Political spinoff from Church Unification

[SurlyPIG]

Then it ISN'T a procedure which could "save the lives of thousands of people annually", is it?

You're not making a coherent argument.

Of course I am. Obviously if this is your communist paradise, this is a whole world government right? And last I heard something that effects thousands of people among six billion is rare...

And what if the private company that funds these courses in your capitalist economy decides that they are not profitable, and shuts them down? The risks are the same.

The system makes it so they are. If it saves lives, it is automatically profitable because of the way both state and private health insurance works.

And you forget one thing: We are assuming that these courses are expensive for some reason, so that they need outside funding. But if that's NOT the case, there's no reason why you would need to have anything to do with the government in order to teach them. In communism, as long as you're not charging people money for it, you can teach anything you want! The same goes for providing healthcare.

Then how can you cover your expenses? How would it even be possible to get the materials, given how the state is now the sole owner and manufacturer of everything you can imagine...What motivation is there for anyone to share any worthwhile skill, discovery, adnancement, or innovation with anyone else when they could be working somewhere earining money doing something else? Providing health care with no money is even less possible.

Yes, you DO have the right to take things into your own hands, and communism always respects that right. As I have said, the only thing for which you need community approval (the term "government" isn't really appropriate) is the spending of public money or resources. But there are NO restrictions on what you can teach, or what kind of healthcare you can provide and who you can provide it to. Free public education and public healthcare is available to all, but no one says that you can't provide more of these services on top of what the "government" offers.

So I am free to bust my ass so I can send junior to a private school, where he can get a better education, graduate with higher honours, get a better job and do the same for his kids? Uhh...Edric, that isn't communism...

As for that comment about farmers, I think you are just letting your emotions get the best of you. Snap out of the paranoid "Nineteen Eighty-Four" atmosphere and realize that I'm a Libertarian Communist. (as the vast majority of communists are today)

No one will force anyone to hand over everything they have to "the government". Communists fight against ALL forms of exploitation, whether by massive private corporations or by the government.

So was Stalin, according to him...It's like y'all share a broken record or something...

Excellent! In that case, I don't have any more objections to it whatsoever. This is probably the very best kind of healthcare system that can be achieved under capitalism.

So I guess that about wraps it up... :)

Splendid! :)

See, I'm really not that unreasonable... ;D except in the mornings...

1. How? People won't be willing to go to a private hospital where they have to pay for the same services that they would otherwise receive for free in a public hospital. On the other hand, if you make services better in the private hospital, that means that you're making proper healthcare only available to the rich, effectively putting a price on human life.

I can't see any solution for this dilemma, except maybe giving priority to the poor in public hospitals, and keeping service standards the same in both systems. But then you'll get immense pressure from the rich...

People have always been willing to pay a little more for better service. Remember, better service does not equal better treatment. Though the public and private systems would have the same quality staff, drugs, equipment, and therefore the same quality treatment, in the case of hospitals, private ones could feature luxuries that are, in essence, superfluous, but nice to have. A private room, a larger bed, a TV to watch to pass the time, for example. And you seem to be focused too much on hospitals. There's much more to health care than that. There are nursing homes, medical practices, specialists, physical threapists, chiropractors, etc. Some of these things would be only partially covered by public health care, others excluded entirely (ie chiropractors). People could tailor their insurance coverage to their lifestyle and their families. For instance; it wouldn't make a difference to me if I was recovering from something in a private hospital vs a public one. Being couped up in a private hospital is still being couped up in a hospital, whether or not I'm in a communal, semi-private, or private room. I would instead opt for things like PT because that's probably what I would get the most use out of. However, if I had small kids that might be frightened or overwhelmed by a hospital experience I would probably want a nicer room for them to stay in and go for that instead.

2. If there aren't enough jobs for them in the public sector, why would there be jobs for them in the private one? It's not like there will suddenly be more patients or something...

Well actually, given the way health has kicked the bucket in my corner of the globe at least, there would be. Right now the system can't keep up with the demand. Not because there aren't enough doctors, but because there isn't enough money.

3. What's so special about innovation in the private sector? The only advantage that I can see is that private hospitals can take greater risks and try more experimental treatments on their patients. But is that really a good thing?

The fact that they would not be on as tight a budget would allow them to try new things. I have heard that music has potential healing powers. Perhaps utilizing the power of the mind to help the healing process would pay off too, running some kind of program to help patients relax. Allow pets inside. I really don't know, I don't work in the system...

In some things, I agree with you. Balance is often the best solution. But not always. It's dangerous to generalise. Sometimes a certain "extreme" is far better than any "balance".

And there's also the fact that balance itself is relative. For example, capitalists call me a left-wing extremist. But my communist comrades call me a well-balanced moderate. One system's extreme can be another system's center.

Touche. :) Seems to me that the balance must be clearly defined. To simply 'wing it' without some kind of doctrine would eventually spell trouble.

[Caid Ivik]

1. Well, you know that I am conservative, but not fanatic. What is done is done, but high support to individuals would distract them from own work. See USA, their "leisure class" lives better than workers here in Slovakia. About economic areas, I wouldn't be so sure. If you seek you will find. And in many areas there is no significant concurence. Also the employer-employee thing isn't needed for everything. In smaller firms they can be partners. Have you ever heard of what Marx defines as middle class?

2. I'm not sure. If it was so, then it would logically have other reason than commune itself, but I think it Paris was besieged after beginning. About Hitler, he never said it is preemptive attack when he took Austria, Bohemia or Poland. That's why that isn't a good point. Hitler's philosophy was aggressive, and he had no need to cover it. He was a straight politician...

3. You call every country with free market as a "capitalistic". Marx thought only about countries which done some progress, material and philosophical, like Britain. Africa must first find a meaning of word "law", than they can compare themselves with us. I call capitalist countries the Europe, America and some parts of Far East. Others are a third world, searching for a way to become stabile.

4. Batista didn't make Oswiencim. Communists usually generalise their enemies with one word, but I am enough sane to see difference here.

5. Doing well...that's relative. USA were doing better. Britan, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Sweden were doing better. Singapore was doing better. They were parasiting on enslaved eastern Europe by selling them oranges and banana, now it's their fault that they are still hostile to USA.

[Edric O]

Ace:

Of course I am. Obviously if this is your communist paradise, this is a whole world government right? And last I heard something that effects thousands of people among six billion is rare...

Having a world government would be very good, but not absolutely necessary. Also, the fact is that a centralized world government (communist or not) would always be a bureaucratic nightmare. ANY good world government has to be federative. And the funds for local healthcare and education programs will obviously be handled by the local administrations.

The system makes it so they are. If it saves lives, it is automatically profitable because of the way both state and private health insurance works.

Oh really? But what if the people whose lives it saves are dirt poor? Or what if the costs of the treatment are far too high to be affordable to ordinary people? Or what if so few people suffer from this illness, that the company decides to invest in something that can bring higher profits?

There are many reasons why a certain life-saving cure might be unprofitable, so that it will never receive any private funding.

Then how can you cover your expenses? How would it even be possible to get the materials, given how the state is now the sole owner and manufacturer of everything you can imagine...What motivation is there for anyone to share any worthwhile skill, discovery, adnancement, or innovation with anyone else when they could be working somewhere earining money doing something else? Providing health care with no money is even less possible.

You once complained that a communist system would not allow you to freely share knowledge with others. I have explained that you were wrong, because in reality communism allows you to pursue any hobby you want, including teaching and sharing knowledge. And if you need money in order to do it, the only constraint is that first we much check whether that money wouldn't be better spent elsewhere.

