Communism vs Capitalism

[Acriku]

Free public schools and free healthcare are socialist ideas, are they not?

[Wolf]

I don't think anyone is saying that Marx' or Engles' theories were bad, and to tell you the truth, there are many good theories on government. Marx and Engles are just as legitimate political philosophers as Hobbes, Locke, and Hume.

Besides, you'll notice first-world nations (France, New Zealand, Germany) slowly gravitating more and more to socialist ideas. Take Ireland for example, isn't college education almost entirely paid for by the government? It would seem that nations are gravitating more and more towards socialism. However, Edric and his opponents are right. Socialism has had the horrible misfortune to be written down in history as an evil. Therefore, no matter how socialist nations will become in the near-future (less than 100 years) I doubt that they will take the name socialist very easily. Same ideas, different name. Besides, it seems that socialism/communism's goal is to provide all people with an equal economic opportunity, while at the same time not impinging on their freedom. It seems to me, that Democracy and Communism can coexist, quite easily. Change will be gradual, but it will happen.

As for religion, I do not know what will happen. In all probability, Atheism will rise in numbers until peaking at a certain precentage (for the sake of argument, let us say 34%). Attaining a position in the world among other religions (I'll classify Atheism as a religion because I'm tired.) Other religions, Christianity and Islam, for the sake of argument, will still exist, but probably not with the power they once commanded. People seem to need religion, and there have been many points in history where Atheism was on the rise (Hume, Nietzsche, Sartre, and many philosophers of the 1800-1950 period were Atheists, Atheism is not new, nor is it a roaring tidal wave.) Granted, more and more people are becoming this way, but mainly, as I see it, in First World nations, where the lure of comforts and other worldly goods draws people first to apathy, and then to Atheism when they are asked to state their opinion. Religious belief is something with which all people struggle. It isn't a snap yes or no, in most cases. You have to think. I suppose that God would be proud of us exercising the minds and wills that we have to determine for ourselves what we truly believe. Besides, what kind of children are we if we have no free will.

Eeh.. but I'm new here, and I'm sure something I've said has offended somebody and I'm going to get smacked down in about 10 minutes. Joy.

[zamboe]

Capitalism will inevitably decay because capitalism needs to grow and expand to new markets in order to survive.

I can't help to ask where you have learned that?, self imagination perhaps?

Capitalism does not need to grow and expand in order to survive, that's a fact. Capitalism as an economic model sustain it's grow on the increase of efficiency which is the engine that rewards those who work better that others. Expansion is not exclusive.

Perhaps you might want to provide an example of your rash remark so I can show you where your mistake is.

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.

Working class?.

That's pretty much an old concept. Have you ever heard the word "entrepeneur", maybe you don't since that word is kind of repulsive for extreme communists fans.

As a good communist you are trying to generalize people based on a temporal condition, in today's world there are no working class, in fact there are classes of workers. Which in your definition, will get poorer and poorer are those who are not doing their best to have a job well done. Those workers who are really working good are those who get richer and richer.

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.

Concessions?.

"You don't what you deserve you get what you negociate".

Labor regulations have changed, you cannot apply 80 years old concepts on today's laws. Besides industries today are not moved based on where the labor is cheaper, that's pretty much a 100% wrong concept, today's benchmarks to choose a country are on the contrary, legal safety, excellent qualifications on human resources, access to markets and so on, that concept applies to Chine inclusive.

Production will suffer. Shortages will become widespread. Living conditions will plummet. Capitalism will collapse.

Come on Edrico. Sociology isn't math.

You cannot pretend to explain an evolution/de in a way such as :

1+1+1+1 = 4

Things are not like that. Fortunately !

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.

Have you heard about the contradictions that the second law faces on the limits of the universe.

[Acriku]

Atheism would either fall under the Secular option, No preference option, or any atheistic religion option(possibly put into the 'other' option).

[Caid Ivik]

Free public schools and free healthcare are socialist ideas, are they not?

Not exactly. For example, Austria started with free basic education in late 18th century, from initiative of emperor Joseph II., I would say same about majority of civilised states. But to be sure, nothing is really free. You pay taxes to the state, which distributes them to hospitals and schools. Just it goes trough a large bureaucratic machinery, so it is ineffective. In hospitals we have a system of insurances, so it is far from "free". I would say, better way is to lower taxes and pay the money directly to school.

[Edric O]

zamboe:

I can't help to ask where you have learned that?, self imagination perhaps?

Capitalism does not need to grow and expand in order to survive, that's a fact. Capitalism as an economic model sustain it's grow on the increase of efficiency which is the engine that rewards those who work better that others. Expansion is not exclusive.

Perhaps you might want to provide an example of your rash remark so I can show you where your mistake is.

Oh, so I guess you've never heard about that little thing called globalisation, have you?

Capitalism is expanding into new markets as we speak. And before this stage of expansion, capitalism was on the brink of collapse. What does that tell you?

And by the way, capitalism does not sustain its growth on the increase of efficiency, because this increase also results in people demanding higher wages and higher living standards. So corporations take the efficient equipment that they've developed in the First World and use cheap Third World labour to work with it. And in order to get a fresh supply of cheap labour, they need to expand into new markets.

Working class?.

That's pretty much an old concept. Have you ever heard the word "entrepeneur", maybe you don't since that word is kind of repulsive for extreme communists fans.

As a good communist you are trying to generalize people based on a temporal condition, in today's world there are no working class, in fact there are classes of workers. Which in your definition, will get poorer and poorer are those who are not doing their best to have a job well done. Those workers who are really working good are those who get richer and richer.

Ha ha ha ha!! Now that is funny! :)

Capitalists often try to weasel their way out of arguments by claiming that "X thing is an old concept", as if a problem will just go away if you ignore it long enough.

The working class (also known as the proletariat) is the class of people who do not own any means of production of their own and must therefore sell their labour in order to make a living. That definition is as good today as it was in Marx's time, because capitalism is still capitalism. We still have employers and employees, do we not? We still have wage labour. We still have capital. And we still have a working class.

As I have explained before, the quality and quantity of your work have nothing to do with the wage you receive in capitalism:

Every employee works using means of production which are the property of his employer. The product of his work also becomes the property of his employer. In exchange for this, the employee receives a salary. But this salary has no connection with the actual value of the product that the employee produces. That product - the fruit of the employee's labour - becomes the property of the employer.

Wages are only influenced by the labour market. You see, labour acts like any other commodity which can be bought and sold. The employee sells his labour, and the price he gets in return is his wage. And like any other price, it is regulated by supply and demand. Thus, an employee's wage depends only on how many people there are who are willing to take his job, and how much they are willing to work for. It has nothing to do whatsoever with the value of the product he produces.

As a matter of fact, in order to make a profit, the employer must always pay his employees LESS than the actual value of the products they make. This is how capitalism exploits the worker.

