Capitalism vs. Communism

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

How did Stalin advocate for communism?

Here.

"he concretized and developed what the dictatorship of the proletariat is,"

Marx concretised that, actually, as did the Communards in 1871.

The article's conception of what the dictatorship of the proletariat is is fundamentally flawed. Marx and Engels meant it in the Roman, pre-Caesar sense. Stalin used it to massively expand his own and state power. That leads to the fundamental issue - communism advocates for removal of the state and workers' emancipation. Expansion of state power, the forces of coercion that ru so contrary to communist principles, and removal of workers' rights, such as the right to strike, is hardly emancipation.

"In point of fact the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat and of the building of socialism in the USSR is a period of the flowering of national cultures that are socialist in content and national in form; for, under the Soviet system, the nations themselves are not the ordinary 'modern' nations, but socialist nations, just as in content their national cultures are not the ordinary bourgeois cultures, but socialist cultures."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_ope ... f_the_NKVD

"Stalin also formulated the basic conditions for the transition to communism. He developed Lenin's statement on the possibility of the construction of socialism in one country and showed scientifically the possibility that communism can be constructed in one country even under the conditions of capitalist encirclement, and under these conditions the state should be preserved."

That's just bullshit, and it's the crowning lie of the article. Stalin did not construct communism, as the USSR was neither stateless nor moneyless nor classless, and the means of production were not held in common.

It's a Marxist-Leninist source spouting lies in an attempt to justify the actions of someone ideologically closer to fascism than communism.

[The Remote Islands]

I know Stalin wasn't a real commie, he just thought he was and advocated both himself and his country as such. And for a communism-knockoff, Stalinism was still able to collectivize like nobody's business, right?

[Socialdemokraterne]

I know Stalin wasn't a real commie, he just thought he was and advocated both himself and his country as such. And for a communism-knockoff, Stalinism was still able to collectivize like nobody's business, right?

It collectivized bureaucratically and centrally, which was part of the problem. The bureaucracy, not the workers, held control over the means of production.

[Camelza]

Stalin wasn't a communist.

He advocated for communism. Thus, he was a communist. Doesn't mean he was a very smart one.

No he wasn't, he cared only to remain in power and be remembered as a glorious tsar humble leader of Imperial Russia the USSR,that's why he murdered all of the old guard of the Bolsheviks,kept workplaces & production under strict state control,had a militarist & "patriotic" non-internationalist (but instead imperialist) foreign & domestic policy and funded the world's most fearful state supression mechanisms,plus, his rule bared extreme resemblance to fascist states if you changed the slogans a little bit.

So,no,he wasn't a communist ...an authoritarian socialist maybe,but truly he was nothing more than a red fascist.

[Mavorpen]

Here.

"he concretized and developed what the dictatorship of the proletariat is,"

Marx concretised that, actually, as did the Communards in 1871.

The article's conception of what the dictatorship of the proletariat is is fundamentally flawed. Marx and Engels meant it in the Roman, pre-Caesar sense. Stalin used it to massively expand his own and state power. That leads to the fundamental issue - communism advocates for removal of the state and workers' emancipation. Expansion of state power, the forces of coercion that ru so contrary to communist principles, and removal of workers' rights, such as the right to strike, is hardly emancipation.

"In point of fact the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat and of the building of socialism in the USSR is a period of the flowering of national cultures that are socialist in content and national in form; for, under the Soviet system, the nations themselves are not the ordinary 'modern' nations, but socialist nations, just as in content their national cultures are not the ordinary bourgeois cultures, but socialist cultures."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_ope ... f_the_NKVD

"Stalin also formulated the basic conditions for the transition to communism. He developed Lenin's statement on the possibility of the construction of socialism in one country and showed scientifically the possibility that communism can be constructed in one country even under the conditions of capitalist encirclement, and under these conditions the state should be preserved."

That's just bullshit, and it's the crowning lie of the article. Stalin did not construct communism, as the USSR was neither stateless nor moneyless nor classless, and the means of production were not held in common.

It's a Marxist-Leninist source spouting lies in an attempt to justify the actions of someone ideologically closer to fascism than communism.

I think your reading comprehension skills needs a little work. First of all, Stalinism=/=Marxism. Everyone knows this. Your entire spiel about Stalin's interpretation of the dictatorship of the proletariat is therefore void, because no one is claiming that Stalin's interpretation was the same as Marx.

