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

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Japaneses are working on that.

Capitalist Japan ....... Sorry, but you simply cannot reply to my argument properly

You simply cannot get through your head that it's human nature for people, like here on this thread even, that people will disagree and many times there will be no compromise.

As for the death comment a post or 2 back, well that shows exactly what Communists would resort to being it a serious or sarcastic comment, it's in your nature to kill without knowing it to solve problems

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

Capitalist Japan ....... Sorry, but you simply cannot reply to my argument properly

You simply cannot get through your head that it's human nature for people, like here on this thread even, that people will disagree and many times there will be no compromise.

As for the death comment a post or 2 back, well that shows exactly what Communists would resort to being it a serious or sarcastic comment, it's in your nature to kill without knowing it to solve problems

You misunderstand me.
I do not speak about killing. Stalin's quote was more general, I suppose. I was not with him when he said that, but it's a typical pragmatic point of view.

I only can speak about my personal analysis.
When people reach a certain level of morality, they think they can't put babies on this cruel world. So... they do not have child and disappear.

Only immoral or naive people or naive ones reproduce themselves, like people having children to pay their pension and clean their asses when being old. How fair are they? They aren't. They are hidden exploiters.
If Communism is the upper state of a society, it's because people will stop to exploit other people. It's a classless society.

IMO, after Communism, human mankind will disappear or becoming immortal cyborgs.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

As Marx and Engels observed, Communism is the state after Capitalism.

That's an aspiration, not an "observation".

No liberal market democracy has been replaced by utopian communism; on a number of occasions we _have_ seen regimes ranging from from monarchies to liberal or social democracies replaced by Marxist tyrannies.

There is no "observation" at all that "communism is the state after capitalism" in the sense that you can "observe" it happening somewhere as a natural process.

[Enrico32]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

Until such time they disagree with each other or their "panel of experts"
And it all falls apart

The US once almost fell apart due to Civil War.

But I wonder why only one, though. Ancient Persia had millennia of civil war - to reign meant to constantly suppress the rebelling provinces. As if the Americans have some magic ability to agree better than others?

[Enrico32]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

That's an aspiration, not an "observation".

No liberal market democracy has been replaced by utopian communism; on a number of occasions we _have_ seen regimes ranging from from monarchies to liberal or social democracies replaced by Marxist tyrannies.

There is no "observation" at all that "communism is the state after capitalism" in the sense that you can "observe" it happening somewhere as a natural process.

So you'd say Marx and Engels messed it up as economists? They were bourgeois economists, after all, and relied on the same premises as many subsequent scientists. AND they witnessed the fall of the Paris Commune BUT did not cease to support their idea.

Can you spot their main mistake? Too much reliance on tradeunions?

[Enrico32]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Again, that's where markets have a value. If there aren't enough plumbers, plumbers make more money. That makes being a plumber a more attractive job.

Can you name some jobs that disappeared because of lack of labor?

If no, this will mean the evil magic of capitalism (or perhaps humanity in total) -- labor always loses.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Enrico32

So you'd say Marx and Engels messed it up as economists?

They weren't economists. They didn't measure economic activity. They were keen observers of the interplay of politics, finance and industry, but their economics was nil.

They made an attempt to elaborate a "labor theory of value" -- but its essentially useless. Back in the day, you'd find people studying that in grad school in Moscow or Beijing, but no one bothers today-- not even "Marxists".

Today, Marxism offers a political program, a "this is how things should be", but its not a way of measuring unemployment or estimating inflation rates. Marxist economists can't tell you whether an airline should charge $109 or $129 for a seat on a flight, can't tell you whether a price is the result of a cartels' collusion or free market. In other words, Marx doesn't offer tools to address the problems economist face every day.

Originally Posted by Enrico32

Can you name some jobs that disappeared because of lack of labor?

If no, this will mean the evil magic of capitalism (or perhaps humanity in total) -- labor always loses.

There are all sorts of occupations that have disappeared because of lack of _demand_.

Farriers -- men who shoe horses. Telephone operators. Lamplighters. Copy boys. Lectors (people who would read aloud to you to amuse you). Scriveners/copyists (people who would copy over documents in longhand)

Castrati is the only occupation I can think of where supply disappeared (there are lots of men who have sex changes, but almost never before puberty, which is how it worked with the castrati). With that one exception, I can't think of a profession that's disappeared from lack of _supply_. That is, if someone is willing to pay someone to do something, at the right price you'll find someone willing to do it.

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Y
IMO, after Communism, human mankind will disappear or becoming immortal cyborgs.

WTF

Originally Posted by deepsepia

That's an aspiration, not an "observation".

No liberal market democracy has been replaced by utopian communism; on a number of occasions we _have_ seen regimes ranging from from monarchies to liberal or social democracies replaced by Marxist tyrannies.

There is no "observation" at all that "communism is the state after capitalism" in the sense that you can "observe" it happening somewhere as a natural process.

Spot on

xyzde still hasn't answered how in a Commie Utopia the panel of experts will decide on something when they are split on a decision, apart from attempting my style of sarcasm

So, I'll run it down like this

Can't have the public decide, democracy is bad , unless we let 12 year olds vote

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

WTF



Spot on

xyzde still hasn't answered how in a Commie Utopia the panel of experts will decide on something when they are split on a decision, apart from attempting my style of sarcasm

So, I'll run it down like this

Can't have the public decide, democracy is bad , unless we let 12 year olds vote

Come on Estreeter... we only need to put an odd number of experts.
There never will be a split.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

That's an aspiration, not an "observation".

No liberal market democracy has been replaced by utopian communism; on a number of occasions we _have_ seen regimes ranging from from monarchies to liberal or social democracies replaced by Marxist tyrannies.

There is no "observation" at all that "communism is the state after capitalism" in the sense that you can "observe" it happening somewhere as a natural process.

That's correct. It's an aspiration.
An aspiration that obsviously you dislike, because you prefer social segregation and defend illegitimate privileges, that both tend to "soft" forms of tyrannies. (Like creating sanctions against populations that have decided to collectivize the wealth more that you think that has to be)

Originally Posted by deepsepia

They weren't economists. They didn't measure economic activity. They were keen observers of the interplay of politics, finance and industry, but their economics was nil.

Economy is a fake science based on nothing.
It's unreal. It's a tissue of shit, that confers importance to people that have learned these craps at university, but that can put million of people in poverty, suffering wars perpetrated by teams of super-armed scoundrels sending their stupid lackays blindly killing innocent people or dying for their illegitimate causes.

Economists are like "Nostradamus", but get a diplom of "Nostradamus".
They predict and when politicians follow their predictions, people in South America, Asia or Africa are killed, billion of animals disappear or are treated like objects. Nature is destroyed.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

That's correct. It's an aspiration.
An aspiration that obsviously you dislike, because you prefer social segregation and defend illegitimate privileges, that both tend to "soft" forms of tyrannies. (Like creating sanctions against populations that have decided to transfer the collectivize the wealth more that you think that has to be)

Oh indeed - there are no hierarchies in nature, it's all an artificial human construct that society has rank and structure. Back in the caveman days, when food was short everyone got an equal share, and of course the men never fought one another over women.

Aspirations which are divorced from real human behaviour will at best remain theoretical. Attempts to make them actual lead to artificial societies, of which the USSR was by no means the worst example. Left to themselves and without enforced compliance, no human society ever forms a communist model. The communist societies themselves quickly deviate from the true faith and form hierachies, for example if your name is preceded by the honorific "Comrade Commissar" you don't have to queue with the others.

Better to not pretend and to have structures which require human competition to be within socially acceptable rules of fair play, and to be open and above board.