Europe's Utopian Hangover

[Dude_Doc]

But if someone were to fill the power vacuum that currently exists in the Left and raise the red flag once again, we might actually live to see the end of capitalism in Europe.

Somehow I don't think the European Union is independent from the United States. Just like for example, Japan. The EMU is a currency-project, made for capitalism.

[SurlyPIG]

First of all, the EU is not an attempt at socialism. And from 1923 onwards, neither was the Soviet Union.

Second of all, please enlighten me on how you can derive such a general rule from a single example. By your logic, if we were living in 1815 in Europe, I would be perfectly justified to say that every attempt at democracy starts off with high hopes and ideals, then falls into violence and terror, and finally results in an empire bent on world domination. ::)

First, I don't know about how it is over there, but in North America the term socialism is used to generically describe left-winged economic policy, or more specificly, the epitomy of left-winged ecomonic policy. So, on that little political compass thingie, it would be a -10 on the X axis, opposite capitalism, a +10, and everything in between would be a mixed economy. In the verse you quoted, I was referring to socialism essentially just left of centre. I keep forgetting that it the same words carry different meanings in different places. I'll be more specific next time. Second, the "rule" I derived is more of a tendancy, and the example you refer to (USSR I assume) is not the source. It is merely logical predictions based on the principles of socialism(-ish systems).

You mean you're more interested in delivering a good profit to your employer than standing up for your rights. I understand.

Hardly. I'm more interested in controlling my own destiny and working hard than whining and blaming my failures on "the system". There's two ways to react when you're in a slump; you can ask yourself what you're going to do about it, or you can ask someone else what they're going to do about it.

Of course. But an unjust economy can make people angry, and angry people are the very definition of a "social problem".

Ah, I see what you mean, but I have a counterpoint; why is it automatically an unjust economy? Why are some people so quick to blame society or anyone else and demand for them to fix their problems, and never do it themselves? If they are actually being exploited (ie an uneven playing field), then that's different, but provided that there are equal opportunities, it is the "angry group's" fault, so to speak.

[Edric O]

First, I don't know about how it is over there, but in North America the term socialism is used to generically describe left-winged economic policy, or more specificly, the epitomy of left-winged ecomonic policy. So, on that little political compass thingie, it would be a -10 on the X axis, opposite capitalism, a +10, and everything in between would be a mixed economy. In the verse you quoted, I was referring to socialism essentially just left of centre. I keep forgetting that it the same words carry different meanings in different places. I'll be more specific next time.

Socialism (in the marxist meaning of the word, which was its original meaning) is an economic system with public ownership over the means of production. On the political compass, it would be something between -7 and -9. Further left than that (i.e. from -9 to -10), it's no longer socialism, but communism ("from each, according to his means; to each, according to his needs").

The center of the political compass represents the generally accepted system at this particular point in history. And it moves over time. For the past two hundred years, its overall movement has been strongly towards the left. There have been periods of right-shift (such as the 1820's, the 1930's and the present day), but they are always short-lived.

And just to clear up any confusion: The social democrats (who also call themselves "socialists" sometimes) got their name from the fact that their original goal was to achieve a peaceful and gradual transition from capitalism to socialism. That didn't last long, though. As soon as they had a taste of capitalist political power, they forgot all about socialism and just settled with making small improvements to capitalism.

Lenin used to say that the color of the social democrats should be pink, because their whole policy is a rose-water one. I find that to be a very appropriate remark.

Second, the "rule" I derived is more of a tendancy, and the example you refer to (USSR I assume) is not the source. It is merely logical predictions based on the principles of socialism(-ish systems).

Hehe, you are neither the first nor the last to make "logical predictions" about the future of this or that political movement. Perhaps you would be interested in reading some of Karl Marx's own predictions. They are considerabely more informed than yours, but even they turned out to be only partially correct. Who could have predicted the two world wars, or the invention of the nuclear bomb?

Hardly. I'm more interested in controlling my own destiny and working hard than whining and blaming my failures on "the system". There's two ways to react when you're in a slump; you can ask yourself what you're going to do about it, or you can ask someone else what they're going to do about it.

