Communism...

[Boond]

i think so...but british columbia is far better than ontario

[Lauren]

ontario is the crap province. don't let anyone tell you different.

[ToadMan]

I think that Saskatchewan is more of a hole... there might be vast open spaces... but the roads to get you there suck. Plus the province is poor, so everything sucks.

 

Peace

[Lauren]

ontario looks rich, but we aren't. all the money goes to those who need it least.

and our drivers manuals are so damn boring.

[ToadMan]

;)

 

I've been to Ontario... and nobody reads them anyway. What with the bumper to bumper traffic on the 401 @ 120 kph.

 

Isn't this topic about communism though... not where in Canada is better to live... where in Canada do we have the most communist governments?

 

Peace

[Lauren]

we could have voted for the marxist-lennon movement in the last election.. i think. i didn't may it much attention.

[ToadMan]

that would be interesting... a communist government in ontario, the largest center of commerce in Canada.

 

Peace

[Crusader]

It would work well on a provincial level in BC heh. Though maybe not as we like money here... How about Nova Scotia?

[ToadMan]

hmm.

 

Peace

[Moonlight_Graham]

In theory, communism is a great idea. But the fact is that it is nearly impossible to put it into action and be successful.

In theory, communism is a great idea. But the fact is that it is nearly impossible to put it into action and be successful.

 

exactly. In theory, it seems like a very compassionate and well-meaning idea. But its just doesn't work. Corruption and power-mongers always ruin it.

 

Communism has turned into one of the biggest obstacles of peace in the last century.

 

FACT: no two democratic countries have ever gone to war with each other.

 

...Thats all there needs to be said about communism.

[supercanuk]

FACT: no two democratic countries have ever gone to war with each other.

 

...Thats all there needs to be said about communism.

Thats right, all the democracies are too busy pushing down all the communist countries. Infact any other type of government other then a democracy, tends to be the victim of bigger, richer, more powerful democracy's, the worst part is, is that its not the leaders of these countries that suffer, its there people.

[Moonlight_Graham]

if we wanna be utopic, communism would be the perfect system (and I'm 100% for it)... but being realistic, in the globalized and materialistic world we are living in, communism can't take place, all political systems would have to be changed and i know that will not ever happen...

 

in any case, i'm still fighting - and i think we all should - for a better world, with more equality in all senses, sharing all we have with the others and specially with those in need... and that is the base of communism

 

call me utopic, i am and i'm very proud of it ;)

then whats wrong with having a democratic system that is extremely socialist? Then the people can be free and choose their governments, take part in the global economy etc. but share their wealth as well.

 

Personally i think democracy is a good system. I like freedom. But some parts of it suck, like large corporations. I don't mind socialism as long as my tax-money is going to the right places and its not being wasted by the gov't (ie: Chretien's Liberals). When you have a very socialist gov't it seems you've got to keep very close tabs on how the gov't spends the people's money. Its very easy for the gov't to waste it without any accountibiliy, and then when they need more money they just raise taxes again.

[supercanuk]

Graham i can definatly aggree, for example my brother in law's mother works for Foods Canada, and for a "buisness trip" she stayed at the Paris Hotel, and ate at insanly expensive restaurants every nite of her seven day visit, the last nite she was there and she had to pay for a meal herself which costed something upwards of 250$, so imagine what the government was paying for, for three meals a day and seven days a week? Not to mention the thousands of dollars for her and her son to stay in a hotel, and dont forget the casino chips ;) This of course was in Las Vegas so there was the plane ticket aswell. The worst part is, she isnt high up in Foods Canada either, which of course is a government branch. She has only a high school education, but she speaks french, so she was hired back in the eighty's. Even my uncle who works for fianances in the government said that Foods Canada is the most wasteful department, so getting back to what you said, yes socialist governments and ( Chritians Liberals) needed to be watched for there wasteful spending of yours and my, tax dollars. Unfortunatly wheres the accountablity of the government? Why cant we impeach these people who waste our money? I know this is turning much into a rant but im sick of seeing my money not go to where its needed.

[miscellaneous]

FACT: no two democratic countries have ever gone to war with each other.

