Communism

[Ostroeuropa]

That depends entirely on what you mean by communism.

[Aethelstania]

I don't oppose workers getting together and owning the means of production (I actually think its a really nice idea) but I still don't find capitalism unethical quite the contrarily! Also in practical terms its a bit of a shit storm - implementing a communist "state" as far can one exist I don't know where to begin! People have tried in the past and its failed see North Korea, China and the USSR.

[Grand Britannia]

No, no. No Godless Commies here. Only Capitalism.

[Conscentia]

That depends entirely on what you mean by communism.

He means communism - as in what it actually means. (The abolition of class, state, & wage labour, and establishment of a society based upon common ownership.)

[Ostroeuropa]

That depends entirely on what you mean by communism.

He means communism - as in what it actually means. (The abolition of class, state, & wage labour, and establishment of a society based upon common ownership.)

Ahh. So presumably you think the republicans are radical liberals. Because to me that looks like a particular subset of communist ideology that isn't definitive of the whole, nor in keeping with modern perceptions of the ideology by the majority of people.
Are conservatives secretly liberals because they don't support 16th century policies that defined conservatism?

[Conscentia]

I don't oppose workers getting together and owning the means of production (I actually think its a really nice idea) but I still don't find capitalism unethical quite the contrarily! Also in practical terms its a bit of a shit storm - implementing a communist "state" as far can one exist I don't know where to begin! People have tried in the past and its failed see North Korea, China and the USSR.

That's not the fault of communism. It's the fault of violent revolution. Revolution virtually never go as intended.
For example, see the English Civil War in the UK. Aimed to establish a democratic republic, without a monarchy, governed by parliament. Ended up with an oppressive puritan dictatorship.

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't oppose workers getting together and owning the means of production (I actually think its a really nice idea) but I still don't find capitalism unethical quite the contrarily! Also in practical terms its a bit of a shit storm - implementing a communist "state" as far can one exist I don't know where to begin! People have tried in the past and its failed see North Korea, China and the USSR.

That's not the fault of communism. It's the fault of violent revolution. Revolution virtually never go as intended.
For example, see the Glorious Revolution in the UK. Aimed to establish a democratic republic, without a monarchy, governed by parliament. Ended up with an oppressive puritan dictatorship.

That isn't what happened. It was the overthrow of a monarch and the beginning of the principle that the monarch governs with parliaments consent and not the other way around.
It wasn't a republican event, a monarchy is still very much on the cards.
You mean the English civil war. Which isn't a revolution technically though we'd probably regard it as one these days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution

[Conscentia]

He means communism - as in what it actually means. (The abolition of class, state, & wage labour, and establishment of a society based upon common ownership.)

Ahh. So presumably you think the republicans are radical liberals. Because to me that looks like a particular subset of communist ideology that isn't definitive of the whole, nor in keeping with modern perceptions of the ideology by the majority of people.
Are conservatives secretly liberals because they don't support 16th century policies that defined conservatism?

Conservatism is the ideology of resisting political change. It's based upon political stubbornness. Conservatives now are opposed to most change just as conservatives did then.

Communism has defined goals.
The success of anti-communist propaganda would explain the incorrect perceptions which dominate.

[Mavorpen]

Are conservatives secretly liberals because they don't support 16th century policies that defined conservatism?

That would be difficult considering conservatism was coined following and in context of, the French Revolution.

[Ostroeuropa]

Are conservatives secretly liberals because they don't support 16th century policies that defined conservatism?

That would be difficult considering conservatism was coined following and in context of, the French Revolution.

I was ballparking to make a point but you are right.

[Conscentia]

That's not the fault of communism. It's the fault of violent revolution. Revolution virtually never go as intended.
For example, see the Glorious Revolution in the UK. Aimed to establish a democratic republic, without a monarchy, governed by parliament. Ended up with an oppressive puritan dictatorship.

That isn't what happened. It was the overthrow of a monarch and the beginning of the principle that the monarch governs with parliaments consent and not the other way around.
It wasn't a republican event, a monarchy is still very much on the cards.
You mean the English civil war. Which isn't a revolution technically though we'd probably regard it as one these days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution

Whoops, *edited*

[Denolas]

Communism in the Manifesto sounds compelling.

