SPLITED topic: communism

NOT FROM ADMIN (shadow): this topic is split, it originally came from http://archive.erepublik.co.uk/suggestions-f34/crime-and-punishment-t3326.htm Since this is quite a interesting discussion that is reopened with almost every GE, I thought it was time we started a real discussion so I took the off-topic posts from the other topic and made a new one here.

special rules concerning this topic: This is quite a delicate matter and a serious discussion, plz try to respond mature and with respect for the opinions of the other ppl on this forum. Spam will be immediately deleted.

/regards
shadow
admin

William of Orange wrote:Socialism is what they had in the USSR (United Soviet Socialist Republics), Socialist Republic of Vietnam, People's Socialist Republic of Albania, Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, &c. It didn't work any better than attempts at Marxist Communism.

No really it wasnt, socialism is what we've had in the UK for the past 60 years, what they had was basically a communist styled totalitarian state.

since when does the name of a nation denote what government type it actually is? Demorcratic Republic of Congo anyone?

Just thought I'd prod in my opinion on this. USSR was state capitalism. They called themselves socialist but that doesn't make it so.

Bob Boblo wrote:Just thought I'd prod in my opinion on this. USSR was state capitalism. They called themselves socialist but that doesn't make it so.

give me one RL example of a commie state that wasn't state capitalism.

shadow wrote:

Bob Boblo wrote:Just thought I'd prod in my opinion on this. USSR was state capitalism. They called themselves socialist but that doesn't make it so.

give me one RL example of a commie state that wasn't state capitalism.

every "communist" state has been state capitalist becuase no true communist state has ever been in existence. The Native Amercians have probably come the closest but you cant really call them a state.

Pughie wrote:

shadow wrote:

Bob Boblo wrote:Just thought I'd prod in my opinion on this. USSR was state capitalism. They called themselves socialist but that doesn't make it so.

give me one RL example of a commie state that wasn't state capitalism.

every "communist" state has been state capitalist becuase no true communist state has ever been in existence. The Native Amercians have probably come the closest but you cant really call them a state.

The native Americans where far from communists. They worshipped Gods, slaughtered minorities, and if you believe that everyone was equal in that society you still believe in fairy's. They let slaves, whom they hunted from rival tribes, build pyramids and temples that required even more labour then the Egyptian pyramids in order to please their Gods or their God-king/emperor. And the concept of a God (and them I'm not even talking about a god-king or a leader or priest that claims he's chosen by God) alone is already against the basic idea of communism where everyone is equal. The above applies for the native Americans like the Maya's or Aztec's, and tribes in the southern part of the USA.

if you are talking about the northern tribes, I presume you link them with communism since they had no money (a trading system) and since they where nomads. It is indeed true that nomad ppl have some resemblances with the communist theorie, but that is just a logical result from the fact that they have little possessions. They had chieftain, who was considered more valuable then others, they had a shaman who dictated them who to worship or which tribes man had to be sacrificed and they had a god. And when food was brought in, it always where the bravest and strongest warriors that had the first choice of picking meat. So I have to disagree with you, they where not communists.

And the fact that there never has been a decent example of a communist state in our 3000 year history, counts for me as enough proof that it is something that is not executable. The fact that it has been tried several times in those 3000 years history, with over 10 million deaths in Russia (in less then 50 years) alone (and god knows how many deaths globally), counts for me as enough proof that it is something monstrous. And all that together, counts for me as enough proof to safely say that communism is the greatest lie in the 3000 years history of humanity.

The following poem says it all to me.

Can this go back on topic please?

sry I just wanted to see if I still had it in me.

What, anti-communist viewpoints? Probably.

Then again, show me a governmental system that hasn't committed crimes against humanity.

A real, working one? Not on paper or on the internet? Um... government, too? Not just, say, a small village somewhere? Hmmm....

Nope. Can't. Ooh, can we get them to add "crimes against humanity" to V1? Atrocities would be a cool addition.

Mephit wrote:What, anti-communist viewpoints? Probably.

Then again, show me a governmental system that hasn't committed crimes against humanity.

I can't, but there is a difference between some crimes against humanity and a genocide of 10 million ppl.

Again your equating the Stalist and Moaist communism as real communism.

I didnt say the native americans where communist as they wouldnt have known or recognised the concept in that way. Communism in its undistorted form was born from looking back at our earliest ancestors. The fact that everyone got fed, everyone had there jobs that contributed to the tribe and the community, everything was pooled for the good of everyone in the tribe, they accepted gay people and also had laws binding parents to look after disabled children. Yes of course there were chieftans etc who got the best that will always happen in a society that has any commodities. The reason why communist ideas rose up and harked back to these practises is because the common man was living in shit in the 16th - 19th centurys. I think like you that communism is unworkable you cant surpress someones desire to better themselves.

and no i wasnt talking about the aztecs or mayans as they had kings etc so were not communist.

shadow wrote:I can't, but there is a difference between some crimes against humanity and a genocide of 10 million ppl.