Now you basically complain that communism doesn't allow you to start a private school or health clinic. Well, duh... OF COURSE it doesn't! I have already explained how allowing private education and healthcare leads to the rich having the best teachers and doctors, while the poor end up with the worst.

And even if we solve that particular side of the problem by introducing the system that we both agreed on, there's still the matter of the ownership over the means of production... but let's leave that for another topic.

So I am free to bust my ass so I can send junior to a private school, where he can get a better education, graduate with higher honours, get a better job and do the same for his kids? Uhh...Edric, that isn't communism...

Ace, you completely misunderstood what I said...

I said you are free to teach people anything you want on top of what the "government" offers, but I never said that you can charge money for it!

Read what I wrote in the answer above this one. I was talking about the same thing.

So was Stalin, according to him...It's like y'all share a broken record or something...

Errr, NO. Stalin was proud to be an authoritarian, and he wasn't afraid to show it.

But I am a convinced libertarian, and that's already enough to make Stalin my enemy.

Well actually, given the way health has kicked the bucket in my corner of the globe at least, there would be. Right now the system can't keep up with the demand. Not because there aren't enough doctors, but because there isn't enough money.

The obvious question: Why isn't there enough money?

The fact that they would not be on as tight a budget would allow them to try new things. I have heard that music has potential healing powers. Perhaps utilizing the power of the mind to help the healing process would pay off too, running some kind of program to help patients relax. Allow pets inside. I really don't know, I don't work in the system...

So, in the end, it's all a matter of budget... Fair enough - just remember that being private doesn't necessarely mean that you always have a bigger budget.

People have always been willing to pay a little more for better service. Remember, better service does not equal better treatment. Though the public and private systems would have the same quality staff, drugs, equipment, and therefore the same quality treatment, in the case of hospitals, private ones could feature luxuries that are, in essence, superfluous, but nice to have. A private room, a larger bed, a TV to watch to pass the time, for example. And you seem to be focused too much on hospitals. There's much more to health care than that. There are nursing homes, medical practices, specialists, physical threapists, chiropractors, etc. Some of these things would be only partially covered by public health care, others excluded entirely (ie chiropractors). People could tailor their insurance coverage to their lifestyle and their families. For instance; it wouldn't make a difference to me if I was recovering from something in a private hospital vs a public one. Being couped up in a private hospital is still being couped up in a hospital, whether or not I'm in a communal, semi-private, or private room. I would instead opt for things like PT because that's probably what I would get the most use out of. However, if I had small kids that might be frightened or overwhelmed by a hospital experience I would probably want a nicer room for them to stay in and go for that instead.

Hmmm, I hadn't thought about that. It's a very good way of ensuring everyone gets the same quality of healthcare, without putting the private system out of business. You know, I really think they should make you the Canadian health minister. ;)

In conclusion, the kind of two-tier system you have described so far sounds wonderful, but what makes you think that this will be the kind of system adopted if Canada decides to legalize privte healthcare?

[Edric O]

Caid:

1. You are simply making unfounded assumptions and generalisations. "If you seek you will find", etc. There is no guarantee for any of those things, and it's laughable to just assume, without any proof, that everyone always has opportunities (especially seeing how so many people obviously do not).

And of course I know about the petty bourgeoisie (what Marx defines as the "middle class"). They are the people who own means of production and also work on those means of production. However, no one can stay in the petty bourgeoisie for too long: Either their business is successful and they move up into the true bourgeoisie, or (more likely) their business is not successful and they sink down into the proletariat.

2. Errr, there was a civil war going on... there are plenty of reasons why someone would besiege a city during a war, don't you think?

As for Hitler, he may not have called them "pre-emptive" attacks, but he always tried to make up some excuse for invading neighboring countries. He never said "I'm invading this country because I feel like it".

3. Well, the reason for that is because any country with a free market is capitalist. Especially today, when the world economy is globalised.

Pretending that capitalism is restricted to only the richest countries is nothing more than a pathetic excuse for covering up all the death and suffering caused by capitalism. It's like pretending that nazism was restricted to the Germans alone, and ignoring what it did to the Jews.

4. LOL, Caid, you've taken hypocrisy to new levels! You're the one who always calls everyone he doesn't like a "communist" or "socialist", and then you accuse me of putting all my enemies under a single name!

But I guess you learned from the best...

"A leader of genius must be able to make different enemies appear as if they belong to the same category."

- Adolf Hitler

5. Yeah, it's their fault for keeping up the fight instead of surrendering and embracing their new position as slaves of the global corporate empire! ::)

[SurlyPIG]

Oh really? But what if the people whose lives it saves are dirt poor? Or what if the costs of the treatment are far too high to be affordable to ordinary people? Or what if so few people suffer from this illness, that the company decides to invest in something that can bring higher profits?

Edric, there is no known medical phenomenon that exclusively effects the dirt poor. I thought the boubonic plague had proved this. I don't think you understand how medical insurance works.

There are many reasons why a certain life-saving cure might be unprofitable, so that it will never receive any private funding.

Then it could just recieve public or charitable funding. :) Options, options, options!

You once complained that a communist system would not allow you to freely share knowledge with others. I have explained that you were wrong, because in reality communism allows you to pursue any hobby you want, including teaching and sharing knowledge. And if you need money in order to do it, the only constraint is that first we much check whether that money wouldn't be better spent elsewhere.

You are ignoring the problem while emphasising your view that I am wrong. What on Earth gives anyone or any group the right to dictate where money is best spent and where it is not. Again, we get into the inevitability of totalitarian Communism (what you call Stalinism). Shouldn't the people have the right to choose what to do with their own money instead of having to give virtually all of it into some communal pool, only to have it redistributed without their consideration?

Now you basically complain that communism doesn't allow you to start a private school or health clinic. Well, duh... OF COURSE it doesn't! I have already explained how allowing private education and healthcare leads to the rich having the best teachers and doctors, while the poor end up with the worst.

And I have already explained that having one resourse for education is mind control and one resourse for health care life control. The state will dictate what you know and whether you live or die, essentially.

Tell me, what could I do if the inevitable beaurocracy surrounding education decides to teach kids all about Allah and how he is the Creator, the giver of life and everything good in the world. In my country I'd pull my kids out of there SO fast, but in Communism, where would they go? I can't teach them, I work for the government all day just like everyone else. Who's going to teach them? A volunteer? Yeah, right. What's the volunteer going to do to make money to suppport himself?

Ace, you completely misunderstood what I said...

I said you are free to teach people anything you want on top of what the "government" offers, but I never said that you can charge money for it!

Read what I wrote in the answer above this one. I was talking about the same thing.

As was I. I'll repeat; how can you cover your expenses and still earn enough money to make a living if you can't charge people for providing your service?

Errr, NO. Stalin was proud to be an authoritarian, and he wasn't afraid to show it.

But I am a convinced libertarian, and that's already enough to make Stalin my enemy.

All I'll say is that Stalin, Pol Pot, ZeDong, Kim Sung etc all have said the same stuff you do. It's a broken red record.

The obvious question: Why isn't there enough money?

Because the government does other things with it, and since it's illegal to pay for your own health care here you can't take matters into your own hands. I don't have a problem with a publicly provided health care, but I like having options so an exclusive system is not desireable...

