How many have you read of the top 10?

[Lyion]

There is no such thing as purely benevolent Government. Communism is an idea. That idea was the basis of many, many bad governments.

We are labelling communism 'evil' because of the way the governments form, treat their people, and inhibit freedoms. That is much different than a democratic country which made some mistakes, but generally promotes freedom and liberty for its people.

While we have some black spots, I'd hardly compare the U.S. to Nazi Germany.

[xaoshaen]

Marx envisioned overthrowing the greedy, for the good of all

which seems the opposite of evil

Thats not the opposite of evil. You're thinking that it is alright to sacrifice a few people (though with communism, it's not a few) to serve the many, which is flawed ideology in and of itself. True good does not have victims.

So, then I guess democracy is evil too? Or did you forget about that little Revolution it took to establish a democratic government in the U.S.?

[xaoshaen]

You are on a tangent nitpicking, Xao.

"The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." –Karl Marx

Communism for us applies to the social system, the political movement, and the underlying idealogy.

Umm, I'm sorry Lyion, but that's not true. Socialism and Communism are distinct ideas, much like Democracy and Capitalism.

Many have 'tailored' communist theory to their own desires. Mao believed his communism is communism and an addendum. His billion votes trump your one.

That's like saying that many have 'tailored' democratic theory to their own desires. Witness the list of "democratic" warlords.

You are eschewing it as solely the product of the original document which was from the 1800s, and not the encompassing parts, or continuing evolution. Thats fine, and I see where you are coming from. We may be wrong in labelling communist regimes communist, but its our position to do so. I stated the reason why its done, not if it's right or wrong.

For the record, I'm not eschewing anything here. If anything, I'm doing the exact opposite in regards to communism. I'm looking at the source material for communism, from the individuals who created it. Simply because other systems mutated the basic principles of communism and proceeded to lay claim to the title, it doesn't mean that they're actually communist. Witness the petty dictatorships claiming to be democracies, or hell, the People's Republic of China. If you're going to simply belive titles, how do you reconcile China's nomenclatural duality?

Leninism is a branch of Marxism which is a derivitive of communism. Don't take my word for it, read for yourself here.

The communes Ganzo are referencing are different from a 'Communist State', paradox that is of course.

I'll stick with actual Communism, not twisted derivatives of it, thanks.

Unlike what you stated, we call ourselves a Constitution-based federal republic. We do not call ourselves a democracy. We also label other regimes as communist, since the definition is not limited to the original Manifesto. I don't claim that is 'right' or 'wrong', it's just what we do.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

Actually, U.S. politicians refer to us as a democracy on a regular basis, much like Soviet politicians refered to the USSR as communist. It shouldn't come as a surprise that politicians either can't correctly identify their own political system, or don't count on their citizens to be able to do so.

[Lyion]

Except our revolution was against tyranny, oppressive taxes, and for personal liberties. A Marxist revolution is essentially for tyranny, 100% taxes, and limiting freedoms.

Xao, for you. the DEFINITION of Socialism

Socialism So"cial*ism, n.
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a
complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and
equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular
usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless,
revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism,
Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.

Sure, Socialism and Communism are distinct, but correlate to each other. Just like our Country is indeed a Federal Republic, but we utilize Democratic practices, just as Communist States (There name, not mine) use Socialist practices.

[xaoshaen]

Except our revolution was against tyranny, oppressive taxesm and for personal liberties. A Marxist revolution is essentially for tyranny, 100% taxes, and limiting freedoms.

Haw! Tell that to the Russian peasants that bought into the Oktober revolution. Quite frankly it would have been largely impossible for the tyranny, oppressive taxes, and stifled liberties of the czars to get any worse. As much as people like to vilify the USSR, they forget that it was born out of even worse conditions for the vast majority of the population. Communism would have been a tremendous relief for the peasant population of Czarist Russia. Of course, they progressed from Communism to Leninism to Stalinism, which turned out to be a pretty bad bargain.

[Narrock]

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!

Wait, wrong thread...

[Lyion]

Haw! Tell that to the Russian peasants that bought into the Oktober revolution. Quite frankly it would have been largely impossible for the tyranny, oppressive taxes, and stifled liberties of the czars to get any worse. As much as people like to vilify the USSR, they forget that it was born out of even worse conditions for the vast majority of the population. Communism would have been a tremendous relief for the peasant population of Czarist Russia. Of course, they progressed from Communism to Leninism to Stalinism, which turned out to be a pretty bad bargain.

Exactly. Again, its a comparison of 'literals' with 'actuals'. You can argue Maoism is Maoism and Stalinism is Stalinism but they are offshots of 'communist' ideals. They inevitably start as good plans but always end poorly. Post 1917 they ARE communism, since the definition changed.