So workers get poorer or richer based on mostly random factors.

Concessions?.

"You don't what you deserve you get what you negociate".

Labor regulations have changed, you cannot apply 80 years old concepts on today's laws. Besides industries today are not moved based on where the labor is cheaper, that's pretty much a 100% wrong concept, today's benchmarks to choose a country are on the contrary, legal safety, excellent qualifications on human resources, access to markets and so on, that concept applies to Chine inclusive.

See above.

Many things have changed in the past century, but the basics of capitalism obviously haven't. And cheap labour is needed in order to have maximum profit. Qualifications are required for some jobs, but there are many more jobs which do not require them.

Come on Edrico. Sociology isn't math.

You cannot pretend to explain an evolution/de in a way such as :

1+1+1+1 = 4

Things are not like that. Fortunately!

Okay, then how exactly are they?

And maybe it's just me, but I find the quote "1+1+1+1 = 4; Things are not like that. Fortunately!" absolutely hillarious. It's a good example of capitalist logic. ;D

Have you heard about the contradictions that the second law faces on the limits of the universe.

Fortunetaly, however, we are well inside the universe, and there is no way around Entropy.

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

Caid:

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".

Oh, you're talking about Eastern Europe! Well, you should have said so from the start! The percentage of Christians is indeed rising slowly in Eastern European countries (Orthodox as well as Catholic - I won't bother to search for any statistics right now, but the percentage of Christians in Romania has slightly increased in the last 10 years).

However, this is only a local anomaly which appeared as a counter-reaction to the 40 years of stalinism. It will soon be over, I'm afraid. The percentage of Christians is currently dropping in both Western Europe and America.

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.

Your comparison is flawed. A nuclear war would hurt both the guilty and the innocent alike, while the redistribution of wealth would only hurt the guilty. Remember that there will be trials to determine guilt or innocence, and that the accused are presumed innocent unless proven otherwise.

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.

Have you even read anything I wrote in this topic? You seem to have me confused with a stalinist, Caid. I suggest you pay more attention to my principles before you make a fool of yourself.

First, I have already explained how people earn money in socialism and communism, so I won't go over it again. Suffice to say that "averageness" has nothing to do with it. People will have plenty of financial incentive to improve themselves.

Second, please get those stalinist stereotypes out of your head. We do not criminalize criticism, we welcome it. Criticism helps point out the existing problems, so that they can be fixed. As I have said a thousand times, stagnation is death. A system must be dynamic and adaptable, or it will die. Stagnation is what killed stalinism.

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.

Caid, don't be an idiot. I never supported any kind of one-party system, and neither do any other present-day communists. The one-party system was an idea introduced by Lenin, not Marx. Lenin thought that it would be a good idea because it would allow decisions to be taken faster, especially in a time of crisis (like the one they were going through). And Lenin was wrong. The one-party system does indeed allow decisions to be taken faster - but they are BAD decisions. We have learned from our past mistakes, and now we know that socialism without democracy is impossible.

In socialism, you will have MANY parties, representing the various socialist factions, as well as the capitalists. We have no intention to outlaw you. The right of free speech is very important to us. And that gives us the moral high ground, because you DO want to outlaw us.

As for actual communism, that is a system with NO parties, because the people govern themselves.

[Acriku]

Where I work, I am given a minimum wage on entry-level jobs. If I show I am working hard, and helping the store, I get raises. So, you see, it depends on where you look.

In socialism, you will have MANY parties, representing the various socialist factions, as well as the capitalists.

In capitalist USA, we have many parties as well. But, it is because of the people that there are only two major parties. In socialism, can you count on the people to vote for many parties, or just end up with a couple major parties like we have right now?

As for actual communism, that is a system with NO parties, because the people govern themselves.

Could you explain this a bit? In America, the people govern themselves as well. It's called democracy. You mentioned before that your support a communist democracy, so where is the distinction?

[Edric O]

Okay, let's see...

Where I work, I am given a minimum wage on entry-level jobs. If I show I am working hard, and helping the store, I get raises. So, you see, it depends on where you look.

The problem is that in capitalism, labour acts like a commodity, subject to the laws of supply and demand. If more people start "working hard and helping the store", there will be a larger supply of good labour, so its price (the raises) will drop. Unless, of course, the owner is feeling generous. But generosity is extremely unreliable, and it puts you at the mercy of the person who might or might not decide to be generous.

In capitalist USA, we have many parties as well. But, it is because of the people that there are only two major parties. In socialism, can you count on the people to vote for many parties, or just end up with a couple major parties like we have right now?

I don't know how you got to have only two major parties, so I can't really answer that...

There are several differences between a capitalist and a socialist democracy, however. First of all, in socialism there won't be any corporations that sponsor their favourite parties and candidates, because there won't be any corporations at all. Political parties will receive funding which will be proportional to their number of members. This will ensure that equally sized parties will also have equal financial means. Second of all, the people will have much more power over their elected representatives. The people will have the power to vote them OUT of office at any time during their term, and there will also be a measure of direct democracy (the matter of just how much direct democracy will have to be decided then, based on local circumstances).

Could you explain this a bit? In America, the people govern themselves as well. It's called democracy. You mentioned before that your support a communist democracy, so where is the distinction?

Any kind of communism must be democratic - how could the people hold the power if the country isn't a democracy?

By saying that the people govern themselves, I mean that they use their political power themselves, instead of delegating it to elected representatives. This could be done through a direct democracy, a network of councils, a system of communes, or something else entirely. Remember: This is communism we're talking about, not socialism. By the time this happens, at least a hundred years (I'd say several hundred, actually) have passed since the end of capitalism, and society has changed considerabely.

Also, regarding something Caid said:

Not exactly. For example, Austria started with free basic education in late 18th century, from initiative of emperor Joseph II., I would say same about majority of civilised states. But to be sure, nothing is really free. You pay taxes to the state, which distributes them to hospitals and schools. Just it goes trough a large bureaucratic machinery, so it is ineffective. In hospitals we have a system of insurances, so it is far from "free". I would say, better way is to lower taxes and pay the money directly to school.

And what about those parents who just can't afford to pay for a good school, Caid? Why should the children suffer for the mistakes of their parents? (assuming that they actually made mistakes and weren't simply unlucky)

[Edric O]

Wolfwiz, you have no idea how happy I am to see that we've got a reasonable and thoughtful new member like yourself. But don't worry, a few weeks in here will fix that. ;D

Besides, you'll notice first-world nations (France, New Zealand, Germany) slowly gravitating more and more to socialist ideas. Take Ireland for example, isn't college education almost entirely paid for by the government? It would seem that nations are gravitating more and more towards socialism. However, Edric and his opponents are right. Socialism has had the horrible misfortune to be written down in history as an evil. Therefore, no matter how socialist nations will become in the near-future (less than 100 years) I doubt that they will take the name socialist very easily. Same ideas, different name. Besides, it seems that socialism/communism's goal is to provide all people with an equal economic opportunity, while at the same time not impinging on their freedom. It seems to me, that Democracy and Communism can coexist, quite easily. Change will be gradual, but it will happen.

