Left-wing discussion

[Dude_Doc]

I still don't understand your goals, Edric. If you want a communistic/socialist government, but in the same time, a democracy, then what if the people (one day) choose to have a right-winged government?

[Edric O]

Alright, now I am finally back. (even though I'm leaving again on Monday, but that's just for one more week)

Dude_Doc:

I still don't understand your goals, Edric. If you want a communistic/socialist government, but in the same time, a democracy, then what if the people (one day) choose to have a right-winged government?

Then they will have it. If the people no longer support the system, then the system has already failed, and it's time to move on.

But, of course, the term "right-wing government" might not be appropriate, because in Communism there will no longer be a government as you know it. The people will have direct power. So you should be talking about "right-wing laws and decisions" instead.

Warlord Ripskar:

Your argument is based on the nonsensical assumption that people will somehow need to (or, for no apparent reason, simply want to) loan money in a system where capital no longer exists! In feudal Europe, loans were needed because the system was built that way, and because Feudalism has a natural tendency to slide into Capitalism (every system has a natural tendency to slide into the one that will come after it). Remove the need for banking, and there will no longer be any banking...

Also, note that the oversized bureaucracy was the effect of Stalinism. In fact, Leon Trotsky argued that in a stalinist system, the bureaucracy forms a new sort of ruling class, which oppresses the workers just as the old bourgeoisie did. That is why Stalinism is not Communism.

Caid Ivik:

Yes, worker chooses the one which will want from him the least...

Capitalist arrogance and elitism at its finest! Obviously, Caid believes that the workers are some sort of inferior beings who can't even see their own self interest, and so need a boss to rule them with an iron fist... ::)

Communism says that all human beings should be treated as such! The workers will elect a good manager, Caid, because they want their co-operative to be productive, so that they get paid better themselves. You see, that's the advantage of having all employees as "share holders" - the good of the co-operative becomes the same as their own personal good.

It's not about accusing Marx of antisemitism. He wasn't against Jews as a race, but as a "class", because he saw in everyone a lichver or banker. All Jews were for him just an unproductive band living from money shaking, sign of dying capitalism. This theory was especially presented by his follower Rosa Luxembourg, which was anyway a native Jew too. To be sure, I don't bring these things up from his own books, but from things which were written about him, but it is truth, that he made many articles against Jews ("Their God? Money!" - Rheinische Zeitung).

Well, that sounds more reasonable! Marx was indeed strongly opposed to all bankers and money-handlers, because they did nothing productive. He didn't have anything about Jews in particular.

But you know what I find really funny? How all the enemies of Communism try to make us look bad in relation to the Jews! The Nazis called Communism a "Jewish plot", while the Capitalists are calling us anti-semitic! LOL!

Ok, so you think it is only a profit. But for what is that profit? Of course, if you want to manage a company, you must try to be succesful, why would you do it for a bankrot? Everyone wants to improve his life, many also want to help with living the others. It doesn't mean they want to destroy everyone with the same ambition.

Of course some capitalists genuinely care for other human beings and try to help them. The trouble is that Capitalism crushes these people, and the selfish uncaring bastards always end up on top. Ever heard the phrase "nice guys finish last"? That's Capitalism for you!

Marx shared his thoughts only with the intellectual sphere. If you think only intellectuals are "the population", then I wouldn't be so sure with that marxist democracy... But as I think about democracy, it was created by ancient Greeks, as a rule of people - not slaves, called in marxist literature grandly as a "proletariate".

What are you talking about? Marx shared his thoughts with everyone! (duh...) He founded and lead the First Worker's International, for God's sake!

And the Communist ideal is to FREE those slaves, so that they can rule themselves instead of being ruled over by their corporate masters.

[Caid Ivik]

1. It is logic. You wouldn't make a whip, that's sadism. But isn't worker like worker, that's true. Some are smarter, some less. I cannot even imagine that corruption which would come with democracy in marketing.

2. He was such an antisemitistic conspirologist. But he tried to get deeper and based his conspirology on whole financial sector!

3. I wouldn't say so. Hospitals, schools and security are dependant on their charity. It looks like if there is only a small group, everything functions... OK, not everywhere, but still it is better than before 1989.

4. How many real workers were on the First International? How many of them were active? Main question: WHO will free those "slaves"? In Russia, the revolution only destroyed sources of wealth and food and it took a half-decade until there could people again live.