If you actually read the 'Manifesto' you'll see it includes both Socialism and Communism, Xao. That was my point you seemed to miss. Communism was originally thought of as the last stages of a socialist revolution according to The Manifesto.

The whole maddening premise of the anal retentive nitpicking can be answered simply from Encarta. This is the modern day defition of Communism. You can argue its accurate or inaccurate, but as definitions evolve, so did this one.

The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies. The Communists formed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR, or Soviet Union) from the former Russian Empire and tried to spark a worldwide revolution to overthrow capitalism. Lenin’s successor, Joseph Stalin, turned the Soviet Union into a dictatorship based on total state control of the economy and the suppression of any form of opposition. As a result of Lenin’s and Stalin’s policies, many people came to associate the term communism with undemocratic or totalitarian governments that claimed allegiance to Marxist-Leninist ideals. The term Marxism-Leninism refers to Marx’s theories as amended and put into practice by Lenin.

After World War II (1939-1945), regimes calling themselves communist took power in China, Eastern Europe, and other regions. The spread of communism marked the beginning of the Cold War, in which the Soviet Union and the United States, and their respective allies, competed for political and military supremacy. By the early 1980s, almost one-third of the world’s population lived under communist regimes. These regimes shared certain basic features: an embrace of Marxism-Leninism, a rejection of private property and capitalism, state domination of economic activity, and absolute control of the government by one party, the communist party. The party’s influence in society was pervasive and often repressive. It controlled and censored the mass media, restricted religious worship, and silenced political dissent.

[xaoshaen]

Exactly. Again, its a comparison of 'literals' with 'actuals'. You can argue Maoism is Maoism and Stalinism is Stalinism but they are offshots of 'communist' ideals. They inevitably start as good plans but always end poorly.

Oh, you mean like Democracy? Historically it's started out as a nice idea, and terminated rather horribly.

If you actually read the 'Manifesto' you'll see it includes both Socialism and Communism, Xao. That was my point you seemed to miss.

The two are still two distinct systems that don't even operate in the same realm. That's the point that you seem to be missing. If you want to discuss Socialism, fine we can do that, but it won't change that fact that Socialism is not, and cannot even conceptually be, a stage of Communism.

[xaoshaen]

Except our revolution was against tyranny, oppressive taxes, and for personal liberties. A Marxist revolution is essentially for tyranny, 100% taxes, and limiting freedoms.

Xao, for you. the DEFINITION of Socialism

Socialism So"cial*ism, n.
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a
complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and
equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular
usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless,
revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism,
Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.

Sure, Socialism and Communism are distinct, but correlate to each other. Just like our Country is indeed a Federal Republic, but we utilize Democratic practices, just as Communist States (There name, not mine) use Socialist practices.

Wrong. Democracy and Federalism are both political systems. Socialism and Communism don't even have that much in common.

[Lyion]

Hey, feel free to complain to the MIT Dictionary system. That's their definition. Likewise, you are ignoring what I posted earlier, and missing the forest for the trees.

[Lyion]

The two are still two distinct systems that don't even operate in the same realm. That's the point that you seem to be missing. If you want to discuss Socialism, fine we can do that, but it won't change that fact that Socialism is not, and cannot even conceptually be, a stage of Communism.

No, no, no you completely missed my point. Socialism is an ECONOMIC system. Communism is a POLITICAL system. They are supposed to be inter-related.

You can argue COMMUNISTS are fake SOCIALISTS, just like REPUBLICANS are FAKE democrat/free market types, but again you are missing my point.

[xaoshaen]

Hey, feel free to complain to the MIT Dictionary system. That's their definition. Likewise, you are ignoring what I posted earlier, and missing the forest for the trees.

Wow, you're accusing me of ignoring earlier posts? That's... amazing. For the record, the MIT Dictionary system doesn't disagree with what I've said.

[xaoshaen]

The two are still two distinct systems that don't even operate in the same realm. That's the point that you seem to be missing. If you want to discuss Socialism, fine we can do that, but it won't change that fact that Socialism is not, and cannot even conceptually be, a stage of Communism.

No, no, no you completely missed my point. Socialism is an ECONOMIC system. Communism is a POLITICAL system. They are supposed to be inter-related.

Unfortunately, what you said was that Socialism was a stage of Communism. Sure, there's an historic correlation between the two systems, because of sympathetic ideals, much like there is between Democracy and Capitalism... which is something I've already pointed out.

You can argue COMMUNISTS are fake SOCIALISTS, just like REPUBLICANS are FAKE democrat/free market types, but again you are missing my point.

Umm, no, I wouldn't make that argument. I don't know why you would think that I would.

[Lyion]

In Marx's vision COMMUNISM was the end result of SOCIALISM, so yes it is a stage.

Since you are arguing they are not related, I'll go break down the Manfiesto for you, if time permits.
That is, unless you are talking about the latter NEW definition of COMMUNISM, which would invalidate what you were saying before and muddy things further.