Hmmm, I hadn't thought about that. It's a very good way of ensuring everyone gets the same quality of healthcare, without putting the private system out of business. You know, I really think they should make you the Canadian health minister. ;)

If only! The airhead currently occupying that position (and I use the word 'occupying' very literally) doesn't have a clue what she's doing. It's one of the problems right now; those that are elected into health positions often only know how to win an election and havn't a clue about what to do with their jobs. So then they appoint ministers to the task, but the ministers are usually more worried about covering their own asses and keeping their jobs then actually managing things and improving the system. But anyway...

In conclusion, the kind of two-tier system you have described so far sounds wonderful, but what makes you think that this will be the kind of system adopted if Canada decides to legalize privte healthcare?

Oh I know quite well that it doesn't, but it's a step closer. You see, politicians are really quite stupid. They have no foresight. I believe it's a product of frontal lobe damage suffered when they are hit with pies. Sadly, politicians usually have to get it wrong before they get it right. The initialization of a two-tier system would be very rocky at first, if not a disaster.

[Caid Ivik]

1. Generalisation? Where? Well, of course, there are some people, which do nothing special, as well as they don't want to. Is lack of will a handicap, on which we should care? My taunt made a cafe in toughest concurence in republic and she survives three years, just by following logics of economy. And she isn't only example of this negation of Marx' middle class theory.

2. Ah, yes, I've looked into it. Maybe we are just putting too much importance to Commune, a small club of utopists like a bee between the hammer and anvil... Also, seeking excuses means that it is instantly a "preemptive strike"? It is weird how you try to find a common points in everything. Commonist ;D

3. But you can't compare capitalist dictature to capitalist democracy! It is same like when I compare national socialism with international socialism. Some common points, but they aren't same.

4. Weird that you accuse me of it. Where I did call social democracy totalitarian? I wouldn't vote for them, but anyone here is a witness I haven't even compared them to Marx' menace. Unlike you, searching for more and more common points between conservative democrats and nazists, unholy alliances of social democrats and other "forces against progress". Where it was, when you called Blair same capitalist as any other politician? Or when you talked about "no difference in today's political spectrum"?

5. Again: communists always end with talking about capitalist conspiracy. This is like I am talking to Marx himself. No matter he lived in 19th century...

[Edric O]

Caid:

1. You said that everyone could just go and start their own business firm. That's a ridiculous generalisation. The vast majority of people don't have the money to start their own firm, and even if they did, they would most likely be crushed by the large corporations.

Most people have no other choice than to get hired as someone's employee. And that's why their employers can pay them far less than what they actually earn. In fact, the entire capitalist economy is based on the principle that the workers get paid LESS than what they earn. That's where capital and profit comes from.

2. Oh, I see... You finally read about the Paris Commune and saw that they don't fit into your stereotypical idea of the "evil commies", so now you just want to forget they ever existed.

Very well, let's declare this point closed.

3. The problem is that we live under a GLOBAL capitalist economy. If the dictatorships and the democracies were isolated from each other, then you would be right. But they aren't. Capitalist democracies and dictatorships are constantly trading and doing business with each other - they are part of a single, global system.

And in this global system, the United States of America, a country with only about 5% of the world's population, uses up about 30% of the world's resources. How can 3rd world countries ever get anywhere close to 1st world standards when the 1st world consumes all of their resources?

4. Oh, so Blair isn't a capitalist? ::)

I only point out the similarities between the people and the parties who supposedly represent different political ideologies. I never denied the fact that the ideologies themselves are very different from each other. But, of course, some of them also have things in common. For example, everyone knows that the social democrats, liberals and conservatives are all supporters of capitalism, even though they have very different versions of it.

5. There is no "conspiracy". Most things are plainly obvious.

And you think that talking to me is like talking to Karl Marx himself? Thank you, Caid! It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside... :)

[Edric O]

Edric, there is no known medical phenomenon that exclusively effects the dirt poor. I thought the boubonic plague had proved this. I don't think you understand how medical insurance works.

If the disease is rare enough, then it is possible that all (or the vast majority of) the people it affects happen to be poor. The boubonic plague was anything but "rare"...

But leaving that aside, there's also the possibility that the treatment happens to be hideously expensive, which puts it out of the rich of ordinary people (not just the poor). Or that the disease is so rare that the company decides to invest in something else, which is more common and thus more profitable.

As for health insurance, you might be right, because I have no idea how it works in Canada...

Then it could just recieve public or charitable funding. :) Options, options, options!

Charity is far too random and rare. You can't rely on it.

But public funding is another matter. It's what I've been supporting all along! :)

You are ignoring the problem while emphasising your view that I am wrong. What on Earth gives anyone or any group the right to dictate where money is best spent and where it is not.

The fact that this group was voted into office by the people, and that they can always vote them OUT of office if they do not meet the people's expectations.

The state will dictate what you know and whether you live or die, essentially.

But the state answers to the people. It will be held accountable for everything it does. The state won't be in a position to "dictate" anything.

Tell me, what could I do if the inevitable beaurocracy surrounding education decides to teach kids all about Allah and how he is the Creator, the giver of life and everything good in the world.

You can sue the government for breaching the Constitution (the Constitution will guarantee that the education system stays unbiased). And if more people are as angry as you are, you don't even need to sue them - you can just vote them out of office.

As was I. I'll repeat; how can you cover your expenses and still earn enough money to make a living if you can't charge people for providing your service?

This wasn't about earning money. This was about helping people because you want to help them, not because you want to make a profit from it.

There are plenty of people right now who work as unpaid volunteers or who make a hobby out of helping others in need. Communism won't change that.

All I'll say is that Stalin, Pol Pot, ZeDong, Kim Sung etc all have said the same stuff you do. It's a broken red record.

Ace, this time I'm afraid you really don't know what you're talking about.

But anyway, if you want to claim that X person said Y thing, why don't you prove it by giving some quotes?

Because the government does other things with it, and since it's illegal to pay for your own health care here you can't take matters into your own hands. I don't have a problem with a publicly provided health care, but I like having options so an exclusive system is not desireable...

And wouldn't that problem be solved if the people had a say in what the government did with their money? That's how I see it. The people should be the ones deciding what their tax money should be spent on.

If only! The airhead currently occupying that position (and I use the word 'occupying' very literally) doesn't have a clue what she's doing. It's one of the problems right now; those that are elected into health positions often only know how to win an election and havn't a clue about what to do with their jobs. So then they appoint ministers to the task, but the ministers are usually more worried about covering their own asses and keeping their jobs then actually managing things and improving the system. But anyway...

Ah, yes... Nema had some very good ideas about how to solve that problem, and they could form the basis of a very good political system... but there's much to talk about, and this would need its own separate topic.

[Caid Ivik]

1. You can borrow from a bank. If the project will be of sufficient quality, they will invest. They will demand repay back as well, of course. But that's market, risky business. Also I am not sure if you have i.e.hair salon, how you can be crushed by a large corporation?

2. Well, let's see how it was. On 13th july 1870 von Bismarck insulted emperor Napoleon III. by satirising french demands. On 2nd september were French heavily defeated by prussian forces, emperor was captured and two days later was declared a republic. In january was Paris stormed by prussian army, now belonging to a new german emperor William I. and on 10th may was agreed a peace. People suffering in ruins of their once proud city disliked their new democratic government, which sold Alsachsen-Lothringen for peace. Reparations were painful as well. No surprise, that a band of jacobinic and blanquistic demagogues rallied a half of city to their new National Guard, which was first ment to counterstrike german occupation forces. President Thiers orderred National Guard to disarm due to its aggressive character, but it rebelled and on 18th may attacked forces loyal to Thiers. Then, despite the siege of Prussians alongside with Thiers' forces they tried to establish a classic republic of soviets, led by (and this is no joke) COUNCIL FOR COMMON GOOD ;D - reminds me Robespierre, but that doesn't matter. There was no police, just their National Guard, so looting could start. On 21th may they tried to attack Versailles. Unsuccesful attack weakened them, so Thiers made a counterstrike against Paris. And democracy was again victorious...

