Communism vs Capitalism

[Sardauker-Kirov]

The stalin thing won't happen again, if the people are aware and taught that they hold the power in hands and not the corrupt dictator.

If a regime tries to poke his head up, it will be squished by the hands of the people.

[Caid Ivik]

People are never aware. Little discontent and we quickly put everything to hands of demagogues, feeding us with their utopic plans. As well it was with Stalin. Situation in USSR wasn't best, so they took Stalin, because he was a tough guy with enough charisma to make effective (altough brutal) decisions. But even if early Party would not have such problems, they would try to keep their power as well. No one would forge sword for own beheading.

[Edric O]

Yes, I am aware of that. I am also aware that there are, in fact, both rich and poor scales in China too. If you don't have the money, then you don't get the better part of life there.

Of course. After all, they have a capitalist economy.

My point is that if any country was to change to communism around our time (spanning at least 10 years into the future) would have same results as China, North Korea and Cuba has today.

Yes, you're absolutely right about this one. At the moment, no communist revolution has any chances of success. This is due to the international climate, both political and economical. If a new country declared itself socialist/communist tomorrow, it would immediately have a trade embargo imposed on it by all the great world powers, and it might even get invaded.

But that doesn't mean that we (I mean "we" as in "communists") can just lay back and wait for more favourable times to fall under our noses. We have to actively prepare ourselves for those times. We have to build a strong communist opposition to the capitalist world order.

[Dude_Doc]

Remember that politics and powerplay is only a small, disregarded tip of a monstrous iceberg. Every politician you see waving and smiling is only a brick of the complex system.

[zamboe]

There's no such thing as "partially communistic" or "partially capitalistic". A country can be capitalist or non-capitalist; socialist or non-socialist; communist or non-communist.

Globalization is changing that (fortunately), countries will (in the long run) loose most sovereignty over economical policies. Therefore in those terms capitalism will be the only possible system for any country, and I think that's ok.

However in areas like education and health care, countries will most likely keep a level of severeignty that will allow independent managment.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

People are never aware. Little discontent and we quickly put everything to hands of demagogues, feeding us with their utopic plans. As well it was with Stalin. Situation in USSR wasn't best, so they took Stalin, because he was a tough guy with enough charisma to make effective (altough brutal) decisions. But even if early Party would not have such problems, they would try to keep their power as well. No one would forge sword for own beheading.

Alas, you do not know if there might be a stalin lurking near Communism.

And he had 'success' with controlling his own people.

But look into the past and the future.

The people can't do much if they don't have the confidence to beat the hostile regime.

If the president of the Netherlands or America suddenly changed to a Fascist or to a Saddamlike regime; Surely, the people won't tolerate that and engages in a civil war against the regime.

Communism will come once the people gets tired of these exploiting systems of Capitalism and Democracy.

Someday, they'll yearn for a better replacement.

And I say this once more. "The kings in the past thought that Democracy was impossible, heck, he was even scared of the idea because he might lose power."

[Dude_Doc]

I don't believe any system will last long without democracy.

[Caid Ivik]

Yes, Kirov, when we take hardcore euroamerican democracies, it is harder. But in these countries it is very unlikely people will make something like "proletar revolution". First, there is no "proletariate" in Marx' definition. Second, when you are happy, you won't rebel...

[Edric O]

Globalization is changing that (fortunately), countries will (in the long run) loose most sovereignty over economical policies. Therefore in those terms capitalism will be the only possible system for any country, and I think that's ok.

I don't think you understand the implications of what you just said. If countries lose sovereignty over economical issues, that means that governments have no power over corporations. Which means that corporations are above the law.

I don't have to explain what would happen if the rich and powerful were completely above the law, do I? Just look at the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages.

The ONLY case in which a globalised economy would be a good thing is if we also had a global government.

I don't believe any system will last long without democracy.

I would love to agree with you, but history shows otherwise. The most long-lived systems are the most brutal tyrannies, because the only way to overthrow them is an armed rebellion.