I really hope you're right. A peaceful, gradual transition to socialism is the best thing that could happen in this century. But that would mean that a lot of very wealthy and very powerful people would start to gradually lose their power and wealth. And they won't like it, not one bit...

Already you can see how corporations are pressuring for the removal of labour laws, and for a gradual slip backwards to the savage capitalism of the early 20th century (before the Great Depression). If they win, we're heading for a very dark century (in other words, something similar to the 20th century).

As for religion, I do not know what will happen. In all probability, Atheism will rise in numbers until peaking at a certain precentage (for the sake of argument, let us say 34%). Attaining a position in the world among other religions (I'll classify Atheism as a religion because I'm tired.) Other religions, Christianity and Islam, for the sake of argument, will still exist, but probably not with the power they once commanded. People seem to need religion, and there have been many points in history where Atheism was on the rise (Hume, Nietzsche, Sartre, and many philosophers of the 1800-1950 period were Atheists, Atheism is not new, nor is it a roaring tidal wave.) Granted, more and more people are becoming this way, but mainly, as I see it, in First World nations, where the lure of comforts and other worldly goods draws people first to apathy, and then to Atheism when they are asked to state their opinion. Religious belief is something with which all people struggle. It isn't a snap yes or no, in most cases. You have to think. I suppose that God would be proud of us exercising the minds and wills that we have to determine for ourselves what we truly believe. Besides, what kind of children are we if we have no free will.

Well said! I tend to agree with that, except for the last part. I haven't met many people who are actually exercising their minds and wills to determine what they truly believe. Most just label themselves "atheist", "christian", etc. without giving it much thought.

[Wolf]

Thanks, Edric. Hopefully I'll be open-minded for just a little-longer. But, I bet you're probably right. Sooner or later you people will grind me into a shouting maniac for one side or the other. I'd quote you on Entropy, but I can't seem to find it.

I think the theory that Capitalist countries need to expand from the workforce of its own contries to other countries needs to be explained a bit. Edric, you were saying that sooner or later the workers will get fed up with wages/conditions and go Office Space on everyone. However, aren't some fields of work in America begging for more jobs? Take a look at the auto industry, you have workers protesting so that people STOP buying America cars made in Canada/Japan/Mexico and buy American cars made in America. It would seem workers in that scenario WANT to work for the corporations, but want people to buy their goods. If America had moved auto production to other countries because Americans had become fed up with the bosses, it doesn't make sense, then, why that American auto worker is screaming for people to buy only American cars. It seems people still want to work? Or, is that just a special case?

Also, I really don't think religion has much to do with communism vs. capitalism. Capitalist Democracy (USA, separation of church vs. state) leaves religion up to the individual. (Or, at least it tires to.) If Communist Democracy wanted to give the people true power, it would make sense that it would leave religion entirely up to the people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you would say that the government saying "there is no God, there is only science" is just as restricting of freedom as "this is God's country, show your respect".

Corporate Government! Ack! I can't believe I forgot about this! Even though I'm usually a very moderate person politically (moderate, not that I have no opinion, but I hold conservative at the same time liberal standpoints - conservative on government influence on the economy and the military, and liberal on how people conduct their personal lives) but Ralph Nader is a great politican. Even if you disagree with him, you have to admit, at least he wants to change things for the BETTER. Anyway, time to stop wasting time and get to my point, Nader's book "Crashing the Party: Taking on the Corporate Government in an Age of Surrender" talks about how both US parties, Dem and Rep, have essentially become the same. Oh sure, they're different on some issues for the sake of individuality, but their money and power comes from corporate leaders who support one or the other parties. This corporate power is an outside influence that is gradually becoming WAY too much of an influence in Washington, and might be responsible for some its policy actions in recent years. I think that's at least one thing communism would fix, I don't want my Democracy devolving into a Medieval-like corporate feudalism. Serfdom blows.

[Edric O]

Well, I've been here for 4 years and I'm still not a screaming maniac... yet. :)

I think the theory that Capitalist countries need to expand from the workforce of its own contries to other countries needs to be explained a bit. Edric, you were saying that sooner or later the workers will get fed up with wages/conditions and go Office Space on everyone. However, aren't some fields of work in America begging for more jobs? Take a look at the auto industry, you have workers protesting so that people STOP buying America cars made in Canada/Japan/Mexico and buy American cars made in America. It would seem workers in that scenario WANT to work for the corporations, but want people to buy their goods. If America had moved auto production to other countries because Americans had become fed up with the bosses, it doesn't make sense, then, why that American auto worker is screaming for people to buy only American cars. It seems people still want to work? Or, is that just a special case?

It's quite simple, really: The American workers want to keep working and are trying to convince more people to buy their products, but they also don't want to give up the high wages and good working conditions that they're taking for granted (and rightfully so - they have earned every penny of it). Foreign cars are made by people who work longer hours in worse conditions for less money, so they're naturally cheaper. And those foreign workers are being just as horribly exploited today as European and American workers were in the 19th century. Hopefully, they will start unionising and demanding their rights.

Also, I really don't think religion has much to do with communism vs. capitalism. Capitalist Democracy (USA, separation of church vs. state) leaves religion up to the individual. (Or, at least it tires to.) If Communist Democracy wanted to give the people true power, it would make sense that it would leave religion entirely up to the people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you would say that the government saying "there is no God, there is only science" is just as restricting of freedom as "this is God's country, show your respect".

You're right, religion has nothing to do with this whatsoever. It was just an odd tangent that me and Caid went on during our discussion.

By the way, I'm a Christian. But the whole Christianity and Communism issue is so large that it would need its own topic, so let's leave that for another time...

Corporate Government! Ack! I can't believe I forgot about this! Even though I'm usually a very moderate person politically (moderate, not that I have no opinion, but I hold conservative at the same time liberal standpoints - conservative on government influence on the economy and the military, and liberal on how people conduct their personal lives) but Ralph Nader is a great politican. Even if you disagree with him, you have to admit, at least he wants to change things for the BETTER. Anyway, time to stop wasting time and get to my point, Nader's book "Crashing the Party: Taking on the Corporate Government in an Age of Surrender" talks about how both US parties, Dem and Rep, have essentially become the same. Oh sure, they're different on some issues for the sake of individuality, but their money and power comes from corporate leaders who support one or the other parties. This corporate power is an outside influence that is gradually becoming WAY too much of an influence in Washington, and might be responsible for some its policy actions in recent years. I think that's at least one thing communism would fix, I don't want my Democracy devolving into a Medieval-like corporate feudalism. Serfdom blows.