[Edric O]

1. And so, you prove my point: You Capitalists talk about the workers as if they are some sort of mindless subhumans who cannot think for themselves. You fear democracy at the workplace, just like your Feudalist predecessors feared democracy in the government. You claim that the reason is because the people/workers somehow cannot think for themselves, and so they need YOU to do the thinking for them. But the actual reason is because you fear to lose your power.

2. One word: WHAT? It looks like you're saying that Marx started some sort of anti-Jewish conspiracy. Which is absolutely hillarious, seeing how other enemies of Communism (namely the Nazis) said the Marx started a PRO-Jewish conspiracy! Funny how our enemies always try to accuse us of whatever sounds "evil" at the moment...

3. Hospitals, schools and security are dependent on TAXES, not charity. If it was up to your meager capitalist "charity", there would be no such thing as free health care or education. Like I said, good guys always finish last in capitalism.

And of course things are better than before 1989, because capitalism is normally better than stalinism...

4. Actually, the First International was composed almost entirely of workers, with only a handful of exceptions. See, that's why it was called a WORKER'S movement...

As for the Russian Revolution, here's a news flash for you: It happened in the middle of a World War! And World Wars have a nasty habit of killing millions of people and destroying "sources of food and wealth", you know...

[Dude_Doc]

But you can't deny the fact that the leader is, in a way, "supperior" to his employeers. Just like a more intelligent person is, as I said (in a way), supperior to me. You see, sometimes, the leader must take action in a way that places the workers into a kind of, like you said, subhuman position.

[Caid Ivik]

1. You haven't read corectly. BECAUSE they aren't mindless, they wouldn't elect someone, who will want more than the least! It is possible in small firms, but in i.e. big car factory? How would you ensure that all 2000 employees are people with fanatical will to work? Anyway, I cannot lose my power, I have to claim it first ;D You say it evil to have someone to make thoughts, ways to lead. But what we do in democracy? Don't we elect some people, which then lead things we haven't time for?

2. He hasn't started it. He was just making from it a science. Hitler based his thoughts on their "racial inferiority", Marx on "lust for money". Don't forget that Stalin oppressed Jews as well. He saw "jewish conspiracy" in everything as well as Hitler did.

3. I would say it is same. Tax is a charity based on law. Capitalism is better than stalinism, and even better than communism. When Gorbacov tried set it up, the economy fallen to deepest point.

4. I would name it UNION movement. Unioner leaders are always people which aren't working. Also WW1 didn't hit Russia's progressing industrialisation. maybe there was the problem why Russia lose the war, they had other priorities than half-million army on their borders...

[Edric O]

Dude_Doc: Ah, capitalist elitism at its best... In what way is the employer "superior" to his employees, exactly? And just how do you define "superior", anyway?

The fact is that there is no such thing as "superiority". All human beings are different and unique. Treating people like mindless subhumans who need a boss to do the thinking for them is sick and degrading, yet sadly it's also the typical capitalist attitude.

Caid:

1. In other words, you're saying that democracy couldn't possibly work, because the people don't know their own interests, so they need a dictator/boss to tell them what to do. ::)

It's funny how you're so eager to defend democracy in the government, yet you are so viciously against democracy at the workplace. Political freedom and economic slavery - a perfect description of capitalism!

And then you bring up the principle of representative democracy (the fact that we elect people to do the things that we ourselves don't have the time for). This is indeed a good way of running things. I never said otherwise! Once communism is established, workers in big firms will indeed elect managers and company planners in order to keep things running properly. But there will be no employers or company owners/share holders.

2. Quite simply, what you are saying is a lie. Marx had nothing against (or for) Jews. And that is pretty obvious, seeing how ethnic groups in general had nothing to do with Marx's work.

And how many times must I remind you that Stalin was NOT a communist? (in fact, he turned out to be one of the greatest enemies of communism who ever lived, second only to Hitler and the nazis)

3. LOL, first you say that capitalism is better than communism, and now even stalinism is better than communism in your twisted view? What's next, nazism being the best of them all? ::)

And by the way, Gorbachev never achieved anything beyond a watered-down version of soviet stalinism. Of course, he really did try his best, but by the time he came along it was already too late.

4. That depends on how you define "working". If they're the leaders of a large organization, they have to dedicate most (if not all) of their time to that organization. And anyway, the leaders are just a handful of people. It was the regular members, the normal working people, who made up the body and soul of the International.