Just keep in mind that "long-lived" doesn't mean "good". And also, remember that all those tyrannies suffered humiliating defeats in the 20th century. It seems that the people of the world are finally beginning to take their destiny into their own hands.

Yes, Kirov, when we take hardcore euroamerican democracies, it is harder. But in these countries it is very unlikely people will make something like "proletar revolution". First, there is no "proletariate" in Marx' definition. Second, when you are happy, you won't rebel...

Err, Caid, I need to remind you that the proletariate is the social class composed of the people who do not own means of production, and must therefore sell their labour in order to earn a living. In other words, the proletarians are the employees (of all kinds). And the last time I checked, there were plenty of employees in Europe and America...

You're right about the second thing, though. If the people are happy, they obviously won't rebel. But it goes further than that: If the people can live decent lives, they won't rebel. History has shown that people usually have to be really desperate before they rebel.

You see, very few people are actually happy with capitalism. But no one is desperate, either. At least not in the rich countries of the West. That's why they don't rebel.

[Anathema]

Edric, if you say that there never were any true communist nations how can you be sure such a system would ever work, let alone come to existence in a short time span (revolution), while the current system took centuries to "evolve"?

[Acriku]

You see, very few people are actually happy with capitalism. But no one is desperate, either. At least not in the rich countries of the West.

Oh, and in other non-capitalist countries there is no one unhappy? Very few people are happy, period.

[Edric O]

Oh, and in other non-capitalist countries there is no one unhappy? Very few people are happy, period.

Well, seeing how the only non-capitalist countries which exist today are either iron fist dictatorships or ancient tribal cultures, I don't see your point.

But yes, you're right.

Edric, if you say that there never were any true communist nations how can you be sure such a system would ever work, let alone come to existence in a short time span (revolution), while the current system took centuries to "evolve"?

That's like asking a NASA scientist in 1968: "If we've never went to the Moon before, how can you be sure that we can ever get there?"

And my answer is the same that he would give: We've been working on this and we have everything worked out. And on top of that, I'd like to add that a "system" is never rigid. It is constantly changing and adapting to new situations. You can see this in capitalism, and you will also see it in communism.

As for your second question: Keep in mind that capitalism took centuries to "evolve" in some countries. But in many others, it was brought by a revolution or a (civil) war. The same thing will probably happen with communism. We don't WANT a revolution. We hope that a revolution will NOT be necessary. We hope that we could achieve a transition by peaceful means, for example if the workers put pressure on the government by organizing general strikes in all industries. But, in the end, there will probably be some countries where a revolution will be needed, and others where it won't.

[Acriku]

I just saw that comment as an attempt at a cheapshot, which is not uncommon with you and capitalism.

Also, it'd be interesting to see how people would react to such a radical change of government. Even if it does 'evolve' into communism, it would take a long time before people let it happen. It would also take a long time to convince people, if at all possible without them being blindly loyal to the economic system, that communism would work at all. I'm surprised how convinced you seem to be, without a working model in place yet.

[Caid Ivik]

Yes, Kirov, when we take hardcore euroamerican democracies, it is harder. But in these countries it is very unlikely people will make something like "proletar revolution". First, there is no "proletariate" in Marx' definition. Second, when you are happy, you won't rebel...

Err, Caid, I need to remind you that the proletariate is the social class composed of the people who do not own means of production, and must therefore sell their labour in order to earn a living. In other words, the proletarians are the employees (of all kinds). And the last time I checked, there were plenty of employees in Europe and America...

You're right about the second thing, though. If the people are happy, they obviously won't rebel. But it goes further than that: If the people can live decent lives, they won't rebel. History has shown that people usually have to be really desperate before they rebel.

You see, very few people are actually happy with capitalism. But no one is desperate, either. At least not in the rich countries of the West. That's why they don't rebel.

