SOS Letter from China

[Ace Nova]

This. Oh my god... China is not Communist. Soviet Union was not Communist. Cuba is not Communist. Do yourself a gigantic favor and read some Marx.

Have you read any of this thread? That's the problem.

[downzy]

I'd ask you again KK, does your knowledge of socialism and communism come from reading communist literature itself, or is it based solely on the comments of others, like Rand?

[Ace Nova]

@ KK

LOL, if you think that anything I wrote validates your argument then either I am a terrible communicator or you're having problems understanding what I'm saying.

In your original post you quoted Rand, suggesting that communism calls for the enslavement of mankind. But that's a very different argument than the one you're making now, that communism leads to authoritarianism (i.e. enslavement). That's a rather large distinction, don't you think? If communism, as it was envisioned by Marx, does not call for authoritarian rule, it is invalid to argue that authoritarian rule is implicit within the tenets of communism.

Now if you want to argue that socialism, and later communism, leads to authoritarian rule that's another argument altogether.

If socialism leads to communism, and communism leads to authoritarianism (despite the fact that Marxist philosophy is antithetical to dictatorial or authoritarian rule), then how have socialist leaning countries escaped from the clutches of tyranny? If the introduction of socialism into state's governance will ultimately lead to that nation becoming governed by authoritarian rule, how have nations like Sweden and Norway remained relatively free for the last 65 years?

You can look at it two ways. You could argue that communism does indeed lend itself to the eventual rise of a authoritarian form of governance. I think there are many fine examples of this being the case.

But it could also be argued that those who carried the mantled of communism did so not to truly implement the system as it was envisioned by Marx but to control absolutely. Like I said, no where in Marx's literature does he call for dictatorial rule whereby workers are enslaved (since this was the very thing he was writing against with respect to bourgeois control over production). So one could argue that people like Stalin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh did not actually implement a truly communist system since they betrayed such a vision by creating a centralized form of governance that simply replaced one form of repression with another. Coincidentally enough, none of those leaders ever claimed that communism was the sole driving force behind their measures.

You must have missed my previous posts because I address almost everything you state. I'll copy and paste it for you...

Personally, I think a democratic form of socialism (similar to what Sweden and Norway have) isn't bad at all...as long as a strong system of checks and balances remains law.

My main point from the beginning - go back and look at my initial posts in the thread - is that total/absolute socialism leads to authoritarian forms of government. Whether or not that's what Marx intended is irrelevant. Marx had a theory and when it was implemented, it failed. Did it fail because it was implemented poorly and because the people implementing it were corrupt? Maybe - but that's the problem with it!

It has a fatal flaw - it does not have a system of checks and balances preventing it from becoming authoritarian (because of either poor implementation or corruption.)

[downzy]

This. Oh my god... China is not Communist. Soviet Union was not Communist. Cuba is not Communist. Do yourself a gigantic favor and read some Marx.

Have you read any of this thread? That's the problem.

What? I thought you said the problem was with communism. If neither China, the S.U. or Cuba is or was communist, then what's your issue with communism?

@ KK

LOL, if you think that anything I wrote validates your argument then either I am a terrible communicator or you're having problems understanding what I'm saying.

In your original post you quoted Rand, suggesting that communism calls for the enslavement of mankind. But that's a very different argument than the one you're making now, that communism leads to authoritarianism (i.e. enslavement). That's a rather large distinction, don't you think? If communism, as it was envisioned by Marx, does not call for authoritarian rule, it is invalid to argue that authoritarian rule is implicit within the tenets of communism.

Now if you want to argue that socialism, and later communism, leads to authoritarian rule that's another argument altogether.

If socialism leads to communism, and communism leads to authoritarianism (despite the fact that Marxist philosophy is antithetical to dictatorial or authoritarian rule), then how have socialist leaning countries escaped from the clutches of tyranny? If the introduction of socialism into state's governance will ultimately lead to that nation becoming governed by authoritarian rule, how have nations like Sweden and Norway remained relatively free for the last 65 years?