Alternatively the difference is that most nations don't have the population to see such horrors come about on such a scale. Just to note: while the USSR are no paragons of virtue, there have been bigger genocides throughout history.

Pughie wrote:Again your equating the Stalist and Moaist communism as real communism.

I didnt say the native americans where communist as they wouldnt have known or recognised the concept in that way. Communism in its undistorted form was born from looking back at our earliest ancestors. The fact that everyone got fed, everyone had there jobs that contributed to the tribe and the community, everything was pooled for the good of everyone in the tribe, they accepted gay people and also had laws binding parents to look after disabled children. Yes of course there were chieftans etc who got the best that will always happen in a society that has any commodities.

ah, yes. but now you are going to what I was trying to point out. They had food, and that was it. They had no other luxury. life wasn't as complicated back then as it is now. They had only 2 concerns: food and survival. In those cases, with some effort you might have a chance of making it work, but as soon as you put luxury in it, the whole concept falls.

Mephit wrote:

shadow wrote:I can't, but there is a difference between some crimes against humanity and a genocide of 10 million ppl.

Alternatively the difference is that most nations don't have the population to see such horrors come about on such a scale. Just to note: while the USSR are no paragons of virtue, there have been bigger genocides throughout history.

True, but most of them where done by dictatorial states. And since every communist state until now where actually nothing more then dictatorial states...

And, you say there where bigger genocides? can you give me a example of a bigger genocide? Personally I don't know any, Pol Pot didn't came close, trukey-Armania "only" came to 1,5 million, Nazi's just reached the 6 mil, but high above all the others stand the Russian communists with their 9 to 10 million.

EDIT: and then we are talking about Stalin alone here. if you take in account the death caused by Mao, the Vietnamese, Kim Ill Sung, and many others, you can multiply that number a few times.

NOTE: since we where going off-topic, I've split the topic and reopened it here

This debate is stupid, because nobody on here believes in Stalinsim and Maoism, regardless of whether they think communism can work or not.

My view is that a true communist state has never been set up, as for whether it can, I don't and probably will never know but I am far from convinced capitalism is the best form of society there can be.

Communism will only work if everyone thinks the same. It relies on no corruption and due to our culture that will not happen. 

Capitalism relies on corruption, well it relies on the fact that everyone is only looking out for themselves and so it works in our society. 

Capitalism can never form a utopia as everyone cannot have exclusive rights to everything. Therefore everyone cannot be happy if they are all greedy. 

Communism can form a utopia because everyone can be happy with shared rights to everything as long as they are not greedy. Also division of labour states that if everyone is working on one task they are more productive. This of course only works if everyone can share their produce as you may only need one of what you produce. 

This all said capitalism only works because society teaches helping your self is better then relying on others. For this to change there would have to be a drastic and instant change in society something that can only be reached though some kind of atrocity.

The question is if the event could be found would it be worth it? 

For a country to become communist in RL they would need to remove some members of society as some will never allow it to work. You can’t have a sharing society if there are people who are selfish. 

So imo communism has to cause death if its to form in RL. This said I don’t agree with anyone taking such action and so I am only a commie given a change in society. 

Communism hasnt and wont work, not because of greed or anything else that people want to blame it on.

It's because it's human nature to survive. If you're ever given the choice, and let's say twice, the odds on you saving your own life more than 0 times is far greater than giving yourself up for something or someone else. It's human virtue to survive at all costs.

Utopic Communism cannot be achieved either here or RL because there are human elements trying to implement it.

Dishmcds wrote:Communism hasnt and wont work, not because of greed or anything else that people want to blame it on.

It's because it's human nature to survive. If you're ever given the choice, and let's say twice, the odds on you saving your own life more than 0 times is far greater than giving yourself up for something or someone else. It's human virtue to survive at all costs.


Utopic Communism cannot be achieved either here or RL because there are human elements trying to implement it.

human nature is a product of society.

how to explain this........... ummm animals have instincts that help them survive and i can't think of a good example atm but they do many things that we may of done at one time. The thing is once we became more civilised we lost some instincts. 

Now all this is relevant because we stopped doing things that would "protect us" because we started to rely on others to do them instead. 