Let's think that proletarian revolution starts a short period of socialism, by commie definition "era of proletarian dictature". Well, now imagine that limited time of socialism, building of a communist utopy, lasts too long, i.e. 40 years, that's about 2 generations. And first rebellion is so powerful that everything falls. People had to be VERY desperate. If you are true, then in socialism people really hated everything red and if today they aren't happy, they at least don't hate the system, so we don't have to change it. Maybe continuing improvements...

[Edric O]

I just saw that comment as an attempt at a cheapshot, which is not uncommon with you and capitalism.

...and even less uncommon with Caid and communism.

Also, it'd be interesting to see how people would react to such a radical change of government. Even if it does 'evolve' into communism, it would take a long time before people let it happen. It would also take a long time to convince people, if at all possible without them being blindly loyal to the economic system, that communism would work at all.

Actually, due to 50 years of capitalist and stalinist propaganda, it is utterly impossible to convince the people who live today that communism can work. But the thing with people is that they die, Acriku, and other people are born. The present generation has seen the fall of stalinism and is currently living in the golden age of capitalism. OF COURSE that they can't be convinced to join the communist cause. But when capitalism starts to decay, when the exploited workers of the world begin to see the bars of the cage around them and when society is once again polarized between the very rich and the very poor, that is when the red star shall rise again. (yes, yes, I know I'm being overly dramatic, but you get the point)

Capitalism will be brought down by the greed of the capitalists.

I'm surprised how convinced you seem to be, without a working model in place yet.

Do you believe human beings could go to Mars, Acriku? This is the exact same thing. We have all the pieces of the puzzle. The only thing we need to do now is to put them together.

We haven't gone to Mars yet, but we know we could do it if we really wanted to. The same applies to communism.

You should read up on marxism, Acriku. I can see that you have a lot of hostility towards it, but it's completely unwarranted. It's also a little ironic, seeing how marxists were among the earliest supporters of the separation of Church and state.

[Caid Ivik]

To be sure, communists were one of the first large movements, which tried to separate whole world from Church... But now seriously, do you think that there were NO people before WW2, which thought that state's intervention to their financial initiative might be demotivating for them? As I can't say we all are against communism now, even in 20s weren't all kenseyists or socialists.

[Edric O]

To be sure, communists were one of the first large movements, which tried to separate whole world from Church... But now seriously, do you think that there were NO people before WW2, which thought that state's intervention to their financial initiative might be demotivating for them? As I can't say we all are against communism now, even in 20s weren't all kenseyists or socialists.

Actually, if you read Marx and Engels' thoughts on religion, you'll see that they revolved around the idea that religion would eventually fade away on its own, without any "help" from anyone (except perhaps the capitalists). And as much as I hate to admit it, it seems they were right about this, too... Religion is fading away in the world.

Were there people before WW2 who despised the idea of state intervention in their businesses? Of course there were! Rich factory owners and aristocrats, as well as the people they bribed. Most of the rest of the population supported either some form of communism (the working class) or fascism (the middle class, which was being driven into poverty by big business). In the end, capitalism saved itself by adopting socialist reforms.

Let's think that proletarian revolution starts a short period of socialism, by commie definition "era of proletarian dictature".

Stop right there. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" in its known form is an idea introduced by Lenin as a sort of "crash course" to get to communism as quickly as possible. Unfortunetaly, it has one major flaw: there are no checks and balances to control the power of the government. Thus there is a very high risk of the leaders getting corrupted and abandoning socialism altogether, like Stalin did.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a very BAD idea, and it is what allowed stalinism to appear in the first place. We must learn from the mistakes of the past. Socialism must be fully democratic in order to work.

Well, now imagine that limited time of socialism, building of a communist utopy, lasts too long, i.e. 40 years, that's about 2 generations. And first rebellion is so powerful that everything falls. People had to be VERY desperate. If you are true, then in socialism people really hated everything red and if today they aren't happy, they at least don't hate the system, so we don't have to change it. Maybe continuing improvements...

40 years isn't long. I'd expect it to last over a hundred.