Furthermore, the part you quoted said nothing close to Stalin actually implementing or constructing communism in his state. Nowhere does it even hint this. It says specifically:

"Stalin also formulated the basic conditions for the transition to communism. He developed Lenin's statement on the possibility of the construction of socialism in one country and showed scientifically the possibility that communism can be constructed in one country even under the conditions of capitalist encirclement, and under these conditions the state should be preserved."

Note the words "formulated," "transition," "possibility," and "construction."

Nowhere am I, nor the article states that Stalin actually achieved to create a communist society. Nowhere am I, nor the article states that Stalinism=Marxism. So please, stop putting words in my, and the article's mouth.

No he wasn't, he cared only to remain in power and be remembered as a glorious tsar humble leader of Imperial Russia the USSR,that's why he murdered all of the old guard of the Bolsheviks,kept workplaces & production under strict state control,had a militarist & "patriotic" non-internationalist (but instead imperialist) foreign & domestic policy and funded the world's most fearful state supression mechanisms,plus, his rule bared extreme resemblance to fascist states if you changed the slogans a little bit.

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact he advocated for communism and claimed to be in transition to communism.

So,no,he wasn't a communist ...an authoritarian socialist maybe,but truly he was nothing more than a red fascist.

Yes, he was. A communist is an individual that is an adherent or advocate of communism, is a member of a Communist party, etc.

Guys, I'm not saying Stalin implemented communism fully, nor did he create a communist society. I'm saying he advocated for it (even if he didn't believe in it) and he claimed to be in transition. I'm not saying, "COMMUNISM SUX!" Stop pretending I'm saying stuff I'm not. It doesn't help your argument.

[4years]

I don't even need to refute this. The failings are self evident.

The most evident failure is that, at the page's bottom, it lists jesusissaviour.com and conspiracy world.com.

That, and it mentions the Illuminati. It makes you weep, doesn't it?

Yes. The illogical conspiracy theories of others are too much.

[4years]

History has shown that a capitalist economy is more efficient than a communist one Where? The Paris Commune and the Free territory both had fine economies., and currently we see Europe taking a very socialist approach Socialism in a Marxist sense is worker ownership of the means of production wich does not exist in Europe and has nothing to do with why Europe is failing. (and socialism is very similar to communism) depends on the type of socialism.. Currently, European countries are starting to fail and default, and only Germany has been left unscathed by this approach, but who knows when that will change?

So European capitalism is failing, more evidence for socialism and communism. if you want to learn more about the failure of European capitalism, then http://www.marxist.com/the-crisis-of-eu ... -app-1.htm is for you.

[4years]

Why not Fascism?

1. Hitler's Germany
Oh and by the way, I do know that some facists claim that Hitler was not facist, but I am no expert.
2. Mussolini's Italy
3. Franco's Spain
4. Basically any facist nation that ever existed/ WW2.

and finally...
5. This is a thread about capitalism and communism.

[4years]

Stalin wasn't a communist.

He advocated for communism. Thus, he was a communist. Doesn't mean he was a very smart one.

1. He claimed to want communsim for propaganda reasons. I would not say that he was communist because of that: actions, writings, and so forth mean more to me then propaganda and they all show that Stalin did not implement or believe in communism. But then, you can define a communist as one who advocates communism for any reason, but I wouldn't because it leads to confusion: the leadership of North korea is domocratic because they advocate for democracy in their propaganda. However, I do see where you are coming from.

2. New flag?

[Trotskylvania]

He advocated for communism. Thus, he was a communist. Doesn't mean he was a very smart one.

How did Stalin advocate for communism?

Nothing about the psychology of Stalin, or his actions makes sense except in light of him being a true-believer in a particular (vulgar) reading of Marxism. he realization of historical inevitability, and of ensuring that all of the productive forces be brought under the control of a single will to combat historical forces hitherto beyond anyone's control is the essential feature of Stalin's politics. It's how he justified, to himself and to others, everything he ever did as despot of the Soviet Union.

Communism was always the aspiration of Marxism-Leninism, but given the Russian context, their own hubris and their isolation, Russian Marxists saw a particular path forward that the rest of the European communists generally didn't share, and ultimately they made the existing trends towards some very sloppy, vulgar Marxism reach a terminal level.

[Jassysworth 1]

If you can't keep most of your profits, there is a cap on how much you can keep, there are too many rules about how trade is done (no money, no selling of labor), then it is not a FREE market. Also, it is not a private enterprise if you can't keep most of what you make (this is like ABC). If my enterprise creates products but I am not allowed to buy and sell them at my own discretion then how do I owe that enterprise or anything it creates?

It's like talking to a brick wall.

