Genocide, will the war crime one day be a neccessity? (thoughts wanted)

[Caid Ivik]

For communism, human is a same resource as i.e. oil or iron. Idea or a manual work is a product of human, as car is made from some resources. Human is a multipurpose thing, like cow, which can be resource of milk, meat and work on a field. Just it needs some "refill" after work done. Same human, after a work stage he will be refilled by "needed things". And then back to ant-like work...

Sometimes I don't know why we use a word "utopy" for communism. Dictionaries already know word "antiutopy".

[Edric O]

Yeah, that was a "fair" and "unbiased" description of communism coming from its worst enemy... ::)

I thought I asked you to stop lying, Caid. I don't know what kind of sick and repulsive system you're describing, but it sure isn't communism!

Communism is based on respect for human life. On the idea that all human beings have the right to a decent life, and that no one should be without food or water or basic shelter.

Communism values human life and human happiness above everything else.

But tell me, why are you throwing mud, Caid? Why are you just lying about communism to make it look bad? Are you really so desperate that you need to sink that low?

[Dante]

I think perhaps he's making the same mistake a lot of people make and confusing it with Stalinism...

Perhaps.

[Edric O]

No, I think he's doing this on purpose. In another topic he showed that he knows the difference between stalinism and communism. He even gave proof that they're different...

Anyway, let's get back on topic.

[zamboe]

" Communism values human life and human happiness above everything else."

FYI, Communism value goods, if you pretend to accept that human happiness can be achieved by having possesion, then you are way wrong, as communism is.

" Communism is based on respect for human life. On the idea that all human beings have the right to a decent life, and that no one should be without food or water or basic shelter. "

There is not a single economic/political model or approach that I know of that doesn't look forward to respect human life.

Decent life ?, subjective, then not possible to generalize with it.

Right to a decent life ?, that "right" must be earned, communism pretends to guarantee certain rights no matter if the person has earned that right, in other words, communism pretend to support FLAT rights and obligations, when the real world is motivated by incentives, that's why people who do more get more, simple as that.

For communist to be possible to apply, people should be either perfect or like robots (whit complete equal desires and aspirations), which is not the case of human nature.

[Edric O]

Can we PLEASE not turn every topic into a discussion about communism?

Ah well, here we go again...

FYI, Communism value goods, if you pretend to accept that human happiness can be achieved by having possesion, then you are way wrong, as communism is.

Communism is, above all, an economical system. And I have no idea what you mean by saying that it "values goods". All economies (whether communist, capitalist, or anything else) must deal with goods and services, of course, but that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the moral values that communism is based on.

The material possesions given by communism might not bring you happiness, but at least no one is starving in the streets like in capitalism. Communism doesn't guarantee instant happiness, but it DOES guarantee a decent life.

Decent life ?, subjective, then not possible to generalize with it.

A decent life involves having food on the table, having clean water to drink, having some sort of house or shelter, having free access to healthcare, and an equal opportunity to succeed in life (i.e. having free education). EVERYONE agrees that these are elements of a decent life. The rest might be subjective, but these 5 things are not.

Right to a decent life ?, that "right" must be earned

See, this is where the respect for human life comes in. Do you have to "earn" your right to live? Do you have to "earn" your right to be free? No. These are inherent human rights. We communists are among the strongest defenders of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In fact, we believe more rights should be added. Such as the right to basic food, drinking water, shelter, healthcare and education. These are, in fact, natural extensions of the right to live.

the real world is motivated by incentives, that's why people who do more get more, simple as that.

Read what I wrote in one of my earlier posts in this topic. Communism rewards people who work harder or better. But the rewards won't be as ridiculously large as they are in capitalism, and you won't be able to just keep making an infinite amount of money from a single good idea (like you can do in capitalism, through investment). The main difference between communism and capitalism is that communism does not allow money to be used as capital. In other words, you can only use money to buy things, not to make more money. And if you want more money, you'll have to work for it.

[Dante]

He's right you know. I'm an autocrat and even I agree with Edric. Communism is the perfect democracy. It just isn't compatible with reality, due to the selfish nature of humans.

(That's my opinion)

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Human nature will always cross the paths of equality and justice on earth.

But communism would improve our life, not make it perfect.

And it's strange how every thread turns into a Communism vs Capitalism topic. A new conspiracy? :D

Anyways, as for the weak and poor countries, the Arab world still lives in their age, 'the strong survive, the weak perish'

Hands will be cut off, if you steal something, etc etc.

I guess, it's all our fault that they are slaughtering eachother. ::)

[Edric O]

Human nature is more complex than people usually believe. It's obviously true that we have a selfish (individualistic) side, but we also have a social side - the need for the companionship of other humans. This is why we were able to build a stable society, instead of eternally fighting each other out of mindless greed.

Our ancestors were able to understand that each one of them would be better off if they all lived and worked together. The same thing can happen today, and that is why communism works: because sharing isn't all about giving; it's also about receiving. So the primitive selfish instincts don't fight against it.