You can look at it two ways. You could argue that communism does indeed lend itself to the eventual rise of a authoritarian form of governance. I think there are many fine examples of this being the case.

But it could also be argued that those who carried the mantled of communism did so not to truly implement the system as it was envisioned by Marx but to control absolutely. Like I said, no where in Marx's literature does he call for dictatorial rule whereby workers are enslaved (since this was the very thing he was writing against with respect to bourgeois control over production). So one could argue that people like Stalin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh did not actually implement a truly communist system since they betrayed such a vision by creating a centralized form of governance that simply replaced one form of repression with another. Coincidentally enough, none of those leaders ever claimed that communism was the sole driving force behind their measures.

You must have missed my previous posts because I address almost everything you state. I'll copy and paste it for you...

Personally, I think a democratic form of socialism (similar to what Sweden and Norway have) isn't bad at all...as long as a strong system of checks and balances remains law.

My main point from the beginning - go back and look at my initial posts in the thread - is that total/absolute socialism leads to authoritarian forms of government. Whether or not that's what Marx intended is irrelevant. Marx had a theory and when it was implemented, it failed. Did it fail because it was implemented poorly and because the people implementing it were corrupt? Maybe - but that's the problem with it!

It has a fatal flaw - it does not have a system of checks and balances preventing it from becoming authoritarian (because of either poor implementation or corruption.)

But that's not at all where you started. Your initial claim came from a quote by Rand, who said that communism calls for the enslavement of mankind. The argument you're making now is every different since it detaches the enslavement motive from Marx's position.

[Ace Nova]

I'd ask you again KK, does your knowledge of socialism and communism come from reading communist literature itself, or is it based solely on the comments of others, like Rand?

It comes from reading and knowing history. Both WWI and WWII. And yes, I've read the communist manifesto...what I could bare of it., anyway....

[downzy]

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/socialism.html

That is where you started. Now your position is changed. Which is fair, but it's important to at least acknowledge where you originally started.

[Ace Nova]

But that's not at all where you started. Your initial claim came from a quote by Rand, who said that communism calls for the enslavement of mankind. The argument you're making now is every different since it detaches the enslavement motive from Marx's position.

My argument has been exactly the same the entire thread. I quoted Rand because I agree with her - that "communism" the way it has been implemented throughout history, does indeed do that. This isn't that difficult to comprehend.

I've answered every single counter argument/comments in this thread ad nauseum...I'll just copy and paste from now on....

[downzy]

I'd ask you again KK, does your knowledge of socialism and communism come from reading communist literature itself, or is it based solely on the comments of others, like Rand?

It comes from reading and knowing history. Both WWI and WWII. And yes, I've read the communist manifesto...what I could bare of it., anyway....

Then maybe you didn't get to the part (it's near the end) where Marx calls for an alliance with social-democrats. If communism was about enslaving human beings, I have a hard time believing that the father of communism advocated an alliance and acceptance of democratic values.

[Ace Nova]

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/socialism.html

That is where you started. Now your position is changed. Which is fair, but it's important to at least acknowledge where you originally started.

No...not at all.

My main point from the beginning - go back and look at my initial posts in the thread - is that total/absolute socialism leads to authoritarian forms of government. Whether or not that's what Marx intended is irrelevant. Marx had a theory and when it was implemented, it failed. Did it fail because it was implemented poorly and because the people implementing it were corrupt? Maybe - but that's the problem with it!

It has a fatal flaw - it does not have a system of checks and balances preventing it from becoming authoritarian (because of either poor implementation or corruption.

Maybe I communicated my thoughts poorly but that's been my argument since post #1 in this thread.

I'd ask you again KK, does your knowledge of socialism and communism come from reading communist literature itself, or is it based solely on the comments of others, like Rand?