I couldn't agree more!

Just one thing: You said you had conservative views on the government and the economy. But aren't conservatives firmly PRO corporate government? (in other words, in favour of taking away power from a democratic body - the government - and giving that power to non-democratic bodies - the corporations).

[Wolf]

Conservative economics is basically that the government plays very little role in the economy. Laissez faire and all that. It isn't necessarily pro-business, and this is where my liberal aspects come into play. Union protection, business-legislation, and those kinds of Federal actions are also good, because they regulate a system that would kill itself 1929-style. I like to think that I can see the merits of capitalism and communism. Capitalism being that people are often wild-card innovative, and with some slight government control, can work safely. Communism being that people are treated more fairly economically. Focus on the individual rather than entities (Nader makes the point that the US government would make more sense if businesses could vote, at least then it would all be out in the open). As I said, I like to think I'm a moderate, and I know that in the US, less government control is probably better in terms of making money for the nation, but I realize that legislation is needed to prevent the system from killing itself. Hence, I don't want things to change much from FDR (60 years ago) so, a little liberal, but still conservative. Sorry if I was a little confusing. *EDIT - Looking back, when I was writing the post, I was going through what I was liberal/conservative on, but looking back, I think I'm a bit of a hybrid on most everything. For some reason economics and military came up con, while personal isses came up lib. (shrugs) Guess I wasn't thinking, and I guess my views are generally moderate.

[Acriku]

But generosity is extremely unreliable, and it puts you at the mercy of the person who might or might not decide to be generous.

That's because businesses are not regulated by the government in that area. Do you wish to have more government involvement in such matters?

First of all, in socialism there won't be any corporations that sponsor their favourite parties and candidates, because there won't be any corporations at all. Political parties will receive funding which will be proportional to their number of members. This will ensure that equally sized parties will also have equal financial means.

Understandably righteous. I also oppose corporate sponsorship, and the millions of endorsement keeps politicians from regulating corporations like tobacco corporations more so. But, politicians need to get more personal with their voters so they can assure their votes, but it isn't necessary if neither candidate does it.

Second of all, the people will have much more power over their elected representatives. The people will have the power to vote them OUT of office at any time during their term, and there will also be a measure of direct democracy (the matter of just how much direct democracy will have to be decided then, based on local circumstances).

Some states have recall in their constitution, and if it were up to me I would have all the states with recall. My state does not have recall, and I can understand the dangers of not having recall. Also, with a huge country such as the U.S., direct democracy becomes impossible. People do not have the time for such a thing, and it's geographically impossible for people to be direct as in direct democracy lets them. Perhaps with the technology we have, it may be possible, but where people would find the time is hard to figure.

I mean that they use their political power themselves, instead of delegating it to elected representatives. This could be done through a direct democracy, a network of councils, a system of communes, or something else entirely.

You seem to be a bit optimistic in the "people's" beliefs that they will be intelligent about their self-delegated powers. Again, such methods are impractical in such a large country, whereas earlier in our history this was not a problem.

[Caid Ivik]

It's finally turning to the best way! ;D

1.Oh, you're talking about Eastern Europe! Well, you should have said so from the start! The percentage of Christians is indeed rising slowly in Eastern European countries (Orthodox as well as Catholic - I won't bother to search for any statistics right now, but the percentage of Christians in Romania has slightly increased in the last 10 years).

However, this is only a local anomaly which appeared as a counter-reaction to the 40 years of stalinism. It will soon be over, I'm afraid. The percentage of Christians is currently dropping in both Western Europe and America.

2.Your comparison is flawed. A nuclear war would hurt both the guilty and the innocent alike, while the redistribution of wealth would only hurt the guilty. Remember that there will be trials to determine guilt or innocence, and that the accused are presumed innocent unless proven otherwise.

3.Have you even read anything I wrote in this topic? You seem to have me confused with a stalinist, Caid. I suggest you pay more attention to my principles before you make a fool of yourself.

First, I have already explained how people earn money in socialism and communism, so I won't go over it again. Suffice to say that "averageness" has nothing to do with it. People will have plenty of financial incentive to improve themselves.

Second, please get those stalinist stereotypes out of your head. We do not criminalize criticism, we welcome it. Criticism helps point out the existing problems, so that they can be fixed. As I have said a thousand times, stagnation is death. A system must be dynamic and adaptable, or it will die. Stagnation is what killed stalinism.

4.Caid, don't be an idiot. I never supported any kind of one-party system, and neither do any other present-day communists. The one-party system was an idea introduced by Lenin, not Marx. Lenin thought that it would be a good idea because it would allow decisions to be taken faster, especially in a time of crisis (like the one they were going through). And Lenin was wrong. The one-party system does indeed allow decisions to be taken faster - but they are BAD decisions. We have learned from our past mistakes, and now we know that socialism without democracy is impossible.

In socialism, you will have MANY parties, representing the various socialist factions, as well as the capitalists. We have no intention to outlaw you. The right of free speech is very important to us. And that gives us the moral high ground, because you DO want to outlaw us.

As for actual communism, that is a system with NO parties, because the people govern themselves.

1. Dropping minimally on the west, catholic countries like i.e. Italy or Spain are stabile in this statistics. And acceptable religions grow not only in eastern Europe, but also spanish America, norhtern Africa and whole south Asia from Sinai to Papua. When you look at civilised world, don't take only free-minded France and Germany plus USA, which still try to create "own" religion.

2. Well, I don't see anything evil on being wealthy, but that's just my view. But as spontaneous "redistributions" hit every larger sum of money, no matter if it was spared for whole life, it can't point only against those who you consider as "exploiters". In book Father Goriot one person lives poorly for whole life, but sparing big wealth, which he gives to his daughters. Maybe popular "justice" will find something "evil" on his wealth, no matter of long time. And here it will have a face of other french book - Miserables. No matter you've stolen one bread 50 years ago, you are GUILTY!

3. Communism is to "secure" those who can't before those who can. Thus it creates the order with finances, altough I can't think how will "orderred economy" work productively. Improve themselves, but improvement possibilities will be limited. Limit depends on productivity of society, not a single person. There you have the problem. If we would have common mind, ok, but since we are individuals, it is impossible to motivate such way.

4. Violent revolution is in my opinion a crisis. I would like to see a band of revolters, which will start a civil war, kill the government and then say to TV: "ok guys, now vote if you want oldies or us". You are forgetting what is revolution for... Other way is to create a social democracy with a compromise of social welfare (tough with higher taxes) and free personal initiative in work with finances (tough unlimited in amount). But when such state will try to "redistribute" the wealth, social democracy turns to oppressive system.