1) How can you keep any of your profits? There is no profit to begin with.
2)There are no rules about how trade is done. The decision to not sell labor or have money is democratic and voluntary. You can leave if you don't want to follow this.
3)What? A private enterprise isn't defined by what you can keep, it is defined by how little state intervention occurs. Of which, there is none in a communist society.
4) You can't buy and sell due to the society discarding money voluntarily.

Here we have the same problem: you're whining over stuff that doesn't happen in a communist society in the first place.

I know that ''capitalist'' countries right now are not 100% capitalist but they still earn the label of free market because you keep most of what you earn, exchange is mostly unrestricted, private firms run for profit operate relatively unfettered etc. Calling communism a free market is too much of a stretch because they are too many rules to stifle individual market freedoms...

That's not what defines a free market in a capitalist society.

Free-market capitalism refers to an economic system where prices for goods and services are set freely by the forces of supply and demand and are allowed to reach their point of equilibrium without intervention by government policy.

Going by this, China does not meet this definition. Your problem is that you use capitalism and free-market interchangeably. They aren't, and socialists have been championing for free markets and voluntary exchange since the 19th century (Benjamin Tucker, Richardian socialists, etc.)

I really like the part where you say there are not profits in a communistic society. There are ALWAYS incentives to make profits. ALWAYS. And there are always people looking for profitable exchanges with people who want to make profits. Once again, the only way you are going to keep people from trying to amass profits is through communistic laws that say you can't. Once you do that (prevent people from amassing profits), your market is no longer free in any substantial sense... You've already regulated it too much.

You're using a different definition of profit, aren't you?

In Classical economics and Marxian economics, profit is the return to an owner of capital stock (means of production) in any productive pursuit involving labor, or a return on bonds and money invested in capital markets.[2] Specifically in Marxian economic theory, the maximization of profit and the accumulation of capital is the driving force behind economic activity within capitalist economic systems.

So tell me, in a society where there is no money or private property ownership, why in the world would anyone seek a profit?

And so to keep it stateless, moneyless, AND classless you are going to need a LOT of rules. Too many to earn the label of free market...

Nope.

Money is banned because it says ''moneyless.'' How else are you going to prevent people from developing money again if you don't keep it banned?

Are you facepalming because your first sentence was a complete non sequitur? I did as well. Since when does lacking something automatically conclude there is a rule against it? Suddenly "godless" means there are rules against believing in God, amirite?

Sell my labor? Why would I? Because it's a mutually beneficial arrangement (someone makes a profit and so do I)? Once again, how do you prevent this basic human instinct? By banning the practice and forcing anyone who does it to LEAVE or be imprisoned. Hence... to call it a free market is a joke when you can't even engage in basic market practices...

No profit, thus there is no benefit to doing it. Selling labor isn't banned. It isn't restricted. It's simply silly to attempt it when there are no benefits to it in a communist society. There are no benefits to me jumping down stairs face-first, thus I do not do it. According to your logic, this means that jumping down stairs face-first is banned. Could you please try to read my posts? At least try.

Economics is the work of economists. Most mainstream economists today disavow communism, so that's how it matters.

It really doesn't matter. Economists tend to focus on what happens currently. What occurs currently is, you guessed it, capitalism. Economists would make no money if they didn't specialize or specifically work in studying capitalism.

At least I understand that you simply can't call a communist economy a system of free market enterprise LOL. You on the other hand, seem to believe in communist free enterprise.

And yet you've yet to prove anything in this poor excuse of a rebuttal. You've only proved that you either a) cannot read or b) choose to ignore my posts to that you can remain in your cage of circular logic.

It's impossible to not sound like a brick wall because you just don't get it...

1) There will always be incentives for people to make profits. You can't just say, there will be no profits in a communist society (''there will be no air in a communist society''). It is because you theoretically have no private property and money that trying to make profits will be even MORE profitable. Heard of a black market? It will be flourishing like hell in a communist society until your utopian communist paradise falls.

Related to 1)

2) Not having a government when there are incentives for people to make profits means people will make profits, businesses will set up, and you will have classes again (hence communism is self-defeating insofar as it insists on having no state). Try fighting a black market WITHOUT a government. It's already impossible to destroy them when you have one.


3) A free market is not free if you can't buy and sell, making profits in the process. It is not free if you are forced to leave if you try and make profits or profitable exchange with others, if you can't sell your labor to others, if you can't own private property.

4) You are talking about a fantasy world rather than using common sense about human nature/human biology (hence why you say things like ''there will be no profits in a communist society,'' ''the bad people will just leave the society'' etc). Hence while you don't admit it, your assumptions are near utopian.

