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

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Communism directly pushes more consumption, more production. That's the aim of every "Five year Plan" -- more production, usually of heavy industry and minerals. Coal, iron ore, ships built, etc.


"“With shock labor we will ensure prompt delivery of the giants of the Five Year Plan” 1931

Because under communism the State is both the manufacturer and simultaneous the regulator of the manufacturers, there's effectively no environmental regulation. In market economies, the State and the environmental regulator are effectively adversaries-- that means that the EPA is far more likely to take action against a polluting industry than a communist regulator.

You sadly are wrong. Estreeter finally understood what means REAL Communism. You still don't.

Originally Posted by Estreeter

I hate to say this but I actually disagree, see that's not real communism
Under real communism there would be less production and use of natural resources just look at Slab Town

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Communism directly pushes more consumption, more production. That's the aim of every "Five year Plan" -- more production, usually of heavy industry and minerals. Coal, iron ore, ships built, etc.


"“With shock labor we will ensure prompt delivery of the giants of the Five Year Plan” 1931

Because under communism the State is both the manufacturer and simultaneous the regulator of the manufacturers, there's effectively no environmental regulation. In market economies, the State and the environmental regulator are effectively adversaries-- that means that the EPA is far more likely to take action against a polluting industry than a communist regulator.

You sadly are wrong. Estreeter finally understood what means REAL Communism. You still don't.

Originally Posted by Estreeter

I hate to say this but I actually disagree, see that's not real communism
Under real communism there would be less production and use of natural resources just look at Slab Town

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

But - the evil money prevents them from buying all the things they wish to have, yes? Because the capitalists don't let them have very much.

They manipulate money.
We don't know what is true, what it's not. It's all fake.

In 2008 Capitalism has collapsed and suddenly was saved. Banks were saved.
But if one day you will unable to pay your debt to your banker, try to ask the President of your country to save you.

Capitalism and money are pure lies.

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

Even Einstein expresses some doubts at the end of that article, talking about over-oppressive bureaucracies and such. He also has an excess of faith in his fellow man - a very common failing amongst those who spend their lives theorizing.

I'm glad you read it.

I think I was transparent mentionning the full article. Look how real communist I try to be.
He feared bureaucracy like a lot of libertarian Communist or Anarchist thinkers.
I've always doubt myself.
What is the best to reach the goal? Socialism (state Capitalism) or Anarchism ?
With fair and caring people both system or anti-system would be the same.
That's all the problem. Jealousy, greed, envy (the 7th sins).

Einstein even said about Lenin.

"I honor Lenin as a man who completely sacrificed himself and devoted all his energy to the realization of social justice. I do not consider his methods practical, but one thing is certain: men of his type are the guardians and restorers of humanity."

Guardians and restorers of humanity.

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

In the real world, you declare communism and say all the peasants are equal, and that we will be having boiled potatoes with salt for supper, one or more of the peasants will demand beef stroganoff and wine in a crystal glass instead, and then you have to shoot them and send the rest of the peasants to bed without supper, or else - you know, no communism.

That's not the notion of REAL Communism.

The slogan is: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

If peasants will want to get beef stroganoff and wine, they will have to associate themselves together without disturbing the ones who do not want to be involved in their whims.

But yeah. I understand your point. Humanity is too rotten to become Real Communists.

But it seems that native Americans were more Communists. I don't really know.

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

You sadly are wrong. Estreeter finally understood what means REAL Communism. You still don't.

I forgot to add in totally useless between where I typed resources and just look at Slab Town

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

If peasants will want to get beef stroganoff and wine, they will have to associate themselves together without disturbing the ones who do not want to be involved in their whims.

But what happens when the peasants eating boiled potatoes get jealous of the ones eating beef stroganoff and wine, and demand that they be given the same thing, or else the other peasants must be made to live on boiled potatoes too, regardless of the fact that they worked for their better food?

Originally Posted by xyzde69

But it seems that native Americans were more Communists. I don't really know.

That's a common misperception. They didn't have much in the way of material goods, because they had no factories.

But they loved to wage war on each other and take each other's goods. Also, they had money, and they kept slaves.