But you're talking about Eastern Europe here, so I must remind you that our stalinist leaders never had any intention to build communism. If they achieved communism, they would have lost their power. So, in order to stay in power, they did everything they could to make sure that society does NOT advance towards communism. See, that's what happens when you have a dictatorship government: the leaders cling to power and will not let it go for any reason, even if the country goes to pieces around them.

And I must also remind you that most Eastern European countries did NOT have anti-stalinist revolutions. A revolution involves actual fighting, and the only country where any serious fighting occured was Romania. And even here, capitalism was imposed from the top down, by the former stalinists who had suddenly embraced capitalism in order to keep their power.

[Caid Ivik]

Religion is going stronger every day. You don't feel it, because little orthodox churches have no significant authorities and decadent euroamerican people are drown in medial fun (altough even here I can't say that it is a majority). Seeing middle east, India, asian southeast or even spanish America, jewish-based religions (which are only opponents of communistic self-salvating gnosticism) are extremely strengthening!

Other thing: capitalistic theories. In 20th century, social reformation, alongside with mass production, created the best and widest system of society. And you can't say that your myth of "rich people bribing philosophers" is true. Society could improve itself without violent revolutions. People needed only few unioners and strikes, then economists found advantage of cheap mass production and we have what we both want: middle class!

If we abandon Lenin with proletarian dictature, how can we ensure "redistribution" of private wealth? By democratic vote to erarise someone's finances? That's a joke! If it can be, then I am going to start a petition about erarisation of everything by state! People will support it from pure jeal. And moral difference between greed and jeal is not very big.

And the last paragraph. As Gorbacov tried to start a new socialistic era without oppressive organs, I doubt they abandoned the idea of communistic antiutopy. But I would say people had enough of experiments. Nation isn't a lab rat, it wants stability and prosperity, not ideas about "brighter tommorows". Thanks to Gorbacov, the revolution could be considered as "velvet", nearly bloodless. And altough former communistic opportunists and also hardcore "red zombies" scare us even today, do you think that people like Walesa or Havel, undoubtely leaders of revolts, were communists?

[Acriku]

Actually, due to 50 years of capitalist and stalinist propaganda, it is utterly impossible to convince the people who live today that communism can work. But the thing with people is that they die, Acriku, and other people are born. The present generation has seen the fall of stalinism and is currently living in the golden age of capitalism. OF COURSE that they can't be convinced to join the communist cause. But when capitalism starts to decay, when the exploited workers of the world begin to see the bars of the cage around them and when society is once again polarized between the very rich and the very poor, that is when the red star shall rise again. (yes, yes, I know I'm being overly dramatic, but you get the point)

Capitalism will be brought down by the greed of the capitalists.

And when will capitalism decay? So far, it has only succeeded in America. Instead of the entire country being in poverty, only remote areas have poverty, and even with them some are working to improve the areas. America is a world power in economy, military, and technology. Can't say the same for any other form of economy/government, such as Cuba, or China.

Do you believe human beings could go to Mars, Acriku? This is the exact same thing. We have all the pieces of the puzzle. The only thing we need to do now is to put them together.

We haven't gone to Mars yet, but we know we could do it if we really wanted to. The same applies to communism.

But, I have other models to work from - the moon, for instance. It was a success, so I have no doubt we can make it to Mars sometime. Also, this deals with the ever-advancing technology, whereas communism seems to stagnate in its views, principles, and mandates. I can depend on the advancement of technology because of previous successes, but can I depend on communism without such successes?

You should read up on marxism, Acriku. I can see that you have a lot of hostility towards it, but it's completely unwarranted. It's also a little ironic, seeing how marxists were among the earliest supporters of the separation of Church and state.

I don't have hostility, I have doubts. I'm not blindly hateful at a economy system or government system, but I do have doubts on systems that have never been successful or tried. And so what if marxists were the earliest supporters of the separation of church and state? That wouldn't take away my doubts because they share a view that is irrelevant in this topic.