[xaoshaen]

The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies. The Communists formed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR, or Soviet Union) from the former Russian Empire and tried to spark a worldwide revolution to overthrow capitalism. Lenin’s successor, Joseph Stalin, turned the Soviet Union into a dictatorship based on total state control of the economy and the suppression of any form of opposition. As a result of Lenin’s and Stalin’s policies, many people came to associate the term communism with undemocratic or totalitarian governments that claimed allegiance to Marxist-Leninist ideals. The term Marxism-Leninism refers to Marx’s theories as amended and put into practice by Lenin.

The funny thing is, Encarta seems to be agreeing with me. I'd agree that in common use, the meaning of the term Communism has shifted. That doesn't mean that it's right though, anymore than misusing the term "eschewed" changes what it actually means. Note the differentiation between Marxism, Leninism, and Stalinism.

After World War II (1939-1945), regimes calling themselves communist took power in China, Eastern Europe, and other regions. The spread of communism marked the beginning of the Cold War, in which the Soviet Union and the United States, and their respective allies, competed for political and military supremacy. By the early 1980s, almost one-third of the world’s population lived under communist regimes. These regimes shared certain basic features: an embrace of Marxism-Leninism, a rejection of private property and capitalism, state domination of economic activity, and absolute control of the government by one party, the communist party. The party’s influence in society was pervasive and often repressive. It controlled and censored the mass media, restricted religious worship, and silenced political dissent.

Note the use of the phrase "calling themselves", which aligns nicely with what I've been saying about your purportedly Communist regimes.

[xaoshaen]

In Marx's vision COMMUNISM was the end result of SOCIALISM, so yes it is a stage.

Umm, no. Sorry.

Since you are arguing they are not related, I'll go break down the Manfiesto for you, if time permits.
That is, unless you are talking about the latter NEW definition of COMMUNISM, which would invalidate what you were saying before and muddy things further.

They've certaintly been historically related, and in a sociopolitical sense, they're definitely related. They still aren't stages of one another, nor do they operate on the same axis of a sociopolitical system.

[Lyion]

Go read the Manifesto. That was indeed Marx's vision.

[Lyion]

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/368/transition.htm

Socialism is not a mode of production. It is the transition from capitalism to communism. Socialism is the communism which emerges from capitalist society. It begins as capitalism with a workers’ state. Socialism therefore bears the moral, economic and intellectual imprint of capitalism; it is the lower stage of communism.

In general, socialism is defined as the rule of the working class.

The division of labour cannot be abolished overnight. It manifests itself under socialism in the contradictions between mental and manual labour, town and country, men and women, as well as social, regional and national differences.

Classes and social strata exist under socialism because of different positions occupied in relationship to the means of production, the roles played in society and the way they receive their income.

Class and social contradictions necessitate the continuation of the class struggle. However, this struggle is determined by the new alignments brought about by the overthrow of the capitalist state and the transition to communism.

The class struggle can, in the last analysis, go in two directions, depending on the balance of forces inside and outside the country and the class policy being followed. It can go backwards to capitalism or it can advance towards communism.

While socialism creates the objective basis for solving social contradictions, these contradictions need to be solved with a correct political line and the development of mass, active democracy. This is essential, as communism is not a spontaneous development. Social strata will only finally disappear under communism.

.

[Yamori]

It's not stealing if the governement is doing it. It's taxation.

Stealing is taking someone else's property without right.

Just because the gun-toting men stealing all your belongings are wearing a uniform, does not make it any less of a theft. The results are exactly the same as if a criminal did it.

[Tikker]

It's not stealing if the governement is doing it. It's taxation.

Stealing is taking someone else's property without right.

Just because the gun-toting men stealing all your belongings are wearing a uniform, does not make it any less of a theft. The results are exactly the same as if a criminal did it.

'

Communism isn't about the man coming and stealing your possessions and forcing you to work for him

Communism was supposed to be about people giving up voluntarily their possessions for the good of the entire community (notice how communism and community have a lot in common, omg)


now I'm sure a lazy, greedy mofaka like yourself, wouldn't understand that, and it seems EVIL that people would share, but that's how it was supposed to work


The fact that people work the system and grab power and use it to do bad things is irrelevant
It happens in all systems

[Eziekial]

Give up voluntarily? Did you watch too much Peter Pan or Willy Wonka as a kid?

[Tikker]

Give up voluntarily? Did you watch too much Peter Pan or Willy Wonka as a kid?

eh?

I'm not pushing communism as the way to go

that's just the ideal of how it would work



In general, people are too greedy for it to work on a large scale

[Lyion]

Where does it say give up voluntarily? In the Manifesto and other writings it promotes taking via revolution.

[Tikker]

that's only for the people who don't want to convert!

F those heathens!

[Lyion]

Communism for Dummies.

by Mindia.