5.And what about those parents who just can't afford to pay for a good school, Caid? Why should the children suffer for the mistakes of their parents? (assuming that they actually made mistakes and weren't simply unlucky)

5. These schools were giving the basic education, like reading, writing, simple counting, and some basics over history, geography etc.. Like today's basic schools (wonder why they were called as "people's schools" before 1948). As most people worked in agriculture, there was no need for them to know the physics of universe. There were minimum of interesants, and that few could count on village's priest, which worked like a support agency. Basic schools were (and are) for free, if we don't count taxes. Who wanted more, invested or found a support.

[Edric O]

Caid:

1. Dropping minimally on the west, catholic countries like i.e. Italy or Spain are stabile in this statistics. And acceptable religions grow not only in eastern Europe, but also spanish America, norhtern Africa and whole south Asia from Sinai to Papua. When you look at civilised world, don't take only free-minded France and Germany plus USA, which still try to create "own" religion.

Actually, I'm looking at France, Germany, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland... and those are just the most obvious ones.

Also, I'm looking at this census:

The first step in solving a problem is realizing that there is a problem. And it's about time you woke up and realized that.

2. Well, I don't see anything evil on being wealthy, but that's just my view. But as spontaneous "redistributions" hit every larger sum of money, no matter if it was spared for whole life, it can't point only against those who you consider as "exploiters". In book Father Goriot one person lives poorly for whole life, but sparing big wealth, which he gives to his daughters. Maybe popular "justice" will find something "evil" on his wealth, no matter of long time. And here it will have a face of other french book - Miserables. No matter you've stolen one bread 50 years ago, you are GUILTY!

There's nothing wrong with being rich. You can be rich in socialism and communism too. But there is A LOT wrong with getting rich from other people's labour and at their expense, like in capitalism.

The whole point of holding trials is to ensure that redistributions DO NOT hit everyone with a large sum of money. People who have gathered their fortunes through a lifetime of hard work will not lose a single penny. On the other hand, owners of large companies who have been living all their lives in luxury without making the slightest effort will lose all their wealth and will have to actually start working for a living. And their wealth will be used to help the poor.

3. Communism is to "secure" those who can't before those who can. Thus it creates the order with finances, altough I can't think how will "orderred economy" work productively. Improve themselves, but improvement possibilities will be limited. Limit depends on productivity of society, not a single person. There you have the problem. If we would have common mind, ok, but since we are individuals, it is impossible to motivate such way.

Err, what? I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here, but it seems you're confusing me with a stalinist, again. Communism doesn't put anyone above anyone else. And there is no limit on the possibilities of improvement. You have the freedom to choose your own path in life.

4. Violent revolution is in my opinion a crisis. I would like to see a band of revolters, which will start a civil war, kill the government and then say to TV: "ok guys, now vote if you want oldies or us". You are forgetting what is revolution for...

Actually, this has already happened dozens of times. And you don't need to look any further back than 14 years ago, at the fall of stalinism. In most of Eastern Europe, the "oldies" can still have their own party and participate in elections.

Other way is to create a social democracy with a compromise of social welfare (tough with higher taxes) and free personal initiative in work with finances (tough unlimited in amount). But when such state will try to "redistribute" the wealth, social democracy turns to oppressive system.

If the government starts redistributing things randomly of its own accord, then it's obviously oppressive. But if it confiscates the stolen wealth of the capitalists and gives it back to the people who rightfully earned it, and if it does this at the request of the people, then it is only doing what the government is supposed to do: serving the people.

As most people worked in agriculture, there was no need for them to know the physics of universe.

[sarcasm]

Yeah, why should those filthy peasants learn anything? Knowledge is only for the rich capitalists! ::)

[/sarcasm]

It never crossed your mind that some of those poor children might not want to be peasants when they grow up, did it?

Basic schools were (and are) for free, if we don't count taxes. Who wanted more, invested or found a support.

And what if a poor child wants to live a better life than his parents (for which he needs more than basic education), but his parents are too poor to invest or find a support?

ALL education should be free and equal for ALL children.

[Edric O]

Wolfwiz:

Conservative economics is basically that the government plays very little role in the economy. Laissez faire and all that. It isn't necessarily pro-business, and this is where my liberal aspects come into play. Union protection, business-legislation, and those kinds of Federal actions are also good, because they regulate a system that would kill itself 1929-style.

Wait a second; you're contradicting yourself. Laissez-faire means little or no regulation of business. You can't be for and against something at the same time.

From what you've written so far, you really don't sound like someone who supports laissez-faire or conservative economics (especially since those people tend to see me as the incarnation of evil ;D ).

Acriku:

That's because businesses are not regulated by the government in that area. Do you wish to have more government involvement in such matters?

What matters are you referring to?

As a general rule, we communists believe that the government should concern itself with the economy, and stay totally out of people's personal and social lives.

Understandably righteous. I also oppose corporate sponsorship, and the millions of endorsement keeps politicians from regulating corporations like tobacco corporations more so. But, politicians need to get more personal with their voters so they can assure their votes, but it isn't necessary if neither candidate does it.

Yes, we completely agree here.

Some states have recall in their constitution, and if it were up to me I would have all the states with recall. My state does not have recall, and I can understand the dangers of not having recall. Also, with a huge country such as the U.S., direct democracy becomes impossible. People do not have the time for such a thing, and it's geographically impossible for people to be direct as in direct democracy lets them. Perhaps with the technology we have, it may be possible, but where people would find the time is hard to figure.

How exactly does recall work? I'm not familiar with your system...

A direct democracy in modern times can be achieved by using our technology: We could create small devices similar to mobile phones, that the people use for real-time voting on issues as they come up. Of course, you don't have to vote right away - you'll probably have several days or even weeks to think about it (unless the country is being invaded or something like that, in which case I don't think anyone would feel like waiting).

And, in fact, this system would also be an improvement to the representative democracy we have now, because it would be a one-time investement that would greatly cut election costs in the long run.

You seem to be a bit optimistic in the "people's" beliefs that they will be intelligent about their self-delegated powers. Again, such methods are impractical in such a large country, whereas earlier in our history this was not a problem.

Well, see what I wrote above. As for whether or not they will be intelligent enough to use their power properly, that's a different story. I suppose that if we tried to implement direct democracy tomorrow, it would be a catastrophic failure. It needs to be implemented slowly and gradually, so that the people can get accustomed to having more and more power in their own hands.

[Wolf]

Edric:

That post was mainly me thinking about where I really stand and working through things. I guess I'm really not sure where I stand, I mean, I guess I can see both sides of the issue. I'd rather not have the government over-regulate businesses (laissez faire), but on the other hand, I'd like businesses to be fair and somewhat regulated to protect workers and prevent corporations from gaining too much power (approaching socialism). Like I say, I fall somewhere between... (mulls over his position and shrugs). Then again, I am learning a lot, and as I learn, my positions are bound to change, aren't they? Looking at that, you're right, its not really a conservative standpoint, but I wouldn't classify it as liberal, either. Anybody want to help me? Lol.

