Jump to content

Communism


Shahumyan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Is it really fair to compare Communism to Capitalism? One is a political system the and second an economic one.

 

A more accurate comparison would be Communism Vs. Democracy or Socialism vs. Capitalism.

 

I think...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Communism is also an economic model, e.g. dividing of government money, 5-year plans, etc.

 

Plus Marx was an economist first and foremost, and the basic principles of communism come from the economical struggle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Communism is also an economic model, e.g. dividing of government money, 5-year plans, etc.

 

Plus Marx was an economist first and foremost, and the basic principles of communism come from the economical struggle.

Marx was not a communist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, as someone has said Marx was first and foremost an economist.

 

However it is linked to POlitical side.

For the economics of a persons life determine their social charachter.

 

I dont see how u would compare Communism with Democracy, as Communism is 100% democracy! remember, all power to the workers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Communism is 100% democracy

I agree. but that's not the image of communism painted by the U.$ government (which is the poster child of capitalism)... mainstream thinking says that communism is based on dictatorship. now, i know what MOST (not all) people think about Castro, and I'm not buying into the "dictator" claims.. Castro is not a dictator. True, he IS the head of the country, but he is not necessarily a dictator. Dictatorship is a different thing altogether.

 

So communism CAN be and in theory IS a democracy. It is, moreover, a system of equality. Communism is NOT about Stalin-type dictatorship and tyranny. That is the wrong way to apply it. The right way to apply it is how Castro and Che Guevara did it. And Cuba is a living proof of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well put Dan

 

However, one qualm would be that u suggest Cuba is the idea state of communism, i may have misunderstood u, say so if i did.

I disagree, the concentration of power leans towards the beurocracy, as a result of being isolated from other nations.

 

However, i enjoyed reading that you have an objective mind and arent bying into US propaganda

 

What are you views on the issue?

Edited by Shahumyan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree, the concentration of power leans towards the beurocracy, as a result of being isolated from other nations.

Of course, every country has its faulty sides and failures, and every system needs improvement to become a better one, but well, as you said, the system in Cuba is of that nature because it is forcefully isolated from other nations (blockade)..

I am unsure about the future of Cuba post-Castro, however... I have a feeling Cubans will stick to their own and maybe have a new leader in face of increasing U.$ threats... on the other hand, there is the fear that there might be a period of instability in the country after Castro dies, unless he has an immediate follower.. and U$A might step in, and all hell will break loose and I'm afraid that may be the end of the communist system in Cuba... :( I am afraid that the reason for allowing tourists into Cuba these days is exactly for that.. who knows how many agents U$A currently has in Cuba.. i have learned to expect the unexpected from U$ policies, that's why i might appear a bit paranoid at times. capitalism might take over Cuba - it all depends on the reaction of the general population in Cuba - whether or not they choose to live without Coca Cola, whether or not they prefer equality (accompanied by equal duties/work/workload/pay) to class hierarchies.. it all depends. no one can be sure. one human being is unpredictable enough, let along group behaviour and its consequences.

 

However, i enjoyed reading that you have an objective mind and arent bying into US propaganda

What are you views on the issue?

U$ propaganda is, well, just that - propaganda... and propaganda is usually the result of either a failing/dying system/country/empire, or just another technique of provocation. And I wouldn't be surprised if it's both in the case of U$A... it's a technique that follows the philosophy of "divide to conquer"... in Cuba's case, i think it's just one of those vampirical sprees U$A seems to go on from time to time. not that it's not like that all the time lol.. but if you've ever observed the behaviour of U$A and its pattern of involvement in war in direct relation to its economy, you might have noticed that the downfall in the economy was not the result of the war/fears of terrorism, but the other way around, meaning that there was a downfall in US economy before the war, and that was partly why U$A indeed did go to war... that's my view on it. i'm not saying it's a fact.. just my 2 cents which were "gifted" to me by our great capitalistic brotherhood or sisterhood, whichever may be. lol. i believe that the U$ has a huge economy propaganda as well, not only news (also known as lies in American dictionaries) propaganda...