5) As someone else said, communism is faith-based (no evidence for it, all large-scale attempts to reach this goal have FAILED) and idiotic (goes against common sense about human nature).

6) Direct democracy doesn't work. Having no states doesn't work. Having no classes doesn't work. Having no money will throw us back in the stone age.

YOU sir, are a communist and a very very dangerous man (because you don't realize the dangers of the things you are advocating, in reality a new era of Stalinist communism).

[Williamson]

It's like talking to a brick wall.

1) How can you keep any of your profits? There is no profit to begin with.
2)There are no rules about how trade is done. The decision to not sell labor or have money is democratic and voluntary. You can leave if you don't want to follow this.
3)What? A private enterprise isn't defined by what you can keep, it is defined by how little state intervention occurs. Of which, there is none in a communist society.
4) You can't buy and sell due to the society discarding money voluntarily.

Here we have the same problem: you're whining over stuff that doesn't happen in a communist society in the first place.

That's not what defines a free market in a capitalist society.



Going by this, China does not meet this definition. Your problem is that you use capitalism and free-market interchangeably. They aren't, and socialists have been championing for free markets and voluntary exchange since the 19th century (Benjamin Tucker, Richardian socialists, etc.)


You're using a different definition of profit, aren't you?



So tell me, in a society where there is no money or private property ownership, why in the world would anyone seek a profit?

Nope.


Are you facepalming because your first sentence was a complete non sequitur? I did as well. Since when does lacking something automatically conclude there is a rule against it? Suddenly "godless" means there are rules against believing in God, amirite?

No profit, thus there is no benefit to doing it. Selling labor isn't banned. It isn't restricted. It's simply silly to attempt it when there are no benefits to it in a communist society. There are no benefits to me jumping down stairs face-first, thus I do not do it. According to your logic, this means that jumping down stairs face-first is banned. Could you please try to read my posts? At least try.

It really doesn't matter. Economists tend to focus on what happens currently. What occurs currently is, you guessed it, capitalism. Economists would make no money if they didn't specialize or specifically work in studying capitalism.

And yet you've yet to prove anything in this poor excuse of a rebuttal. You've only proved that you either a) cannot read or b) choose to ignore my posts to that you can remain in your cage of circular logic.

It's impossible to not sound like a brick wall because you just don't get it...

1) There will always be incentives for people to make profits. You can't just say, there will be no profits in a communist society (''there will be no air in a communist society''). It is because you theoretically have no private property and money that trying to make profits will be even MORE profitable. Heard of a black market? It will be flourishing like hell in a communist society until your utopian communist paradise falls.

Related to 1)

2) Not having a government when there are incentives for people to make profits means people will make profits, businesses will set up, and you will have classes again (hence communism is self-defeating insofar as it insists on having no state). Try fighting a black market WITHOUT a government. It's already impossible to destroy them when you have one.


3) A free market is not free if you can't buy and sell, making profits in the process. It is not free if you are forced to leave if you try and make profits or profitable exchange with others, if you can't sell your labor to others, if you can't own private property.

4) You are talking about a fantasy world rather than using common sense about human nature/human biology (hence why you say things like ''there will be no profits in a communist society,'' ''the bad people will just leave the society'' etc). Hence while you don't admit it, your assumptions are near utopian.

5) As someone else said, communism is faith-based (no evidence for it, all large-scale attempts to reach this goal have FAILED) and idiotic (goes against common sense about human nature).

6) Direct democracy doesn't work. Having no states doesn't work. Having no classes doesn't work. Having no money will throw us back in the stone age.

YOU sir, are a communist and a very very dangerous man (because you don't realize the dangers of the things you are advocating, in reality a new era of Stalinist communism).

[Jassysworth 1]

So every attempt to implement "true communism" has ended horribly, and the only examples that communist really point to, as a user in this thread has said are subnation states that have been a tiny bleep on the radar and have made no substantial(if any) contribution to human progress or increasing the standard of living.

By the Communists own admission, a true communist state has never existed, and if a true communist state has never existed there is no evidence to suggest that it would actually work, thus communism is faith-based. Communism being faith-based, is no better than Christianity or any other religion.

Based on this logic alone, though, one can correctly assume that Communism is inherently flawed and impractical.

Communism - Economic and social system in which all (or nearly all) property and resources are collectively owned by a classless society and not by individual citizens

Anyone with even an elementary understanding of human nature/biology as well as a shred of common sense knows that the very definition goes against human nature. Class is natural occurrence, and the development of money and private property made trade easier as well as allowed wealth to accumulate. Considering the advantages of capitalism in regards to human nature, no wonder communist governments are known for their draconian laws, tough punishments and horrible living conditions. As human nature will naturally rebel, so persistent will the Government become in pursuit of its idealistic goals that it will natural expand to suppress the very people it ironically sought to free.