In practice it sucks. Corruption, tyranny and oppression.

I agree in practice the beautiful idea of communism gets controled by dictators like Stalin and Mao Zedung.

[Mavorpen]

That would be difficult considering conservatism was coined following and in context of, the French Revolution.

I was ballparking to make a point but you are right.

Your point is still not entirely reasonable regardless of this. Conservatism does not have a defined belief you must adhere to in order to be a conservative. It varies based upon the societal norms and traditions (i.e. what the society deems to be "traditional"). Tradition can range from women "getting back to the kitchen" for good and never entering the work force to women having equal rights, but seeking to preserve the social norm of women being housewives.

[Neo Byzantine Empire]

While some concepts of Communism are honorable, like the concept of Social Equality (Which I've developed into Social Equality unless one proves they deserve more or less than someone else), Communism in general doesn't work.

I've said this to many people many times before; Communism (Like True Democracy) focuses on the rule of all as opposed to the rule of the few or the rule of one. Well, such a system doesn't work because people either do not care to, do not have the time to, or are too incompetent to rule a government like that (Sometimes a second or all aspects mentioned are involved). Therefore; Communism, when put into practice, can only lead to an Autocracy (Rule of One) or an Oligarchy (Rule of the few).


Finally; I recognize there are plenty of good people who are Communist, but then there are the sick bastards like the ones that slaughtered Tsar Nicholas and his Family, murdering them in cold blood. Those individuals are the ones I despise and, if I ever had the chance, I'd desecrate the graves of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and all the other heartless bastards who took the greatest Empire in the world and destroyed it. Lenin and his Junta weren't doing anything beneficial for Russia, they only destroyed Russia in the long run. Just look at how pathetic the country is now, the country I adored until the Bolsheviks came along and f***ed everything up.

I can tolerate Communism, but when it comes to the Bolsheviks; let's just say I have nothing nice to say and leave it at that.

[Ostroeuropa]

I was ballparking to make a point but you are right.

Your point is still not entirely reasonable regardless of this. Conservatism does not have a defined belief you must adhere to in order to be a conservative. It varies based upon the societal norms and traditions (i.e. what the society deems to be "traditional"). Tradition can range from women "getting back to the kitchen" for good and never entering the work force to women having equal rights, but seeking to preserve the social norm of women being housewives.

Maybe conservatism isn't the best example. There are others though.
Is a syndicalist a socialist or aren't they?
etc.

To be a socialist, must one advocate state control over the means of all production.
If not, why the doublethink

[Duvniask]

Your point is still not entirely reasonable regardless of this. Conservatism does not have a defined belief you must adhere to in order to be a conservative. It varies based upon the societal norms and traditions (i.e. what the society deems to be "traditional"). Tradition can range from women "getting back to the kitchen" for good and never entering the work force to women having equal rights, but seeking to preserve the social norm of women being housewives.

Maybe conservatism isn't the best example. There are others though.
Is a syndicalist a socialist or aren't they?
etc.

To be a socialist, must one advocate state control over the means of all production.
If not, why the doublethink

There are such things as libertarian socialism, and others. Communism is also a type of socialism. So no not really.

[Conscentia]

Your point is still not entirely reasonable regardless of this. Conservatism does not have a defined belief you must adhere to in order to be a conservative. It varies based upon the societal norms and traditions (i.e. what the society deems to be "traditional"). Tradition can range from women "getting back to the kitchen" for good and never entering the work force to women having equal rights, but seeking to preserve the social norm of women being housewives.

Maybe conservatism isn't the best example. There are others though.
Is a syndicalist a socialist or aren't they?
etc.

To be a socialist, must one advocate state control over the means of all production.
If not, why the doublethink

Socialism has nothing to do with state control.
It's about public, common, or social ownership of the means of production.
(There is a difference between state ownership & public ownership.)