-----------

Hmmm, maybe I should make a thread in which I explain all the principles and basic features of communism, so that every time someone brings up this issue I could just give them a link to that thread... Too bad I don't really have the time for it right now. :-

Edit: And by the way, Sard-Kirov is totally right about this:

Human nature will always cross the paths of equality and justice on earth.

But communism would improve our life, not make it perfect.

[Caid Ivik]

The same thing can happen today, and that is why communism works...

Well, let's see how it works. Check out: USSR, Warszaw Pact, Cuba, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodja, Chile, Indonesia, Mongolia...

[Edric O]

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.

[Caid Ivik]

OK, no need to italics and bold fonts. Let's take i.e.Iraq. See their flag. Red color presents their communistic constitution. Green writing and stars show their muslimity. And black shows their truth: fascism. Their ideal was same, just we can see they failed. You can't say something works, when every attempt failed.

By the way, according to Soviet constitution, carrier of ideas is KSSS, Communist Party of the Soviet Union...

[Edric O]

Hey, guess what? The US flag also has the colour red on it! I guess that makes the USA a communist country by your logic... ::)

But wait, there's more! Slovakia has red on its flag too! So does Romania, in fact. And Britain. And France. And Germany. And Spain. And Holland. And... OMG, the whole world is communist! ::)

I'm afraid that all the sarcasm in the world isn't enough to express the sheer stupidity of your post, Caid. For your information, the colour combination red/white/green/black is typical for the flags of Arab nations. Just like the combination red/white/blue is typical of Slavonic nations, and red/black/green/gold is typical of African nations.

Past attempts at communism failed because they were carried out in the wrong place (poor or very poor countries, with little or no experience in democracy) at the wrong time (right after a devastating war). I have explained this a thousand times, yet you still ignore it.

In my previous post in this topic I have clearly given the logical arguments and the evidence that stalinism was neither socialism nor communism[/b}. And the fact that you could not refute it just goes to prove my point.

[Caid Ivik]

White-red is the combination defining our slavianism, that's true. Most slavonic countries have them, blue part was added, because we are a democratic country ;)

I thought you will see at least that as something, what you won't feel as a dagger in your heart. But as you wish, if something soft is laughable to you, then let's begin what you did not want. Building of communism was predicted to be started by a revolution. State of anarchy, where exploited class will rise and destroy the might of oppression. Well, it's hard to lead a civil war without some destruction, so the point of socialism failures started at the "wrong time" is an alibism. There were many socialistic revolutions, altough they were not held in Marx's antiideal states (which do not, and did not exist as well as those ideal), and evolution of the state always failed, no matter why or because of whom. Every one of these failed socialism became a fascistic dictature, which brought somewhere an equality for most, but had no chance to become a true utopy, which seems to be against today's human nature. Soul is too strong to become just a part of collective.

[Edric O]

So Poland isn't democratic because they don't have blue on their flag? ;D

What I did not want was for us to take this thread completely off-topic... but now we've already done that, and there's no going back.

You're right that in the vast majority of cases we need a revolution in order to overthrow capitalism and to move on to socialism. And revolutions are a very messy and quite destructive business. It might take a long time to recover from a revolution, but it's not really difficult, not even if the new system is fundamentally different from the old. However, recovering from a World War is a tough challenge for anyone, and it becomes an almost impossible challenge if you're also supposed to build a new economic system while you're at it. But even despite the nearly impossible odds, the Soviet Union almost managed to do it. They only lost a single thing... but unfortunetaly for them, this was an absolutely vital thing: democracy.

There's no such thing as "Marx's antiideal states". Marx talked about real capitalism, not "ideal" or "anti-ideal" capitalism. Marx only pointed out that a communist revolution could only be successful in one of the advanced capitalist countries, such as Britain or Germany. A revolution in Russia was doomed from the start. According to Marx, we shouldn't be surprised that stalinism failed. We should be surprised that it lasted as long as it did.

Edit: The last time I checked, the soul had nothing to do with the economy (well, unless you sell your soul - the ultimate form of capitalism ;) ), so please keep religion out of this. Just remember that I am also a Christian.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Edit: This topic is very old so I decided to edit this post rather than make a new one and bump it all the way to the top. I wish to answer Caid's point in the post below.

In the first few years after Castro's revolution, Cuban socialism seemed to be going along very well. Besides the success of the economic reforms, the Cuban people were allowed a higher degree of personal and political freedom than ever before. But Cuba soon found itself caught in the Cold War crossfire between the USA and the USSR. In the beginning, Castro wanted to stay completely independent from the stalinist USSR. But he soon realized that this was impossible. He was forced to develop closer ties with the Soviets in order to defend himself from the Americans. And Cuba was slowly forced down the stalinist path - partially because Castro himself was seduced by the idea of being a dictator (albeit a mostly benevolent one).

[Caid Ivik]

If revolutions aren't so destructive to doom the plan, then why Cuba failed? It became same oppressive state with secret police aimed against own citizens, authocratic leader, people shot when fleeing to Florida, imprisoned opposition etc.