It comes from reading and knowing history. Both WWI and WWII. And yes, I've read the communist manifesto...what I could bare of it., anyway....

Then maybe you didn't get to the part (it's near the end) where Marx calls for an alliance with social-democrats. If communism was about enslaving human beings, I have a hard time believing that the father of communism advocated an alliance and acceptance of democratic values.

Please, see above.

The problem with the fairy tail version (Marx) of Socialism, is that it does not have a system preventing it from becoming corrupted to the level of tyranny, in which we have seen in both WWI and WWII.

[downzy]

But that's not at all where you started. Your initial claim came from a quote by Rand, who said that communism calls for the enslavement of mankind. The argument you're making now is every different since it detaches the enslavement motive from Marx's position.

My argument has been exactly the same the entire thread. I quoted Rand because I agree with her - that "communism" the way it has been implemented throughout history, does indeed do that. This isn't that difficult to comprehend.

I've answered every single counter argument/comments in this thread ad nauseum...I'll just copy and paste from now on....

Where in that quote by Rand does it say, "the way it has been implemented throughout history"? Again, this was not included in your original post nor was the quote you posted by Rand predicated with the contextual argument you're making now.

I don't mean to be a dick, but the fact remains that Rand sees a motivation within communism that does not exist. Her understanding of communism is based not on the ideology itself but on authoritarian regimes have invoked its name despite betraying its principles.

Getting back to China, you did not answer the two questions I posted earlier: do workers control the means of production and do they own what they produce? Does the use value (one of the few concepts I remember from my studies of Marxist writings) of their outputs belong to the workers? If you can't answer those questions in the affirmative, you can't call China a communist country. The terrible characteristics that you and the author of the article you posted earlier are not necessarily the characteristics of communism but of authoritarianism. If you want to argue that communism leads to authoritarianism that's fine, but I would argue that a true communist society really has never been implemented, so it's tough to know for sure.

[ManetsBR]

I'll try to simplify what's going on here.

"Oranges are bad. Look at that fruit for example, look at how bad it is."

"But that's a banana."

"It's labeled as orange."

"You can label it as anything you want, it's still not an Orange."

[Ace Nova]

Where in that quote by Rand does it say, "the way it has been implemented throughout history"? Again, this was not included in your original post nor was the quote you posted by Rand predicated with the contextual argument you're making now.

I don't mean to be a dick, but the fact remains that Rand sees a motivation within communism that does not exist. Her understanding of communism is based not on the ideology itself but on authoritarian regimes have invoked its name despite betraying its principles.

Getting back to China, you did not answer the two questions I posted earlier: do workers control the means of production and do they own what they produce? Does the use value (one of the few concepts I remember from my studies of Marxist writings) of their outputs belong to the workers? If you can't answer those questions in the affirmative, you can't call China a communist country. The terrible characteristics that you and the author of the article you posted earlier are not necessarily the characteristics of communism but of authoritarianism. If you want to argue that communism leads to authoritarianism that's fine, but I would argue that a true communist society really has never been implemented, so it's tough to know for sure.

Are you being serious or joking? I really hope you're joking. History = facts. A manifesto = theory. I didn't think I had to specify that I was going by history. EDIT: IN POST #10 IN THIS THREAD I CLEARLY STATED "AS DICTATED BY HISTORY" (You must have missed that) I like to base my arguments around facts not theories. Would you believe a scientist's who's experiment was proven to be wrong? Whether or not it was what the scientist intended is irrelevant. The experiment/theory was not sound enough to prevent it from failing. Period.

And I agree that many have "invoked" its name but betrayed its principles. That is its fatal flaw. It does not have a "backup/emergency" system of checks and balances.

Same thing goes for China....it's no different.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Kasanova King

[DieselDaisy]

It remains to be seen whether China's economic success will eventually lead to broader and more representative forms of government (i.e. capitalism is incompatible with one-party rule), or whether in fact the very success justifies the very continuation of ‘market socialism’ under an one-party state. These are issues I feel, nobody can predict.