Another question. If corporations don't really exist in a communist society, how are the products traded inside and outside of the nation? For example, if IBM makes a computer, that's an IBM computer. However, in capitalism, there are also Gateway and Dell computers. In communism, is there only one brand of computer; the state's, or do the workers form their own firms? Say, a company in which the workers themselves have democratic control over what they make? I don't really know how it would work, and it seems have competing corporations would provide better goods than a one-size-fits-all product provided by the states. Hope you could shed some light on this one.

[Acriku]

How exactly does recall work? I'm not familiar with your system...

Here's a good link to explain it a bit:

http://www.yumasun.com/artman/publish/print/printer_6921.shtml

Basically, if you get enough signatures (or votes), there will be a recall, in which another election takes place for the people to vote for a governor for the rest of that term (it can be the same governor, if it turns out that way). I think that's the gist of it. Basically another check and balance towards the government.

A direct democracy in modern times can be achieved by using our technology: We could create small devices similar to mobile phones, that the people use for real-time voting on issues as they come up. Of course, you don't have to vote right away - you'll probably have several days or even weeks to think about it (unless the country is being invaded or something like that, in which case I don't think anyone would feel like waiting).

And, in fact, this system would also be an improvement to the representative democracy we have now, because it would be a one-time investement that would greatly cut election costs in the long run.

This could work, if it is possible to have the highest security to prevent people from cheating (voting more than once, voting for other people, buying more than one "vote machines", etc).

[Caid Ivik]

1. Half of the world is christian, jewish or muslim, and growing, and you call that a problem? In most countries there are only minimal losses. And islam is rapidly converting so many buddhists and animists, that it not only covers them, but even overgrows! Personally, idea of polygamy isn't worst for me ::)

2. Let my try marxistic thinking: slavery is based on the most just system: work is considered as specifically valued mattery. Wage is equal to resources, which slave needs to provide his "output" - work. In fact, if product has higher value than people's work counted, where should go overvalue from selling? In recent times we preferred army, today it's usual to leave it for employees to enhance their wages. Capitalism is the most justified system or Marx' materialism is the most abominated view on the world. Choose one conclusion.

3. By redistributional courts you simply oppress some people - by taking their private wealth. Why it can't be considered as stolen, see the previous point. Also state prevents them from making such work again. You can't have much employees, much capital... By the way, how do you imagine such system can be progressive?

4. There were no communist parties in 1990 elections. And all fully changed their cadres. Also, 89 revolution isn't the best example, because you see that it has minimal effect on the targets. Excluding Causescu, maybe. Machiavelli was right about this: when you kill someone, it will be soon forgotten, or will cause at least an intimidation, but when you put hand on property, they will be anger as wasps. This is real. Such thinking about "people democratically voting for confiscation of something" is a joke.

5. Can you imagine how people thought in feudalism? And we don't have to look in middle ages, it's less than a century, when people thought about land as the only value and books were for them just waste of resources (excl.calendars). But of course. Kings gave us simple education, with time the cost of higher forms lowered, until state took whole financing, even of universities. Now we are walking encyclopedias, tough without any specialisation.

[Edric O]

Caid:

1. The only one who is actually growing (as a percentage of the world's population) is Islam. Christianity is shrinking.

But I see that this isn't going anywhere. You can believe whatever you want, I just hope that you see the reality of our situation before it's too late.

2. The only possible conclusion is that you don't really have a clue about marxism. Since you started on false premises, it's logical that you arrived at false results.

For your information, the whole purpose of marxism (as a philosophy and a political movement) is to put an end to all forms of exploitation. The core values of marxism are Freedom and Equality. And slavery takes both of these things away, which makes it our greatest enemy.

Everything that is produced belongs to the people who produced it. Capitalism, Feudalism and Slavery involve the existence of a class of parasites who live off the backs of the producers without producing anything themselves. They are the bourgeois, the aristocrats and the slave owners, respectively. And they are the ones we have always been fighting against.

3. As I have said before:

There's nothing wrong with being rich. You can be rich in socialism and communism too. But there is A LOT wrong with getting rich from other people's labour and at their expense, like in capitalism.

The whole point of holding trials is to ensure that redistributions DO NOT hit everyone with a large sum of money. People who have gathered their fortunes through a lifetime of hard work will not lose a single penny. On the other hand, owners of large companies who have been living all their lives in luxury without making the slightest effort will lose all their wealth and will have to actually start working for a living. And their wealth will be used to help the poor.

If you think that confiscating stolen wealth is "oppression", then you should practice what you preach and stop "oppressing" so many thieves! ::)

4. Of course the capitalists will be angry. I bet slave owners were just as angry when their slaves were freed. So what?

Oh, and by the way, my point about democracy after revolution still stands. The old stalinists might not have been present in the 1990 elections (which is obvious, seeing how they still had to re-group from their defeat), but they were present at every election after that one. And this stands true for nearly all Eastern European countries (including both Romania and Slovakia).

5. I thought you were talking about more recent times. The 18th and 19th centuries, when people were not so close-minded as in the Middle Ages. That's why peasant children often wanted to live a better life than their parents - and would have needed an education in order to do so.

[Edric O]

Acriku:

Here's a good link to explain it a bit:

http://www.yumasun.com/artman/publish/print/printer_6921.shtml

Basically, if you get enough signatures (or votes), there will be a recall, in which another election takes place for the people to vote for a governor for the rest of that term (it can be the same governor, if it turns out that way). I think that's the gist of it. Basically another check and balance towards the government.

Yes, this is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. Recall is the only way to ensure that politicians can't just say one thing in their campaigns and do something entirely different once they get into office. It should be a part of every democratic system.

This could work, if it is possible to have the highest security to prevent people from cheating (voting more than once, voting for other people, buying more than one "vote machines", etc).

Of course. Voting machines will have to be highly personalized, so that your voting machine only works with your fingerprint or retina scan. Also, they will be set to burn themselves out if anyone tries to temper with the circuits. And there will probably have to be many other security measures, as well (both for the voting machines and the computers that count the votes).

Wolfwiz:

That post was mainly me thinking about where I really stand and working through things. I guess I'm really not sure where I stand, I mean, I guess I can see both sides of the issue. I'd rather not have the government over-regulate businesses (laissez faire), but on the other hand, I'd like businesses to be fair and somewhat regulated to protect workers and prevent corporations from gaining too much power (approaching socialism). Like I say, I fall somewhere between... (mulls over his position and shrugs). Then again, I am learning a lot, and as I learn, my positions are bound to change, aren't they? Looking at that, you're right, its not really a conservative standpoint, but I wouldn't classify it as liberal, either. Anybody want to help me? Lol.

