namelesstavern.net

Perfect case of a square being a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares.

Conclusion: It can't be done with human beings without being rather mean to most of its citiezens.

xaoshaen wrote:Except that it's never been fucking tried. Every time it's been attempted, it's either been subverted by people who see an opportunity to turn the process to their own ends, or it's been put into place as a facade designed to cynically manipulate the populace.

That is exactly my point right there. It will never, ever, ever, be put to a reality with human beings. We are a chaotic power hungry race as a whole. Communism itself may not be "evil" per se, but it will always lead to it.

Harrison wrote:

xaoshaen wrote:Except that it's never been fucking tried. Every time it's been attempted, it's either been subverted by people who see an opportunity to turn the process to their own ends, or it's been put into place as a facade designed to cynically manipulate the populace.

That is exactly my point right there. It will never, ever, ever, be put to a reality with human beings. We are a chaotic power hungry race as a whole. Communism itself may not be "evil" per se, but it will always lead to it.

That has nothing to do with Communism being evil, that's humanity being evil. Communism's biggest failing is that it relies on a fundamental goodness within human nature.

I just said that. I conceded that communism itself isn't inherently "evil", but human nature is when introduced into a communist environment.

Communism will always lead to "Evil".

xaoshaen wrote:

Mindia wrote:

Tossica wrote:Communism is not pure evil.

Because you don't understand it.

So 'splain it to us, Mindia. Give us an example of an evil Communist government.

Wow, you think anyone will fall for so *blatant* a trick question? There have been no real Communist states.

--R.

Rust wrote:

xaoshaen wrote:

Mindia wrote:

Tossica wrote:Communism is not pure evil.

Because you don't understand it.

So 'splain it to us, Mindia. Give us an example of an evil Communist government.

Wow, you think anyone will fall for so *blatant* a trick question? There have been no real Communist states.

--R.

Ok, clearly I was wrong. But then asking 'average Americans' about communism is like asking a Komsomol leader about capitalism.

--R.

Heh, you just came around to my and Xao's way of thinking, Fin. Both of us have stated that in its idea form, Communism is in no way evil. The problem is, it makes no allowance whatsoever for the innate self-centeredness of human nature. As a result, it's impossible to put into practice on anything larger than a very small community. (ie, the old hippy staples of "communes", most of which failed miserably even in small scale, again, due to human nature.)

People need to separate the theory behind a governmental system with the human implementations of it. No one's arguing we should try and implement communism, that would be an insanely bad idea, for all the reasons we've already gone over. But as a THEORY, it's great, just never going to work in practice.

-Arlos

Way to Finawin the thread, Rust. Props! We really don't need any parrots without a clue, so feel free to sit this one out, chief!

Arlos, refute the main points I posted in my manifesto description and explain to me how that isn't evil?
Most people would deem it such. I understand Marx's issues with classes, but even he later admitted communism was hopelessly flawed.

lyion wrote:Way to Finawin the thread, Rust. Props! We really don't need any parrots without a clue, so feel free to sit this one out, chief!

Arlos, refute the main points I posted in my manifesto description and explain to me how that isn't evil?
Most people would deem it such. I understand Marx's issues with classes, but even he later admitted communism was hopelessly flawed.

No worries, I'm sure you're on top of the 'misquoting and lying' assignment on this thread already Lyion. Maybe you can give us some really juicy made-up or flat-out misquotes of Marx or Lenin to get us started?

Like Ganzo, I've actually studied Marxism (for credit yet!). I'm shocked you skipped criticizing Marx for his claim that capitalists are out to shag each other's wives in the Manifesto (he must have had a bad day that day). I happen to disagree with Marx on dialectical materialism, among other things. Like the other people here who seem to have actually studied Marx, I agree - his system presupposes that people are basically good and idealistic, and generally fails in the real world. The ideas of Marxism are powerful and attractive to the worker, peasant and the poor, however, because they really do offer to improve their lot. That's why Marxist movements are so damn hard to stamp out. When you consider what the average Central or South American patron-capitalist state offers the poor and rural people, of course they will be attracted to Marxism or Maoism.

--R.

Yes, you've studied everything and know everything, Rust.

edit: not worth it.

Somehow no matter how Xaoshaen tries to explain it, people miss it and go back to their argument. So let me try to spell it out:
China, USSR, Kuba and all other "communist" countries, only called communist by ignorant americans. They were all originaly established as Socialist Republics with dream of building Communism. They were all however subjugated by a dictatorships and became totalitarian regimes. There has never been a communist country in the history of the world.