3. USA themselves are a large state as well, I can say about 10% of dryland resources are there. Fact they mine oil is maybe because half of the population (just take India and black Africa) isn't industrialized. But by mining there must be done some industrialisation: I can use my homeland again as an example. We were just a source of gold for Hungary, but they had to make infrastructure and later they've found out that they can make a final products even here for native market. It is a process, it can't be hastened.

4. Well, he is. But Labour Party has significantly more social programmes than Tories. If you are accusing me such often of generalising, don't you think that you shouldn't do it as well? That dialectics commies-cappies, like they had no subgroups or compromises, isn't suitable to solve everything.

[SurlyPIG]

If the disease is rare enough, then it is possible that all (or the vast majority of) the people it affects happen to be poor. The boubonic plague was anything but "rare"...

But leaving that aside, there's also the possibility that the treatment happens to be hideously expensive, which puts it out of the rich of ordinary people (not just the poor). Or that the disease is so rare that the company decides to invest in something else, which is more common and thus more profitable.

Again, the insurance thing. Even the most expensive of rare conditions require a few cents premium per client for full coverage for the pool. There'll always be so many choices and networks in the private system that you could find it there, and there's no guarantee that public coverage would deem it worty of addition to their system, although I suppose they could be required to at least have options for everything.

Charity is far too random and rare. You can't rely on it.

But public funding is another matter. It's what I've been supporting all along! :)

Like I said, options options options! There isn't always a guarantee the public system would cover it too, you know.

The fact that this group was voted into office by the people, and that they can always vote them OUT of office if they do not meet the people's expectations.

Pfft, so much for libertairian socialism. That is WAY too much power for elected officials to have. They would never be able to fairly and effectively micromanage the oodles and oodles of decisions, allocations, spending, quotas, and grants associated with the economy. They should be there only as backup and providing safeguards.

But the state answers to the people. It will be held accountable for everything it does. The state won't be in a position to "dictate" anything.

Oh? The state has already dictated that I cannot run a class and charge to cover my expenses and to make a living. The state has already dictated that I can not patronize anyone else in this manner. The state can dictate what is and isn't art, what your salary is, how valuble your job is, where you work etc.

You can sue the government for breaching the Constitution (the Constitution will guarantee that the education system stays unbiased). And if more people are as angry as you are, you don't even need to sue them - you can just vote them out of office.

What if they pay off the judge? What if he's just their brown-nosing figurehead? What if, through their control of the media, they cover up their crimes and blunders and the public never even has a chance to know what kinds of @$$es are in office, let alone has a chance to vote them out.

This wasn't about earning money. This was about helping people because you want to help them, not because you want to make a profit from it.

There are plenty of people right now who work as unpaid volunteers or who make a hobby out of helping others in need. Communism won't change that.

You said it yourself; charity is rare and unreliable. Volunteering is the charitable donation of time. You always say it's about profit and greed but I was merely referring to covering expenses, and not necessarily even mine. Lets say I want to learn Kung-Fu, but the state dictates that it's not worthy of funding. There's a teacher who's willing to teach, but he has a family and he needs to make money to feed them, and we'd also need equipment and a space to learn. What is so freaking immoral about his would-be students paying for the class so he can BUY those floor mats and sparring equipment and rent a space to teach?

Ace, this time I'm afraid you really don't know what you're talking about.

But anyway, if you want to claim that X person said Y thing, why don't you prove it by giving some quotes?

"Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with the view of confiscating them and leaving the population defenseless."

--Vladimir Ilich Lenin

"[state-run] education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."

--Joseph Stalin

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all."

--Nikita Khrushchev , February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the Communist Party

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."

--Joseph Stalin

Stalin preached democracy too...

And wouldn't that problem be solved if the people had a say in what the government did with their money? That's how I see it. The people should be the ones deciding what their tax money should be spent on.

And can't that happen in a capitalist economy?

[nemafakei]

"What is so freaking immoral about his would-be students paying for the class so he can BUY those floor mats and sparring equipment and rent a space to teach?"

If there are enough students willing to pay enough to balance out the cost, there's no reason why an exception cannot, and will not, be made in my system of governance.

[Edric O]

Ace:

Again, the insurance thing. Even the most expensive of rare conditions require a few cents premium per client for full coverage for the pool. There'll always be so many choices and networks in the private system that you could find it there, and there's no guarantee that public coverage would deem it worty of addition to their system, although I suppose they could be required to at least have options for everything.

Of course, there's also no guarantee that you will find what you need in the private system, no matter how many "choices and networks" there are. There is only a very high chance that you will find it. But then again, the chances that a well-funded public system will cover it are higher. (because they will be required to cover pretty much everything)

Pfft, so much for libertairian socialism. That is WAY too much power for elected officials to have.

So you'd rather give that power to unelected corporate overlords?

They would never be able to fairly and effectively micromanage the oodles and oodles of decisions, allocations, spending, quotas, and grants associated with the economy.

Why? Is there a law against it? ::)

Oh? The state has already dictated that I cannot run a class and charge to cover my expenses and to make a living. The state has already dictated that I can not patronize anyone else in this manner. The state can dictate what is and isn't art, what your salary is, how valuble your job is, where you work etc.

The state can't dictate anything without the approval of the people, because the people can vote no confidence at any time and put a new government in power.

What if they pay off the judge? What if he's just their brown-nosing figurehead? What if, through their control of the media, they cover up their crimes and blunders and the public never even has a chance to know what kinds of @$$es are in office, let alone has a chance to vote them out.

Hmmm, sounds like the Bush administration...

Anyway, there's one thing I must clear up: the state will NOT have control of the media. The Constitution will clearly forbid state officials from even looking at the media the wrong way, and the consequences for trying to interfere with the freedom of the press will be extremely harsh.

But what you're basically asking is "What if one day the state decides to institute a de facto dictatorship"? Well, the exact same thing that would happen if a capitalist state did it. There would be massive civil unrest, until the state either gets the message and re-institutes democratic rights, or the people take matters in their own hands and have an open revolt.

Like I said, it's the same thing that would happen if there was a capitalist government instead of a socialist one.

You said it yourself; charity is rare and unreliable. Volunteering is the charitable donation of time. You always say it's about profit and greed but I was merely referring to covering expenses, and not necessarily even mine. Lets say I want to learn Kung-Fu, but the state dictates that it's not worthy of funding. There's a teacher who's willing to teach, but he has a family and he needs to make money to feed them, and we'd also need equipment and a space to learn. What is so freaking immoral about his would-be students paying for the class so he can BUY those floor mats and sparring equipment and rent a space to teach?

There's nothing wrong or immoral about it. The only thing that causes severe problems and injustice for the poor is paying for the classes themselves. In other words, buying information. This is immoral, because all human beings must have free and equal access to information.

However, there's nothing wrong with paying for equipment and work space. If those people want to learn Kung-Fu and the state doesn't have the funds to support Kung-Fu classes, they are perfectly free to pay for their own floor mats, sparring equipment, etc.