Oh, I see. So those poor children who were born on the street should stop blaming the system for not giving them a fair chance in life and start blaming themselves for their terrible "failures" - being born in the wrong place and at the wrong time. And all the people who work extremely hard all day for a tiny wage shouldn't blame their employers for living off their backs - they should blame themselves for not working hard enough! ::)

Try to understand that I don't blame the system for MY problems, Ace. My personal problems are tiny and irrelevant compared to the problems of the world. I blame the system for the problems caused by the system, which are the problems of the working class as a whole.

Ah, I see what you mean, but I have a counterpoint; why is it automatically an unjust economy? Why are some people so quick to blame society or anyone else and demand for them to fix their problems, and never do it themselves? If they are actually being exploited (ie an uneven playing field), then that's different, but provided that there are equal opportunities, it is the "angry group's" fault, so to speak.

Haven't I already explained the various injustices of capitalism enough times? I really don't have the time to go over everything again right now (and there is a lot to go over), but you could always try reading this for a start.

And by the way, don't confuse us with liberals. Communists never asked society to solve their problems. As a matter of fact, we are firm believers in the idea that the people should take matters into their own hands. That's what revolution is about: fixing our problems by ourselves.

[Caid Ivik]

EdricO, stop spamming with that propaganda, please. Your thoughts are old, obsolete and unfitting the topic.

[Edric O]

Caid's debate strategy #1: When you don't have anything worthwhile to say, resort to personal insults.

Edit: I don't know about you, but there's nothing I hate more than taking the time to write a long and carefully thought-out reply, only to have it dismissed with an idiotic one-liner. If you can't say anything intelligent, Caid, then at least show some respect for those of us who can.

[Caid Ivik]

You take it as personal insult? Then you should find out what is this all about. We talk about global political strategy, formation of borders, thing, which would minimally affect your wage and you think that socialistic revolution will solve even this? Would socialistic revolution solve the problem of sovereignty of states inside the EU? Will it ensure cultural and religious differentiation? Talking here about communism is just OFF TOPIC. But ok, you've done it.

"And just to clear up any confusion: The social democrats (who also call themselves "socialists" sometimes) got their name from the fact that their original goal was to achieve a peaceful and gradual transition from capitalism to socialism. That didn't last long, though. As soon as they had a taste of capitalist political power, they forgot all about socialism and just settled with making small improvements to capitalism."

You are making rather hypocritical look on them. Don't forget that most social improvements were done thanks to social democratic parties, not fanatical communists. Fact is they have no real "goal", it is called practical politics.

"Hehe, you are neither the first nor the last to make "logical predictions" about the future of this or that political movement. Perhaps you would be interested in reading some of Karl Marx's own predictions. They are considerabely more informed than yours, but even they turned out to be only partially correct. Who could have predicted the two world wars, or the invention of the nuclear bomb?"

In fact, he predicted a world-wide socialistic revolution. When oppressive regime of Second Empire alongside with nearly similar Austria fight against western capitalism, proletariate had a good chance. In Russia they won, elsewhere not. Lack of support...

"Oh, I see. So those poor children who were born on the street should stop blaming the system for not giving them a fair chance in life and start blaming themselves for their terrible "failures" - being born in the wrong place and at the wrong time. And all the people who work extremely hard all day for a tiny wage shouldn't blame their employers for living off their backs - they should blame themselves for not working hard enough!"

Better way is to force their parents to work hard, to ensure their children won't live poorly, eh? Work obligated by law is specifical for two previous systems: socialism in eastern block and fascism in Germany and Italy.

"And by the way, don't confuse us with liberals."

It is surprising, but you do it too sometimes.

[Edric O]

Well, at least I got a semi-decent reply out of you...

First of all, notice that it was Ace, not me, who started the discussion about socialism and communism in this topic. And the post which you attacked as being "off-topic" was my latest reply in an on-going debate with Ace.

You should learn to respect other people's discussions, or at least not throw insults at one person as if there is no one else talking about the same thing in that topic.

You are making rather hypocritical look on them. Don't forget that most social improvements were done thanks to social democratic parties, not fanatical communists. Fact is they have no real "goal", it is called practical politics.

Oh, so you admit that left-wing reforms were improvements to society? Funny, I thought you right-wingers always considered decent wages and workers' rights to be a bad thing...

As I said before, you sometimes appear to be more left-wing than you think.

But getting to the point, you should remember that most of the reforms that turned the pure capitalism of the 19th century into the mixed economies of today were achieved thanks to the workers themselves, not any political parties. The workers joined together to form unions, and the unions brought capitalism to its knees.