And as for WW1, the fact is that Tsarist Russia took a massive blow from it. Their technology and equipment was old and outdated, and so they took immense casualties. It was a complete disaster.

[Caid Ivik]

1. You are generalising. Democracy is the only way to ensure peaceful ruling over whole country. But on small parts, why do we need it? Good boss won't be bad on his employees, or they can just leave him. I know, in our postcommunistic countries it is harder to find a new work. But on west, you can do where and what you want. Property of firm is shared - I think it is usual to pay workers.

2. Yes, people like Husak and Dubcek were proclaimed enemies of communism too. One became a president after Russians invaded us, other was leader of social democracy after revolution. People change... Fact is, that Marx' book shines with inspirations of antisemitistic conspirology. I wouldn't lie to you if I wasn't sure. I am opened, I tell you what I see.

3. Nazism and communism have many mutual points. I.e.common property, owned by whole nation (resp."society"). Gorbachov tried to make some mix of half-opened social democracy, that "half-opened" means that he wouldn't allow much to private companies. That brought him down.

4. Not exactly, Russians had adequate technology, also they were supported by western countries (i.e.about 50 Morane G planes from France). Problem was just that army had no morale. Ideal time for demagogic uprising ;D

[nemafakei]

"Good boss won't be bad on his employees, or they can just leave him"

There is a problem that almost all management seems to charge exorbitant prices. You have to work for SOMEONE - and that someone is likely to be giving themselves a pay rise first.

[Caid Ivik]

You don't need to work for someone. Make your own firm, or just take some earth for plants, every your initiative ad maiorem Deus gloriam can give you enough for life: if you invest enough, of course.

Statement 1 was about employees, people which are working for someone, some firm, not about work generally. Small informatics company of five people doesn't need some hierarchy, but 50-people shop does.

[nemafakei]

"You don't need to work for someone. Make your own firm, or just take some earth for plants, every your initiative ad maiorem Deus gloriam can give you enough for life"

But that's pointless if you are no good at business, or are trained in a specific trade (eg as a research chemist). Capitalism seems to assume that everyone was created identical, and had identical opportunity and training....

[Caid Ivik]

And for what do you think we have schools? If you can't count 1+1, than possibly you wouldn't be best trader.

[Edric O]

Caid:

1. What kind of a question is that? Democracy is needed on ALL levels, because only democracy can ensure that the leadership acts in the interest of the people! The same thing applies in a company.

As for the notion that "a boss won't treat his employees bad because then they will leave", that is one of the biggest capitalist lies ever invented. Just look at 19th century industrial cities. The workers were treated like dirt. They were little more than slaves, and they worked in horrible sweatshop conditions. None of the bosses had any intention to treat his workers better, because as long as everyone else treated them the same, the workers only had a choice between working like slaves or starving to death! It's thanks to the socialist movement that conditions improved. Through blood and tears they forced the capitalists to make concession after concession. It is thanks to US that you now enjoy your 40-hour working week and minimum wage laws!

2. Oh, the Russians "invaded you"? So you'd rather have remained under nazi domination instead? ::)

As for enemies of communism, the way to tell them apart from real communists is simple: real communists care about the people, traitors care only about themselves.

And you still haven't explained how come capitalists went from calling communism a jewish conspiracy to calling it an anti-jewish one... hey, if they're gonna make up propaganda about us, they should at least be consistent...

3. Yeah, right. Is that why Hitler always supported the bourgeoisie and utterly despised the very notion of equality?

If anything, communism and nazism are polar opposites: equality vs. inequality, justice vs. injustice, liberation vs. oppression.

Gorbachev failed for two reasons. First of all, he wanted to give the people more freedom in order to move towards true communism, but failed to realize that it was already far too late to save anything. The people hated the system, and would use their new-found freedom to tear it down rather than to express their gratitude for being allowed free speech. Secondly, Gorbachev thought that introducing capitalist elements would improve the economy. But instead of improving it, the new capitalist policies lead to a massive economic disaster. What used to be a mild crisis turned into a complete economic breakdown. Capitalism brought down the Soviet Union.

4. Well, can you blame them? Of course they had no morale, seeing how they were fighting for a Tsar who asked ever greater sacrifices from them and offered nothing in return.