In laymen terms Communism is immoral, idiotic and as faith-based as religion.

100 percent agree.

[Mavorpen]

1) There will always be incentives for people to make profits. You can't just say, there will be no profits in a communist society (''there will be no air in a communist society''). It is because you theoretically have no private property and money that trying to make profits will be even MORE profitable. Heard of a black market? It will be flourishing like hell in a communist society until your utopian communist paradise falls.

Prove it. Seriously, substantiate this claim. You've never even explained why there will be incentives for people to make profits. Incentives for profit exist most when money is involved. Also, I'm pretty sure you're still using a different definition of profits. I provided you with one and explained why it wouldn't exist in a communist society. I notice you didn't address it at all.

Related to 1)

2) Not having a government when there are incentives for people to make profits means people will make profits, businesses will set up, and you will have classes again (hence communism is self-defeating insofar as it insists on having no state). Try fighting a black market WITHOUT a government. It's already impossible to destroy them when you have one.

Congratulations, you've received your "I can't read" badge. I've never said there would be no government. In fact, I believe I've explicitly stated there would be one. Even Trotskylvania stated there would be one. It's like you've given up and are now just making shit with no basis at all.

3) A free market is not free if you can't buy and sell, making profits in the process. It is not free if you are forced to leave if you try and make profits or profitable exchange with others, if you can't sell your labor to others, if you can't own private property.

A free market is not defined by making profits. In a communist society/economy? Yes. In a communist society? No. That's your problem ultimately. You don't know what words you're using. I'm also pretty sure you don't know what private property is in the context of communism.

4) You are talking about a fantasy world rather than using common sense about human nature/human biology (hence why you say things like ''there will be no profits in a communist society,'' ''the bad people will just leave the society'' etc). Hence while you don't admit it, your assumptions are near utopian.

Not an argument. More foaming at the mouth.

5) As someone else said, communism is faith-based (no evidence for it, all large-scale attempts to reach this goal have FAILED) and idiotic (goes against common sense about human nature).

Not an argument. Foaming at the mouth.

6) Direct democracy doesn't work. Having no states doesn't work. Having no classes doesn't work. Having no money will throw us back in the stone age.

Direct democracy does work. Source having no state doesn't work? Source no classes doesn't work? Source eradicating money will throw us back to the stone age?

YOU sir, are a communist and a very very dangerous man (because you don't realize the dangers of the things you are advocating, in reality a new era of Stalinist communism).

So I'm assuming you're admitting defeat since you've chosen to not make any real arguments, just kick and scream while calling names?

[4years]

It's like talking to a brick wall.

1) How can you keep any of your profits? There is no profit to begin with.
2)There are no rules about how trade is done. The decision to not sell labor or have money is democratic and voluntary. You can leave if you don't want to follow this.
3)What? A private enterprise isn't defined by what you can keep, it is defined by how little state intervention occurs. Of which, there is none in a communist society.
4) You can't buy and sell due to the society discarding money voluntarily.

Here we have the same problem: you're whining over stuff that doesn't happen in a communist society in the first place.

That's not what defines a free market in a capitalist society.



Going by this, China does not meet this definition. Your problem is that you use capitalism and free-market interchangeably. They aren't, and socialists have been championing for free markets and voluntary exchange since the 19th century (Benjamin Tucker, Richardian socialists, etc.)


You're using a different definition of profit, aren't you?



So tell me, in a society where there is no money or private property ownership, why in the world would anyone seek a profit?

Nope.


Are you facepalming because your first sentence was a complete non sequitur? I did as well. Since when does lacking something automatically conclude there is a rule against it? Suddenly "godless" means there are rules against believing in God, amirite?

No profit, thus there is no benefit to doing it. Selling labor isn't banned. It isn't restricted. It's simply silly to attempt it when there are no benefits to it in a communist society. There are no benefits to me jumping down stairs face-first, thus I do not do it. According to your logic, this means that jumping down stairs face-first is banned. Could you please try to read my posts? At least try.

It really doesn't matter. Economists tend to focus on what happens currently. What occurs currently is, you guessed it, capitalism. Economists would make no money if they didn't specialize or specifically work in studying capitalism.

And yet you've yet to prove anything in this poor excuse of a rebuttal. You've only proved that you either a) cannot read or b) choose to ignore my posts to that you can remain in your cage of circular logic.