If you walked into an indian village 200 years ago and told them what good peaceable communists they were, they'd probably scalp you on general principles.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

You sadly are wrong. Estreeter finally understood what means REAL Communism. You still don't.

Here's the funny thing: you define "real communism" as something that no communist nation ever does!

Marx and Engels certainly were in love with smokestacks, coal mines and factories. He's got no interest at all in peasants, who he considers reactionary.

Stalin isn't inventing anything-- he's reading Marx far more carefully than you. Marx was all about industrial workers' ownership of "the means of production" -- and that means, overwhelmingly, a preference for fixed industrial capital: railroads, factories and mines.

You have a fantasy of some sort of agrarian life but its got nothing to do with Marx or communism. Its most commonly found in religious communities, the Doukhobors or the Amish for example; none of which has anything to do with Marx or Engels.

As you'll recall, Marx speaks not of some small farmer making his own choices, but rather of

Originally Posted by Karl Marx

Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

So no, a "Marxist" isn't left to tend his plot as he likes, he's part of an "industrial army", whether in the factory or on a collective farm.

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Here's the funny thing

This entire thread

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Marx and Engels certainly were in love with smokestacks, coal mines and factories

C'mon Mate, they were not "real communists", real ones would never harm the Earth or use it's resources

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Here's the funny thing

Again

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Its most commonly found in religious communities, the Doukhobors or the Amish for example; none of which has anything to do with Marx or Engels.

Ironic that the Amish who are probably the closest there is to real communism yet they are very religious, the very same thing I've seen xyzde rubbish on here and of course commie's discourage, persecute, shun, suppress, ban and so on

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

Ironic that the Amish who are probably the closest there is to real communism yet they are very religious, the very same thing I've seen xyzde rubbish on here and of course commie's discourage, persecute, shun, suppress, ban and so on

If xyz had to work on an Amish farm during harvest time he'd keel over after 3 days and they'd send him back to town on a wagon with his commie books propping up his reeling noggin.

I wonder how long he'd last in a Soviet steel foundry?

[sobaka]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Here's the funny thing: you define "real communism" as something that no communist nation ever does!

Marx and Engels certainly were in love with smokestacks, coal mines and factories. He's got no interest at all in peasants, who he considers reactionary.

Stalin isn't inventing anything-- he's reading Marx far more carefully than you. Marx was all about industrial workers' ownership of "the means of production" -- and that means, overwhelmingly, a preference for fixed industrial capital: railroads, factories and mines.

You have a fantasy of some sort of agrarian life but its got nothing to do with Marx or communism. Its most commonly found in religious communities, the Doukhobors or the Amish for example; none of which has anything to do with Marx or Engels.

As you'll recall, Marx speaks not of some small farmer making his own choices, but rather of

So no, a "Marxist" isn't left to tend his plot as he likes, he's part of an "industrial army", whether in the factory or on a collective farm.

Well his definition is probably closest to that of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. What is really amusing is that since XYZ is a self-proclaimed intelligentsia (note i said self-proclaimed, he actually has not proven anything of the sort given his misreadings and misinterpretations). he most likely would have been the first to be converted to fertilizer to establish his low-energy agrarian dystopia...

[Enrico32]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Here's the funny thing: you define "real communism" as something that no communist nation ever does!

Marx and Engels certainly were in love with smokestacks, coal mines and factories. He's got no interest at all in peasants, who he considers reactionary.

I don't get your preoccupation with Marx. The tread's about communism. Communism is as ancient as humanity. Some trace it back to the Apostolic creed (Christian communism).

Some people have lived very-very close to communism for centuries -- Hutterites and Mennonites, German-French dwellers in general.

And yes, even modern Switzerland may still be very close to communism. Ever been there? Some people still hold the Landsgemeine meetings and vote by hands! And hold real army weapons at home for their army is a people's one (yes, resembling North Korea in this respect).

The question is, why communism tend not to last. Is it really that primitive and suitable only to peasants-artisans? On one hand, better technologies should have made small-commune-living more profitable.

[Enrico32]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

You sadly are wrong. Estreeter finally understood what means REAL Communism. You still don't.

Hi Xyz, what do you think of Ochs and La Harpe?

That Swiss ceased to be free-commune-dwellers and got a centralist country styled after Napoleonic France?