[Caid Ivik]

1. One thing is democracy, other anarchy. If chief says it is more beneficial to make 300 breads and all workers won't agree with else than 200, then it will cause only a chaos. Unions are made to prevent these chiefs to set limits over worker's abilities. They are needed as well. Art of politics is to find a balance. Everyone has a work: one to manage, other to provide hands. Of course, before God, law and state, we are all equal.

2. I mean invasion of 1968. With liberation of 1945 isn't all clear as well, but at least we fought against greater evil. About the conspirology, it is vice versa as you said. Jewish communities were powerful in financial sector and richer bourgeoise. Marx made from this an unified "class", where all have same will. Same was talked by Hitler, just he named it straightly "Jews", not a "rich class".

3. How sign of equality is the motto "All glory to proletariate"? Or justice in erarisation of rich people properties? Or what sign of liberty is preventing from having more than other people?

4. Well, I wouldn't say they did anything bad. But changing Nicolaus II. for Lenin is like going from rain to storm.

[nemafakei]

"And for what do you think we have schools? If you can't count 1+1, than possibly you wouldn't be best trader."

That still doesn't explain how those in control of their own pay can be stopped from increasing it without reason. And unions do not have a huge effect either.

[Dude_Doc]

The real question is: when are this "plan" going to take off? Where will you start? A party? Explain!

[Caid Ivik]

Fakei, if unioners are weak, it is because they haven't big support. Maybe because people don't protest against beneficial things. If someone works with more income, why shouldn't raise from it his own pay? With MPs it is else, there limits only their own honor...and taxes.

[Edric O]

Caid:

1. Ha ha ha, in other words, you put the label "anarchy" on any democratic idea that you don't like. ::) You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that making 300 breads will earn you more money than making 200, Caid. The workers don't need a boss to tell them that. In fact, the workers don't need a boss for ANYTHING. Without a capitalist who owns the means of production, they will each receive money according to how much and how well they work, as opposed to a capitalist system in which the boss pays them the bare minimum in order to keep them from leaving to another workplace.

That is how capitalism calculates wages. Not according to how much you work, or even to the value of the goods or services you produce! Wages under capitalism are merely the lowest amount of money that your boss needs to pay you in order to keep you working for him.

(notice the irony here: while you always claim that communism is against freedom, it is in fact YOU who argue against freedom right now, and ME, a communist, who argues in favour of it!)

2. Ah, the Prague Spring of 1968! You're right about that. But hey, what can you expect from a die-hard stalinist like Brezhnev? Among other things, he was also the one who screwed up the economy of the Soviet Union, directly causing its eventual collapse...

And Marx didn't make a "class" out of anyone. The class was already there, as an economic entity. Even capitalists admit the existence of the two social classes (except they say it's not a bad thing). And if you think that the bourgeoisie (an economic entity) has anything to do with the Jews (a cultural and religious community), then I'm afraid you need expert help, my friend...

3. Since Communism seeks to abolish all social classes, that quote cannot be a motto, because there is no proletariat (exploited class) under Communism. It can be a revolutionary slogan, of course, which is exactly what it is. It's about class struggle (a part of Capitalism), not about Communism.

And how many times must I tell you: Communism will not, in ANY stage of development, prevent you from having more than other people. All it will prevent you from doing is using your money as capital. In other words, it will prevent you from using your rights to infringe on the rights of others. This is the basic principle behind any democratic government, and communism takes it one step further than capitalism, by preventing economic slavery too, not just political one.

4. Please, let's not get into the argument about Lenin again. We've had it a thousand times. I think we can declare point 4 closed.

[Caid Ivik]

1. In simplified words, worth of a demagogue. Don't generalise again. Workers have enough work with making the products, i.e.where those breads will be sold, that shouldn't be chosen democratically, but by experts. Anyway, it is communist motto, let everyone do what he can...

2. Actually, the invasion was in august. One of the reasons was talking about Breznev as stalinist in our news, what angered him (wonder why...). I wouldn't say it was Breznev, who brought the economy down. Stalin raised it little bit, using a new form of slavery, named planned economy. Others softened it, what brought the system in 1989 down. God bless liberalisation of communism ;D

Marx defined class system. He created a new "view" on social situation, based on generalising some common signs in society to "classes".

3. So, if in communism are no classes, then I can say you have already achieved your goals... With that capital, I don't know what is bad on it. I would say Christ want from us to help others with their efforts, investments are very like it.

