G. Beck had an interesting point on his show.

[antagon]

It is impossible to destroy all classes. Only fools seek such an ends. There will always be a necessary division of labour, and this division of labour gives rise to our first classes- the agricultural workers, the industrial workers, the bureaucrats, the petty bourgeoisie, the medical professionals, and so on. The objejctive should be not an attempt to destroy the existence of these different specialties or of other classes into which the People might organize themselves but rather to change the adversarial nature of these classes to one of cooperation for mutual benefit and healthy competition rather than aggression, unhealthy competition, and exploitation.

i could see how commie societies could work from the inception that way.. there would have to be authoritarian fascism to bring it about on an existing system where people relish the tangible valuation of their 'specialty'. (for my purposes, 'fascism' is a philosophy-driven society) hence lenin/castro/mao taking their snips of commie philosophy and ramming it down the throats of the cappies who were in place.

i really dont see the connection between commies and nazis, except for commies not pleased with their willing commune getting nazi on cappies to force it on them. similarly cappies and tree-huggers get nazi about their causes. you could liken anyone or group who strongly believes something and thinks others should concur to a fascist. i wouldnt say fascism is a system at all. communism is definitely a system, or bunch thereof.

This should be the reason not to support those kind of societies regardless of how much better it would work.

Fascism and communism were not 100% identical but fascism came right out of the same thinking as communism and was sold as a third way as a hybrid between communism and capatilism. It still had the same collective thinking as communism but it was applied on a national scale which is why fascism was hyper-nationalistic while communism was completely devoid of any sense of national identity. The point is is that both systems were both totalitarian and both systems had the same communist goals of creating a classless society.

The difference was that fascism wanted to retain its national identity.

id agree there's no merit to communism aside from people who want to indulge in that peacefully. no sampling of millions of people would buy into that shit. now that most detrctors have left, cuba is sizing up to be a fine example of a commie state.

commie philosophy, furthermore doesnt play well with others in a mixed economic setup, and im stuck on capitalism as a must-include feature of my ideal society.

your history and understanding of communism and fascism has a flat tire, and i presume you tie these ideas exclusively to the nazis and soviets which is the nail you ran over.

 

[antagon]

there would have to be authoritarian fascism to bring it about on an existing system where people relish the tangible valuation of their 'specialty'. (for my purposes, 'fascism' is a philosophy-driven society) hence lenin/castro/mao taking their snips of commie philosophy and ramming it down the throats of the cappies who were in place.

Come again?

it comes down to existentialism... a portion of society craves tangible rewards for their contribution and hopes that these rewards would elevate them and everyone they care for above the standard that the other portion is satisfied with. im one of these cats; you'd have to skin me before i participate in a system with the nicely put egalitarian ethos commies dig. dig?

another portion of society expresses the desire for a higher standard by wanting standards lowered to an equal or more equal field. for these folks, the craving for tangible rewards is satisfied by there not being rewards considerably greater than their own, rather than possessing greater rewards themselves.

i could respect how both groups feel their world views constitute fairness, although i will break a sweat in pursuit of my own fair game.

if you follow me to this point... this is where the fundamental flaw in egalitarian communism (and survival of the fittest capitalism) lies. these populations arent eradicable like fascist commies and cappies would hope. an ideal society would work within, rather than against existential paradigms to affect wide-spread satisfaction in among millions of people. they'd have to start by recognizing that there isnt just one paradigm to accommodate.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Did I just hear some moron say Cuba is a communist state?

Newsflash: Cuba is a dictatorship

 

[antagon]

buddy... cuba's got enough commie philosophy behind its modus to make it communist from where i stand. there are few larger, more productive societies with sincere commie ethos to use as an example.

no wonder why.

my point is that communism is either a tiny enclave within or without something else, or must be authoritarian. youve got to shield participants from the outside, better-functioning world by all means possible to pull that off. calling cuba a dictatorship because they are doing that there isnt fair to your beloved communism. chalk it up to *discipline and structure* as a society cant be communist and free at once, and an individual cant be communist alone.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

calling cuba a dictatorship because they are doing that there isnt fair to your beloved communism.

Are you retarded?

a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


Cuba meets that definition to a T

 

[FA_Q2]

And it matters not weather it is totalitarian. As I understand it, communism is a form of economics not one of government. You can have a capitalist society and a dictatorship. Unlikely but possible. You can also have a communist society and a dictatorship. As a matter of course, dictatorship is a far more likely outcome of communism due to the need in a larger communist society to distribute the resources evenly. Marx may have thought a democracy went hand and hand with his economic concepts but that is not how the real world works. Communism essentially requires that the goods and works of the achievers be taken and distributed to the people that are not achieving and that requires force leading to a dictatorship. I realize that much of what it means to be communist may not agree with Marx’s original concepts but that is what the real world has produced. Marx’s version of society is a fairy tale and omits basic human traits that make such a form of government and economics impossible. We could argue what Marx meant all day long but the real issue is that communism is what it is; no matter what the original founder intended or not.