[Ace Nova]

I'll try to simplify what's going on here.

"Oranges are bad. Look at that fruit for example, look at how bad it is."

"But that's a banana."

"It's labeled as orange."

"You can label it as anything you want, it's still not an Orange."

I'll help you understand...

"But the guy that made that Orange said it would always be an Orange"

"Yep, he did...but it turned into a Banana now"

"But I wanted an Orange!"

"Too bad, Bananas is all we have now and there is nothing you can do about it".

Edited November 7, 2013 by Kasanova King

[downzy]

Where in that quote by Rand does it say, "the way it has been implemented throughout history"? Again, this was not included in your original post nor was the quote you posted by Rand predicated with the contextual argument you're making now.

I don't mean to be a dick, but the fact remains that Rand sees a motivation within communism that does not exist. Her understanding of communism is based not on the ideology itself but on authoritarian regimes have invoked its name despite betraying its principles.

Getting back to China, you did not answer the two questions I posted earlier: do workers control the means of production and do they own what they produce? Does the use value (one of the few concepts I remember from my studies of Marxist writings) of their outputs belong to the workers? If you can't answer those questions in the affirmative, you can't call China a communist country. The terrible characteristics that you and the author of the article you posted earlier are not necessarily the characteristics of communism but of authoritarianism. If you want to argue that communism leads to authoritarianism that's fine, but I would argue that a true communist society really has never been implemented, so it's tough to know for sure.

Are you being serious or joking? I really hope you're joking. History = facts. A manifesto = theory. I didn't think I had to specify that I was going by history. I like to base my arguments around facts not theories. Would you believe a scientist's who's experiment was proven to be wrong? Whether or not it was what the scientist intended is irrelevant. The experiment/theory was not sound enough to prevent it from failing. Period.

And I agree that many have "invoked" its name but betrayed its principles. That is its fatal flaw. It does not have a "backup/emergency" system of checks and balances.

Same thing goes for China....it's no different.

I hate to do this, but please read the wikipedia page on Communism, because I think it will help you sort out a lot of the nomenclature problems that you're having here. There's probably better sources than wikipedia, but whatever, for what it is it does a good enough job.

As for saying that communism's fatal flaw is that it is prone to being invoked but ultimately leads to enslavement, well, you could say that about almost most modern forms of governance. How many national movements throughout Asia and Africa have draped themselves in the name and spirit of "democracy," "freedom," "peace" and yet prove to be none of those. Former Egypt President Hosni Mubarak belonged to the National Democratic Party (despite remaining as President for decades). Robert Mugabe, the dictator of Zimbabwe, was part of the national liberation movement. Charles Taylor was democratically elected as the leader of the National Patriotic Front of Liberia - only to become a ruthless dictator during his eight years in power. And then there was Mobutu Sese Seko, who remained President of the Democratic Republic of Zaire for 37 years I believe. Many forms of governance and calls for national movements have led to authoritarian rule. It's not just movements with communist or socialist agendas.

But let's get back to China being a communist state (because I think arguing over what your original argument was - despite your first post making no mention of "communism leading to, and not calling for, human enslavement - has been played out). You still haven't provided any examples of workers owning the means of production, which is the basic component of communism. Perhaps you want to stick with your assertion that China, while "communist" under Mao, has led to the authoritarian rule China is today. That's fine, but it does not answer the question of whether China is still communist.

Edited November 7, 2013 by downzy

[Ace Nova]

I hate to do this, but please read the wikipedia page on Communism, because I think it will help you sort out a lot of the nomenclature problems that you're having here. There's probably better sources than wikipedia, but whatever, for what it is it does a good enough job.

