USSR was NOT Communist
Sun, 18 Mar 2012 | Published in Society & economics
“well it by no means was an example of “public ownership of the means of production” and economic hierarchy was a defining feature. i mean production and distribution were carried out exactly how they are in a capitalist firm – the only difference is it was done by the state and not be CEO’s.
Adolph Fischer (1858 – November 11, 1887) was an anarchist and labor union activist tried and executed after the Haymarket Riot.
Originally posted by ANOK
One more time for those who don't read through threads.
Russia and China did not have communist economies, they had state-capitalist economies. What you saw was not an example of communism.
State-capitalism is not communism.
Russia and China did not have communist economies, they had state-capitalist economies.
Originally posted by NysgjerrigDame
I agree. Most so-called communists just use that fact that communism is most logical and makes the most common sense to become dictators. Examples are the USSR, cuba, North Korea, etc. But nobody ever talks about Spain before Franco's coup. I believe that unless you've read the Communist Manifesot, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, State and Revolution: by Lenin, the Foundations of Leninism, The New Class: Djilas, Combat Liberalism (communists detest liberalism), I do not believe that you have right to talk about it. There are many more works that ought to be read on the matter. Most of ATS believes the lies of the West, but if any, those of you whom have truly studied the communist works, what is your argument against it?edit on 2-1-2013 by NysgjerrigDame because: (no reason given)edit on 2-1-2013 by NysgjerrigDame because: (no reason given)
It may not be the revolution’s dawn, but it’s certainly a glint in the darkness. On Monday, this country’s largest industrial labor union teamed up with the world’s largest worker-cooperative to present a plan that would put people to work in labor-driven enterprises that build worker power and communities, too.
Shared ownership helps to diversify rather than concentrate wealth and roots the value it generates in communities...
Whether today's global overcapacity is seen as cause or effect of the economic crisis, one thing is certain: it isn't easy to make a profit in a world awash with overproduction.
Technological capacity to produce enough to satisfy everyone's needs already exists globally and has done so for many decades. Yet needs continue to remain unmet on a massive scale. Why? Quite simply because scarcity is a functional requirement of capitalism itself.
Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by ANOK
is that all you advocates can do, throw dictionaries at people?
Originally posted by Xtrozero
Communism can never be reached...sorry to say. In the end when those in charge are suppose to step down and everyone is equal cannot happen with human nature a part of the equation.
"In Spain, during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties . . . this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was very quickly collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganised and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high-salaried managers, or the authority of the state.
"Even more: the various agrarian and industrial collectives immediately instituted economic equality in accordance with the essential principle of communism, 'From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.' They co-ordinated their efforts through free association in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially in agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services. They instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganisation of social life. They replaced the war between men, 'survival of the fittest,' by the universal practice of mutual aid, and replaced rivalry by the principle of solidarity . . .
"This experience, in which about eight million people directly or indirectly participated, opened a new way of life to those who sought an alternative to anti-social capitalism on the one hand, and totalitarian state bogus socialism on the other."
Originally posted by Dispo
Everyone in this thread seems to be arguing that communism is a good idea, but can't work in practice.
I disagree, it's a terrible idea.
Marx wrote that a communist society should be stateless and classless... Which means everyone is the same. No patriotism, nothing to aspire to... I don't want to be identical. I want my life to be my own, I want to be able to look over the road and say "man, I'm glad I'm not hat guy" and then look the other way and say "man, I wish I was that guy." It would be like living in a world of cybermen.
"Cybermen will remove fear. Cybermen will remove sex and class and colour and creed. You will become identical, you will become like us."
- Cyber Leader, shortly before the doctor sent them all in to the void.
Next, the idea of his "phase 2" of transition to communism requires that all wealth is collectivised - I don't like the idea of giving away my money, except £2 a month to charity to ease my conscience. Centralisation is bad because it results in more reliance on the system, and what happens if the system collapses? For instance, if the financial system and government in my country collapsed tomorrow, I have jewellery which I can use to barter with for food and shelter and not being killed. If my wealth was accumulated and held by the government, I'd be a lot worse off.
Marx also proposes an ending of the idea of private property, and the removal of the concept of inheritance. Two words which I don't like to use due to their clichéd nature: muh childrens!
tl;dr I like being a snowflake, I like having liquid assets, I like my children.