In a communist society people would know others would do there bit and as long as this knowledge was firm in them they would work for the group no matter what the costs.

i think there are even animals that sacrifice themselves for the group. 

The point is given the right ideals someone could sacrifice themselves to save others. 

Now i've had discussions on this many times and i could see both arguments but if you where given the choice between your life and 100 peoples lives and everyone was just as valuable as anyone else you have to pick the group. I know I would find it hard to but personally I would pick the group. 

Now this argument may not work on you but the point is if I think I could do it then all it needs is others to realise that their life is not worth 100 others. Given the right principles humans can do most things no matter what the cost. 



 



 

>Communism will only work if everyone thinks the same. It relies on no corruption and due to our culture that will not happen.

>human nature
>animals have instincts
>The thing is once we became more civilised we lost some instincts.

Human still equals animal, last time I checked, and when pushed we still revert back to our given "animal nature" in survival of the fittest.

>Now all this is relevant because we stopped doing things that would "protect us" because we started to rely on others to do them instead.

So, in essence you're saying we became communist, because capitalistic thought relies on only yourself according to your own logic.

>The point is given the right ideals someone could sacrifice themselves to save others.

Define the "right" ideals. Who decides that? Someone has to lead, someone has to follow. Who's right is it to determine the difference between the life or death of another man, because it certainly isnt mine.

While we're on the subject (sort of), the US constantly gets criticised for being World Police, yet in your set of logic, we're simply doing what we feel is best for the good of the group. How do you justify that? I dont agree with everything we do as a whole and carry a more international opinion of things overall, but I am still proud to call myself American, and if your logic says I am the true Utopic Communist because I see for the better of the group then so be it, no?

>I know I would find it hard to but personally I would pick the group.

Which is certainly a noble goal, and no one is going to knock you for being unselfish, but you're very first sentence disproves your entire theory. Humans dont think alike, and by nature we're too different to agree on what we feel is the common good.

shadow wrote:

Pughie wrote:Again your equating the Stalist and Moaist communism as real communism.

I didnt say the native americans where communist as they wouldnt have known or recognised the concept in that way. Communism in its undistorted form was born from looking back at our earliest ancestors. The fact that everyone got fed, everyone had there jobs that contributed to the tribe and the community, everything was pooled for the good of everyone in the tribe, they accepted gay people and also had laws binding parents to look after disabled children. Yes of course there were chieftans etc who got the best that will always happen in a society that has any commodities.

ah, yes. but now you are going to what I was trying to point out. They had food, and that was it. They had no other luxury. life wasn't as complicated back then as it is now. They had only 2 concerns: food and survival. In those cases, with some effort you might have a chance of making it work, but as soon as you put luxury in it, the whole concept falls.

rite ive written 3 replys to this and i keeps goin off grrrr

short version!!

The West isnt big on communism because its rich.

Not everyone is as rich as us some people still fight for food an survival everyday in the 3rd world. So thats why it appeals, just like it appealed to us 80 years ago when even people in the slums of Liverpool were dying of starvation.

Communism couldnt exist because people will always have different views.

Socialist Democracy is what weve had in the UK and France for the past 60 years and it works. Its looks after people with the welfare system and the NHS but also allows for democracy and Private Enterprise.

The PCP despite its name is SOCIALIST and thats why i believe in it.

Dishmcds wrote: 


Human still equals animal, last time I checked, and when pushed we still revert back to our given "animal nature" in survival of the fittest.

i put them as different things because one has the influence of society on it. We have different instincts then animals because of society which nicely links to my point of society being able to change human instinct. 



"when pushed" i agree in one sense but not others. That phrase is a little vague. I think it would take a lack of society to revert to animal nature and in this argument sociality will always exist and so that’s a little invalid.

 

So, in essence you're saying we became communist, because capitalistic thought relies on only yourself according to your own logic.

sorry if i don't make the difference clear its mainly due to me always painting capitalism in a bad light but the difference is capitalists only look out for themselves. The can still use the group. Infact its the use of others to benefit themselves which is the defining factor. 

 

Define the "right" ideals. Who decides that? Someone has to lead, someone has to follow. Who's right is it to determine the difference between the life or death of another man, because it certainly isnt mine.

i honestly wouldn't know i am not arrogant enough to think i could always know what’s right and what’s wrong but in this argument it communist principles are what determines this. 

so really it relies on a single person knowing the pros and cons of every action and choosing the one with the best outcome for the group. Although this seems an unlikely target the extreme of capitalism would require an individual to see all the pros and cons and pick the one best for them so as we are talking utopia im allowed tohave extremes. 