And the very first unionists, the people who created the first workers' organizations (in the late 19th century) were the communists. Social democrats didn't even exist back then.

But you're right about one thing: Social democrats don't have any real goal, other than the vague idea of "improving capitalism".

In fact, he predicted a world-wide socialistic revolution. When oppressive regime of Second Empire alongside with nearly similar Austria fight against western capitalism, proletariate had a good chance. In Russia they won, elsewhere not. Lack of support...

Exactly. You are right.

The "world revolution" predicted by Marx did eventually happen. It was the revolutionary wave of 1918-1923 which swept across Europe. The only problem was that the revolutions were crushed... Because they happened too early. Capitalism was not crippled and decadent yet.

And it still isn't. Left-wing reforms have "sweetened up" the bitter taste of capitalism and gave it a much longer lifespan than Marx could have forseen. But on the other hand, globalisation will make the world revolution much easier.

Better way is to force their parents to work hard, to ensure their children won't live poorly, eh? Work obligated by law is specifical for two previous systems: socialism in eastern block and fascism in Germany and Italy.

Just goes to show the similarities between stalinism (come on, you admitted in another topic that stalinism wasn't socialism, so stop your charade) and fascism. And it is a great example of one of the extreme right-wing (i.e. fascist) elements of stalinism.

But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize how socialism and communism would handle this issue. It has nothing to do with the children's parents. The children themselves will receive a free education, equal to the education received by everyone else. This will give them a fair chance in life. Also, they will not be born on the street, because socialism and communism guarantee a home to everyone.

[SurlyPIG]

Ah yes, the wonderful communism where work does itself without incentive.

[Edric O]

We've already discussed incentive, Ace. And we have established that:

1. You are not justified to threaten people with poverty and misery in order to get them to work harder any more than you are justified to threaten to blow their brains out with a gun in order to make them work harder.

2. Socialism guarantees basic food, clothing, housing, health care and equal education to every citizen. To get anything beyond the basics required for a decent life, however, you must work. So people still have an incentive to work, without the brutality of capitalism.

3. In communism, the people work to better themselves and to express their creativity. This kind of society is very difficult to achieve, but not impossible (because it has been done several times before, in various kinds of communes).

Try to remember these points from now on...

[SurlyPIG]

1. You're right! But I'm not doing that and neither is any civilized country. This isn't fascism.

2. As does a mixed economy, but we have a much more sane definition of "needs," in which the food is highly nutritious, cheap, and most likely quite plain, the clothing is utilitarian, and the housing is basic and small. Essentially, you give people something good enough to help them through a tight spot, but bad enough that nobody in their right mind would ever want to continue living that way.

3. Hah! Name one real example.

Anyhow, I wasn't actually saying that the EU would suffer the same fate as the USSR; obviously the effects both ways would be very diluted. Lower highs, higher lows, and such.

[Edric O]

1. I know. But that's the usual right-wing argument about incentive, so I posted my answer to it.

2. Indeed. And that's exactly the same thing that socialism does. But this similarity is not surprising, because what you've just described is one of the socialist elements of the mixed economy.

However, my greatest concern about a mixed economy is that it tries to preserve a very delicate balance. It's extremely easy for a mixed economy to fall back into true capitalism, with all the misery that it brings. In case you haven't noticed, there are many powerful people who would love to destroy all the socialist reforms that have been adopted in Europe and America over the past 70 years. A mixed economy leaves the bourgeoisie as the ruling class, but tries to eliminate bourgeois exploitation. This makes it incredibly fragile.

3. Just one? I have plenty of them. From the early Christian communities, to various self-sufficient villages in Dark Age Europe or the Inca Empire, to the original society of the natives of Tahiti, to the Paris Commune and the Workers' Soviets in revolutionary Russia. And even today, you could go and take a look at a Jewish kibuc.

There is overwhelming proof that communism works in small communities. The only thing that remains to be seen is whether or not it can also work on a larger scale.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, at least I got a semi-decent reply out of you...

First of all, notice that it was Ace, not me, who started the discussion about socialism and communism in this topic. And the post which you attacked as being "off-topic" was my latest reply in an on-going debate with Ace.

You should learn to respect other people's discussions, or at least not throw insults at one person as if there is no one else talking about the same thing in that topic.