I have an idea. You should take the test of the political compass to find out where you stand. Personally, I am in the bottom-left corner. (you'll understand what I'm talking about when you read your own results)

Another question. If corporations don't really exist in a communist society, how are the products traded inside and outside of the nation? For example, if IBM makes a computer, that's an IBM computer. However, in capitalism, there are also Gateway and Dell computers. In communism, is there only one brand of computer; the state's, or do the workers form their own firms? Say, a company in which the workers themselves have democratic control over what they make? I don't really know how it would work, and it seems have competing corporations would provide better goods than a one-size-fits-all product provided by the states. Hope you could shed some light on this one.

Ah, the problem of quality. It is a well known fact that the goods produced in market economies tend to have better quality, but they are also fewer and more expensive. Planned economies usually produce more and cheaper goods, but of a lesser quality.

In socialism (this is socialism you're talking about, not communism - in communism there is no state, remember?) the problem of quality is solved by giving workers a good reason to make better products. And that good reason is money, of course. If they make better products, they get paid more. So there is still a constant increase in quality, even without competing corporations.

Whether there will be a single brand of computers or several different brands, I can't say. It depends on what the people want. They are the ones who choose what economic plan should be implemented every year. The ideal situation would be to have enough resources to allow workers to organize themselves freely into different firms, and have several brands of every product (for the sake of variety, not competition). But that's not very likely to happen, so there will always be some products that will be made by a single brand.

[Caid Ivik]

1. Well? Islam converts millions of animists, buddhists and hinduists each year and you talk about stagnation? Do I have to repeat me for a third time? Or on what you do base your thoughts? You don't like muslims?

2. It's not the question of what is marxistic holy ideal. It is question what is result. And when I look into it, it is only a complication of existing (for today, not 19th century!) usual things, lowering humanity to a part of pure mattery and few twists which de facto negate that ideal (banning of capital etc.), well, I don't know what you see christian on it. I accept, it's not evil. It is a joke.

3. This seems to be a dead point, maybe because you made own moral values, tough diametrally different from those usual for christianity. Maybe you have some new-thinking patriarch, or what. One person has a capital for project. Using money from it, he employs someone to work on it. Employee makes the handwork and receives the wage, on which both sides (employer and employee) agreed (may be a part of income or hard-placed summa). Employee only helped to physically realise employer's invention, and if the agreement between them wasn't else, it is business of the employer, what will be done with the product. You call this a theft? Theft would be, if employee would want more than both agreed - or 100% part of product. Of course, same if employer won't pay him agreed wage. And then other thing. You work hardly for whole life to gather enough wealth, because you have a talented daughter (sometimes we may use feminimum too), and you want her to study abroad. Then comes revolution and you die fightning for the other side than reds. Your daughter will receive your wealth as a legacy - without her physical effort on it. Then you look from sheol on it: do you think this wealth should be confiscated by Redistribution Trial?

4. I've told you already I have a small capital too, no idea what should I do with it now, but also I have no slaves. Why do you generalise all of them (or us...) to be same as slave holders and feudal lords? You know, I may use that capital for charity, as many other capitalists do. And it is a honorable deed. Can be something honorable, when it is commanded?

Communists first appeared (in slovakia only as socdems, young cadre of old KSS) in about 3 years, when was the question partition of Czechoslovakia. Well, this revolution was a soft one, but if we look to past, I can't call mensheviks a "boyar party".

5. Feudalism was (or is?) slowly declining from 13th century, you know, era of scholastics, new cities, rebuildings after Tatars, and thus more freedom in market and industry. And with fall of feudalism, slowly falls even folly of people, which have still less physical work and more time for intellectual needs. Same me. I think I have enough intellect to say: "Stop! Now I want to choose my own path, without your command!"

[Edric O]

Ah, it was about time you started bringing new arguments to the table. Not that these are any better than your old ones, of course, but at least you're not being repetitive any more.

1. Err, I was talking about the stagnation of Christianity, Caid... And you're the one who supports the War on Islam, not me.

2. And just what results are you talking about, exactly? There are no results, because no socialist or communist society ever lasted long enough for any clear results to be visible. Every time a country or even a small region declared itself socialist or communist, their capitalist neighbors had a nasty habit of invading them. And even in the places where those invasions failed (such as Russia), they still did enough damage to ensure that socialism/communism could not be implemented properly.

In fact, I don't think it was necessary for them to invade Russia at all. Karl Marx clearly predicted that socialism cannot be achieved in backwards agrarian countries like Russia was in 1917, or like China was in the 1950's. Socialism might have worked in Eastern Europe, but it was never even tried. We had stalinism imposed on us.

So, again, I must ask you: Where are these "results" of yours? The only results I see are the results of capitalism. And they are in blatant contradiction to your capitalist "holy ideal". Far from becoming richer, the majority of the world's population is sinking ever faster into poverty. We now have the largest income gap ever recorded in history, and over 20,000 people are literraly dying of hunger every day.

And what is you answer to all this? "If we close our eyes and pretend it isn't there, it will all go away in a few decades". I'm sorry, but it's a historical fact that waiting around and doing nothing never solved anything. Things can only improve if we actively work to improve them. And that is what we communists are trying to do.

3.a. My moral values are based around one principle: Love thy neighbor as thyself. That is how I became a communist in the first place. And if you don't think that's a Christian principle, then maybe you need to read an interesting little book called "The Bible"...

And I see that you posted the standard right-wing argument about wage labour. I guess some misconceptions never go away, no matter how many times they are refuted.

First of all, the contract between employer and employee is never free, because the two of them never stand on equal positions. The employer has far more wealth, power, and influence than the employee. He is in the position to dictate his terms to the employee. And since all employers dictate the same terms, the employee has no choice but to accept them.

Second of all, the employees are the ones doing all the work. The employer only provided an initial ONE-TIME input, in the form of capital and/or an idea. A finite input is worth a finite amount of money. But the employees are forced to pay for that input over and over and over again, for as long as they work for this employer. In other words, capitalism says that if a man gives you $10, you have to give him $1 out of your wage every day for the rest of your life.

Since the employees are doing all the actual work, they should receive all the money that they rightfully earned - the FULL value of the products they make. The person who came up with the idea or who made the invention should obviously be rewarded, but with a finite sum of money, since his contribution was also finite.

3.b. Well, it looks like you came up with a very interesting dilemma. I'm sure it would spark a lot of controversy if it actually happened, and the trial would be just as controversial.

But it wouldn't be much of a trial if I already knew the verdict beforehand, would it? I can't decide whether the girl should get her father's money or not. On the one hand, the man worked hard for that money. On the other hand, his daughter did not work for it at all. It's a very difficult decision, and it can only be taken after every single detail of the case has been analyzed several times.

But just so you don't accuse me of avoiding your question, my opinion is that the girl should get half of her father's money, and the other half should be redistributed. Keep in mind that this is just an opinion, though. I'm not a jury, and I can't take an informed decision.