 

[Diuretic]

Communism essentially requires that the goods and works of the achievers be taken and distributed to the people that are not achieving and that requires force leading to a dictatorship.

No it doesn't, on either point. It requires the means of production be owned communally and not by private individuals or corporations, so nothing can be taken away because it wasn't there in the first place. It requires everyone to partake in production and it affords everyone their needs. A dictatorship isn't required, although the dictatorship of the proletariat is a phrase we've all read and heard. What is required is planning for the economy and that's where in practical terms it can fall down. That's why market socialism has evolved as a theory. And I think perhaps the former Yugoslavia was a fair example of market socialism, although like anything else, it had its flaws.

 

[FA_Q2]

The means may be communally owned but you are not and your work is what is taken. You are not afforded the right to your own works in a communistic society. I never meant to say that a dictatorship was necessary, just likely.

 

[Kex]

Another thread on trying to define xenophobia, racism and nationalism as lefts positions? Fucking pathetic.

 

[Kex]

The means may be communally owned but you are not and your work is what is taken. You are not afforded the right to your own works in a communistic society. I never meant to say that a dictatorship was necessary, just likely.

You're not afforded right to your work in a capitalistic society either. Your work is taken by your owner who affords you with whatever he seems fit.

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[Diuretic]

It wasn't until the 19th Century that a word was required for the situation where someone couldn't find paid work. Think about it.

Okay, you thought about it.

Where the means of production are owned privately then work is only available on the terms set by the owners of the means of production. And the owners of the means of production only want sufficient minimal numbers of employees to guarantee that their enterprise can function. Take that to a society-wide basis and it means that where the means of production are privately owned there will be "unemployment" (that was the word coined in the 19th Century). The twin laws of demand and supply, when applied to labour, mean that there must be more people looking for work then jobs available, that keeps wages down to a level that the owners like to pay because it means they get their surplus value. Where everyone who can work gets a job leads to the situation where owners are bargaining against each other with workers to come and work for them and that isn't good for the owners as it means they pay wages which are higher than they want to.

Where the means of production are socially owned people who can work must work but they don't get exploited as they do in a free market economy.

 

[Paulie]

And what happens when someone wants to break away from this nirvana and be their own person who chooses to go in an opposite direction of the 'nirvanized society'?

They leave. They need not physically move, but they break the bond, neither contributing to nor benefiting from the social effort. This is contrary to the current system, where any such attempt results in the IRS and the FBI raiding your house.

But if they "leave", what resources will they have available to them? They can not own anything personally, so they are DEPENDENT on their commune.

All this really does is shrink the size of bodies of power down from an entire state, to a little commune. Nothing else really changes.

There doesn't NEED to be FBI and IRS, because the commune knows that individuals can not sustain themselves alone in such a system. Instead of forcing its will on individuals, the commune simply replies upon the fact that everyone NEEDS it.

This isn't freedom.

No group or team or commune, or what have you, can sustain itself without some form of leadership. Power will seek more power, it's inevitable.

 

[Kex]

It wasn't until the 19th Century that a word was required for the situation where someone couldn't find paid work. Think about it.

Okay, you thought about it.

Where the means of production are owned privately then work is only available on the terms set by the owners of the means of production. And the owners of the means of production only want sufficient minimal numbers of employees to guarantee that their enterprise can function. Take that to a society-wide basis and it means that where the means of production are privately owned there will be "unemployment" (that was the word coined in the 19th Century). The twin laws of demand and supply, when applied to labour, mean that there must be more people looking for work then jobs available, that keeps wages down to a level that the owners like to pay because it means they get their surplus value. Where everyone who can work gets a job leads to the situation where owners are bargaining against each other with workers to come and work for them and that isn't good for the owners as it means they pay wages which are higher than they want to.

Where the means of production are socially owned people who can work must work but they don't get exploited as they do in a free market economy.

Woah, woah, woah my communist buddy! Suggesting to not be owned is way too much to handle!

 

[Kex]

And what happens when someone wants to break away from this nirvana and be their own person who chooses to go in an opposite direction of the 'nirvanized society'?