It's impossible to not sound like a brick wall because you just don't get it...
Circular logic works because circular logic works.
1) There will always be incentives for people to make profits. You can't just say, there will be no profits in a communist society (''there will be no air in a communist society''). It is because you theoretically have no private property and money that trying to make profits will be even MORE profitable. Heard of a black market? It will be flourishing like hell in a communist society until your utopian communist paradise falls.
You realize that the purpose of a black market is to make money right? Since in a communist society money would not be needed there would be no motivation for a black market.
Related to 1)

2) Not having a government when there are incentives for people to make profits means people will make profits, businesses will set up, and you will have classes again (hence communism is self-defeating insofar as it insists on having no state). Try fighting a black market WITHOUT a government. It's already impossible to destroy them when you have one. The people would have enough self-interest to object to anyone trying to set up classess again. In a conflict between a handfull of people and society in general society wins if everyone has equal access to resources, which they would in communism.


3) A free market is not free if you can't buy and sell, making profits in the process. It is not free if you are forced to leave if you try and make profits or profitable exchange with others, if you can't sell your labor to others, if you can't own private property. The free market is not free if people are exploited by others and forced to toil away in the meanless existence of wage slavery for the benfit of the ruling class. However, the market is free when people are allowed to work for their own benfit and for the good of society and the chain of the need to make money is abolished.

4) You are talking about a fantasy world rather than using common sense about human nature/human biology (hence why you say things like ''there will be no profits in a communist society,'' ''the bad people will just leave the society'' etc). Hence while you don't admit it, your assumptions are near utopian. The human nature arguement is not valid, as has been explained many times. The biology arguement is incorrect. The first human societies practiced a primtive form of communsim, therefore arguements based on biology ultimately support communsim over capitalism.

5) As someone else said, communism is faith-based (no evidence for it, all large-scale attempts to reach this goal have FAILED) and idiotic (goes against common sense about human nature). And someone else was also wrong, see above. Capitalism, however, has been proven not to work so adovacting it is a faith-based arguement. (I refuse to supply sources and examples of this until you do the same for your claim that communism is faith-based and if you source Stalinist states as examples of communism I will use Hitler's Germany as a modle capitalist state and demand that you answer for fuedalism. I am sick of your nonsense.)

6) Direct democracy doesn't work. Having no states doesn't work. Having no classes doesn't work. Having no money will throw us back in the stone age. I sense a lack of facts, sources, or any kind of proof.

YOU sir, are a communist and a very very dangerous man (because you don't realize the dangers of the things you are advocating, in reality a new era of Stalinist communism).

Stalinist communism is an oxymoron.

[Sociobiology]

fixed

Europe and America's economies are mixed. They're broken.

prove it show me an economy that functioned better, that was not mixed.
beware the nirvana fallacy.

[4years]

Europe and America's economies are mixed. They're broken.

prove it show me an economy that functioned better, that was not mixed.
beware the nirvana fallacy.

The Paris Commune and the Free Territory had perfectly fine economies.

Oh, you might want to read this on economic crisis in capitalism: http://www.marxist.com/underconsumption ... crisis.htm

[4years]

I know Stalin wasn't a real commie, he just thought he was and advocated both himself and his country as such. And for a communism-knockoff, Stalinism was still able to collectivize like nobody's business, right?

It collectivized bureaucratically and centrally, which was part of the problem. The bureaucracy, not the workers, held control over the means of production.

Intersting quote on the bureaucracy from Marx himself:
For the bureaucrat, the world is a mere object to be manipulated by him.
Karl Marx

[Socialdemokraterne]

100 percent agree.

Then my reply to Yandere Schoolgirls applies to you too.

If you don't care to read it, here's a summary:

(a) Saying as a matter-of-fact that since Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, and Juche failed and no lasting, large-scale communist society has existed all methods of implementation of socialism (and later communism) will inevitably fail as well is bad logic at best and dishonest at worst. It's a decent hypothesis, but it's a conclusion wanting of data just as much as the position that untested methods of implementation would succeed.
(b) Claims about "human nature" have to be substantiated, and more specifically the characteristic of interest has to be shown to be universal. And even then the work is not done, since you next have to illustrate that the characteristic is unchangeable and immutable.
(c) Appeals to biology should be properly cited, or at the very least constitute a deeper argument than "learn biology lol". Perhaps we could delve into a discussion of inclusive fitness?

[Socialdemokraterne]

And on the point of reading...