 

Edit note: For a good satire on propaganda, read Kurt Vonnegut's Mother Night. If you've heard about Howard J. Campbell Jr., you will know what I'm talking about, and in case you don't know who he is: he was an American who went to Germany and was involved in the Nazi propaganda unit.. He was later captured and put on trial, and he committed suicide before they had reached a verdict. But it says a lot about propaganda, especially that the guy was an American. Kurt Vonnegut is absolutely brilliant. The book is very interesting, and a VERY quick read (I finished it the day I started it). I couldn't put it down. It's even funny at times. It makes you shake your head at some obvious truths that hadn't occured to you. :D

Edited by Dan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I never said he wasn't a communist either.  :D I just said he was a Marxist, which I think is true.  :D

 

Marx was not Marxist in the contemporary sense of that term either, nor he laied down the foundations of communism. He just came up with the first systematic but most rudimentary economic theory.

Edited by MJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marx was not Marxist in the contemporary sense of that term either.

Well, because contemporary interpretations differ. But he was a Marxist in the sense that he believed in his theories, which were the product of his brain... that makes him a Marxist, does it not? :unsure: :D

 

Another good book on Communism / Marxism, etc. is George Orwell's Animal Farm. ;)

 

Edit note: And another interesting link: http://www.marxists.org/

 

Actually, Marx was a Communist in the earliest sense of the word. He, along with Engels, wrote the Communist Manifesto.

Edited by Dan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, because contemporary interpretations differ. But he was a Marxist in the sense that he believed in his theories, which were the product of his brain... that makes him a Marxist, does it not? :unsure: :D

So that not to turn this thread, too, into demogogary and give at least minimally meaningful answer to your rhetoric question, could you layout on a half a page the most fundamental tenets of Marxism, and then we can go from there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that not to turn this thread, too, into demogogary

:rolleyes: let me ask you something... do you like arguing semantics or what? ....

 

could you layout on a half a page the most fundamental tenets of Marxism

yes... for your entertainment, here it is:

-"It is not social consciousness that determines social being, but social being that determines social consciousness."

-"The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of the development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole."

 

Marxism is the theory of the working class as a whole, regardless of nationality. It's a theory of the resistance of the proletariat to capitalism and all the struggles that are involved in that.. It aspires to a classless society through the formation of an "international" class if you can call it that...

 

Edited by Sasun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rolleyes: let me ask you something... do you like arguing semantics or what? ....

 

 

yes... for your entertainment, here it is:

-"It is not social consciousness that determines social being, but social being that determines social consciousness."

-"The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of the development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole."

 

Marxism is the theory of the working class as a whole, regardless of nationality. It's a theory of the resistance of the proletariat to capitalism and all the struggles that are involved in that.. It aspires to a classless society through the formation of an "international" class if you can call it that... 

 

Now, you can go ballistic on me over the semantic "errors" in my summary. Your turn.

I have no idea what semantics you are referring to, but what you have posted above is pure demagogary not shedding a sligh light even on what Marxism is about.

 

Edited by Sasun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. but that's not the image of communism painted by the U.$ government (which is the poster child of capitalism)... mainstream thinking says that communism is based on dictatorship. now, i know what MOST (not all) people think about Castro, and I'm not buying into the "dictator" claims.. Castro is not a dictator. True, he IS the head of the country, but he is not necessarily a dictator. Dictatorship is a different thing altogether.

 

So communism CAN be and in theory IS a democracy. It is, moreover, a system of equality. Communism is NOT about Stalin-type dictatorship and tyranny. That is the wrong way to apply it. The right way to apply it is how Castro and Che Guevara did it. And Cuba is a living proof of it.

Please name me one comunist model country , or where comunism succeeded and turn that country to " WORKERS PARADISE "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 million people under poverty line.  This is successful????

Please dont compare poverty in USA with poverty in other countries .

When Khroutsef was visiting the United States he said to Nixon

The train of comunism will pass the USA and look back and wave BYE BYE

Now i wander who went BYE BYE and where . :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, those of you who are advocating "worker's democracy" or what not ... can you gurantee lower poverty rates and better quality of life than the US? If so, I'll sign up right away ... after all, why should I bust my butt trying to make ends meet under this capitalist system when I can sit and do nothing with my thumb up my whereever under your system that can guarantee my utopia?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sip, how would a worker's democracy mean sitting and doing nothing and putting your thumb up your wherever? The worker's utopia is not to be lazy and get paid for it, it's to be equally paid for equal jobs. Of course, selling food is incomparable to building houses, and the pay would have to be higher, but that's what is equal anyhow. We're not talking about equal pay for people who do unequal amount/quality of work.