4. I'm generalizing because I'm looking at the actions of the class as a whole. I'm sure that many capitalists have good intentions, but that doesn't change anything. You know what they say: the road to hell is paved with good intentions...

And you're only a petty bourgeois (you own capital but do not have any employees), so my "slave owner" comments don't really apply to you.

Coming from rich capitalists, charity is a joke. First they steal immense wealth from the poor, then they give a tiny part of it back, to make themselves look good.

Now about the historical precedents of letting the "old guard" run in elections after a revolution:

First of all, the argument that they had to wait for 3 years is ridiculous. You wouldn't expect the people to vote for the old guard just a few days after they tore down their regime, would you? The stalinists couldn't have possibly won anything in those 3 years anyway. And you have the KSS today, don't you? That proves my point.

And if you think that your 1989 revolution doesn't count, because it was a "soft" revolution, then what about our revolution? It was as violent and bloody as they get.

5. Good! We actually agree on something! :)

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say 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."

September 07, 2003, 01:11:09

1. I wouldn't say you mean with religion only christianity. No matter I showed you in next posts fact that decline is typical only for smaller protestant and national churches. Catholic Church is not only slowly rising east of Rhein, in South America it is a boom. And islam is also religion fittable to christianity. Of course, if we won't allow wahabist fanatics to call wars against us. That's a big difference if we talk about shiite missionaire or suicide troops of Al-Qaida. I would say you are enough intelligent what is my view on this thing.

2. If you want to make something, it is good to have a plan, but you must consider also possibility of complications. Like Lenin had complications with unrests against him. Communists have big words and big plans, system which will solve everything with one small war. But there were so many attempts, and every ended with fascistic oppressive system. How could I even consider success of communism as possibility? Better are careful solvements for local problems, you won't find cure for cancer if you kill the body (then there won't be any cancer too...). I am also frightened as you when I read in NG about 20 million real slaves around the world including our de facto liberty homelands, or thousands of people dying from lack of food - but this problem was always. It's not so long ago, maybe one century, when even in Europe were average people fully dependent on their own part of land, and if it wasn't enough fruitful, they died of famine. Now, we can support those, which are still in this stage. But for that you need overproduction - thing you define as capitalism.

3. I guess how you love those, from who you will confiscate wealth to have "capital" of establishing the antiutopy. Well, this is weird that you can love thy neighbour and also shoot at him when fighting for revolution, it reminds me those "pacifists", which try to insult me when I walk with shirt with word "Bush" on it (gift from US emissar Weiser, I think you know about it ;) ). Such "love" is a paradox, some feeling for abstract concept of "mankind", mother Earth, which needs help, just those fuckin humans spill the work...

You know, walking about whole world and searching for customers can be considered as "hard" also. See all those stressed people today on the west. When you work for someone as hand-worker, it is easy, you have insurance. But who leads has too much responsibility, and that's the hardest reap reaper can have. Just you should get down from the trees and see what human is.

4. Well, Hitler, Stalin or Guevara could have also good intentions ::) But we look at results, that's for sure. And about commies' return? They had to wait, as well as you can see NDP in Germany after some time as well. That's the power of communism, make one brutality, and most people will quickly forget about it (especially in 40 years) and then just nostalgically they remember: ah, that order...

[Edric O]

1. Well, let me put it this way: Atheism is growing (as a percentage of the world's population, not just in absolute numbers) at a record speed. So, obviously, religion as a whole is in decline. I was talking about the stagnation of Christianity in particular because this is the religion that interests us, and because most of the new atheists are ex-Christians.

But I already understand that you refuse to accept the existence of this problem because it's not present in your particular country. I think you really should start looking at the big picture.

2. Please, Caid, do not repeat what you already said. I've already explained why the Russian and Chinese revolutions failed. All the so-called "communist" revolutions between 1945 and 1990 followed their model, so it's not surprising that they ended up in the same place. Socialism/Communism failed only twice. That's not exactly an impressive number, is it? Even capitalist democracy failed more than twice (it failed 3 times in France alone), but that didn't stop it from being hugely successful in the end, did it?

And I see you argue for the social democrats, saying that slow evolution is preferable to sudden revolution. That's a very well-crafted deception, I must admit. But it remains a deception. Given time, the living conditions of any slaves will improve. But they will still remain slaves. We do not want bigger cages and longer chains. We want freedom.

As I said before, waiting around and doing nothing never solved anything. Even the process of slow evolution that improved capitalism over the past century was only possible due to the constant threat of socialism and of proletarian revolution that forced the capitalists to make compromise after compromise. Do you enjoy your 8 hour working day and your minimum wage laws? You can thank us communists for that.

3. Congratulations on completely evading my point, by focusing on the means to achieve communism (i.e. the revolution) rather than on communism itself. But I won't let you get away with it. Communism, the system in which people freely share their property and govern themselves, is the closest thing to "love thy neighbor" that can be possibly achieved.

As for the revolution, keep in mind that it is only a necessary evil. In fact, we would be very happy if no violent revolutions were necessary at all. But that's not our decision to make. It is your decision. Revolutions happen when the people wish to replace the government, but the government refuses to give up power. If the capitalists agree to step down peacefully, there will be no violent revolution. But realistically speaking, that's not very likely to happen.

And I never said that all the bourgeois are people who live in luxury while doing no work whatsoever. Many of them are like that (usually the richest of the rich), but many others are not. It depends on whether they hire managers to run their company for them or whether they act as managers themselves. The problem is that even when they DO work, they still get a ridiculously large amount of money for the same work that other people must do in order to get only average wages. This is because in addition to the value of their own work, the owners also get an important fraction of the value of the work of each employee. (as I have explained before)

4. First of all, I'd appreciate it if you didn't associate a heroic freedom fighter like Che Guevara (who turned down a position in the Cuban government in order to carry on fighting side by side with his comrades, I might add) with the likes of Hitler and Stalin. That would be like putting Rommel side by side with Hitler.

But now onto your point: I don't think Hitler and Stalin ever had good intentions. Hitler made it quite clear that he wanted to start a new war in Europe and eliminate the Jews (along with the Gypsies, the Slavs, the communists, etc.). Stalin never made anything clear, but his actions prove that his only concern was to accumulate more power for himself.

And as for the return of the stalinists (whom you still stubbornly call "commies"), I wouldn't worry if I were you. Stalinism lost the Cold War, and now it is well and truly dead.

But my point was that you can have a functional and fair democracy, which allows the "old guard" to keep their political party (or parties) and to run in elections, even after a violent revolution. The experience of the Romanian revolution of 1989 (as well as all the other democratic revolutions throughout history) is the proof. Therefore, there is nothing unusual about the fact that there will still be capitalist parties in socialism. Of course, the capitalists will most likely be seen by the general population as right-wing extremists, and the various socialist/communist parties will dominate the political scene.