Have you noticed that I have said that mainstream economics disavows all alternatives to the CAPITALIST FREE MARKET?

What is this? Seriously, what IS this? You think mainstream economics is some sort of uniform thing where government intervention is universally regarded as a negative?

When did all mainstream economic schools decide that market failures either don't exist or can be universally corrected without government intervention? When the hell did the mainstream Keynesians disappear completely? When did Keynesian thought get completely ejected? Do the Neoclassical Synthesists and the New Keynesians not exist anymore?

[Anollasia]

Communism. The poor people weren't as poor.

[Jassysworth 1]

1) There will always be incentives for people to make profits. You can't just say, there will be no profits in a communist society (''there will be no air in a communist society''). It is because you theoretically have no private property and money that trying to make profits will be even MORE profitable. Heard of a black market? It will be flourishing like hell in a communist society until your utopian communist paradise falls.

Prove it. Seriously, substantiate this claim. You've never even explained why there will be incentives for people to make profits. Incentives for profit exist most when money is involved. Also, I'm pretty sure you're still using a different definition of profits. I provided you with one and explained why it wouldn't exist in a communist society. I notice you didn't address it at all.

Related to 1)

2) Not having a government when there are incentives for people to make profits means people will make profits, businesses will set up, and you will have classes again (hence communism is self-defeating insofar as it insists on having no state). Try fighting a black market WITHOUT a government. It's already impossible to destroy them when you have one.

Congratulations, you've received your "I can't read" badge. I've never said there would be no government. In fact, I believe I've explicitly stated there would be one. Even Trotskylvania stated there would be one. It's like you've given up and are now just making shit with no basis at all.

3) A free market is not free if you can't buy and sell, making profits in the process. It is not free if you are forced to leave if you try and make profits or profitable exchange with others, if you can't sell your labor to others, if you can't own private property.

A free market is not defined by making profits. In a communist society/economy? Yes. In a communist society? No. That's your problem ultimately. You don't know what words you're using. I'm also pretty sure you don't know what private property is in the context of communism.

4) You are talking about a fantasy world rather than using common sense about human nature/human biology (hence why you say things like ''there will be no profits in a communist society,'' ''the bad people will just leave the society'' etc). Hence while you don't admit it, your assumptions are near utopian.

Not an argument. More foaming at the mouth.

5) As someone else said, communism is faith-based (no evidence for it, all large-scale attempts to reach this goal have FAILED) and idiotic (goes against common sense about human nature).

Not an argument. Foaming at the mouth.

6) Direct democracy doesn't work. Having no states doesn't work. Having no classes doesn't work. Having no money will throw us back in the stone age.

Direct democracy does work. Source having no state doesn't work? Source no classes doesn't work? Source eradicating money will throw us back to the stone age?

YOU sir, are a communist and a very very dangerous man (because you don't realize the dangers of the things you are advocating, in reality a new era of Stalinist communism).

So I'm assuming you're admitting defeat since you've chosen to not make any real arguments, just kick and scream while calling names?

Have a lot of fun in your fantasy world...

Trust me, if you start a communist society and say to everyone ''there will be no classes and no profits'' and don't have a strong state to enforce your laws it just won't work (hell even if you had a state it would still fail). The black market and acts of power grabbing in the ensuring power vacuum would tear your society apart (until it reverts back to capitalism or becomes a form of Stalinism).

Once everyone is equal someone just has to try to amass a little more power and resources than his neighbor and he obtains an unbelievable advantage over everyone else for himself. This is why communism will fail, there is TOO MUCH incentive to cheat and you've just gotten rid of the strong apparatus of the state to control that stuff (instead counting on altruism and voluntarism).

And distort things however you like, but a market where you can't buy and sell and make profits just isn't a free one (that's common sense). There is no such thing as a communist free market

But again, have lots of fun Mavo in your fantasy kingdom where everyone shares everything, the government doesn't exist, and people live happily ever after.

I wish I could join you but I really couldn't get there unless I took some mind-altering substances for myself. And in my book I still really truly value my own health...

[Camelza]

No he wasn't, he cared only to remain in power and be remembered as a glorious tsar humble leader of Imperial Russia the USSR,that's why he murdered all of the old guard of the Bolsheviks,kept workplaces & production under strict state control,had a militarist & "patriotic" non-internationalist (but instead imperialist) foreign & domestic policy and funded the world's most fearful state supression mechanisms,plus, his rule bared extreme resemblance to fascist states if you changed the slogans a little bit.

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact he advocated for communism and claimed to be in transition to communism.