...Except the US and Iraq, but that's arguable.

[Sparq]

Perhaps because in this day and age it's too hard to find a decent excuse to invade a democratic country. Whereast if it's a more 'oppressive' government, you can disguise it as a liberation.

[Moonlight_Graham]

supercanuk,

 

yes thats a perfect example. These things happen all the time nowadays in Canada. Like the Radwanski scandal in 2003. Its digusting that we as tax-payers work so hard to have people in our gov't waste our money on fancy restuarants, hotels, and nice vacations etc.

 

At least some of this stuff is being brought to light in the media, like Radwanski's spending, all of Chretien's crap, and the spondership scandal. I'm glad some of these people are being caught and punished. Instead of impeaching Chretien, at least we got that crook to quit. The ultimate power, of course, is that we have the power to vote these crooks out of gov't (thanks to democracy!). Unfortunately, Canadians decided this year that the Liberals didn't need to be acountable for all this crap and we voted them back into power. But i guess Canadians thought that they'd rather have their tax-dollars wasted than have their social freedoms taken (which is understandable, since Stephen Harper was far too right-wing to be PM).

Edited August 17, 2004 by Moonlight_Graham

[forget_about_your_soft_spot]

Wow... terribly sorry to be so late to this debate. Soviet history is one of my deepest interests, as my mother's side hails from the Ukraine, and my grandmother left the Soviet Union during Stalin's purges.

 

The problem with Leninist/ideal Soviet Communism is that it enshrines equal outcome, not equal opportunity. It's right there, in the doctrine. Doesn't even look good on paper. It removes property and wealth from the bourgeoisie and transfers it to the proletariat, or the oppressed masses. The obliteration of classes is not a good thing, because it removes encouragement to achieve or perform beyond bare expectations. Think about your dreams. Do they involve being rich, or at the very least financially solvent? Do those dreams influence your will to attend school, to go to work, etc? Communism removes those dreams of being the best, and says everyone is equal. Which means equal compensation, for both the good workers and the bad workers. For the innovative scientists, and the ones who write junk scientific studies which are easily debunked.

 

Marxist Communism is just as bad, because it's absolutely unattainable, and if implemented would immediately need to revert to a sort of Soviet Communism.

 

Of course, Communism focuses on the oppression of the proletariat. It naively believes that everyone would hold up their end of the bargain and labour intensely to maintain the system. It fails to realise that some people are happy to be half-assed employees who are constantly wobbling on the edge of unemployment.

 

In Soviet Russia, and around the real physical world, it's also tied to brutal police states and heavy corruption. However, I think this has very little to do with the mechanisms and goals of Communism, but rather with the nature of a brutal dictatorship. Communism is an excuse, in these states. Citizens can be executed as traitors to the motherland. Workers may work harder than ever before, but they are doing it for the state, and their hard work will one day be rewarded when the utopian phase of Communism is met, and Socialism fades. The propaganda posters say so.

 

The problem is, by taking away people's motivation for working (the accumulation of wealth, increased status), you take away their will to work. The ideal political and economic system would allow for serious class mobility, providing everyone with the absolute essentials, while encouraging fierce competition in the marketplace. It would also remove some barriers to job advancement, possibly by providing entirely free education, in the form of training and apprenticeships for careers other than the skilled trades.

 

Anyway, now just a quick response to your comments:

 

"Cuba isnt haveing alot of problems being a communist country."

 

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr250082002

 

Tell that to the dissidents and reporters. Of course, the removal of US sanctions could probably bring a lot more wealth into the country, relieving the country's poverty problems. But it would not necessarily do anything about the authoritarian nature of Fidel's revolution.

 

"Communism=great system, but can only work given 2 near impossibilities: 1) Everyone (that is, 100% of the population) wants the communist system in power, and 2) the leader isn't a megalomaniacal dictator."

 

Well, those are two fairly huge structural flaws... does that not make it a *bad* system? ;)

 

Anyway, #2 is not necessarily true. Khrushchev and Gorbachev were both excellent leaders who genuinely wanted a better life for the citizens of their country, but they were unable to attain it due to the nature of the system.