4. Pity you have lost mood. Maybe once again...

[Edric O]

1. Oh, so your brilliant reply to everything I said is basically just: "You're wrong." ::)

And then you come and say a wonderful thing like "Workers have enough work with making the products", which just begs for the word "workers" to be replaced with the word "slaves". That is what your system is all about, isn't it? "Slaves don't know anything! They should work, not think!"... ah, the beauty of capitalism...

2. Yes, I know it was in August, but the whole chain of events (from the reform to the invasion) is known as the "Prague Spring". I can't remember exactly why, though...

Your media called Brezhnev a stalinist? I bet he really hated being exposed for what he was... So he went into denial and all that... ;)

Hmmmm, you obviously don't know much about communist economics. What Stalin invented (and we later used) is called a command economy. This is very different from a planned economy. In a planned economy, expert economists draw up plans of production based on available resources, economic needs, etc. It is a very stable economy that ensures resources are used exactly where they are needed most. A command economy is similar, except that all economic plans are drawn up by the Party in order to fit their political agenda. Command economies are typical of stalinst regimes. Their problem is that, unlike in planned economies, they are not managed realistically. It starts well, but then the Party starts putting absurd demands on the economy and it all comes crashing down. This is what happened over here in Romania. Ours was a typical case of command economy.

And I hate to remind you, but the liberalisation of communism only made things worse and worse, and the economy ended up being much worse off than if they would have simply done nothing.

Now, about Marx: Yes, he discovered the inner workings of the class system. But to say that he "created" classes is like saying Newton "created" gravity or Columbus "created" America.

The two opposing classes in capitalism are based on SOLID ECONOMIC FACTS. The bourgeois are the private owners of capital, while the proletarians are those who have no means of production of their own and must sell their labour-power to earn money. What exactly is so hard to understand?

Read Capital, for God's sake!

3. See above. As for the comment about Christ... oh please! Now you have a divine mandate to spread Holy Capitalism? ::) I don't know about you, but I don't think Christ would approve of a system based on one of the 7 deadly sins: GREED.

[Caid Ivik]

1. Do you need to think about management, when you ride a tractor?

2. No one can discover a theory. He created a theory, as well as Columbus created a theory of a western way to India... I think that idea isn't as sure. I am burgeoise, whole my family, and we don't run any kind of capitalistic business. In short, there are MORE than just two types of people.

3. "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it." - Gen 1,28 ;)

[Edric O]

1. Yes, you do. You need to think about what you're going to do once you stop riding that tractor. You need to think about what crop you're going to grow this year, if you'll need to irigate it, how much you expect to get from it, who you plan to sell it to, etc.

You seem to assume that all poor people are mindless animals, Caid. Just replace "poor people" with "jews" and you would make a fine recruit for Hitlerjung!

2. Yes, and Newton created the *theory* of gravity. Based on all our observations, the theory is true - so we made it the LAW of gravity. The same applies to Marx's *theory* about how the capitalist economy works. Hey, even capitalists agree with him on that!

Remember, Caid, being bourgeois doesn't equal being rich, and being proletarian doesn't equal being poor. It's only that capitalism is built in such a way that the vast majority of bourgeois are rich and the vast majority of proletarians are poor...

But what do you mean when you say that you and your family are bourgeois? Do they own a business? If not, they are not bourgeois.

3. Funny, that doesn't look to me like it says anything about being greedy or investing capital or... well, you get the point.

[tobiasthecommie]

ehm, newtons law is false. its close, but its not accurate.

[Edric O]

The actual equations are false, yes (as proved by Einstein's relativity), but I was talking about the principle.

[Caid Ivik]

1. It will be a very nice world, if everyone would think about future. However, I am realistic. NOT everyone thinks. There are people, which are frustrated because they cannot open their minds because of bad enviroment. We should give them a chance - but why should we force those others? Free will, you know. Anyway, I don't call poor him, who has stabile work. It is you, who makes groups ;)

2. Bourgeois is an adjective, translatable as "townie". Other word is "middle class". Usually educated people with stabile work, pay for more then plain survival, some perspective for future, etc.

3. Investing capital is fruitful act, with that we can subdue our weaker sights, like ilnesses. God gave us the world not only to use it, but also to care for it. That needs some flow of money to areas. When it becomes beneficial for investor and natives too, it is good.