The Communist Party(I wish)

Home :: Search :: Memberlist :: Privacy Policy :: Donate!

The Communist Party(I wish)

Home // Other Parties

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11 Next

Lester
Forum Elder

Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:52 am Post subject:

Communism is where all people are the government.

rynln53
Newbie

Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 44

Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:05 am Post subject:

democracy is the word you are looking for

Lester
Forum Elder

Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:21 am Post subject:

Nope, democracy doesn't give everyone equality in a financial sense.

Xerxes
Forum Elder

Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1564
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:12 pm Post subject:

rynln53 wrote:

democracy is the word you are looking for

We were intended to be a "Constitutional Republic". Democracy is just a word.

Lester
Forum Elder

Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:17 am Post subject:

Whereas constituitional republic is *two* words!! Very Happy

Raibeart
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 533

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:04 pm Post subject:

rynln53 wrote:

the fact that communism is a construct and not a natural system like capitalism, leads to its down fall. The Wealth of Nations, the book that defines capitalism, was written as an examination of how money switches hands, that is all capitalism is, The Communist Mainifesto was written as a design for a new economic system, to try and control and economy totally is impossible, which is why communism will never work.

Nowhere in "The Wealth of Nations" does Smith ever use the word "capitalism". In the book Smith warns that, "the mercantile class has interests which oppose the good of society".
At the heart of all economic values praised by Smith is the worker. Labour is the original foundation of all property, and therefore the most sacred (Wealth of Nations, p.129 *). Indeed, in the original state of affairs, "which precedes both the appropriation of land and the accumulation of stock, the whole produce of labour belongs to the labourer." However, as land was divided into private property, "the landlord demands a share of almost all the produce with the labourer can either raise, or collect from it." Labour is also "the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities", and "the only accurate measure of value".
For Smith, the "liberal reward of labour" is crucial to the success of society.
Indeed Smith states that, "But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged".
The Wealth of Nations has, for countless years, been (mis)used by those wishing to project it as the "bible of capitalism". It is no such thing.

Xerxes
Forum Elder

Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1564
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:25 am Post subject:

Lester wrote:

Also to Xerxes, I think, or hope, whichever you choose, that humanity will one day rise above the pettiness of greed, or at least realise that true and enlightened self-interest is fully actualized in communism.

I just ran across this post, I guess I overlooked it.

I do not believe that the topic of Communism even comes up until there is civil strife. Something we have no shortage of. Usually the support of Communism comes through labor or agricultural movements. America is ripe for a Communist movement. Although I don't think that it would work. Too many greedy people. I would prefer a more tribalistic society, (which I think it is really close to Communism) and get away from the large population centers.

Lester
Forum Elder

Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:12 am Post subject:

Xerxes wrote:

Lester wrote:

So basically anarcho-communism?

Xerxes
Forum Elder

Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1564
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:50 pm Post subject:

Lester wrote:

So basically anarcho-communism?

Minus the anarchy. In a tribal society there is individual account ability, which is not present when there is anarchy. There is the communal factor that is similar to Communism, though.

Lester
Forum Elder

Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:25 am Post subject:

Not really, you can have tribal societies without individual accountability, it's just those that do nothing don't get jack shit. Thats anarcho-communism.

TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:25 am Post subject:

Lester wrote:

TrespassersW wrote:

rynln53 wrote:

Bingo! The strength of capitalism is that it works based on humans behaving as their nature dictates. The weakness of communism is that it requires the subversion of that nature in order to function.

This is a logical fallacy, called an Appeal to Nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's good.

Fine, then let me put it another way...

Given a choice between competing solutions, one of which has proven to work given the world as it appears to function and another which has failed repeatedly because it seems to require the world to function as it does not; I am inclined to think that our best chances of serving the best interests of the greatest number of people lies with the former, not the latter.

Lester
Forum Elder

Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:58 am Post subject:

Depends what your definition of 'work' is. Also, capitalism also failed a couple dozen times before it worked, communism can't be the same?

TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:49 am Post subject:

Lester wrote:

Depends what your definition of 'work' is. Also, capitalism also failed a couple dozen times before it worked, communism can't be the same?

Perhaps, but the question I never get a satisfactory answer to is this:

Absent the profit motive, who will create the wealth you would see redistributed?

It seems to me that a fundamental flaw in most arguments for communism and socialism is that those arguments presume the existence of monetary resources that historically have not been generated by such systems. Now, it is convenient to yet again claim that they just didn't get the mix right, but why continue to advocate for a system that appears at best extremely problematic and difficult to properly implement when we seem to have an alternative that works reasonably well given things as they are? ESPECIALLY when the underlying notion that capitalism fails the poor where communism helps them appears disproved both by history and by current examples. The poor in capitalist societies have a much higher standard of living than the poor in communist societies. If the purpose of society is to do as well as possible by as many members of that society as possible, capitalism appears to win over communism hands down.

Lester
Forum Elder

Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 7:16 am Post subject:

The best place in the world to be poor is Cuba, not America, so umm, no?

The wealth comes from the revolution, be it violent or otherwise, thats why Marx thought it was neccesary, but for me, idealistically, a completely new country would be founded, and it would start with as a tax haven with a net GDP of zero, and then people would move there, increasing the GDP, this would continue, more people, more money, simple.