 

"Utopic"...

 

Not a word. However, upon searching I did find out that there is a Utopia, Texas. I doubt it looks much like the ideal Communist state, though. :angry:

 

"You can't remove money... which is why these systems fail. Things must have value. It is harder for the car dealer to share his wares, then it is for the grocer."

 

More importantly, someone who designs a new and innovative car (hopefully with fewer emissions, better mileage and pleasing aesthetics) is worth more to us collectively than someone who grows cabbage (my apologies to those of you who grow cabbage). To make everyone equal is to discourage new and young designers from working hard, or making things better; for when you are all equal, there can be no advancement beyond your current group of peers. Like it or not, life is competitive.

 

"Consumist"...

 

Also not a word. It's consumerist.

 

"I think that money (along with Racism, Sexism, Religion and Nationalism) is one of the worst concepts created by mankind."

 

Currency is one of the worst systems created by mankind, but it is also conversely one of the best. It is bad because it fuels greed, the negative sort of ambition and a wealth of other destructive behaviour. But it also allows us to trade skills for product, to remove direct transactions and allow abstraction in determination of worth. For example, relying on the previous system of trade, what would the computer engineer have to trade for his meat? What service would a research biologist provide for a head of lettuce? Currency is naturally tied to a technologically driven culture.

 

"secondly under marx the concept of ownership is also under attack "each accoridng to their need""

 

The problem is that the separation between need/want, given anything beyond bare survival, is an arbitrary one. For example, I know some people who believe that they *need* to have a new car every two years. And who am I to begrudge them for it? They work hard, they have earned their money, and that is how they choose to spend it. So where do you set the demarcation on needs?

 

Communism says that, as we are all equal, everyone gets a new car when #production quota# has been met. Hard workers, slow moving fatasses and everyone else benefits, regardless of amount of effort, training, expertise, etc. So why does Comrade Freeloader (C.F.) who has not helped to meet #production quota# at all get a new car? And if we all get new cars, why am I working so hard? And what if, due to the antics of C.F., the quota is not met? Is he fired? Well, the Leninist Communist state takes care of everyone. So he continues to receive benefits (equal to mine, because we are all equal, after all). Alternatively, and more realistically, he must be punished. But how can he be punished? He does not care for the social good of society, so it is not enough to demonstrate to him how his reduced production is hurting his fellow workers. So you imprison him (which is costly and wasteful, as there is no potential at all for him to work), or you scare him into working by roughing him up. Or you send him to a Gulag. Or you refuse to take care of him, and he starves to death (which would make him unequal, and would make Communism as cruel as Capitalism, theoretically). So the best possible option here is to either throw money at the problem (continued benefits or imprisonment), which would break the system; or brutality (forced labour or murder).

 

"... and dont let the russian perversion of communism ruin the merits of the system"

 

But the problems *are* systematic, and therefore destroy even the noblest invocation of the system. The Russian "perversion" of Communism was in fact a manifestation of what happens when Communism is employed. It cannot be employed in a modern, non-agrarian nation without the accompanying Sovietization.

 

"and originally communism was meant for industrialized nations like england and germany...not a country as messed up as russia...they were messed from the start"

 

East Germany was a fully developed region before WWII, became the "German Democratic Republic" (GDR) after the war, and suffered through nearly 40 years of Soviet Communism. It's actually a very interesting case study of Capitalist systems versus Communism. The GDR had one of the most repressive police forces throughout the USSR, the Stasi. In 1989, when the wall fell, there was 1 informant for every 56 people. The national car (the Trabant) was designed in the late 1950's, and produced for nearly the entire duration. It had a 25hp engine and was made out of a primitive sort of fibre-glass. Buildings destroyed by allied bombings laid in ruins, as they had at the end of the war. The propaganda system was huge and all-consuming, and attempted to convince citizens that the border system was designed to keep West Germans out, not East Germans in. Several rock stars simply disappeared, one presumes for singing about reduced tensions with the west, and a desire to let East Germans be free.