You are making rather hypocritical look on them. Don't forget that most social improvements were done thanks to social democratic parties, not fanatical communists. Fact is they have no real "goal", it is called practical politics.

1. Oh, so you admit that left-wing reforms were improvements to society? Funny, I thought you right-wingers always considered decent wages and workers' rights to be a bad thing...

As I said before, you sometimes appear to be more left-wing than you think.

But getting to the point, you should remember that most of the reforms that turned the pure capitalism of the 19th century into the mixed economies of today were achieved thanks to the workers themselves, not any political parties. The workers joined together to form unions, and the unions brought capitalism to its knees.

And the very first unionists, the people who created the first workers' organizations (in the late 19th century) were the communists. Social democrats didn't even exist back then.

But you're right about one thing: Social democrats don't have any real goal, other than the vague idea of "improving capitalism".

In fact, he predicted a world-wide socialistic revolution. When oppressive regime of Second Empire alongside with nearly similar Austria fight against western capitalism, proletariate had a good chance. In Russia they won, elsewhere not. Lack of support...

Exactly. You are right.

2. The "world revolution" predicted by Marx did eventually happen. It was the revolutionary wave of 1918-1923 which swept across Europe. The only problem was that the revolutions were crushed... Because they happened too early. Capitalism was not crippled and decadent yet.

And it still isn't. Left-wing reforms have "sweetened up" the bitter taste of capitalism and gave it a much longer lifespan than Marx could have forseen. But on the other hand, globalisation will make the world revolution much easier.

Better way is to force their parents to work hard, to ensure their children won't live poorly, eh? Work obligated by law is specifical for two previous systems: socialism in eastern block and fascism in Germany and Italy.

3. Just goes to show the similarities between stalinism (come on, you admitted in another topic that stalinism wasn't socialism, so stop your charade) and fascism. And it is a great example of one of the extreme right-wing (i.e. fascist) elements of stalinism.

But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize how socialism and communism would handle this issue. It has nothing to do with the children's parents. The children themselves will receive a free education, equal to the education received by everyone else. This will give them a fair chance in life. Also, they will not be born on the street, because socialism and communism guarantee a home to everyone.

You came, seen and started. Ace replied. But I won't argue with you about this.

1. Left-wing is needed. It is cause of every rational being to maintain balance and plurality of thoughts, to prevent fanaticism. Social democracy was before fanatics, english Labour Party was created in 1847, I think. I told you this many times, if you can't accept as compromise, why do you think someone else wouldn't?

2. France was not hit. Britain too, USA, scandinavian countries, czech part of Czechoslovakia (rest only by Hungarians, also supported by former hungarian aristocracy) and many other industrial powers also felt nothing. This is far from world-wide. But you accept it. Antifeudalistic reforms created a middle class, and proletariate was weakened by social reforms. And differences were lowering. In fact, goal was done, so what should we fight for?

3. Fascism is easily compatible with communism, you can have easily self-enslaving society. Just create a powerful bureaucracy, oppressive systems and Party. Then we can live all with same wage, Party can be created also *cough* democratically. And children will be educated to maintain the state. How nice show of perfectly working socialism, isn't it?

[SurlyPIG]

1. In the future, try to refrain from 'pulling an emprworm.' We really shouldn't be discussing this matter in this topic at all, let alone using strawmans all over the place.

2. Hardly! Socialist elements of leftist countries like the Netherlands are getting quite ridiculous. Did you know that there are several cases in which the Dutch government pays for prostitutes to visit disabled people? And have you heard of the sex change performed in Britain on public dollars?

3. That's not communism, that's practically a family! A community in which there is absolutely no diversity will yield no disputes, thus why "communism" would work. Ever wonder why there wouldn't be a dispute over how much communal money is spent on religious services in a Jewish kibuc? And what do you think would happen if someone in the Paris commune simply refused to work? Would he get a unconditional free ride from the rest of the commune without a timeline?

[Anathema]

Socialist elements of leftist countries like the Netherlands are getting quite ridiculous. Did you know that there are several cases in which the Dutch government pays for prostitutes to visit disabled people? And have you heard of the sex change performed in Britain on public dollars?

I believe the prostitution thing is only carried out in a single city (don't remember wich one though), not nation wide. About the sex change thing, I think that sort of thing has federal assistance in the US too, though I'm not 100% sure of that either...

