Your thoughts on communism?

[Jetan]

I assume you have some sort of proof for this claim that all land is infact stolen? Becouse if not, your claim is nothing but ideologically driven rant.

Perhaps you recall the Native American tribes who lived on the land before the US came along? How exactly do you think that the colonists took over everything?

And that obviously covers all the land everywhere, in every situation, amirite?

[Quintium]

Communism is an ideology, and I don't really care for ideologies. Personally, I judge ideas by their practical implications. And the practical implications of communism haven't exactly been fun. Every time it was tried, it ended up falling apart, with the state having to turn to extreme authoritarianism to maintain even a semblance of success.

Where was it tried?

It certainly wasn't tried in the USSR and similar states where the officials explicitly claimed that the aim was socialism, not communism. Of-coarse, that itself was propaganda.

It certainly was tried in the USSR, which was controlled by the Communist Party.
It certainly was tried in China, which is controlled by the Communist Party of China.
It certainly was tried in Cambodia, which was controlled by the Communist Party of Kampuchea.
It certainly was tried in Cuba, which is controlled by the Communist Party of Cuba.
It certainly was tried in Vietnam, which is controlled by the Communist Party of Vietnam.

That it didn't work, and always spiraled out of control with violent totalitarianism, doesn't change that.
If you include partial success in your definition of trying, then it will never be tried because even partial success is impossible.

[Sanguinea]

Communism is an ideology, and I don't really care for ideologies. Personally, I judge ideas by their practical implications. And the practical implications of communism haven't exactly been fun. Every time it was tried, it ended up falling apart, with the state having to turn to extreme authoritarianism to maintain even a semblance of success.

Where was it tried?

It certainly wasn't tried in the USSR and similar states where the officials explicitly claimed that the aim was socialism, not communism. Of-coarse, that itself was propaganda.

Not to mention it Cold War "communism" is only representative of one subfamily socialism. Which was crap in theory to begin with.

That would be assuming that there was such a concept as common land ownership before the formation of socialist thought, which in truth, there wasn't. Humans have fought over land for their entire existence. Before the idea of international law, permission and legal rights meant nothing. Ownership was a direct outcome of a tribe's ablity to exert its dominance.

They fought to use the land, not to own the land.
Ever heard of the term "de facto" before?
Primitive communism was the status quo for most of human history.

Bullshit. That would imply these primitive societies were egalitarian, which they weren't. Yes, I understand the term de facto. Without the concept of legality, controlling, using, and administering an area would amount to ownership.

[Cyyro]

Reduces production and farming rates and general productivity of a nation. Wouldn't want it.

[Conscentia]

Where was it tried?

It certainly wasn't tried in the USSR and similar states where the officials explicitly claimed that the aim was socialism, not communism. Of-coarse, that itself was propaganda.

It certainly was tried in the USSR, which was controlled by the Communist Party.
It certainly was tried in China, which is controlled by the Communist Party of China.
It certainly was tried in Cambodia, which was controlled by the Communist Party of Kampuchea.
It certainly was tried in Cuba, which is controlled by the Communist Party of Cuba.
It certainly was tried in Vietnam, which is controlled by the Communist Party of Vietnam.

That it didn't work, and always spiraled out of control with violent totalitarianism, doesn't change that.
If you include partial success in your definition of trying, then it will never be tried because even partial success is impossible.

Yes, because names are always true. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is totally what it claims to be.

Additionally, they were called communist parties because that was their end goal. If you knew even the most basis thing about Marxist ideology, you'd know that socialism precedes communism.

[Conscentia]

They fought to use the land, not to own the land.
Ever heard of the term "de facto" before?
Primitive communism was the status quo for most of human history.

Bullshit. That would imply these primitive societies were egalitarian, which they weren't. Yes, I understand the term de facto. Without the concept of legality, controlling, using, and administering an area would amount to ownership.

The primitive hunter-gatherer bands were most certainly egalitarian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_society
The concept of vertical hierarchy did not exist.

Their is no ownership of land as they do not administer the area - they use it's resources then move on.

[Unitaristic Regions]

Bullshit. That would imply these primitive societies were egalitarian, which they weren't. Yes, I understand the term de facto. Without the concept of legality, controlling, using, and administering an area would amount to ownership.

The primitive hunter-gatherer bands were most certainly egalitarian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_society

Their is no ownership of land as they do not administer the area - they use it's resources then move on.

Indeed. Only when they became farmers did they settle down.

[Quintium]

Additionally, they were called communist parties because that was their end goal. If you knew even the most basis thing about Marxist ideology, you'd know that socialism precedes communism.

Well, I know that. Have known that for a while. And, here's a shocker, I used to be a progressive socialist.
But I realised, a few years ago, that all of that was a crock of shit, and that socialism could never lead to communism, and that communism was unattainable.

[Conscentia]

Additionally, they were called communist parties because that was their end goal. If you knew even the most basis thing about Marxist ideology, you'd know that socialism precedes communism.

Well, I know that. Have known that for a while. And, here's a shocker, I used to be a progressive socialist.
But I realised, a few years ago, that all of that was a crock of shit, and that socialism could never lead to communism,

Elaborate, please.

and that communism was unattainable.

What's unattainable about something that was essentially the case for most of human history? The relevant issues are "how?" and "is it actually desirable?".

[Unitaristic Regions]

Additionally, they were called communist parties because that was their end goal. If you knew even the most basis thing about Marxist ideology, you'd know that socialism precedes communism.