 

For more on that, read Sir Thomas More's Utopia, a great satirical book about that and other related issues.

 

Not "just" successfull ... actually VERY successful.

Depends on where you view that success from. If you're talking about success from the viewpoint of the capitalist boss, then of course. If you're viewing it from the viewpoint of the homeless, then I don't think it's successful at all. It may be considered a success in that it may be more productive than the system I am talking about, but for whom is it productive? For the leaders only. And don't even tell me that in capitalist societies, you work, you get paid. There's no such thing as that. There are a lot of people who are not lazy, who are qualified, but who are not given the chance or the job to be able to support themselves. Do you truly believe that all homeless people are lazy bums who CHOSE to live on the streets or in shelters instead of having a house or apartment, taking the bus to work every day, and having a bread to eat every day, even if that would mean busting their butt trying to make ends meet?

 

Please dont compare poverty in USA with poverty in other countries .

Why not? I say they're comparable. If I am going to advocate a system of society, I prefer to support a system that is poor but equally poor, rather than a system that is poor but unfairly so.

 

30 million people under poverty line. This is successful????

Shahumyan - successful to those who don't care about the workers or even those who don't hold jobs. That's what capitalism is all about. It's an almost practical version of the survival of the fittest, except that the fittest is not the qualified person, but the one with more connections...

 

The train of comunism will pass the USA and look back and wave BYE BYE

Now i wander who went BYE BYE and where .

The only reason communism did not survive was because it was applied incorrectly. Stalin is not what communism is all about. He abused the system for his own purposes, exactly the opposite of what real communism preaches.

 

Here is what Trotsky said in his "If America Should Go Communist":

 

At present most Americans regard communism solely in the light of the experience of the Soviet Union. They fear lest Sovietism in America would produce the same material result as it has brought for the culturally backward peoples of the Soviet Union.

They fear lest communism should try to fit them to a bed of Procrustes, and they point to the bulwark of Anglo-Saxon conservatism as an insuperable obstacle even to possibly desirable reforms. They argue that Great Britain and Japan would undertake military intervention against the American soviets. They shudder lest Americans be regimented in their habits of dress and diet, be compelled to subsist on famine rations, be forced to read stereotyped official propaganda in the newspapers, be coerced to serve as rubber stamps for decisions arrived at without their active participation or be required to keep their thoughts to themselves and loudly praise their soviet leaders in public, through fear of imprisonment and exile.

They fear monetary inflation, bureaucratic tyranny and intolerable red tape in obtaining the necessities of life. They fear soulless standardization in the arts and sciences, as well as in the daily necessities of life. They fear that all political spontaneity and the presumed freedom of the press will be destroyed by the dictatorship of a monstrous bureaucracy. And they shudder at the thought of being forced into an uncomprehended glibness in Marxist dialectic and disciplined social philosophies. They fear, in a word, that Soviet America will become the counterpart of what they have been told Soviet Russia looks like.

...

Who else will fight against communism? Your corporal's guard of billionaires and multimillionaires? Your Mellons, Morgans, Fords and Rockefellers?

 

Please name me one comunist model country , or where comunism succeeded and turn that country to " WORKERS PARADISE "

There may be no worker's paradise, but there is no democratic paradise either; and if you think there is, then you are seriously delusional. However, I'd say that Cuba is as close as we have come to worker's paradise. And please, don't even start with "how about the thousands of Cubans fleeing to Florida?", because they are a small number of people who don't care about their own country or anything else except their own selfish interests. Proof of that is, when you leave your country and don't work to make it a better place, and instead cross over to your enemy's country and then say that at the slightest opportunity when Castro dies and hopefully Cuba "opens up" to capitalism, you will go there and stay there and work, then that's just pure selfish interest, truly capitalistic. And well, I don't think anyone who hasn't fought for his country against greedy invaders like the U.$ (and yes, U$A is greedy for land and colonization and industrialization) has any right to go back and witness the supposedly good days of it. But that's just my opinion. You can't expect others to fight and die for your country while you are out there talking against your own leader, and then expect your own country and people to welcome you with open arms. That is distasteful, base, and really f***ed up.

 

And to see more about the dangers of capitalism and abuse of industrialization, read Emile Zola's Germinal.

 

And no, I am not bookish. My personal opinions do not stem from books, but rather from my own judgements of those books and the realities they represent.

Edited by Dan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...