And can't that [the people deciding where their tax money goes to] happen in a capitalist economy?

Of course it can. Like many other elements of socialism (such as free education and healthcare), it can be adapted for capitalism. And also like them, it works better in socialism than in capitalism.

"Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with the view of confiscating them and leaving the population defenseless."

--Vladimir Ilich Lenin

I've never seen that quote before, but I have a feeling that it is taken completely out of context, because it blatantly contradicts with the Russian Constitution that Lenin himself supported:

"For the purpose of securing the working class in the possession of complete power, and in order to eliminate all possibility of restoring the power of the exploiters, it is decreed that all workers be armed, and that a Socialist Red Army be organized and the propertied class disarmed."

- 1918 Constitution of the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic)

This is also the clearest possible proof that the communists had the support of the people, or at least of the working class (which was over 80% of Russia's population).

And I'm also giving you a link to the full text of the Constitution, so you will see that my quote is not out of context (it is point 1-g of Article I).

"[state-run] education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."

--Joseph Stalin

Well, that's perfectly true. If this "weapon" is in the hands of the people, its effects are obviously different than if it was in the hands of a dictator.

So what's your point?

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all."

--Nikita Khrushchev, February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the Communist Party

Again, this is perfectly true. Khrushchev hated the personality cult (also called "cult of the individual") of Stalin, and successfully put an end to it. The references to Stalin were removed from the Soviet National Anthem, all propaganda posters of Stalin were destroyed, and Stalin's body was buried instead of being put in a mausoleum.

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."

--Joseph Stalin

Stalin preached democracy too...

Huh? As you can plainly see from that quote, Stalin preached FAKED democracy.

And I find it rather ironic that this quote from Stalin seems to apply so well to the USA presidential elections of 2000...

[Edric O]

Caid:

1. Could everyone (or even just half of the population) take out a loan from a bank? ::)

The capitalist system requires that the majority of people are workers, not owners. There is no way around it. (unless we move on to a better system, like socialism)

2. As usual, you resorted to hateful slander and propagandistic speech ("a band of jacobinic and blanquistic demagogues", etc.) to deliver the most biased account of history that anyone could possibly write. Goebbles would be proud.

But if we take out the one-sided propaganda, we are left with a pretty good summary of what happened. The National Guard was composed of ordinary people, mostly workers, who took up arms against the foreign invaders and their own oppressive and murderous government, which was responsible for starting that war in the first place. The regular police force was abolished, yes, but what you *forget* to mention is that all citizens were armed and taught to defend themselves.

And I don't think there can be a greater irony than the one in your final sentence: "democracy was again victorious"... If I ever had any doubt about the kind of filthy murderers and inhumane butchers that you love and support so much, that doubt is now completely gone. Here is what your "victory of democracy" meant for the people of Paris:

The French army spent eight days massacring workers, shooting civilians on sight. The operation was led by Marshal MacMahon, who would later become president of France. Tens of thousands of Communards and workers are summarily executed (as many as 30,000); 38,000 others imprisoned and 7,000 are forcibly deported.

There is a reason why it is called "The SLAUGHTER of the Paris Commune"...

For everyone else: If you are interested in a detailed account of the history of the Paris Commune and the events surrounding it, from the perspective of the people who fought for freedom and were brutally murdered for it, click here.

3. And by taking away resources from those non-industrialized countries, the West makes sure that they stay non-industrialized.

What happened in medieval Slovakia is very different from what is happening in today's 3rd world.

Medieval Slovakia experienced Roman-style imperialism: the conquerors brought technology and infrastructure to the conquered country, helping it to develop and grow.

But today's 3rd world countries are experiencing Mongol-style imperialism: the conquerors plunder and exploit the conquered countries, being interested only in profit.

4. Of course capitalists have subgroups. And sometimes the differences between these subgroups can be very large. But that doesn't change the fact that they are still capitalists. I'm not saying this as an accusation, but simply as a well-known fact.

[SurlyPIG]

Of course, there's also no guarantee that you will find what you need in the private system, no matter how many "choices and networks" there are. There is only a very high chance that you will find it. But then again, the chances that a well-funded public system will cover it are higher. (because they will be required to cover pretty much everything)

Higher chance my foot. There's only one public system, there are many private systems, and throwing money relentlessly at the public systems won't eliminate its basic flaws.

So you'd rather give that power to unelected corporate overlords?

No businessman has that kind of power. They can pay you what they like, they can take away your benefits, they can hire you to work full time or they can cut your hours, but they can NEVER control you like the Communists do.

One think I'd like to know is how your Commie paradise fills the crap jobs. Custodians, miners, bricklayers, you know, the type that might require some amount of education but are extremely unpleasant to do. Who wants to be an exterminator when you can mooch pogi off the rest of society as an "artist"? These positions are necessary. You know the old phrase; it's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it. How could Communism possibly fill these positions without forcing people into them KGB-style.

Why? Is there a law against it? [state management of all information and industry] ::)

Well actually yes, they're called civil rights. But that's not the point. The point is that amount of micromanagement would require a huge fraction of society to work at all, and it would certainly never be fair. People would have to give things up for what somebody else defines as what's best. And when you need half of society just to manage society, the society that's actually doing the work moves at half the speed...

Funny how the Communist officials in the USSR always came to the same conclusion that they were the ones who deserved top pay. Funny how they always gave themselves the best housing. Power corrupts. Allocating so much managerial power to

The state can't dictate anything without the approval of the people, because the people can vote no confidence at any time and put a new government in power.

Until one day they say, "We are pleased to announce a new law that will make our country run much smoother," and proceed to give themselves a little more power than before in the name of progress and efficiency, until one day, well, you're from Romania, you know how the story goes...

Anyway, there's one thing I must clear up: the state will NOT have control of the media. The Constitution will clearly forbid state officials from even looking at the media the wrong way, and the consequences for trying to interfere with the freedom of the press will be extremely harsh.

But you've already said they control all information, and what is the media if not a source of information?

But what you're basically asking is "What if one day the state decides to institute a de facto dictatorship"? Well, the exact same thing that would happen if a capitalist state did it. There would be massive civil unrest, until the state either gets the message and re-institutes democratic rights, or the people take matters in their own hands and have an open revolt.

Like I said, it's the same thing that would happen if there was a capitalist government instead of a socialist one.

I highly doubt they'd come right out and do that all at once, the people's influence would wither away much more slowly...

There's nothing wrong or immoral about it. The only thing that causes severe problems and injustice for the poor is paying for the classes themselves. In other words, buying information. This is immoral, because all human beings must have free and equal access to information.

Ever heard of a li-brar-y? We have them here almost for free. (complete with internet PCs) There's absolutely no sense in the argument that only the rich can get an education and information and improve themselves...

However, there's nothing wrong with paying for equipment and work space. If those people want to learn Kung-Fu and the state doesn't have the funds to support Kung-Fu classes, they are perfectly free to pay for their own floor mats, sparring equipment, etc.

So now that I can cover my expenses, my class becomes a huge success and I start having to turning people away because I just don't have the time to teach more classes. So why can't I quit my day job, open a few more classes, and teach it full time with enough money to cover my OWN living expenses. Nothing extravagent, as it would be a small little business, but a guy has to eat, right?

And can't that [the people deciding where their tax money goes to] happen in a capitalist economy?

Of course it can. Like many other elements of socialism (such as free education and healthcare), it can be adapted for capitalism. And also like them, it works better in socialism than in capitalism.