[emprworm]

communism is the bane of evil.

all communist organizations hate israel (they are all vehemently pro-palestine), they hate america, they hate anyone with more money then themselves.

they are greedy, ravenous slime who think that they have a right to everything and everyone on this planet.

[Acriku]

Who are 'they'?

[Edric O]

communism is the bane of evil.

EXACTLY!

bane

n.

1. Fatal injury or ruin: "Hath some fond lover tic'd thee to thy bane"? (George Herbert).

2.

a. A cause of harm, ruin, or death: "Obedience,/Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth,/Makes slaves of men" (Percy Bysshe Shelley).

b. A source of persistent annoyance or exasperation: "The spellings of foreign names are often the bane of busy copy editors" (Norm Goldstein).

3. A deadly poison.

[Middle English, destroyer, from Old English bana. See gwhen- in Indo-European Roots.]

Communism is the bane of evil = Communism is the destroyer of evil. Thank you, Emprworm! ;D

all communist organizations hate israel (they are all vehemently pro-palestine), they hate america, they hate anyone with more money then themselves.

Actually, what we want is for that ridiculous and pointless war to stop. We don't take sides in ethnic disputes. We never did. As the old song goes:

So, comrades, come rally

And the last fight let us face,

The Internationale

UNITES THE HUMAN RACE!

And the only hate I see in here is your hate towards us.

Caid:

Religion is going stronger every day. You don't feel it, because little orthodox churches have no significant authorities and decadent euroamerican people are drown in medial fun (altough even here I can't say that it is a majority). Seeing middle east, India, asian southeast or even spanish America, jewish-based religions (which are only opponents of communistic self-salvating gnosticism) are extremely strengthening!

Unlike you, at least I have the strength to admit that we are losing, and I do not delude myself like you seem to. Religion is falling, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that. Have you seen the recent polls? Atheism is higher than it has ever been in recorded history, and the only religion with a decent growth rate is Islam.

There are still places where Christianity is going strong, like South America for example. And by the way, Liberation Theology is also on the rise. At least that's some good news. Christianity and Communism are beginning to rediscover their common ground.

Other thing: capitalistic theories. In 20th century, social reformation, alongside with mass production, created the best and widest system of society. And you can't say that your myth of "rich people bribing philosophers" is true. Society could improve itself without violent revolutions. People needed only few unioners and strikes, then economists found advantage of cheap mass production and we have what we both want: middle class!

Yes, OF COURSE that society can improve itself gradually, without any violent revolutions. But only if the right conditions are met.

In the 20th century, capitalism was forced to adopt many elements of socialism in order to save itself from imminent destruction. Now that the communist threat seems to have dissapeared, the capitalists are quickly dismantling all the socialist reforms, so that they can satisfy their immense greed by stealing more and more money from the working class. We'll soon be right back to the savage capitalism of the 19th century, albeit with better technology this time around.

If we abandon Lenin with proletarian dictature, how can we ensure "redistribution" of private wealth? By democratic vote to erarise someone's finances? That's a joke! If it can be, then I am going to start a petition about erarisation of everything by state! People will support it from pure jeal. And moral difference between greed and jeal is not very big.

The redistribution of private wealth is a one-time affair, that will happen right after the revolution. And once it's done, it will never have to be repeated.

As for how it will be done, the answer is simple: Since it is a matter of giving back to the working class the wealth that was stolen from them, it will be a series of trials that will be handled by the justice system. Capitalist exploitation will be handled just like any other case of theft.

And the last paragraph. As Gorbacov tried to start a new socialistic era without oppressive organs, I doubt they abandoned the idea of communistic antiutopy. But I would say people had enough of experiments. Nation isn't a lab rat, it wants stability and prosperity, not ideas about "brighter tommorows". Thanks to Gorbacov, the revolution could be considered as "velvet", nearly bloodless. And altough former communistic opportunists and also hardcore "red zombies" scare us even today, do you think that people like Walesa or Havel, undoubtely leaders of revolts, were communists?

