" anything?

even if, worker ownership existed, what would they own, exactly ?
do they own the product produced ? do they own the resources necessary to produce it ? or, do they merely own the "tools" to produce while everything else is owned by the "state" or controlling entity ?

i ask this because if we already have/own sufficient tools but cannot access the resources necessary to produce, how is what you describe any different than what many experience currently, even in the USA ??

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

A lot of people, including many Americans forget that the Vietnam war was started by China taking over Vietnam. Chinese and vietcom murdered tens of thousands of disarmed people overnight to take over main sections of Vietnam. China also invaded Tibet claiming that it was part of China despite the cultural differences and the fact that the Tibetans NEVER have wanted to live under the tyrannical rule of the Chinese COMMUNISTS...

Most Americans don't concern themselves with that because the first Chinese attempt at Vietnam was on France's watch, and the second was after we were gone. The second one didn't turn out too well, because Vietnam had gone all nationalist with their communism, too, and didn't take kindly to the Chinese invasion. It lasted about a month, as I recall, and resulted in a Chinese route.

Then, of course, Vietnam tried the same thing with Laos... one big happy family!

reply to post by Honor93


The worker owns NOTHING. Which despite Marx, and other socialists/communists clearly explaining this many people can't seem to understand.

Some socialist/communists TRY to play semantics "claiming that Marx was talking about another sort of property"...

But let's read directly from Marx shall we?...

Karl Marx
Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Private Property and Communism
Re. p. XXXIX. [This refers to the missing part of the second manuscript. - Ed.] The antithesis between lack of property and property, so long as it is not comprehended as the antithesis of labour and capital, still remains an indifferent antithesis, not grasped in its active connection, in its internal relation, not yet grasped as a contradiction. It can find expression in this first form even without the advanced development of private property (as in ancient Rome, Turkey, etc.). It does not yet appear as having been established by private property itself. But labour, the subjective essence of private property as exclusion of property, and capital, objective labour as exclusion of labour, constitute private property as its developed state of contradiction – hence a dynamic relationship driving towards resolution.
...

www.marxists.org...

ALL forms of private property, including capital, and the fruits of labor, ALL OF THEM constitute private property.

So anything the workers can make, plant, or sow, or build is ALSO considered as property, which NO ONE can own...

This is why in socialist/communist nations in the end THE STATE/Communist Party is the one who decides what to do with EVERYTHING the workers make, or harvest.

BTW, under socialism/communism even marriage is a form of private property, in which the woman is owned by the man. In this aspect, which Marx really knew nothing about, socialism/communism are also against marriage.

Anyway, despite the lies from certain people, socialism/communism has been tried many times, and it ALWAYS led to bloodshed, murders, and suffering.

The reason why this happens, even Marx described it. "The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism." Karl Marx

What this means is that as long as there is any type of opposition to socialism/communism, there can NEVER be peace. Which is part of the reason why socialist/communist dictatorships are so full of bloodshed.

reply to post by nenothtu

The same centralization is currently ongoing in the US right now, at this very moment

Yes exactly! And that's why it is completely outrageous that the Left and the Democrats are trying to pretend that Obama is a right winger, but it's almost funny in a way.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by krossfyter


sorry im not a communist. im here trying to learn. i realize from all this dialogue going on back and forth is that ANOK and the OP have behaved very civil towards everyone but most of the rest havent returned in kind. speaks volumes.
...

ANOK hasn't been so kind as you claim... And btw, if you had actually lived and experienced life under socialism/communism perhaps then you will understand why people like me fight so hard against people who keep lying through their teeths like ANOK about socialism/communism...

Here here!!!! One cannot be "kind' when one's liberties and freedoms are being taken. Would these people here be kind if they were being corraled into box cars? Oh wait, they would be shot if they resisted....

reply to post by INDOMITABLE


Wow, looks like the communist revolution is in full force in that area. Sickening and creepy. They didn't learn the lessons of history.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by brukernavn

 

i'm still hoping to see a logical argument for such a stance but instead, words like these are supposed to be what exactly, comforting ??