While we're on the subject (sort of), the US constantly gets criticised for being World Police, yet in your set of logic, we're simply doing what we feel is best for the good of the group. How do you justify that? I dont agree with everything we do as a whole and carry a more international opinion of things overall, but I am still proud to call myself American, and if your logic says I am the true Utopic Communist because I see for the better of the group then so be it, no?

yes it would be part of a utopian society to "police" the world but the way i see it one could not exist if the world was not all communist. I think America is right in its attempts to look into the goings on of the world but i simply argue that as a capitalist nation its interest in the world is for its own benefit more then the people it tries to protect. 

 

Which is certainly a noble goal, and no one is going to knock you for being unselfish, but you're very first sentence disproves your entire theory. Humans dont think alike, and by nature we're too different to agree on what we feel is the common good.

We are all very similar. I'm not saying everyone should be a clone but simply share the same values. if you look at opinions of one country compared to another you will find that the countries society has a big influence over what people think. The information given to them effects there beliefs and this although on a minor scale suggests that you could make a group of like minded individuals by only feeding them certain info.

Now this of course is a bad idea but all im saying is in the right society that rewards communist behaviour and given and event that would get people to a semi communist stage (as previously stated you can’t make a communist society with capitalists in the mix) a utopia could be formed. 

>We are all very similar.

Here's where you and I would disagree. Otherwise, as I said earlier, your attempts at establishing what you see as a perfect society are noble but in the end, human nature and animal nature arent as far apart as you'd think.

The only thing you and I share is the fact that we have two legs, how we eat, and how our body functions. Outside of that, the immeasurables, the way I think, see, feel, and otherwise are all completely different from you. My capacity to learn is not the same as yours, and my strong suits are not the same as yours.

That makes us different (obviously), which means our desires and abilities are different. The saying the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts is only true in theory. Real application, if you and I were standing on opposite street corners and one of us had to get hit by a car, instinct isnt going to allow you to raise your hand.

Here's a real life, proven example: If you turn on the burner to your stove, let it heat up, and stick your hand on, subconsciously it will not knowingly allow you to do it again.

And thanks for throwing a temper tantrum and locking the other thread IP. If you had only wanted the last word and nothing more, you should have simply said so.

Dishmcds wrote:>We are all very similar.

Here's where you and I would disagree. Otherwise, as I said earlier, your attempts at establishing what you see as a perfect society are noble but in the end, human nature and animal nature arent as far apart as you'd think.

The only thing you and I share is the fact that we have two legs, how we eat, and how our body functions. Outside of that, the immeasurables, the way I think, see, feel, and otherwise are all completely different from you. My capacity to learn is not the same as yours, and my strong suits are not the same as yours.

That makes us different (obviously), which means our desires and abilities are different. The saying the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts is only true in theory. Real application, if you and I were standing on opposite street corners and one of us had to get hit by a car, instinct isnt going to allow you to raise your hand.

Here's a real life, proven example: If you turn on the burner to your stove, let it heat up, and stick your hand on, subconsciously it will not knowingly allow you to do it again.


And thanks for throwing a temper tantrum and locking the other thread IP. If you had only wanted the last word and nothing more, you should have simply said so.

You have taken my quote out of context there. I only said that in a very minor way. As all this is theory i prefer to give facts and RL example to extrapolate from. 

my point was that there is similarities between people in the same culture. These similarities do not exist when compared with other cultures and so society shapes our beliefs. 



to reiterate i don't think communism could occur atm. You (i say you but mean the vast majority of the world) would not allow communism to work because your beliefs tell you to look out for yourself. 

even i would not have the right set of beliefs to be in such a place as i am also shaped by my surroundings and have to live in a capitalist society. 

because we have gone so far the other way communism is very hard to grasp as it goes against what we are taught but i would like to stress the fact that “taught” does not mean facts but merely ideals like buy now and pay later. We can change our views over time. 

If you tried to sell the idea of democracy to England in say the medieval period you would be laughed at or killed. Its only when

Peoples views changed that democracy became an option. That said the idea predates this and was probably known by some its just society told people that the King/Queen was meant to rule and they where lesser. 

so only when there is a change in society will communism be a clear option and personally i think this will only occur after disaster as i think we are too far gone atm. 

@ the stove comment. 

My argument was that that impulse can be changed. instinct can be altered and although pain is an extreme example i think this can also be over come. 

now im not an expert on psychology but i'm sure somewhere along the long twisted history of the subject someone has trained a monkey to put his hand in fire on command whether it hurts or not. 

And we'll have to disagree. We were borne into the Earth, not the other way around. We were borne of what we eat, etc. and you cannot change that. The more things change, the more they stay the same.....