Exactly he just claimed to be in a transition to communism which doesn't mean he was,in order to be a communist ,or a left-winger in general, you have to adhere to certain values like liberty,equality,fidelity etc apart from the economical,more technical & specific parts of marxism.

So,no,he wasn't a communist ...an authoritarian socialist maybe,but truly he was nothing more than a red fascist.

Yes, he was. A communist is an individual that is an adherent or advocate of communism, is a member of a Communist party, etc.

Guys, I'm not saying Stalin implemented communism fully, nor did he create a communist society. I'm saying he advocated for it (even if he didn't believe in it) and he claimed to be in transition.

Since he didn't believe in communism (and there are countless works and quotes by him that can verify this),he also advocated what he called "communism" (which was not) and he did never try to implement it in any way (five year plan,patriotic war etc were just economic & military policies that could be easily implemented by a Tsar),so, by just claiming that the USSR was in transition to communism (thought they were actually stable as hell and far from it) you can't describe Stalin as a communist in any way and if you believe you can ,prove it to me and don't you dare say "he was a commie because he was a member of the Communist Party" ..that's Jassy's way of proving things.

I'm not saying, "COMMUNISM SUX!" Stop pretending I'm saying stuff I'm not. It doesn't help your argument.

I never said that or will I ever say it,I think you meant that for the other guy.

[Mavorpen]

Trust me, if you start a communist society and say to everyone ''there will be no classes and no profits'' and don't have a strong state to enforce your laws it just won't work (hell even if you had a state it would still fail). The black market and acts of power grabbing in the ensuring power vacuum would tear your society apart (until it reverts back to capitalism or becomes a form of Stalinism).

Several things wrong already.
1) There would be no power vacuum. That's hard to form when there are no classes.
2) There would be no black market. Why? I'll explain it next, even though I've done it a hundred times.
3) I'm not talking about Stalinism. Never have been. So stop pretending like I am. I wouldn't need to say to everyone "there will be no classes and no profits." They would have already chosen to do so through a revolution.

Once everyone is equal someone just has to try to amass a little more power and resources than his neighbor and he obtains an unbelievable advantage over everyone else for himself. This is why communism will fail, there is TOO MUCH incentive to cheat and you've just gotten rid of the strong apparatus of the state to control that stuff (instead counting on altruism and voluntarism).

Stop being vague. What "power" are you talking about? This isn't a superhero movie. Having more resources is useless if you can't use them. There's literally no advantage there. What incentives to cheat? I'm not seeing them. You're just whining, flailing your fists everywhere hoping to make a point.

And distort things however you like, but a market where you can't buy and sell and make profits just isn't a free one (that's common sense). There is no such thing as a communist free market

"LUL ITS COMMON SENSE!" In other words, you've lost.

But again, have lots of fun Mavo in your fantasy kingdom where everyone shares everything, the government doesn't exist, and people live happily ever after.

Where did I say that? Brilliant straw man.

[Mavorpen]

Exactly he just claimed to be in a transition to communism which doesn't mean he was,in order to be a communist ,or a left-winger in general, you have to adhere to certain values like liberty,equality,fidelity etc apart from the economical,more technical & specific parts of marxism.

No, you don't. See, this is your problem. You think Marxism has a monopoly on communism. It doesn't, nor has it ever had a monopoly on communism. The Bolsheviks created their own communist ideology whose transition was different. Stalin knew that his country needed to industrialize. Usually in Marxism, the revolution would happen after industrialization, but Stalin chose to instead industrialize swiftly through a powerful state.

Since he didn't believe in communism (and there are countless works and quotes by him that can verify this),he also advocated what he called "communism" (which was not) and he did never try to implement it in any way (five year plan,patriotic war etc were just economic & military policies that could be easily implemented by a Tsar),so, by just claiming that the USSR was in transition to communism (thought they were actually stable as hell and far from it) you can't describe Stalin as a communist in any way and if you believe you can ,prove it to me and don't you dare say "he was a commie because he was a member of the Communist Party" ..that's Jassy's way of proving things.

Go ahead and give these works and quotes please. Prove he never tried to implement it in any way. Again, you're thinking from a purely Marxist perspective. From a Marxist perspective, he was doing it wrong. From his own Stalinist perspective, he was doing it right.

1) Revolution begins with the Vanguard Party leading them.
2) The Party becomes the head of the state.
3) The Party weeds out capitalism by banning private property.
4) The Party uses command economics to industrialize rapidly and then the true transition to communism would begin, with lower communism taking hold.

What happened? The true transition through lower communism forming didn't happen because of the collapse of the Soviet Union.