If they truly were in favour of communism, they would be favour o f worker ownership, not state ownership.

since communism is built around no property rights, who would "own" anything?

even if, worker ownership existed, what would they own, exactly ?
do they own the product produced ? do they own the resources necessary to produce it ? or, do they merely own the "tools" to produce while everything else is owned by the "state" or controlling entity ?

i ask this because if we already have/own sufficient tools but cannot access the resources necessary to produce, how is what you describe any different than what many experience currently, even in the USA ??

I think what is missing here is the concept of collective ownership, which really boils down to the State owning everything, because as has been stated already, in communism there is no private property. When they say the proletariat owns the means of production, it really means the State. Lenin and Marx both stated that there would necessarily have to be an elite running things at the top to begin with. Marx postulated that somewhere down the road, the State would "whither away' but it never has in any society which has implemented any levels of socialism. Even in Capitalistic societies there is govt. And that is places where people do own property.
Some of these people who are propnents of anarchism have believed that the workers would own it and be free too but that is a lie told to them by archdeceivers.

Interestingly, there is a correlation to this in Obama's claim that spiritually we must claim our salvation collectively and not individually. He shows his true ideas right there.

You know what is interesting...all through peoples childhoods..."we are taught to share"

Yet as we get older it seems we leave that concept in the past and everything becomes mine mine mine...

People are still only comparing things to what exists today rather than looking at the what could be...Why is that..."OH RIGHT" ...propaganda.

IF all people are happy contributing to the commune for the communal good then I guarantee you that Democracy would not have chance.....The entire planet is communist.....It is a commune in and itself.....Seem also that people are concerned about property ownership...but in reality not a single person out there has one bit of land ownership...It is not ours to own...we may occupy a piece of this turf...but when you die you cannot take it with you. You can be buried in it and that is your plot until you rot away in it.
What makes anyone think they actually have ownership of this glorious piece of rock that was given to the human slaves.
In a democracy you are owned by the corporates...your apparently only a good human if you go out work for your individualistic self....this concept of ownership was brought forth by Democracy(Demonism).
Anok has pointed out many occasions how people are not actually looking at the communist because there has never actually been a truly communist society as it falls into the category of Socialism.
As i have seen many people are tired of both systems that exist on the planet.....but that is partly because people are in hardship....People are afraid of actually believing the planet belongs to all things on it...not just humans either.....we share in this planet...and this planet shares with us....but instead of giving respect to our planet we take take take...well I believe the planet will say F78k off to all of us if we do not do something to encourage it's regrowth....Who are we to rape this place that gives us life....so as a global community we will have to at some point take responsibility for all our actions....and by looking at other systems that will evoke pride as community cannot be a bad thing....but just remember ...all the governing systems of this planet are wrong to this point in human development.
Also the ones who come in screaming and showing atrocities in communist societies atrocities can still be shown in Democracies of varying scales....WE will try not to mention American capital punishment(murderers).
Also as things get more and more heated...just watch what your Democracies will do....OWNERSHIP ...i don't think so....does the term appropriation mean anything to people or do we forget.....I saddens me to see that people are still so blind to know they are owned even in a democracy....you are owned through debt.....that is what has been going on and it's true colors will rear it's ugly head.
I am not promoting communism in it's current state...but i am promoting the OP for having the guts to look at things from a new perspective and to challenge the status quo.
As far as Electric universe goes....they are blind with rage and a fine example of narrow minded thinking.
Challenge the system and love to not only love all your fellow man ...but learn to love and show respect to this wondrous world we have been gifted with.

Please Let Us Be Enlightened.

Originally posted by brukernavn
reply to post by nenothtu

 

That is what the far right said under Bush, but he expanded government like the US has never seen before. They seem to be for the expanding of government as long as it is their pary doing it.

You may have misunderstood me. Both the Democrats, and also the Republicans under the neocons are all for expansion of government and runaway social spending. Individual conservatives will claim to be against those things - and they are - but will, for some unfathomable reason turn around and vote for another neocon "Republican" because "it's not a Democrat", which is lunacy. They're voting for the same damned thing, but with a red label instead of a blue one.