Well, I know that. Have known that for a while. And, here's a shocker, I used to be a progressive socialist.
But I realised, a few years ago, that all of that was a crock of shit, and that socialism could never lead to communism, and that communism was unattainable.

I like your sig

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Thoroughly against Marxism, especially any of the Leninist varieties.

[Conscentia]

Thoroughly against Marxism, especially any of the Leninist varieties.

What about the non-Marxist varieties of communism?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Thoroughly against Marxism, especially any of the Leninist varieties.

What about the non-Marxist varieties of communism?

I do not have any problems with non-Marxist variets of communism, just that I cannot see how Communism would ever arise from a Dictatorship of the Proletarian, or, indeed, any government.

[4years]

Perhaps you recall the Native American tribes who lived on the land before the US came along? How exactly do you think that the colonists took over everything?

And that obviously covers all the land everywhere, in every situation, amirite?

Not that specific example, but yes to a certain extant. If we go back to before the agricultural revolution, we have tribal socieities owning virtually all the land on earth in common (with the obvious exceptions of Antarctic, etc.).

[4years]

What about the non-Marxist varieties of communism?

I do not have any problems with non-Marxist variets of communism, just that I cannot see how Communism would ever arise from a 2. Dictatorship of the Proletarian, or, indeed, any government.

1. What do you have particularly against Marxism? Do you disagree with the philosophy of dialectical materialism or somthing of that nature?

2. You do realize that dictatorship of the proletariat refers to a period where the proletariat will be the dominate class in society? In that sense we are in the dictatorship of the bourgeois at the moment.

[Shinpitekina]

Communism is terrible, as it steals our land and houses. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, sir.

A house is personal property, thus irrelevant.
As for land - you stole the land from common ownership. Before private land ownership, all land was commonly owned.

The land was taken over by private entities at the time when there was no one to hold ownership over it through a contract legitimized by the government ruling over that land area. Of course, first there had to be the government so that any property contracts would have to be legitimate and the land protected by law as personal property of its owner. As for your post, before there was a private entity to hold ownership over land, there was no ownership over that land. Not common, not private, none. Therefore, it was not stolen from anyone because a contract validating the ownership of that land was not breached.

[Shinpitekina]

And that obviously covers all the land everywhere, in every situation, amirite?

Not that specific example, but yes to a certain extant. If we go back to before the agricultural revolution, we have tribal socieities owning virtually all the land on earth in common (with the obvious exceptions of Antarctic, etc.).

Even when there were people, before there was a government and law regarding personal property, contracts et cetera there was no ownership on the land by anyone. Not private or common.

[Conscentia]

What about the non-Marxist varieties of communism?

I do not have any problems with non-Marxist variets of communism, just that I cannot see how Communism would ever arise from a Dictatorship of the Proletarian, or, indeed, any government.

*Dictatorship of proletariat

Firstly, dictatorship here is used in the original Roman sense - an emergency office that holds all power.
Secondly, proletariat is a collective noun - it refers to all workers.

Effectively, the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" means democracy uncorrupted by the bourgeoisie and other elements of capitalist society that would undermine the transition towards communism.

[United British Union]

Their brutal murder of the Aristocracy proves their violence.
Their lack of control in China and Russia prooves that they cannot withstand economic strain.

[Conscentia]

A house is personal property, thus irrelevant.
As for land - you stole the land from common ownership. Before private land ownership, all land was commonly owned.

The land was taken over by private entities at the time when there was no one to hold ownership over it through a contract legitimized by the government ruling over that land area. Of course, first there had to be the government so that any property contracts would have to be legitimate and the land protected by law as personal property of its owner. As for your post, before there was a private entity to hold ownership over land, there was no ownership over that land. Not common, not private, none. Therefore, it was not stolen from anyone because a contract validating the ownership of that land was not breached.

De facto common ownership - everyone had access to the land. Through coercion, people were excluded from land that was suddenly declared to be an individual's property.

[Socialist Tera]

I just want to know the majority of people's thoughts on communism.

I am a communist. Therefore, you should be able to guess my thoughts about a communism. I am also in favor of quality OPs, therefore you should be able to guess my thoughts on your OP.

What Do you think?

Pretty much this in a nutshell.

[Good Mind]

Their brutal murder of the Aristocracy proves their violence.
Their lack of control in China and Russia prooves that they cannot withstand economic strain.

Economy controlled by Communist Party isn't Communism.

[Conscentia]

Their brutal murder of the Aristocracy proves their violence.
Their lack of control in China and Russia prooves that they cannot withstand economic strain.

The aristocracy provided no alternative by not providing the lower classes with representation in governance.
Not all communists are Marxists.

Two examples proves nothing. Such a sample is vastly too small to be representative.

[Socialist Tera]

Where was it tried?

It certainly wasn't tried in the USSR and similar states where the officials explicitly claimed that the aim was socialism, not communism. Of-coarse, that itself was propaganda.

It certainly was tried in the USSR, which was controlled by the Communist Party.
It certainly was tried in China, which is controlled by the Communist Party of China.
It certainly was tried in Cambodia, which was controlled by the Communist Party of Kampuchea.
It certainly was tried in Cuba, which is controlled by the Communist Party of Cuba.
It certainly was tried in Vietnam, which is controlled by the Communist Party of Vietnam.

That it didn't work, and always spiraled out of control with violent totalitarianism, doesn't change that.
If you include partial success in your definition of trying, then it will never be tried because even partial success is impossible.

This is why you should hate revisionist communism.

[British Monarchist2]

In Russia, they acted more like Nazis, one believes, than anything else.
Their robbery of the Upper-Class's houses and estates was simply frightful!