Anyway, I think that the social services system in the Netherlands is overall very good, though our current government seems pretty intent on tearing down every bit of it :(

[Edric O]

Caid:

1. And what exactly do you mean by "fanatics"? The people whose principles are firm enough that you cannot bribe them to join your side? Or the people who laid the foundations of all modern left-wing philosophies? If that's the kind of people you're talking about, then I'm proud to be one of them.

Most social democratic parties were formed in the early 20th century by former communists or socialists who made concessions to the ruling class in exchange for a share of power.

And by the way, the British Labour Party was established in 1900.

2. If every single country in Europe had had a revolution, then the revolutionary wave of 1918-1923 would have been successful. But even though there was major unrest in every European country (strikes, demonstrations, occasional skirmishes with the police), most countries did not have an open revolution. And this allowed them to send their armies to crush the revolutions that had started in neighboring countries. That was the main reason why the first attempt at a "world revolution" failed. But don't worry, there will be others.

3. What you've described there is called stalinism. And a stalinist system (i.e. an oppressive dictatorship) can never create social equality. "Enforced equality" is an oxymoron. If you "enforce" equality, then the people with the power to do the enforcing are obviously not equal to the people without that power. Stalinist systems have a very high degree of social INequality. You often talked about this yourself. The Party officials had far more power and far better standards of living than anyone else. In many cases, they occupied the very same palaces and luxury houses that the old feudal lords use to live in! No amount of "red paint" can hide the blatantly anti-socialist practices of the stalinists.

[Edric O]

Ace:

1. Very well. I understand that you're not one of the right-wingers that my #1 argument was directed at. So I believe we can declare this point closed.

2. Err, Ace, those aren't "socialist elements" of anything. Real elements of socialism are things like a minimum wage, social welfare, public healthcare and education, etc.

But things like the ones you're talking about are just minor curiosities created by politicians who had a little too much to drink...

A socialist would rather spend public money on something actually useful.

3. I guess you must have a really big family, if you can claim that an entire village or even an entire city is "practically a family". These kinds of small communes are the building blocks of communism.

As for what would happen to someone in the Paris Commune if he refused to work, I think that the other workers would have supported him for a while, after which they would have demanded that he starts working again if he wants to keep using part of the fruits of their labour.

[Caid Ivik]

1. Fanatic is a person incapable of making compromises, negating free will and civilised talks. When someone is so obsessed with an idea, that he loses rationality. Marx could be, that's for all Hegel's followers. But most are not. About english laborists I am not sure what was name of that party. But in fact, let's take founder of czechoslovak socdems, Derer. He never got to a coalition with rightist parties, but also condemned revolutionar way. Call him corrupted, but I would choose a word "civilised".

2. In last times we see lowering of hardcore left and strengthening of middle-left and hardcore right wings. How can in such world be a militant socialistic revolution? When the reds, altough not so fanatical, are in governments? Do your work until you have the power.

3. Then say, what else than Party can be functioning in a world of 6 billion people?

[Edric O]

1. There are compromises we are willing to make, and compromises we are NOT willing to make. We will not make compromises on our ideals (and, by the way, free will is one of them).

You seem to be very proud of being "reasonable" and making compromises. Is your deal with the nazis (the wonderful compromise between the conservative leader Von Papen and Adolf Hitler) an example of your "civilized" ways?

2. As you can see, the fall of the rotten Soviet Union has delivered a hard blow on our popularity, despite the fact that we opposed them. And capitalist countries are going through a period of stability and prosperity, so no one thinks about revolution any more. Revolution might not even be necessary, if we can manage a peaceful transition to socialism.

But if we won't be able to do that (which is the most likely scenario), then you can expect revolutionary feeling to rise up the next time capitalism enters a period of economic crisis.

3. Err, what are you talking about?

[Caid Ivik]

1. Well, Hitler made many compromises, like he sacrificed "communism for all" idea to please nationalists. However this part of marxism wasn't the one he should. In fact, setting ideas to a point, which you can reach only by violence is for me a sign of barbarism.

2. Crisis, crisis, that's a thing of each day. Without crisis there is no thinking. And we don't need revolts to solve them.