Conservatives need to either repossess the Republican party, or strike off and form their own. This being an election year in the US, we can be sure neither will happen this year. The neocons are screaming the mantra "get rid of Obama!", and simply not mentioning that they are replacing him with a clone that wears an "R" beside his name. They scare people with "Obama has to go, he's ruining the country!" - which he is - but the scare works to the extent - especially in an election year - that people just stop thinking and start doing what they're told. It's as if the induced fear of Obama makes them shut down all critical thought, and they can't think far enough ahead to realize that Romney is no different.

I'm sure that someone will come traipsing along soon to spew all of Romeny's alleged "differences", and they will completely miss his record which SHOWS no differences, and base their talking point on the "differences" they have been TOLD exist - nothing they have SEEN out of Romney.

Then, if by some sheer miracle Romney actually wins, they will spend the next four years bitching about what he promised to do differently that never materialized in practice. The liberals will think it's great, because they can blame the failures on "conservatives" - as if Romney qualified! - and the conservatives will sit around all shame-faced, wondering where they went wrong. Sort of like what the Liberals who voted for "Hope and Change" have done for the last 3 years, while the conservatives blamed it all on the Liberals.

I'll tell both sides right now where they are going wrong - they are assuming there IS some difference, because they are being scared silly by their handlers to the point where they simply stop thinking critically and noticing that there really is no difference at all between the candidates that are set up to run.

Yes, both sides are perfectly willing to put the guy in office based solely on a single letter and a promise that it means something different from the other letter. I AM "far right" in the sense of right being "conservative", and I can tell you, just as I told everyone who would listen, the Bush ISN'T. he's a neocon, pure and simple, and was all about constructing a huge, overbearing government, no different than Obama... or McCain... or Romney.

There is a reason, I believe, that candidates of such similar records have filled in for both parties over the past 10 or 15 years.

Originally posted by krossfyter

first of all thank you for the civil and respectful response.


maybe these anti communists some how were able to effectively counter the implications of the true communism that ANOK and the OP have mentioned that they distorted it.... and i mean SUCCESSFULLY DISTORTED IT... to the point that most in the west or in the US have believed falsely about what true communism really is.

that was the plan all along? maybe it leads to a more sinister and covert or cloaked form of slavery or fascism one where you dont believe you are in it. where the slavery they have you in feels like freedom. the suppose communism (faux communism perhaps) that was practiced in USSR/CUBA/CHINA etc. is a BLUNT form of slavery. maybe America/US is a subtle form. a soft form. a form that takes humans longer to respond and react effectively to because apathy is in the equation?

That's entirely possible, because BOTH forms as put into practice are either centralized at inception or moved to centralization over time. I honestly believe that EITHER will not work properly as theory intends until they are decentralized and more autonomy granted to local communities. From my perspective, for right or wrong, as you move AWAY from the individual and TOWARDS the national authority, each step along the way ought to be weaker, with less power over the next lower step. The weakest of all should be the national authority, and the most powerful at all should be the individual - and the "power" I'm talking about is as it relates to the authority over the individual.

National governments are fine for things like a collective defense against external aggressors, and for dealing on an international level - treaties, diplomacy, and such things as that - but should be so weak as to be practically non-existent when it comes to it's power over the individual. The reason I say that is because I believe an individual or a community - or even a State - knows far better what is good for himself than a governmental entity a couple of thousand miles removed from him. A neighborhood know better what is good for the neighborhood than the city does, a city knows better what is good for itself than a county does, a county knows better what is good for itself than a state does, and a state knows better what is good for itself than the nation does. With each level of "knows better", you are weakening the hold on the individual as it goes towards national. Each level should deal with things that relate TO THAT LEVEL, rather than trying to seize power downward.

I believe that is the ONLY way either system will ever be successfully implemented over the long term. As it works out in practice in the real world, however, the higher you get in the ladder, the wider the power base gets, and unscrupulous people are drawn to that power like flies to crap. That, in turn, results in them trying to seize even more power than they started with as it goes along, and the next thing you know, everything is centrally concentrated.

At THEIR position.