 

Compare this with West Germany, which had all but been rebuilt by the late 60's and was a prosperous, modern state. I've heard the "rough start" argument many times from Marxists, but it simply does not hold water.

 

"FACT: no two democratic countries have ever gone to war with each other.

 

...Thats all there needs to be said about communism."

 

Neither have two Communist states. Sure, there's been massive internal repression, but there's generally no reason to go to war with someone who does not oppose you. Particularly when you've been united for nearly half a century "fighting" (read: strangling to death) another monolithic threat.

 

"...Except the US and Iraq, but that's arguable."

 

Yes. Mostly because Iraq was not democratic. It was a fascist authoritarian regime. As much as I may have been against the war, and as much as I feel horrible every time I hear the deaths of women and children being casually referred to as "collateral damage", there is no denying that Iraq was not democratic.

 

Anyway, that's about it. Sorry if I have left anything out. I look forward to further discussion, as this topic is certainly a broad and interesting one.

 

Will

[supercanuk]

But hey, Minority governments dont last long so who knows Graham.. personally i dont want Harper in, he is too far to the right, but were being robbed blind too, its just a really hard split, its like total polar opposites. We do have NDP and Green Party ect, but they unfortunatly havent gotten much of the vote..

[miscellaneous]

We need Proportional Representation!

[ToadMan]

Indeed that is the greatest forum post ever.

 

I think your correct with the reasoning that communism is flawed in implementation. But you have clearly pointed out that the flaw is not within the idea itself, but within the assumptions about human nature.

 

Peace

[Moonlight_Graham]

"FACT: no two democratic countries have ever gone to war with each other.

 

...Thats all there needs to be said about communism."

 

"Neither have two Communist states. Sure, there's been massive internal repression, but there's generally no reason to go to war with someone who does not oppose you. Particularly when you've been united for nearly half a century "fighting" (read: strangling to death) another monolithic threat."

 

Are you positive about that? What about when Hitler's Germany invaded Russia near the end of WW2? Wasn't Russia/USSR a communist state at the time?

 

Anyways, i just think the point is that Democracies seem to be more peaceful, at least with each other. For some reason, in Communist countries the worst people of society seem to always rise to power...and stay there, while with Democracy the goal is the opposite - elect the best of our people to run the country (not always the case lol).

[ToadMan]

That's misrepresentation though... I mean had russia been democratic the cold war would have still happened. The US doesn't go to war with democracies, they just sponsor radicals into power there and then go to war with the fascist state they created.

 

Peace

[Boond]

hitlers germany was a fascist state not a communist one....

 

and that was a terrific post...i agree that communism is fucked from the start....however you have to admit that *IF* humanity was "perfect", ex the ideal present under marx's theory that it could work...

 

and i may be a commi groupy....but its the spirit of social and economic equality...and not the book which appeals to me...

[forget_about_your_soft_spot]

"Are you positive about that? What about when Hitler's Germany invaded Russia near the end of WW2? Wasn't Russia/USSR a communist state at the time?"

 

Despite the name (National Socialism), the Nazi state was primarily an authoritarian fascist regime. Socialism was barely involved at all.

 

So yes, the USSR was a Communist state, but Germany was not.

 

(See: Wikipedia link. Note: Wikipedia is not a perfect or reliable source of definitive information, but it will do for a message board discussion, and this is mostly correct).

 

I do agree that Communism could work, if human nature was easily rectifiable and we could just "jump in". But is that really much of an accomplishment? I mean, technically, if human nature can be removed from the equation, Democracy is perfect as well. So are benevolent dictatorships. Nazism would be a beautifully workable and non-brutal system, if there was no diversity and everyone was Aryan, German speaking, and... well... a Nazi.

 

The entire viability of a system is dependant on it's workability within the context of human nature. In those terms, democracy, with all of it's checks, balances and evolutionary nature, is probably the best we have. Or at least will be, one day.

 

Will

Edited August 18, 2004 by forget_about_your_soft_spot

[Boond]

but couldnt one have a democratic government that behaves within the edicts of communism...ex: an elected government which practices the writing of marx....

 

you are still preaching communism as a system of government rather than an economic and social system...its like anti-capitalism...