As far as concept working in real world, it has been proven that it could work. Initialy country of Israel was built by establishing Kibutz's(communes that operated on communist idea). The ruined desert was turned into what it is today by those communities. Communist ideology worked perfectly for them.

*sigh*

A Communist state is a state governed by a single political party which declares its allegiance to the principles of Marxism-Leninism.

Socialism is a stage in communism, Ganzo. We have historically equated countries, despite their schism to Stalinism, Maoism, or any other branch to be 'communist'. We've identified these as like this since post WW2.

Those of us who've read the Manifesto understand the ultimate goal of abolition of the state, but for large countries this is an impossibility, as common sense dictates. Even for a small state like Israel its impossible. Your point is accurate but not accurate in relation to how we have and continue to define 'communist states', which itself is a paradox since true communism would have no state. However, given these states proclaim to be following Leninism and declare themselves 'communist' we name them such.

This was and is not really an issue, except in how we name states, and moreso in our discussion of if 'MOVING TO COMMUNISM' is evil, of which I believe it in Marx's original manifesto, and I've given my reasons.

lyion wrote:*sigh*

A Communist state is a state governed by a single political party which declares its allegiance to the principles of Marxism-Leninism.

Socialism is a stage in communism, Ganzo. We have historically equated countries, despite their schism to Stalinism, Maoism, or any other branch to be 'communist'. We've identified these as like this since post WW2.

Bzzt. Socialism and Communism are two entirely different things. One's an economic system, the other's a political system. If you honestly think that one is a phase of the other, you're way out of your depth here.

Furthermore, what a political party declares is irrelevent. What it actually adheres to is what counts. American politicians have declared time and again that we're a democracy. Guess what? We're still not a democracy.

Marxism-Leninism isn't communism. Communist doctrine was formulated by Marx and Engels. Lenin created... Leninism which he blended with a few Marxist principles and a lot of Marxist propaganda. It bore little relationship to communism in practice.

Those of us who've read the Manifesto understand the ultimate goal of abolition of the state, but for large countries this is an impossibility, as common sense dictates. Even for a small state like Israel its impossible.
Your point is accurate but not accurate in relation to how we have and continue to define 'communist states', which itself is a paradox since true communism would have no state. However, given these states proclaim to be following Leninism and declare themselves 'communist' we name them such.

Haw! A state cannot be both "following Leninism" and "communist". It just doesn't work that way.

Again, American politicians have frequently referred to the US as being a democracy. It's still not, you know, true.

This was and is not really an issue, except in how we name states, and moreso in our discussion of if 'MOVING TO COMMUNISM' is evil, of which I believe it in Marx's original manifesto, and I've given my reasons.

Your reasons consist of citing totalitarian regimes (the exact opposite of what communism preaches) and then defining them as communist. Fine, I hereby declare Saddam Hussein's regime as communist. Why, he employed chemical weapons against his own people, communism must be evil!

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.

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

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.

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.

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/

I clearly remember the communist manifesto staying that dictatorship is a necessary step for the establishment of a communist society.

Totalitarianism and communism ARE directly linked.

And of course, my points on why communism is ideologically evil, aside from the bloody attempts at its application, were completely ignored. Figures.

None. I havent read any of those books.

communism is ideology where everyone contributes everything to a community and is provided what he needs by said community. in the communist state there would be no government and no one would care for his needs but only for needs of others. Communism is utopian idea that came from "City of the Sun"(sorry authors name slipped from my memory) was later expanded by Marx as a anticapitalist philosophy.

To this day there has never existed a communist state, USSR is prety much opposite of communist. Just because americans called it communist, and totalitarian dictators claimed to believe in communist ideas does not make country communist. for example USSR was Socialism with Totalitarian Dictatorship.

Yamori wrote:I clearly remember the communist manifesto staying that dictatorship is a necessary step for the establishment of a communist society.

wrong, that is Trotskiy's comentary on communist manifesto

Pure free enterprise capitalism is just as flawed as Socialism, for the exact same reason.

Zanchief wrote:Pure free enterprise capitalism is just as flawed as Socialism, for the exact same reason.

And the solution is:

mappatazee wrote:

Zanchief wrote:Pure free enterprise capitalism is just as flawed as Socialism, for the exact same reason.

And the solution is:

kill all people and replace them with robots.

Having corporations run your government is a much better solution.

I'm still waiting for Rust to answer my question

Mindia wrote:I'm still waiting for Rust to answer my question

Poor Mindia. Do you think people here take you seriously?