As for saying that communism's fatal flaw is that it is prone to being invoked but ultimately leads to enslavement, well, you could say that about almost most modern forms of governance. How many national movements throughout Asia and Africa have draped themselves in the name and spirit of "democracy," "freedom," "peace" and yet prove to be none of those. Former Egypt President Hosni Mubarak belonged to the National Democratic Party (despite remaining as President for decades). Robert Mugabe, the dictator of Zimbabwe, was part of the national liberation movement. Charles Taylor was democratically elected as the leader of the National Patriotic Front of Liberia - only to become a ruthless dictator during his eight years in power. And then there was Mobutu Sese Seko, who remained President of the Democratic Republic of Zaire for 37 years I believe. Many forms of governance and calls for national movements have led to authoritarian rule. It's not just movements with communist or socialist agendas.

But let's get back to China being a communist state (because I think arguing over what your original argument was - despite your first post making no mention of "communism leading to, and not calling for, human enslavement - has been played out). You still haven't provided any examples of workers owning the means of production, which is the basic component of communism. Perhaps you want to stick with your assertion that China, while "communist" under Mao, has led to the authoritarian rule China is today. That's fine, but it does not answer the question of whether China is still communist.

Apparently you only read what you want to read and must have missed the part where I clearly stated that communism on paper almost seems like a good idea. FOR THE 1OTH AND FINAL TIME, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE "THEORY OF COMMUNISM" WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WAY IT HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED THROUGHOUT HISTORY. And yes, I have stated this from the beginning.

You can argue semantics all you want but my 7 yearold son would have understood what we are talking about by now. Anyone with an IQ above 50 would have understood what we are talking about by now. So I know you understand. And please stop derailing the debate.

Again, with your derailments of the real topic - you can post as many other examples as you want, it does not invalidate anything I have stated about the way communism and socialism have been implemented throughout history - they both have failed... and they have lead to very brutal, authoritarian forms of government. But I will address your other examples the same way I address democratic socialism. They can both work as long as there are systems of checks and balances in place. If there is no system of checks and balances in place, then yes, even democracy can fail.

China is still communist. Communist in the way 90% of the world thinks of communists. We're talking about "real world" implementation of communism...not theory. If you want to call it what was once communist but has lead to an authoritarian government (because of communism), I'm ok with that too....again, semantics.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Kasanova King

[downzy]

Apparently you only read what you want to read and must have missed the part where I clearly stated that communism on paper almost seems like a good idea. FOR THE 1OTH AND FINAL TIME, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE "THEORY OF COMMUNISM" WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WAY IT HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED THROUGHOUT HISTORY. And yes, I have stated this from the beginning.

Here is your first post (I've underlined pertinent point):

All you so called Marxists out there, take heed - this is what absolute "socialism" eventually turns into.

"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good."

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/socialism.html

Where in this post do you state the problem with communism is its ability to be implemented? All I can fathom is that the person who wrote this statement attaches the character of enslavement within the principles of Communism.

If you're going to post a quote like that but take issue with it contextually, you should really state it from the beginning. Otherwise, this is where end up.

You seem to take issue with state-run socialism, or Leninism. Neither of these are communism.

Communism and socialism have both failed...

Have they? Or have they never been fully implemented. Moreover, if you're contention that China is indeed a communist state, then do you perceive China as a failed state? Consider for a minute the massive expansion of its middle class over the last twenty years in which hundreds of millions of people have been rescued out of abject poverty. Can it not be argued that "communism" works if you do indeed view China as a communist state?

And is the human exploitation that occurs in China a product of communism itself, or more a direct result of capitalist entities (corporations) searching the world to find the cheapest means by which to make their products? I mean, the same exploitation that prompted the creation of this thread is also found in non-communist countries as well. Doesn't exploitation deserve a better explanation than simply arguing that it all boils down to communism? Last time I checked, Bangladesh isn't communist. Nor is Thailand, Cambodia, India, Sri Lanka, or Laos. All countries where similar exploitation occurs, but none of which are considered communist.