They leave. They need not physically move, but they break the bond, neither contributing to nor benefiting from the social effort. This is contrary to the current system, where any such attempt results in the IRS and the FBI raiding your house.

But if they "leave", what resources will they have available to them? They can not own anything personally, so they are DEPENDENT on their commune.

All this really does is shrink the size of bodies of power down from an entire state, to a little commune. Nothing else really changes. Power will seek more power, it's inevitable.

There doesn't NEED to be FBI and IRS, because the commune knows that individuals can not sustain themselves alone in such a system. Instead of forcing its will on individuals, the commune simply replies upon the fact that everyone NEEDS it.

This isn't freedom.

There is no freedom.

 

[Kex]

No group or team or commune, or what have you, can sustain itself without some form of leadership. Power will seek more power, it's inevitable.

Of course. Thus you're a herd throwing around meaningless words as freedom.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

s I understand it, communism is a form of economics not one of government.

Communism is a (family of) socioeconomic system(s).

 

[antagon]

calling cuba a dictatorship because they are doing that there isnt fair to your beloved communism.

Are you retarded?

a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


Cuba meets that definition to a T

cuba has a constitution, dummy. laws too. it establishes the most legit communist nation on the planet, imho... all for what that's worth.

didnt read your link. 'dictatorship' and 'fascism' are among terms projected onto regimes by their enemies. cubans, hundreds of thousands who are proud of their country, and havent or dont want to abandon it, dont find it to be a dictatorship, rather a workers' republic.

your communism cannot accommodate opposition, but with the extremes of total exclusion or fascist inclusion (extermination/incarceration). seems your head is too deep in books or internet resources to recognize real-world applications... typical of folks who think communism is a viable system for governance of large populations

 

[Ame®icano]

calling cuba a dictatorship because they are doing that there isnt fair to your beloved communism.

Are you retarded?

a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


Cuba meets that definition to a T

cuba has a constitution, dummy. laws too. it establishes the most legit communist nation on the planet, imho... all for what that's worth.

didnt read your link. 'dictatorship' and 'fascism' are among terms projected onto regimes by their enemies. cubans, hundreds of thousands who are proud of their country, and havent or dont want to abandon it, dont find it to be a dictatorship, rather a workers' republic.

your communism cannot accommodate opposition, but with the extremes of total exclusion or fascist inclusion (extermination/incarceration). seems your head is too deep in books or internet resources to recognize real-world applications... typical of folks who think communism is a viable system for governance of large populations

Guess what, Romania was "legit communist nation" too, Romanians were so proud of their dictator (that’s how enemies called him) Nikolai Ceausescu then they killed him first time they get the chance. Btw, he and his communist wrote their constitution, just like Castro wrote Cuban. Since Cuba is heaven on earth, Americans are fleeing there in large numbers... oh wait, they don't. Why don't you be the first who's done that?

 

[antagon]

Are you retarded?

a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


Cuba meets that definition to a T

cuba has a constitution, dummy. laws too. it establishes the most legit communist nation on the planet, imho... all for what that's worth.

didnt read your link. 'dictatorship' and 'fascism' are among terms projected onto regimes by their enemies. cubans, hundreds of thousands who are proud of their country, and havent or dont want to abandon it, dont find it to be a dictatorship, rather a workers' republic.

your communism cannot accommodate opposition, but with the extremes of total exclusion or fascist inclusion (extermination/incarceration). seems your head is too deep in books or internet resources to recognize real-world applications... typical of folks who think communism is a viable system for governance of large populations

Guess what, Romania was "legit communist nation" too, Romanians were so proud of their dictator (that’s how enemies called him) Nikolai Ceausescu then they killed him first time they get the chance. Btw, he and his communist wrote their constitution, just like Castro wrote Cuban. Since Cuba is heaven on earth, Americans are fleeing there in large numbers... oh wait, they don't. Why don't you be the first who's done that?

prole was trying to say cuba was not communist, but a dictatorship. im trying to say that cuba has more communist principals at work than your shitty example, romania, or any other state i could think of. i further posit that authoritarian rule is endemic in making a large population adhere to communism, or you'll have to have an open border, and tolerate coexistence of a different economic model, notwithstanding.

having been to cuba, id say the food and the folks are nice, but i know its not heaven on earth. its communist, after all, a type of hell on earth by my standard. the majority of the cubans left there arent as dissatisfied as many americans think or miami-cubans make it seem like. the government is not as up-tight as it was in the '80s and earlier, either.

you pack a big hype punch, 'cano. i think it makes you an idiot. if you cool off a little bit, your reading comprehension may serve to aprise you of my point, and that im not a fan of communism.