Uhh...did you just say "socialism" and "works" in the same sentence? Show me ANY example of socialism working AT ALL, let alone better than the free market system.

Well, that's perfectly true. If this "weapon" (education) is in the hands of the people, its effects are obviously different than if it was in the hands of a dictator.

So what's your point?

My point is just as it is with everything else about Communism; there's nothing to fall back on. There's no plan B. There's no second sun. There's only one wall, and the ceiling's going to come down. Communism relies on everything being perfect. Our economy is perfect. Our schools are perfect. Our hospitals are perfect. Our government is perfect. After all the whole point of Communism is that, if a communal service is perfect, why would you waste resources having more than one of anyting?

I say it's all a bunch of honky-tonk, noodle-brained crap. Perfection is a matter of opinion. Communism only works when everyone's perception of perfection is identical. Rather, when they are MADE to be identical (thus why Communism has always and will always be an authoritarian system). People deserve the opportunity to make their own perfection. Not to "have input" into the communal system, because people are too different and you can't satisfy everyone.

Again, this is perfectly true. Khrushchev hated the personality cult (also called "cult of the individual") of Stalin, and successfully put an end to it.

Sounded more like he was one of the Borg from Star Trek.

Huh? As you can plainly see from that quote, Stalin preached FAKED democracy.

And I find it rather ironic that this quote from Stalin seems to apply so well to the USA presidential elections of 2000...

To the former; exactly. Fake democracy is essential in any truly Communist system. Sure you get the odd super-lefter like Sweden but that's not Communism...

To the latter; are you even remotely aware that the punch-card votes are counted by machines?

[Caid Ivik]

1. Yes! This is called a "trust system". Abusements of bank borrowings can be very dangerous, it was the primary cause of the 1929 crisis. About socialism you are true: everyone can say he "owns" the "common" property of state, but no one really works. Who should work for someone else...

2. Proud of you, of course ;) Commune was created and led by jacobine and blanquistic movements, and fact is their politics of mass rallying can be easily defined as demagogical. "Support us and we'll destroy german invaders" etc. I stay with Bakunin's description, which is much more true for communists ("I am its supporter, above all, because it was a bold, clearly formulated negation of the State."). After fall of Napoleon III. there was a chance to create a new democratic country. Germans couldn't be there for a long, Russia and Austria were always ready to say why Haus Hohenzoller isn't suited for Holy Roman throne, so they had to retreat soon as well. Fact is that jacobines couldn't accept a normal, bourgeois democracy, maybe because it would be against their view on it: dictature of masses, leading destruction of anything called "reactional", let it is good or bad. That was the cause of communard revolution, if it wasn't pure french nationalism. Inside the communard Paris, factories were under rebel control, owners were usually executed, if they didn't give up and joined them. Church was disbanded. Fact is that professional army of French Republic, also composed by many former workers, won the war and punished the rebellion. According to serious sources, 25 000 rebels fell in battle or were executed, 40 000 deported to New Caledonia or Algiers.

That's the view, which is by EdricO condemned to be called "reactionally capitalistic". Right (wing) view. For anyone else, to find a detailed communist view on Paris Commune see this link: http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/bakunin/paris.html

3. To be sure, when Hungarians came to Panonia, they were much more barbaric than our predecessors. They conquered the Great Moravia, but socially were assimilated by our life style. Just they centralised the monarchy on hungarian nation. Mongols were same. Romans were much more civilised than conquered countries, altough they used most resources from lords from Latium, some remained in provinces: and its quantity was rising. Same is done now. You know, as I've said, west is building infrastructure there. And it needs also some industry for mining itself, don't you think?

4. What does fact they are capitalist? Does that mean automatically "opposer", "reactionist", "common enemy"?

[Edric O]

1. "Abusements of bank borrowings can be very dangerous" - so, in other words, you admit that I am right. Only a tiny fraction of the workers can take out loans and start their own business. And only a small part of those will actually be lucky anough to start a successful business.

As for socialism, it is a system where you actually work for yourself, as opposed to capitalism, in which you work for your boss.

2. Here we can see a fundamental clash of ideologies. You believe that communists are lying demagogues who want to take advantage of revolutionary situations. I believe that capitalists are murderous tyrants who have oppressed and exploited the working class for centuries. You care about the factory owners who temporarely lost their property, I care about the workers and communards who were executed on the spot, without getting any trial from your beloved capitalist "democracy". You think that it's perfectly okay to murder 25,000 rebels, I think it is NOT.

We have different ways of looking at history, and different ideas about who the "good guys" and "bad guys" were. Therefore, we will NEVER agree on how a certain historical event should be interpreted. So it is completely pointless to argue about it. Let each man form his own opinion.

(and as a side note, I need to mention that Bakunin was an anarchist, not a marxist/communist)

3. You are right about the past empires and conquerors, but not about the present ones. The rich nations of the West do not bring culture, nor technology, nor peace to the 3rd world countries. They bring only oppression, hunger, and suffering. There is no "pax americana".

The inherent evil of capitalism is that you cannot have rich without poor. You cannot have rich countries without having poor ones.

4. Not every capitalist is equally bad. Social democrats and other leftists can play a very positive role. Given the proper circumstances, they might even achieve a peaceful transition between capitalism and socialism in some countries, just like a similar peaceful transition was achieved between feudalism and capitalism in certain places. But it seems they have abandoned that agenda for the moment...

[Edric O]

Ace:

Higher chance my foot. There's only one public system, there are many private systems, and throwing money relentlessly at the public systems won't eliminate its basic flaws.

Please, Ace, think rationally about this for a second. The public system is REQUIRED to cover as many options as possible. The private system isn't required to do anything. They are only guided by profit.

No businessman has that kind of power. They can pay you what they like, they can take away your benefits, they can hire you to work full time or they can cut your hours, but they can NEVER control you like the Communists do.

Businessmen control everything you can buy, and all the money that you can buy it with. Sounds like absolute power to me...

Of course, businessmen don't have armed thugs who can force you to obey them, but they can blackmail you ("do as we say or you end up dirt poor on the streets") and achieve the exact same result.

One think I'd like to know is how your Commie paradise fills the crap jobs. Custodians, miners, bricklayers, you know, the type that might require some amount of education but are extremely unpleasant to do. Who wants to be an exterminator when you can mooch pogi off the rest of society as an "artist"? These positions are necessary. You know the old phrase; it's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it. How could Communism possibly fill these positions without forcing people into them KGB-style.

And how does capitalism fill the crap jobs? Well, it more or less forces people into them, by giving them a choice between taking a crap job or being unemployed. So how exactly is that any better than forcing people into them KGB-style?

Having said that, however, I must remind you that KGB-style methods cannot and will not exist in a true communist society. The people who fill the crap jobs will be those who failed at every other job that they had. Or the people who are simply not ambitious and who are perfectly satistified with such a "crap job". Of course, the final goal is to eliminate crap jobs altogether, by having them done by machines. But it will take some time before that happens.

Well actually yes, they're called civil rights. But that's not the point. The point is that amount of micromanagement would require a huge fraction of society to work at all, and it would certainly never be fair. People would have to give things up for what somebody else defines as what's best. And when you need half of society just to manage society, the society that's actually doing the work moves at half the speed...

I was talking about efficient state management of the economy. You said that it's impossible, but without providing any good reason. It seems to me that you're stuck on some very old stereotypes...