Gorbachev was far, FAR too late. The damage had already been done. The stalinist system was far too rotten to be able to be turned into socialism. Since stalinism was very similar to an absolutist monarchy, it could only be replaced by the same system that replaced absolutist monarchies: capitalism.

"Experiments" mean trying something new. And that always involves a certain risk. But people are not willing to take this risk unless they have very little to lose and very much to gain. In other words, unless they're desperate. And we've already talked about this before...

But without these "experiments", we have stagnation. Stagnation is very attractive, because it promises security and order. The problem is that it also brings decadence and collapse. The Soviet Union fell because it had stagnated for too long. The same happens to everyone who takes the path of stagnation. That is why I do not worry about conservatives too much - by opposing change, you are digging your own graves.

[Edric O]

And when will capitalism decay? So far, it has only succeeded in America. Instead of the entire country being in poverty, only remote areas have poverty, and even with them some are working to improve the areas. America is a world power in economy, military, and technology. Can't say the same for any other form of economy/government, such as Cuba, or China.

First of all, remember that the only indicator of the success of a certain political or economic system is the happiness and the welfare of the citizens living under it, not the military power of the countries who use it. Nazism turned Germany into one of the most fearsome military powers that the world has ever known, but that doesn't make nazism good.

In order for your system to be good, it must be good for Americans, not for America.

(of course, this objection doesn't apply to capitalism - I was just making a point about systems in general)

I don't deny the fact that capitalism has made the American people one of the richest in the world, I only wish to remind you that this is global capitalism we're talking about. Yes, you are rich, but only because others are poor. And also, the fact is that countries with a more socialist-leaning economy (such as Sweden) have HIGHER average living standards than you do.

Capitalism will inevitably decay because capitalism needs to grow and expand to new markets in order to survive. As capitalism develops in a country, the working class gets poorer and poorer, until the threat of revolution (not necessarely communist - it can be any type of revolution) is imminent. When that happens, the capitalists need to start making concessions to the working class and introducing socialist reforms in order to avoid the revolution. Europe and America passed through this stage in the 1920's and 30's. But that means that the capitalists lose their supply of de facto slave labour. So they move their industry to another country, and the cycle begins all over again. The problem is that they don't have an infinite supply of countries to exploit in this manner. Eventually, there will no longer be any workers in the world willing to work for low wages in miserable conditions. Production will suffer. Shortages will become widespread. Living conditions will plummet. Capitalism will collapse.

But if you don't want to accept that explanation, think about the second law of thermodynamics. If nothing else, entropy will eventually put an end to capitalism. Nothing lasts forever.

But, I have other models to work from - the moon, for instance. It was a success, so I have no doubt we can make it to Mars sometime. Also, this deals with the ever-advancing technology, whereas communism seems to stagnate in its views, principles, and mandates. I can depend on the advancement of technology because of previous successes, but can I depend on communism without such successes?

Stagnate?? The history of communism is full of disputes between people who came up with various new ideas, and full of change and adaptation. In fact, sectarianism is a major problem for us today. There are so many different kinds of communism that we find it difficult to get along with each other. It sort of like what would have happened if capitalists had branched off into conservatives and liberals before actually implementing capitalism. And it really gets on my nerves sometimes...

The only things that will always stay the same about communism are our core principles, just like the core principles of capitalism have always stayed the same. (think about private property over the means of production, for example)

Communism has no previous successes, but we have a long series of very close calls. It's frustrating, actually. We came so damn close so many times, but it always slipped between our fingers...

Of course, the fact is that we are trying to do something for the first time. There must be a first time for everything, Acriku. And, like I said, we have come very close to achieving it several times before, so we have quite a lot of experience behind us. To use the space travel analogy, it's as if we never actually landed on the Moon, but came within a few metres of it.