China is still communist. Communist in the way 90% of the world thinks of Communists. We're talking about "real world" implementation of communism...not theory. If you want to call it what was once Communist but has lead to an authoritarian government (because of communism), I'm ok with that too....again, semantics.

So because 90 percent of the world isn't educated enough to know the difference between communism and authoritarianism, we have to conclude that it is indeed communist? Sure, let's go with the position based on ignorance. All I'm asking for is that you use the proper label to what we're talking about, because much of what has been conducted in the name of communism has absolutely nothing to do with how it was envisioned by Marx and Engels.

I think it's appropriate to say that the calls for a communism in any given nation often lead to despotic rule, but to suggest that actual instances of communism in practice (as it was originally envisioned) leads to authoritarianism is simply mind exercise. Communism professed by Marx called for the state to be abolished, not to see it reinforced - which has been the practice of every "communist" group to lead a revolution.

Edited November 7, 2013 by downzy

[Ace Nova]

When I've already answered your questions, I'll just respond with a

So that goes for the first half of your post. Semantics.

China had been exploiting people long before it turned itself into a socialist form of a market economy. So nope, can't blame that on capitalism, sorry. As far as the other countries you mentioned, I'm willing to guess that the majority of the blame would be because of corruption in government - not necessarily because of "capitalist entities."

No, actually once a word becomes associated with a certain form of government, entity, etc, eventually that word is what it is. It's that simple. So when 90% of the world regards something as "communist" then that is what it is. Calling them ignorant is ignorant in itself. (And I'm wiling to guess the number is closer to 95% - 98%) Just like 98% of the world calls the U.S. "America"...it is what it is....

So what happened to all those communist groups that lead those revolutions?

[downzy]

China had been exploiting people long before it turned itself into a socialist form of a market economy. So nope, can't blame that on capitalism, sorry. As far as the other countries you mentioned, I'm willing to guess that the majority of the blame would be because of corruption in government - not necessarily because of "capitalist entities."

No, actually once a word becomes associated with a certain form of government, entity, etc, eventually that word is what it is. It's that simple. So when 90% of the world regards something as "communist" then that is what it is. Calling them ignorant is ignorant in itself. (And I'm wiling to guess the number is closer to 95% - 98%) Just like 98% of the world calls the U.S. "America"...it is what it is....

So what happened to all those communist groups that lead those revolutions?

LOL, you honestly think that exploitation in capitalist countries is little more than the result of corruption in government? REALLY??? WTF!?!?!

Again, just so we're clear, it is your opinion that exploitation doesn't happen in capitalist countries, and if it does, it is only because government corruption allows for it. Explain slavery in America. Was the U.S. government corrupt until 1865? Explain the present day exploitation of tomato pickers in Imokolee, Florida. Explain everything about Bangladesh, which has a $37 a month minimum wage (which works out to between 16 and 20 cents an hour). Explain the exploitation of coal miners in Pennsylvania and West Virgina in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that didn't end, or at the very most abated, until the FDR administration passed labor laws protecting workers right to organize and strike (something that goes against the purpose of capitalism).

"Capitalist entities" (or Corporations as most people call them) have one driving force: maximizing profits. If they can exploit workers to maximize profits, they will be allowed to do so. It's a pattern of behavior that comes with millions of examples. To claim that communism is more susceptible to exploitation (which, as it has been practice, has been) is to ignore the multitude of examples of where capitalism breeds exploitation. It is the very thing that drove Marx in his writing - his primary concern when fleshing out communism was to relieve workers during of his day of their exploitative working conditions that were common in capitalist societies. Communism, as it was envisioned by Marx, was a response to exploitation as it was permitted under capitalist systems during the 19th century.

So if communism is synonomus with authoritarianism (and I'm not saying it's not), why do we still have authoritarianism as a term/concept? If you could, please identify the main difference between the two. I'm curious if you yourself view them one in the same.