3. About your stalinistical theory. You need Party to set the rule. Name it how you want, but it WILL be a Party.

[Edric O]

1.a. Oh yeah, I forgot: Everyone who opposes your ideas is a communist. Since Hitler opposed your ideas, he must have been a communist. ::)

And all that nazi propaganda about how communism was an "evil Jewish plot designed to destroy Aryan civilization" was in fact secretly promoting communism, of course. Just like the banning of the German Communist Party and the murders of thousands of German communists and even moderate left-wingers - it all shows what a great commie Hitler was! Not to mention the invasion of the Soviet Union with the declared purpose of "wiping communism from the face of the Earth"... Obviously, unleashing the most brutal war in the history of mankind was Hitler's way of showing his love... ::)

Sarcasm aside, it's quite ironic that you are the one who is actually using nazi tactics:

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

- Adolf Hitler

And, of course, you once again show your complete ignorance of even the most basic principles of marxism. The nazis were as anti-marxist as you can possibly get. Stalin and his cronies were quite anti-marxist too, but not to such a great extent as Hitler and Mussolini. Perhaps I should make a topic explaining marxism, but I'm sure you'll just ignore it and carry on as usual. After all, you know more about marxism than Marx himself ever did, don't you? ::)

But if you want to read a real marxist analysis of fascism (in all its incarnations, from Fascist Italy to Nazi Germany), then read Leon Trotsky's:

FASCISM: What it is and how to fight it

1.b. Now that we settled that, let's get back to the original point. You said that an ideal which can only be reached by violence is not an ideal worth reaching. I find that to be ridiculously close-minded and outright stupid. What if you live under an oppressive dictatorship? Are you not justified to use violence to win your freedom?

2. An economic crisis makes people hungry and miserable. Hungry and miserable people get angry at the system who put them in that situation. This is a simple natural law. I'm not saying that revolts should or shouldn't happen. I'm saying that they will happen. And eventually, they will be successful in implementing socialism.

But that path is slow, risky, and very costly in human lives. A peaceful transition to socialism is what we struggle to achieve. It is you, the capitalist leadership, who have the power to decide whether this peaceful path can be successful or not.

3. If there is an organization able to impose its will on everyone else, then you cannot have socialism or communism. People cannot be equal if some of them have power and some don't. Socialism can only work under a democracy, and communism must be a free association of human beings.

[Caid Ivik]

1. I don't need your propaganda. But program of NSDAP (if we ignore its name...) was socialistic. It ensures social welfare, employment, education and even progress. Hitler was also far from conservatives - he stopped using of gothic fonts, which Germans preserved in official use from Middle Ages; support for church dropped extremely; and also his look on human was FAR from the traditions... You must agree that socialism is the best demagogical way to lure masses, and it isn't needed to know whether Hitler really believed in them. He established them, that's enough.

1b. Not "unworthy of reaching because of violence"! That I haven't said and I won't say. I am from military family, which included general Viest, leader of slovak uprisors against clerofascists and german occupants. But still, turning to arms is for me a barbarism, when there are other ways. I don't know what tells orthodox catechisms, but our one tells to turn to violence only if there is no other choice to save the good. We aren't endangered, and we see that most social reforms came in peaceful times. So if we have some other way, spare ammo for worse times.

2. A crisis is even today in half of Europe because of euro regulations. Again was shown: centralise economy, play with it and you will burn it. And others will see that it was state who spilled the work. So minimalise direct state regulations and you won't have problems. Crisis in 1929 was because of dollar based on gold and machinations with state's gold reserves. Crisis in 1974 was because central governments in arabian countries raised the cost of oil. And why was the crisis in 1948-1989 I don't have to say... And I don't see people hungry; only miserable. Rich or poor, all feel misery sometimes.

3. Can you describe it closer? Free association, that's a rather hard word to understand.

[Edric O]

1.a. If you simply ignore and dismiss everything you don't like as "propaganda", no wonder you're never able to hold a constructive discussion. Here's a tip for you: Even if something really is propaganda (which is not the case here), that doesn't automatically make it false. It doesn't give you an excuse to dismiss the whole subject.

The program of the NSDAP contained several socialist elements, of course. But it also contained many more right-wing capitalist elements (banning trade unions, greatly supporting big business, etc.). Since fascism/nazism doesn't have its own economic system, it has to borrow from others.