[Ostroeuropa]

Maybe conservatism isn't the best example. There are others though.
Is a syndicalist a socialist or aren't they?
etc.

To be a socialist, must one advocate state control over the means of all production.
If not, why the doublethink

There are such things as libertarian socialism, and others. Communism is also a type of socialism. So no not really.

Thats my point. Those are types of socialism. They are based on the principles and goals of socialism, and generally follow the same train of thought/logic, just to different conclusions.
A stalinist state is a type of communism. It's a very shit type of communism that doesn't work very well. But would you argue that just because an ideology is absolutely terrible it isn't really socialist? (For instance, assume libertarian socialism utterly failed every time it was implemented or led to mass purges or whatever. Would it suddenly not be socialism?)

[Duvniask]

There are such things as libertarian socialism, and others. Communism is also a type of socialism. So no not really.

Thats my point. Those are types of socialism. They are based on the principles and goals of socialism, and generally follow the same train of thought/logic, just to different conclusions.
A stalinist state is a type of communism. It's a very shit type of communism that doesn't work very well. But would you argue that just because an ideology is absolutely terrible it isn't really socialist? (For instance, assume libertarian socialism utterly failed every time it was implemented or led to mass purges or whatever. Would it suddenly not be socialism?)

No, but given, that it's been discussed a million times on this thread why stalinism is, or is not communism etc.

I would say it's at best a very strange form of it yes, or not at all, given that it's merely a road to communism, that has failed utterly.

[Duvniask]

Maybe conservatism isn't the best example. There are others though.
Is a syndicalist a socialist or aren't they?
etc.

To be a socialist, must one advocate state control over the means of all production.
If not, why the doublethink

Socialism has nothing to do with state control.
It's about public, common, or social ownership of the means of production.
(There is a difference between state ownership & public ownership.)

Public ownership often means state ownership, however it can mean social or state ownership both.

[Conscentia]

There are such things as libertarian socialism, and others. Communism is also a type of socialism. So no not really.

Thats my point. Those are types of socialism. They are based on the principles and goals of socialism, and generally follow the same train of thought/logic, just to different conclusions.
A stalinist state is a type of communism. It's a very shit type of communism that doesn't work very well. But would you argue that just because an ideology is absolutely terrible it isn't really socialist? (For instance, assume libertarian socialism utterly failed every time it was implemented or led to mass purges or whatever. Would it suddenly not be socialism?)

Stalinism isn't communism because it deviates from the communist ideology. It's a perversion of Marxism-Leninism.

It is possible for an ideology incorporating socialism to be terrible.

The reason some socialists would argue that Stalinism is not socialism is because it advocates state ownership. That results in State Capitalism, not socialism.

[Stovokor]

Socialism has nothing to do with state control.
It's about public, common, or social ownership of the means of production.
(There is a difference between state ownership & public ownership.)

Public ownership often means state ownership, however it can mean social or state ownership both.

Technically socialism is state control, however it's supposed to be counter balanced by having every person be the state. The best socialistic nation would be a purely democratic nation.

[Conscentia]

Public ownership often means state ownership, however it can mean social or state ownership both.

Technically socialism is state control, however it's supposed to be counter balanced by having every person be the state. The best socialistic nation would be a purely democratic nation.

Incorrect.

[Ostroeuropa]

Thats my point. Those are types of socialism. They are based on the principles and goals of socialism, and generally follow the same train of thought/logic, just to different conclusions.
A stalinist state is a type of communism. It's a very shit type of communism that doesn't work very well. But would you argue that just because an ideology is absolutely terrible it isn't really socialist? (For instance, assume libertarian socialism utterly failed every time it was implemented or led to mass purges or whatever. Would it suddenly not be socialism?)

No, but given, that it's been discussed a million times on this thread why stalinism is, or is not communism etc.

I would say it's at best a very strange form of it yes, or not at all, given that it's merely a road to communism, that has failed utterly.

I'm happy with saying it's a strange or mutated form, it's much more consistent to view it that way.

[Conscentia]

Public ownership often means state ownership,[...].

Only when it's used euphemisticly .