Edited November 8, 2013 by downzy

[Georgy Zhukov]

China is corporate America's wet dream.

[luciusfunk]

[GivenToFly]

If you want to have total control over a people,

repopulate and make as many of them as possible dependent on you.

disarm and underemploy the rest,

then slowly restrict all of their freedoms

I see this a lot - fear of a slippery slope toward communism, but to my knowledge no country has ever slowly slid down a slope to communism. It's always been a violent change: a coup, a revolution, an invasion, a civil war.

[Guest Len B'stard]

But that's not at all where you started. Your initial claim came from a quote by Rand, who said that communism calls for the enslavement of mankind. The argument you're making now is every different since it detaches the enslavement motive from Marx's position.

My argument has been exactly the same the entire thread. I quoted Rand because I agree with her - that "communism" the way it has been implemented throughout history, does indeed do that. This isn't that difficult to comprehend.

I've answered every single counter argument/comments in this thread ad nauseum...I'll just copy and paste from now on....

Kas', it's a bit weird that you re-interpret the meaning of socialism and then when Downzy tries to present you with an analogy replacing the word socialism with something else you disagree by posting a dictionary definition of it and showing how what he said doesn't match up with the dictionary meaning of the word, well neither did yours with socialism.

[Ace Nova]

LOL, you honestly think that exploitation in capitalist countries is little more than the result of corruption in government? REALLY??? WTF!?!?!

Again, just so we're clear, it is your opinion that exploitation doesn't happen in capitalist countries, and if it does, it is only because government corruption allows for it. Explain slavery in America. Was the U.S. government corrupt until 1865? Explain the present day exploitation of tomato pickers in Imokolee, Florida. Explain everything about Bangladesh, which has a $37 a month minimum wage (which works out to between 16 and 20 cents an hour). Explain the exploitation of coal miners in Pennsylvania and West Virgina in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that didn't end, or at the very most abated, until the FDR administration passed labor laws protecting workers right to organize and strike (something that goes against the purpose of capitalism).

"Capitalist entities" (or Corporations as most people call them) have one driving force: maximizing profits. If they can exploit workers to maximize profits, they will be allowed to do so. It's a pattern of behavior that comes with millions of examples. To claim that communism is more susceptible to exploitation (which, as it has been practice, has been) is to ignore the multitude of examples of where capitalism breeds exploitation. It is the very thing that drove Marx in his writing - his primary concern when fleshing out communism was to relieve workers during of his day of their exploitative working conditions that were common in capitalist societies. Communism, as it was envisioned by Marx, was a response to exploitation as it was permitted under capitalist systems during the 19th century.

So if communism is synonomus with authoritarianism (and I'm not saying it's not), why do we still have authoritarianism as a term/concept? If you could, please identify the main difference between the two. I'm curious if you yourself view them one in the same.

I'm not sure if you're serious just being stubbornly argumentative.

I stated that the "Majority" of the blame would most likely go to the governments of those countries. That was an educated guess as I am sure the half dozen countries you mentioned all have different and relative scenarios. I'm not foolish enough to generalize but apparently you are.

As far as the U.S. government and slavery, yes, I would say there were extreme flaws - especially philosophically - in the U.S. government both past and present...that's why there are 27 amendments to the constitution. The difference is that the government structure itself is sound enough and has enough checks and balances to allow for these amendments.

Like you said, Corporations are built for profit. If they see a weakness or a loophole (which would most likely be allowed by a certain government and law, btw ) then I'm sure they will take advantage of it. Most are built and designed for maximum profits and growth - so in a sad way, they are just doing what they were designed for. So yes, without government regulation, they will run wild.

Personally, I understand what communism is. I believe that communism starts off (closely enough) in the way it was intended but leads to authoritarian and even brutal forms of government, as we have seen many times throughout history. That's about the 12th time I've stated that in this thread. If you don't get it by now, I'm sorry, you won't ever get it.

