Communism. Good or bad. What do you really know about Communism?

[Mosco Vito]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

Regardless of everything you have posted, xyzde69, you always fail to take into account that humans are individual creatures, and want to do what they want to do, whether it be good or evil.

Capitalism, though not perfect, allows humans great and small to do what they want, to a greater degree than a rigid belief system like Communism ever can. This is why capitalism wins out. It has won out in the former USSR, and is in the process of winning out in China.

Unless you pick up a gun and force people to do things your way, you will be forever relegated to the status of sputtering pseudo-intellectual, poring over old socialist texts and scolding your fellow humans for their "evil" ways.

In the countries of the former USSR (except, perhaps, the Baltic States) won rather than capitalism, but a modernized version of feudalism.

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by Mosco Vito

In the countries of the former USSR (except, perhaps, the Baltic States) won rather than capitalism, but a modernized version of feudalism.

One can equate feudalism with capitalism to a degree. All the great fat oligarchs are capitalists. It's just that there is absolutely zero trickle-down effect due to overwhelming greed and the massive and perpetual entrenchment of corruption in the government.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

One can equate feudalism with capitalism to a degree. All the great fat oligarchs are capitalists. It's just that there is absolutely zero trickle-down effect due to overwhelming greed and the massive and perpetual entrenchment of corruption in the government.

If you don't like egalitarian societies, how would you improve capitalism in the way to be more fair ?
Because if I understood well, you also observed there are inherent problems in Capitalism. Isn't it?

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

Regardless of everything you have posted, xyzde69, you always fail to take into account that humans are individual creatures, and want to do what they want to do, whether it be good or evil.

Capitalism, though not perfect, allows humans great and small to do what they want, to a greater degree than a rigid belief system like Communism ever can. This is why capitalism wins out. It has won out in the former USSR, and is in the process of winning out in China.

Unless you pick up a gun and force people to do things your way, you will be forever relegated to the status of sputtering pseudo-intellectual, poring over old socialist texts and scolding your fellow humans for their "evil" ways.

IMO, this stage of capitalist development is not the last word in human social and political relationships. I would expect that we will choose more egalitarian forms of wealth distribution if we survive into the future. Command economies and the complete eradication of capitalism seem implausible.

However, the evidence points to a mass extinction event, severe shortages of water for drinking and irrigation, the collapse of agriculture, and wars, including the use of nuclear weapons, over dwindling resources. Should a remnant survive, a return to hunter gatherer arrangements is likely.

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

If you don't like egalitarian societies, how would you improve capitalism in the way to be more fair ?
Because if I understood well, you also observed there are inherent problems in Capitalism. Isn't it?

Of course capitalism has its problems, I'd be a fool to claim otherwise.

But it's hard to offer solutions that are "fair".

Originally Posted by Brian249x

IMO, this stage of capitalist development is not the last word in human social and political relationships. I would expect that we will choose more egalitarian forms of wealth distribution if we survive into the future. Command economies and the complete eradication of capitalism seem implausible.

However, the evidence points to a mass extinction event, severe shortages of water for drinking and irrigation, the collapse of agriculture, and wars, including the use of nuclear weapons, over dwindling resources. Should a remnant survive, a return to hunter gatherer arrangements is likely.

Despite the claims of the technophiles that we are heading towards Utopia, I am somewhat of a "negative Nellie" and believe we are slowly heading towards disaster. Mysticism, superstition and fundamentalism seem to be on the rise, at least in the USA, look who the people have chosen to govern them. Very few actually WANT to look at what is coming, they will only bestir themselves once they are overbalanced on the precipice, and by then it will be too late.

I think that within 200 years there will be a global societal collapse that will dwarf the implosion of Rome. What comes after that I cannot really say. An optimist would say that the survivors will resurrect technology and create a Star Trek sort of society, but all of the resources will be used up, so how? A more likely scenario is a post apocalyptic society like the one in "The Postman", with people farming at a subsistence level and beset by barbarian warlords. Even if some regional organization returns it will be a society living at a pre-industrial level; unless aliens come with interstellar aid, I don't think they would ever be able to reconstruct the glittering jewel that is the modern world as we know it today.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

IMO, this stage of capitalist development is not the last word in human social and political relationships. I would expect that we will choose more egalitarian forms of wealth distribution if we survive into the future. Command economies and the complete eradication of capitalism seem implausible.

However, the evidence points to a mass extinction event, severe shortages of water for drinking and irrigation, the collapse of agriculture, and wars, including the use of nuclear weapons, over dwindling resources. Should a remnant survive, a return to hunter gatherer arrangements is likely.

So. Why not planning that NOW ?

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

What I cannot understand is you have said the best way to destroy capitalism is to not support it buy spending money on it's consumer items. You've also stayed that worker need to be paid more ...... Well what would they want more money for other than spend it don't make sense to me to have more money yet not spend it

Those are not to be considered as the same problem. They are not contradictions.

1) To make benefits and to get the possibilities to reinject a part (or the totality) of the benefits in the economy in the way to make even more benefits, that's typically the process of Capitalism. Making benefits means that the working force never is paid at its real price. Usually a commodity must be sold without any benefit. That's all the analyse of Marx in the first chapters of "das Kapital".

2) Destroying Capitalism by not reinjecting money in it, is the most basic and non-violent way to annihilate it.
People producing as example Ford cars, if they don't sell them, they have to find a new job. As long as customers only buy fair products, all the useless productions will disappear. That requires to educate the population or at least to open their eyes.

Historically speaking, when there was a split between two egalitarian thinkers (Marx and Bakunin), Bakunin who was one of the thinkers of Anarchism didn't agree with Marx to create a state that would control all the society until that the people would be educated to become fair and egalitarian people. He thought that following Marx concepts would bring the people under a form of dictature. (And that's what happened under Stalin). But on the economical analysis, Bakunin admired Marx.

With other Anarchists thinkers, Bakunin observed that the best way to negotiate with Bourgeoisie would be to go on strike.
Strike is an anarchist concept. When you go on strike, you follow an Anarchist concept.
To let the lazy and greedy Bourgeois making their own production by themselves was the best way to show their hypocrisy.
Non reinjecting money in the market is another form of commercial strike.

At that time there were several concepts of egalitarian societies:

- Mutualism (Proudhon)
- Socio-Communism (Marx)
- Anarchism (Bakunin)

On this link, I put 3 links of a very interesting documentary on the History of Anarchism.
Feel free to take the time to watch why the workers wanted a more egalitarian society.

[Mal Hombre]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

So. Why not planifying that NOW ?

xyzde,Your English is far better than My French ever was but..There's no such word as "Planifying".I doubt that any party advocating the Mad Max society model would garner many votes..

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

xyzde,Your English is far better than My French ever was but..There's no such word as "Planifying".I doubt that any party advocating the Mad Max society model would garner many votes..

Thank you Mal.

As I do when I translate French to Portuguese, French to Italian, French to English, French to German, I use some tricks that sometimes are wrong.

Example:
Dénier -> to deny
relier -> to rely

So... planifier -> to planify...

I went on google translate, and planifier = to plan.
Planification = planning.
Thank you.

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

So... planifier -> to planify...

I went on google translate, and planifier = to plan.
Planification = planning.

I quite like "planify" - Shakespeare was always creating new English words so why not xyzde69.