You don't need half of society to manage society. You won't need any more people working on it than the current numbers of people working in the management of private companies. Not everything needs to be micromanaged from the center! Each production unit will have autonomy in making decisions to solve unexpected problems.

Funny how the Communist officials in the USSR always came to the same conclusion that they were the ones who deserved top pay. Funny how they always gave themselves the best housing. Power corrupts.

Well, of course! That was because there was no democratic process to keep them in check! They had absolute power. But in real socialism/communism, the people have the final say.

Until one day they say, "We are pleased to announce a new law that will make our country run much smoother," and proceed to give themselves a little more power than before in the name of progress and efficiency, until one day, well, you're from Romania, you know how the story goes...

Oh, you mean like the Patriot Act?

If something like that ever happens, the people will hopefully be educated enough to see the truth and kick the would-be dictators straight out of government. But if they don't... well, let's watch the USA and see what happens.

You see, capitalism carries the same risk.

But you've already said they control all information, and what is the media if not a source of information?

Control of all information? WTF??

I only said that all education must be made public and free. Obviously, that implies that a government comission must decide on the curriculum (or more exactly, several different curricula, because people must have as many education choices as possible). But this comission, like everything else, will be held accountable in front of the people. Ultimately, the people have the real power, not the government.

But the media is very different from the education system. The media is far more dynamic, and the news can't be planned in advance. And most importantly, the media MUST have total freedom and independence. The government will provide the funding, but it will not have a say in ANYTHING the media does. It will be an arrangement similar to the BBC.

Ever heard of a li-brar-y? We have them here almost for free. (complete with internet PCs) There's absolutely no sense in the argument that only the rich can get an education and information and improve themselves...

So there's no difference between going to university and reading books in a public library? ::)

So now that I can cover my expenses, my class becomes a huge success and I start having to turning people away because I just don't have the time to teach more classes. So why can't I quit my day job, open a few more classes, and teach it full time with enough money to cover my OWN living expenses. Nothing extravagent, as it would be a small little business, but a guy has to eat, right?

If your class is such a huge success, then you will start getting public funding for it. The first criteria in determining which classes get funded is what the people want to learn.

My point is just as it is with everything else about Communism; there's nothing to fall back on. There's no plan B. There's no second sun. There's only one wall, and the ceiling's going to come down. Communism relies on everything being perfect. Our economy is perfect. Our schools are perfect. Our hospitals are perfect. Our government is perfect. After all the whole point of Communism is that, if a communal service is perfect, why would you waste resources having more than one of anyting?

Perfect? No. It is only better than the alternative. Communism doesn't rely on "everything being perfect". It relies on better living standards, higher life expectancy, and better public services that capitalism could ever provide. And it also ensures the complete elimination of poverty and unemployment.

Sure, not everyone will be happy, but there will be A LOT more happy people than in capitalism. And a lot less unhappy ones.

And there's always a plan B. Remember, this is a democracy we're talking about, and it is a democracy in which the people can actively vote for decisions and laws. If the people don't like something, they can always change it.

Sounded more like he was one of the Borg from Star Trek.

Hmmm, I never knew the Borg had dictators with personality cults... ::)

To the former; exactly. Fake democracy is essential in any truly Communist system. Sure you get the odd super-lefter like Sweden but that's not Communism...

To the latter; are you even remotely aware that the punch-card votes are counted by machines?

LOL, so you know communism better than I do? And you get to decide what is or isn't "essential in any truly communist system" without even having to give a logical reason for it? Stalin would be proud... ::)

As for the American vote counting: Well, I didn't know that they were punch-card votes in the first place...

Uhh...did you just say "socialism" and "works" in the same sentence? Show me ANY example of socialism working AT ALL, let alone better than the free market system.

Funny how 10 years of economic depression can make people completely forget about the 60 years of economic prosperity and incredible progress that came before it...

The Soviet Union, despite its stalinist regime, was a huge success story until the 1980's. The socialist economy had transformed an impoverished rural country into the second most powerful nation on Earth. In the 1930's, the Soviet Union achieved the fastest economic growth ever recorded in history. In just a few decades, the Soviet Union made the same progress that western capitalist countries made in 150 years. I call that a pretty good example of a working socialist economy.

Saying that socialism "failed" because of the economic depression in the 1980's is like saying that capitalism "failed" because of the Great Depression of 1929.

[Caid Ivik]

1. Well, without law and order wouldn't work anything. With it, even an ilegal immigrant from Vietnam can make a succesful business. In Bratislava we have dozens of them, usually having a small shop. And now, after one generation, they all can be considered as a middle class. They survived even comings of Carrefour and Tesco, Marx' theory is falling...

2. Problem is that with communists I think only about a small group of followers of Marx, which reached the power by creating "people's democracies" in USSR, Warszaw Pact, Cuba, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodjia and many more. You call with "capitalists" whole world, no matter if it is Bush or Chatami (and you must say that USA and Iran HAVE sligtly different systems). As well as Thiers with prussian guns aiming to his back was in rather different situation than US prison guards in Guantanamo. I am sure Thiers wasn't enjoying executes of Commune remnants (altough I am not sure that all 25 thousands fought without any casuality and then peacefully awaited their doom), as well as I don't think Lenin was enjoying shots into emperor Nicolaus' head. I hope so...

(a note: sometimes we can see a view from more sides; only totalitar ways are against plurality)

3. USA aren't only western country. But if I think about i.e. Japan or South Korea, these are now also considered in one group with Americans, altough they are show of succesful implementation of capitalism. There are more such places, i.e.Serbia. We can't await that Iraq will be a concurent one year after war. But your biggest nonsense is your hope, that without capitalism there won't be "rich" and "poor". There will be only poor, just you won't be able to compare, so you won't have a motivation to make yourself rich.

4. I am not sure, how can someone first say that "I believe that capitalists are murderous tyrants who have oppressed and exploited the working class for centuries." and then...ok, I understand, little error. But anyway, have you ever thouhgt that NOT every socialist tries to create the marxistic utopy?

[Edric O]

1. First of all, what does any of that have to do with what we were talking about? And second, I suggest you wait a few more years for Carrefour and Tesco to make their full impact felt, and then tell me what is or isn't falling.

2. You have a very strict idea of who the "communists" and "capitalists" are, and you leave a whole lot of people out. I suggest you should use less dogmatic definitions of communism and capitalism. In reality, there are many different kinds of communists, just like there are many different kinds of capitalists. Bush and Chatami are both capitalists, but they use very different types of capitalism.

And I also suggest that you stop holding double standards. You accuse communists of murder, but when capitalists slaughter communists you don't see anything wrong with it. Yes, many communards died in battle. But many more were killed in cold blood.

3. Japan has always been a powerful country. It's not surprising that it's still powerful after the implementation of capitalism. As for South Korea, the only reason why it's such a "successful implementation of capitalism" is because it was heavily supported by the Americans, and they made sure that it wouldn't be exploited. They didn't want to exploit South Korea so that its people won't turn to communism and unite with the North. (of course, the North is actually a stalinist dictatorship, not a communist country, but that's beside the point)

There is no such thing as a system in which "everyone is poor". Richness and poverty are not absolute values. You are rich or poor depending on what percentage you hold of the total wealth of the world. If everyone is equal, then they cannot be all poor, or all rich. They hold more or less the same percentage of the total wealth of the world, so therefore they are simply equal, not "equally poor" or "equally rich".

Capitalism is a system which makes a few people rich and the vast majority of people poor. Communism is a system in which no one is poor, and no one is rich. In communism, everyone gets gradually richer, but not at the expense of anyone else.

