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

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Roubignol

Forget Stalin and Co a little bit. They are now dead and buried.

Kim Jong Un is very much alive, torturing, starving and murdering his people.

And no one. . . despite a century of Marxism in power, has achieved what you dream about. They don't even try, when they get the chance. Instead, they murder people.

Originally Posted by Roubignol

It's my right to have my own opinion about what Communism must be.
I've got a very romantic opinion about real Communism.

"My" perception of real Communism is like a love story.

. . . in other words, a fantasy.

What's important with a fantasy is to know that its a fantasy.

American snake handlers have a religious fantasy that they can handle poisonous snakes without harm, because of some bible verse that they misread.

That's all fine as a fantasy.

Pick up a rattlesnake and start singing it hymns . . . then the difference between fantasy and reality becomes important.

Its important to understand the death toll associated with daydreams.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

That's all fine as a fantasy.

And your fantasy is to privatise the world and you try by all the ways to make your fantasy real in giving all the powers to the richests. Not the nicests, but the richests.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Roubignol

And your fantasy is to privatise the world and you try by all the ways to make your fantasy real in giving all the powers to the richests. Not the nicests, but the richests.

No, not at all.

I believe in market democracy and the welfare state.

Moreover, my ideas aren't a fantasy. I can look at countries which are very pleasant to live in -- including your own-- which have implemented these policies without recourse to secret police, cults of personality and one party states.

I've no argument with national health insurance-- I support it. I've no argument with a guaranteed basic income. I've no argument with higher taxes on the wealthy.

My argument is with the proposition that the State/Party should dictate every transaction and own all property in society.

What I advocate exists, is pleasant, and works. People around the world would love to live in New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Australia.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

No, not at all.

I believe in market democracy and the welfare state.

[...]

What I advocate exists, is pleasant, and works. People around the world would love to live in New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Australia.

Your description of Communism has nothing to do with Communism.
It's the description that you have decided to accept as it was promoted by your masters.

Real Communism is fantastic. It's a society in which criminality and wars disappear, in which people take the time to admire nature, in which people spontaneously collaborate together to resolve natural challenges.

I don't know what kind of satisfaction Capitalist people can get in wasting their lifetime to produce ... craps, in promoting adversity, addiction and even hatred, in being afraid to lose their job instead to share it.
That's all wrong.

Probably real Communism will never be reached, because human being is always unsatified and terribly vicious.
Probably the market is the best way to pacify humanity.
But that's a little bit sad to see that the main relashionship between people is based on the notion of debt, or in other words in the notion of "I agree to help you, but do not forget that you will have to help me in the future." That's what money means: it's a debt recognition.

I repeat, your description of Communism is everything but Communism.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Roubignol

Your description of Communism has nothing to do with Communism..

Again, let's focus on what's real, as opposed to daydreams.

"My description of Communism" -- is what Communists have built, everywhere they've been given the chance.

_Your_ description of communism, is by your own admission your personal fantasy, not something that Marx advocated, not something that any Communist in power has ever done.

I'd add that you talk out of both sides of your mouth, on the one hand seeming to distance yourself from the brutality of Stalin,

Originally Posted by Roubignol

Forget Stalin and Co a little bit. They are now dead and buried.

and at other times endorsing it

Originally Posted by Roubignol

People who were sent to Gulag were exploiters, not good caring Communists,

. . . forget about whether or not you agree with me.

You don't even agree with _you_ from one post to the next.

One moment Stalin is a bad guy, the next moment you think his 1936 Constitution was rainbows and daisies and the Gulag was justice in action.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

not something that Marx advocated,

Let me recall you what Marx has advocated (not in order).

1) Improving human condition thanks to total human collaboration,
2) Not letting anymore the power in hands of the exploiters,
3) Distancing ourselves from any kind of form of alienation to reach as close as possible freedom.

For sure... for exploiters manipulating the weak minded, it's a program that must be fought by all means.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Roubignol

Let me recall you what Marx has advocated (not in order).

Marx advocated "industrial armies of agriculture" -- now of course, he didn't know a plow from his ass, but every communist took that to mean collective farms.

And every time they collectivized -- by force, because farmers didn't want it-- it included murder and starvation.

Marx is very clear that his program is necessarily coercive.

And again, like you, Marx was a coffee shop daydreamer.

He never ran anything.

All sorts of things are possible, if you sit in a comfy chair, drinking an expresso and have free wi-fi.

So long as you remain in your comfy chair, communism is just great. Its like kindergarten. There's a nice teacher, and she'll make sure that everyone gets to play with the fire engine.

That ain't how the world works. Assign that nice teacher all power over all property and every transaction in society, and you'll find out -- she's not so nice after all.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

And every time they collectivized -- by force, because farmers didn't want it--

Why farmers didn't want it?

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

Rougie has one question to answer, will the "panel of experts" have a police force with guns to enforce their decisions?

It's a stark "yes or no" question.

If the answer is "yes" then they are not merely "consultative".

That's to the community to decide.
That's not the job of the panel of experts or Rougie.
You didn't read my improved 1936 Constitution. The panel of experts is consultative but not authoritarian. They are not elected forever and they even are revocable.

I don't know in which American state do you live or in which you were born.
In my country, politically speaking, we are very very close to Communism.
Actually my fellow citizens have decided economically to follow the Capitalist way. That's their choice and I've to respect their choice, even if I think that's a huge mistake.
It seems that some American states are politically very close from Switzerland.

[Mal Hombre]

Farmers didn't want it because they wanted to run Their own farms the way they wanted.They wanted to grow what they wanted,Sell what they could and hand the farm on to their children.Under Collectivization,They and their children would be merely labourers on their own land,Having to grow what they were told and often having to see the crops taken to feed other people elsewhere,Leaving them with meagre rations.

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

Under Collectivization,They and their children would be merely labourers on their own land,Having to grow what they were told and often having to see the crops taken to feed other people elsewhere,Leaving them with meagre rations.

Exactly, which means that farmers are even worse off under collectivism than they are under the corporate agricultural capitalism that has forced so many farmers off the land in the USA. They at least still eat well.

And we still HAVE independent farmers here, though it is an increasingly tough go for them.

People working their own land tend to be more creative about what they plant, and the harvests tend to be larger.

I once saw a picture of Soviet peasants picking missed crops out of a very sloppily harvested field after the official collective harvesters had been through. There was a lot left lying on the ground, I mean wastage that would never be tolerated under private enterprise, and the peasants were picking up the wastage to eat themselves or trade for something else.

So that's what you get under collectivism - crop wastage because crops are harvested by people who don't give a damn, resulting in much reduced yields, which means the other collectivized people in the cities get less food, so live half starved or at least on minimum rations, and a black market in vegetables and other foodstuffs, which people have to engage in under Rougie's "fair" system in order to just get by.