So please stop dodging my question. What happened to all those communist groups that started all those revolutions you speak of??

Kas', it's a bit weird that you re-interpret the meaning of socialism and then when Downzy tries to present you with an analogy replacing the word socialism with something else you disagree by posting a dictionary definition of it and showing how what he said doesn't match up with the dictionary meaning of the word, well neither did yours with socialism.

I stated that because militarism itself doesn't fit the analogy. Militarism is a subject, an idea, etc. within a type of government not a type of government itself...so no, the analogy doesn't fit.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Kasanova King

[Guest Len B'stard]

LOL, you honestly think that exploitation in capitalist countries is little more than the result of corruption in government? REALLY??? WTF!?!?!

Again, just so we're clear, it is your opinion that exploitation doesn't happen in capitalist countries, and if it does, it is only because government corruption allows for it. Explain slavery in America. Was the U.S. government corrupt until 1865? Explain the present day exploitation of tomato pickers in Imokolee, Florida. Explain everything about Bangladesh, which has a $37 a month minimum wage (which works out to between 16 and 20 cents an hour). Explain the exploitation of coal miners in Pennsylvania and West Virgina in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that didn't end, or at the very most abated, until the FDR administration passed labor laws protecting workers right to organize and strike (something that goes against the purpose of capitalism).

"Capitalist entities" (or Corporations as most people call them) have one driving force: maximizing profits. If they can exploit workers to maximize profits, they will be allowed to do so. It's a pattern of behavior that comes with millions of examples. To claim that communism is more susceptible to exploitation (which, as it has been practice, has been) is to ignore the multitude of examples of where capitalism breeds exploitation. It is the very thing that drove Marx in his writing - his primary concern when fleshing out communism was to relieve workers during of his day of their exploitative working conditions that were common in capitalist societies. Communism, as it was envisioned by Marx, was a response to exploitation as it was permitted under capitalist systems during the 19th century.

So if communism is synonomus with authoritarianism (and I'm not saying it's not), why do we still have authoritarianism as a term/concept? If you could, please identify the main difference between the two. I'm curious if you yourself view them one in the same.

I'm not sure if you're blind, stubborn or a combination of the two.

I stated that the "Majority" of the blame would most likely go to the governments of those countries. That was an educated guess as I am sure the half dozen countries you mentioned all have different and relative scenarios. I'm not foolish enough to generalize but apparently you are.

As far as the U.S. government and slavery, yes, I would say there were extreme flaws - especially philosophically - in the U.S. government both past and present...that's why there are 27 amendments to the constitution. The difference is that the government structure itself is sound enough and has enough checks and balances to allow for these amendments.

Like you said, Corporations are built for profit. If they see a weakness or a loophole (which would be allowed by a certain government and law, btw ) then I'm sure they will take advantage of it. Most are built and designed for maximum profits and growth - so in a sad way, they are just doing what they were designed for. So yes, without government regulation, they will run wild.

Personally, I understand what Communism is. I believe that Communism starts off (closely enough) to the way it was intended but leads to authoritarian and even brutal forms of government, as we have seen many times throughout history. That's about the 12th time I've stated that in this thread. If you don't get it by now, I'm sorry, you won't ever get it.

So please stop dodging my question. What happened to all those communist leaders that started all those revolutions you speak of??

Kas', it's a bit weird that you re-interpret the meaning of socialism and then when Downzy tries to present you with an analogy replacing the word socialism with something else you disagree by posting a dictionary definition of it and showing how what he said doesn't match up with the dictionary meaning of the word, well neither did yours with socialism.

I stated that because militarism itself doesn't fit the analogy. Militarism is a subject, an idea, etc. within a type of government not a type of government itself...so no, the analogy doesn't fit.

Which you did by hightlighting a dictionary quote on what militarism is, well wouldn't the same distinction be immediately apparent if one was to refer to the dictionary for a the meaning of socialism and then compared it to your initial appraisal of if?