[Caid Ivik]

"Unlike you, at least I have the strength to admit that we are losing, and I do not delude myself like you seem to. Religion is falling, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that. Have you seen the recent polls? Atheism is higher than it has ever been in recorded history, and the only religion with a decent growth rate is Islam."

http://www.statistics.sk/webdata/slov/scitanie/tab/tab5.htm

in 2001: RC 69%, AT 13%

in 1991: RC 62%, AT 19%...

Excluding Czech Republic, we can see same change in every postcommunist catholic country. The weakening can be seen only in countries with dominating national churches. Mass monotheistic religions are far away from decline. And still the main course seems to be salvation trough personal help from God. No need to teach manicheistic heresy to see "early era of christianity".

"The redistribution of private wealth is a one-time affair, that will happen right after the revolution. And once it's done, it will never have to be repeated. As for how it will be done, the answer is simple: Since it is a matter of giving back to the working class the wealth that was stolen from them, it will be a series of trials that will be handled by the justice system. Capitalist exploitation will be handled just like any other case of theft."

Nuclear war would be also a "one-time affair". So you think it is good to make a one big crime to intimidate those who are "unfitty" to communistic driven economics? I would say there would be no needed justice, jeal brings enough accusations.

""Experiments" mean trying something new. And that always involves a certain risk. But people are not willing to take this risk unless they have very little to lose and very much to gain. In other words, unless they're desperate. And we've already talked about this before... But without these "experiments", we have stagnation. Stagnation is very attractive, because it promises security and order. The problem is that it also brings decadence and collapse. The Soviet Union fell because it had stagnated for too long. The same happens to everyone who takes the path of stagnation. That is why I do not worry about conservatives too much - by opposing change, you are digging your own graves."

Security and order; that's a target of communism. Security of workers before "explotion" and order? About that I will be rather silent... With elimination of personal initiative, there will be an era of stagnation comparable to social activities of Mars. As communism is a project to set the one system for everything, teaching that every critics will be criminal, it won't be able to create anything really valuable. Wow, you'll can live your average life with support of state for your averageness. Being average will become a prime value. Everything considered as below or under average will be eliminated to maintain the system. When comparing it to dynamic life of today's world I would say communist antiutopy is like a fish in big conservation can.

"Stagnate?? The history of communism is full of disputes between people who came up with various new ideas, and full of change and adaptation. In fact, sectarianism is a major problem for us today. There are so many different kinds of communism that we find it difficult to get along with each other. It sort of like what would have happened if capitalists had branched off into conservatives and liberals before actually implementing capitalism. And it really gets on my nerves sometimes..."

Disputes were hold mostly after creation of USSR and ended with actions of National Commisariate for Interior. Before, the marxist way had only one radical opponent, anarchists, altough they form a more destructive than a constructive wing. But still, even after these thinking marxists (Marx, Engels, Ms Louxembourg, Lenin, Trockij...) we have only one, same, theory. All changes were implemented only to fit the era. Like you can't base your revolt on low wages when average is around GDP count for one citizen... Stagnation of communism is the most logical result: in communism you have ONE party. In pluralistic capitalism you have MANY parties.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

People that gets enough money are content with Capitalism, hell most of my chats with my 'friends' doesn't see the reason why we should switch to Communism.

They don't think that 'free' education or 'free' hospitals are great.

People that are 'lucky' to have a good job are indeed lucky, but people that are lower class workers but has alot of physical and mental stress caused by the work are less unfortunate.

Most people think that Capitalists 'are' fair people. ::)

They should mention a few companies that doesn't exploit the people, asking so, they don't even have a clue which company to mention.... I wonder....

The most irritating things that I encountered with 'some' of my friends is this; They either call me a Commie or a Fascist when I mention the advantages and disadvantages of Communism. Calling me unintelligent and ignorant, because I don't think Capitalism will ever fit into the daily lives of humans.

Such people either refuses to cooperate with their human brothers and enjoy the fruits of private property and 'bossing' everybody around while the cash flows in.