4. You have a point there. I was making a generalisation in my first stament (the one you quoted).

And of course that not all of today's "socialists" are really trying to build socialism. Some of them just want to improve capitalism. That's why I usually call the social democrats "weak". They are afraid to make any serious changes to the system.

[Caid Ivik]

1. So, the effect came quickly. I've told you about that my aunt with cafe, I think? Few years before she had a galantery, selling sewing stuff, buttons and such. Hypermarkets drastically brought down her income, so she ended with it and quickly made a cafe. You see, those flexible can survive, and I wouldn't say our nation is composed only by unwieldy single-professionals.

2. I am not sure if I read it carefully, but it seems you are writing same thing as I did, dumbhead. Maybe you should read carefully as well. But whatever, I take it as you understood and accepted what I ment.

3a. Well, Tokyo of before 1945 fully made of wood, that's why it burnt so easily... Japan was under militaristic rule, and altough they spent everything to army and navy, their military strength still wasn't comparable to i.e.Britain, which is equal in size. And that few industry was also bombed by USAAF. They received same support as Korea and now we see, that investments were succesful.

3b. Due to lower productivity (consider factors like lower motivation, mass production etc.) communism ensures lower living standard for its population. You can't change your profession because somewhere is better income, you must work only where you have best performance. It is logical, but against free will. I don't know why i.e.cook shouldn't create his own business and then work more as manager, when he is succesful. To be sure, capitalism in its pure (also nonexisting) form ensures nothing, but gives more possibilities for active people. It's more risky, but much more productive. Compared to Gates we are all poor, but that doesn't mean we can't be richer.

4. Well, remaining in Golden Middle Path I consider as the best way...

[Edric O]

1. That was among the short-term effects. But there are also long-term ones. Just wait and see. More and more small private businesses will go bankrupt.

And besides, you've pretty much proved my point: the arrival of transnational corporations put your aunt out of business. The fact that she managed to start another business afterwards doesn't change anything. She was one of the lucky ones. Few people can "survive" like your aunt did. Most of them are forced to seek a job as an employee of one of the corporations. And so the petty bourgeoisie sinks into the proletariat...

2. If you could write better English, maybe it would be easier for people to understand just what the hell you're trying to say.

But anyway, I see that we're finished discussing point 2. Good. We can finally declare this point closed.

3a. Yes, that's true. So what? Japan is no different from any other advanced capitalist country. It has its own poor exploited people, and it brings its contribution to the capitalist exploitation of poor 3rd world countries. But we've already talked about this.

3b. Lower productivity? You've got to be joking. Even the stalinist regime of the Soviet Union, which was FAR from socialism (not to mention communism), managed to achieve a rate of economic growth beyond the wildest dreams of the capitalists. The Soviet Union in the 30's had the fastest growing economy that the world has ever seen. The only reason why it was still behind the West was that the West had a massive head start (Russia was about 60 years behind the West in the time of the Tsars).

In communism (as well as in socialism) you work in whatever profession you're best at. Sounds good to me.

4. Do whatever you want. Just remember that your "middle path" is someone else's extreme, and vice versa.

[Caid Ivik]

1. There are plenty of family firms founded centuries ago. Not only on west, for example sheeperders. There are still many professions, which can't be done by a large firm. She can make some financial alliance with another cafe, but she will remain middle-class bourgeoise.

2. As I see, we have a same opinion in this point. I agree that discussion is senseless here, we argue with same opinion ;D

3a. This paragraph was about how Japan became an advanced country, altough before war it was what we call a 3rd world country. Don't be lured by their navy, authocracies of the 3rd world give everything to arms.

3b. Stalin started electrification of Russia about a century after western Europe. But don't blame monarchy, transsibirian railroad or metro in Moscow were built before they even knew about some red stars. Anyway, what leads you to such declaration? Stalin's statistics of GDP? Or just percentage of five-year plan's success (in west it was relativelly 0%, so it's really the best!)?

Logically. But it sounds worse when you are forced to do it.

4. Why extreme? I define extremism as opposition of pragmatism. Do you mean that I am a fanatical pragmatic? Hm, you should help me with definition of such movement...

[SurlyPIG]

Here Edric writes...

Funny how 10 years of economic depression can make people completely forget about the 60 years of economic prosperity and incredible progress that came before it...

The Soviet Union, despite its stalinist regime, was a huge success story until the 1980's. The socialist economy had transformed an impoverished rural country into the second most powerful nation on Earth. In the 1930's, the Soviet Union achieved the fastest economic growth ever recorded in history. In just a few decades, the Soviet Union made the same progress that western capitalist countries made in 150 years. I call that a pretty good example of a working socialist economy.

Saying that socialism "failed" because of the economic depression in the 1980's is like saying that capitalism "failed" because of the Great Depression of 1929.

...which is quite funny, as I recall the dozens of times I've heard him say that the USSR was not TRUE socialism. It seems you want to have your cake and eat it too. Compare the above quote with whate you wrote in the genocide thread:

First of all, please learn to make the difference between communism, socialism and stalinism. No communist country ever existed, and no country even claimed to be communist. They only claimed to be socialist (hence the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics"). But socialism is the system in which all means of production are the public property of all the people. Was this the case in the "socialist" countries of the soviet bloc? No. The means of production were NOT controlled by the people. They were controlled by a government oligarchy. Therefore, they weren't even socialists, much less communists!

Quod erat demonstrandum.

So tell me Edric, which one is it? You're bluntly contradicting yourself and you can't have it both ways if you are to be logically consistant. Is the USSR a socialist success, or a Stalinist success that feigned Communism?

[Edric O]

See, this is what happens when you don't explain things clear enough... A lot of confusion comes out of it.

It's my fault for not explaining it properly in the first place, and I apologise. Let me clear it up:

In the Genocide topic, I proved that the USSR was not socialist (this isn't a matter of "true" socialism - the Soviet Union was plainly not socialist, full stop). Since the system of the USSR (which I call "stalinism") did not meet even the most basic definition of socialism, it was obviously not socialist.

However, that's not to say that stalinism and socialism don't have anything in common. As a matter of fact, they share the same economic model. What they DON'T share is the social and political structure. In stalinism, there is a state oligarchy that has absolute power. In socialism, all power is held by the people, who have full control over the state.

But let's get back to the part about the economy. In the first post you quoted, Ace, I said that the USSR had a socialist economy. And since the USSR was stalinist, and stalinism uses the same economic model as socialism, what I said in that post is perfectly true.

In brief: The system used in the USSR (and all of its satellite states) was stalinism, which combines a socialist economy with an utterly anti-socialist political and social system.

[SurlyPIG]

In brief: The system used in the USSR (and all of its satellite states) was stalinism, which combines a socialist economy with an utterly anti-socialist political and social system.

IMO the two go hand in hand. The system must be judged as a whole, as the two sides (economic/social) are tied in very tightly. One cannot just say, "Look! The socialist system in the USSR was a success, so that means Communism can work," while completely ignoring the social brutality in the USSR. Given what you said above, would you agree that it is unfair to judge the USSR's economic success, given the nature of the role the totalalitarian system played in the doings of the Union?

My point is that I think it's implausible that their socialist-immitation economy wouldn't have worked without things like the KGB making sure people worked where they were streamed to work, or the fear instilled by Stalin's brutal slaughters (the ones he referred to as 'purges'), or the heavy amount of propaganda in the system.