But the opposition between communism and nazism lies at the most fundamental level: Communist philosophy is based on the idea of equality; Nazi philosophy is based on the idea of inequality. That is what makes the nazis right-wing extremists, and that is why communists and nazis hate each other's guts.

Also, you cannot deny that it was the conservatives who allied with the nazis and gave Hitler the office of chancellor, and that the Communist Party was the very first party to be banned by Hitler. Those are historical facts.

1.b. Well, that means we agree! I've been saying the exact same thing: that violence should only be used as a last resort, and that a peaceful transition is the preferable way to achieve socialism. Unfortunetaly, however, I seriously doubt that a peaceful transition will be possible everywhere...

2. Oh, so an unregulated and chaotic economy is more stable than a planned and orderly one? Yeah, sure, that makes perfect sense... ::)

Logic 101: Lack of regulations will never bring stability - quite the contrary. This is true for anything, not just the economy.

And as any economist will tell you, free market economies go through periodic cycles of prosperity and depression.

3. It means people have equal rights and responsibilities, and they work together in a communist society because they know this this way each of them will be better off than if they were on their own.

[Caid Ivik]

1a. Propaganda is true, always, it depends on how it is succesful ::) NSDAP is a typical problem for all communists. It tries to set communist rules for a specifical group, naming the unfittable marked as just "others". Very similar to Stalin's view, which was based on some psychical disease ("you are against? you must be ill!"). Totalities are same, let they are right or left. Creating artificial equality leads to it.

1b. Violence is a way needed only if you have no other choice to pursue opponent verbally to your cause. Problem is that now you CAN be against this system, it functions still. In communism, you MUST be for it, or it would fail.

2. That's a good point. But let I look like an idiot in your view, it really does work better! Difference between the systems in stability and production is vast. When West turned to a depression in 70s, it was still much over stabile, but unproductive regulated East.

3. And how do you think they will actually find this out? Once may come to soc1 one cooler and say "hey people, I have a new idea" and then attack the unarmed soc2. And domino falls...

[Edric O]

1a. Nice of you to point out the similarities between nazism and stalinism again. And you're right about totalitarian regimes: left-wing or right-wing, it makes little difference when it comes to such brutal dictatorships.

But since I am a communist, not a stalinist, and since communism and socialism are democratic systems (unlike stalinism, which is totalitarian), I don't really see who you're arguing with. There are no stalinists or nazis here.

Oh, and by the way, there is no such thing as "artificial" or "forced" equality. If it's forced, then it can't be equality, because forcing something involves having a group of people with power and a group of people without power - therefore you have a ruling class and an underclass, so there is no equality.

There was no equality in the Soviet Union or in stalinist Eastern Europe. Party officials were rich and privileged, while ordinary people were powerless. By the 1980's, stalinist countries had a wider gap between rich and poor than many capitalist countries! As for the nazis, they loved inequality so much that they made it their guiding principle. Nazism is based on inequality and discrimination.

1b. I agree about violence. As I keep saying, violence should only be used as a last resort.

As for communism, the only requirement for it to work is for the majority to be in favour of it. Same as in any other democratic system. You can live in communism and be against the system, and it will still work just as before. Why wouldn't it? You need a majority vote to make a decision - you don't need full consensus.

2. You're confusing stability with growth. Market economies tend to have faster overall growth, but they are highly unstable and risky for the people involved in them. Planned economies typically grow slower, but they are stable and crash-proof (unless idiotic dictators like Brezhnev mess them up).

3. Unarmed? Who's unarmed? The right to bear arms is a very important part of communism, because it ensures that the various communes don't attack each other.

[Caid Ivik]

1a. Even you have an unfitting group: bourgeois. You change moral value of having property and declare it a sin. Same was done in 1917 and 1948. Also, as USSR was just a socialist state, there has to be some government to prepare brighter tommorows! ::)

1b. It is rather different. Direct effect of communism is always on everyone, it is nature of that system. Those against will be looked upon with suspicion, so they will emmigrate or try to disrupt it.

2. It is stable if we take whole economy as one. Of course, for individual it is risky, but with today's globalised money, it can't fall. Crisis can be seen with little lowering of few markets, but they can't fall without direct law intervention of state.

3. One society can have better weapons. Or what, let they have same, they can just train more, if Alexander defeated 30-times larger army of Persians, anyone can.