Is communism evil? Eminent domain? Socialism?

[Firsthome]

Taking everything, then giving equal amounts of everything to everyone

Phhh...no.

Communism is the abolition of the state and money.

Only if you share D:<

[CTALNH]

Phhh...no.

Communism is the abolition of the state and money.

Only if you share D:<

But there will be no money to share in communism! >D(

[Firsthome]

Only if you share D:<

But there will be no money to share in communism! >D(

Not money.... Gaming consoles

[CTALNH]

But there will be no money to share in communism! >D(

Not money.... Gaming consoles

Zieg Hail to the PC MASTER RACE!

[Jinwoy]

Only if you share D:<

But there will be no money to share in communism! >D(

Goods and Services tho. Communally provided.
Utopian in nature.

[Brillnuck]

Not money.... Gaming consoles

Zieg Hail to the PC MASTER RACE!

Gaming consoles and PC's are equal.
But, PC's are much better than consoles.

[Brillnuck]

But there will be no money to share in communism! >D(

Goods and Services tho. Communally provided.
Utopian in nature.

Utopianism unfortunately can never work. People will always be different.

[Firsthome]

Goods and Services tho. Communally provided.
Utopian in nature.

Utopianism unfortunately can never work. People will always be different.

Kill them

[Jinwoy]

Goods and Services tho. Communally provided.
Utopian in nature.

Utopianism unfortunately can never work. People will always be different.

I used to be like you.

I disagree.
Its possible, it'd just take an ungodly amount of social conditioning and preparation.

[Brillnuck]

Utopianism unfortunately can never work. People will always be different.

I used to be like you.

I disagree.
Its possible, it'd just take an ungodly amount of social conditioning and preparation.

I consider myself Utopian, but history seems not to like us Utopians. Robert Owen was a Utopian Socialist. He made new towns (that ran by communitarian and Utopian socialist ideals), but it failed and many turned to individualism.

[Margno]

I've written on the subject. You don't have a God given right to property. Besides which, laissez faire capitalism goes far, far beyond protecting control by individuals over what they create and the state is in no position to be telling God who to give things to.

[Kubra]

I won't comment on your knowledge of Juche, it likely outstrips mine, but exactly how much reading of Marx and Lenin can you boast?

Well, I've read "The Marx Engels Reader" (red edition), "On the Jewish Question", "On the German Ideology" "Kapital", "On the Paris Commune" "What is to be Done?" "State and Revolution", "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism". "Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder", "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky".

Probably a few others that don't immediately come to mind. I dunno; I've been a Marxist-Leninist for going on six years now.

I wouldn't say I've read literally every piece of literature by either (because let's face it, Marxist thinkers have a habit of writing a lot), but I'd like to think I at least have a fairly good bearing on the major ideas and principles of the ideology. And, from what I've seen at least, Kim Il Sung seems to be operating from pretty much the same praxis and ideas, if applied to a different culture and set of historical and material conditions.

Alright, then. So how can you boast this amount of reading and still peddle such a simplistic class analysis? like even maoid views on the national question show more nuance.

[The New Sea Territory]

It isn't. Only Jucheists believe Juche is a communist ideology. It's like that weirdo who sits at the cool kids table and laughs at everything, or the punk who gets a mohawk but only for fashion.

"Jucheism" isn't a proper word - for reasons I highlighted in my other post.

Beyond that, it's nice to see what a substantative amount of theory you've been able to contribute to this dialog. Childish insults and references to trite stereotypes go a long way indeed in proving your case.

Ok, well Juche and Communism are mutually exclusive.

That's not a mix between capitalism and communism, though. That's capitalism.

I think they mean the Nordic model.

The Nordic Model is nothing more than a temporary system that only will exist in this time period or maybe one under similar conditions. It only exists due to post-Cold War conditions. It's also NOT a mix of capitalism and communism.

[Communist Victoria]

I don't think anyone has a 'right' to private property per se, and I personally don't believe that anything is 'God-given', but that is not the point : P
But I don't think that the ideology of communism is evil, especially as it's an ideology dedicated to the removal of capitalism, which has the potential to be evil.
However, Communism cannot work. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have heard that even Karl Marx himself said that communism cannot work. And communism cannot work, because of something called human nature. When you go to basics, a human being tends to put themself before others.

Communism also cannot have a leader, or any sort of 'repressive state apparatus' - for example police or military - because you're elevating these people to a higher position in society as a result. In a world where a brain surgeon and a janitor get paid the same, who would go through all the hard work needed to become a surgeon? And if ONE person disagrees with communism, the whole system would fall down - because communism would prevent any elevated status - such as police/military.

The only way to make communism work would be to have everybody own absolutely nothing, and that would be a greater evil than any inequality that exists within capitalist society. And even then, if someone decides to own something, then you haven't got communism. Communism can't work in a macro-style society, but only in like-minded communes. Communism should not be attempted to be implemented anywhere if you ask me.

Eminent domain is something that really has no place in the world - the only time it may ever be worth using is to construct things such as hospitals or airstrips et cetera in an emergency situation - and even then that would require having nowhere else to build it - so when I got the issue, I abolished eminent domain in my nation.

Although I believe that socialism is not an intrinsically bad thing - and can be quite good in SOME parts.

I agree with you on the compulsory aquisition part. The government has not right to take away property to build something for the private interest (I'm looking at you- East West Link!)

[Dokrib Choseon]

Well, I've read "The Marx Engels Reader" (red edition), "On the Jewish Question", "On the German Ideology" "Kapital", "On the Paris Commune" "What is to be Done?" "State and Revolution", "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism". "Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder", "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky".

Probably a few others that don't immediately come to mind. I dunno; I've been a Marxist-Leninist for going on six years now.

I wouldn't say I've read literally every piece of literature by either (because let's face it, Marxist thinkers have a habit of writing a lot), but I'd like to think I at least have a fairly good bearing on the major ideas and principles of the ideology. And, from what I've seen at least, Kim Il Sung seems to be operating from pretty much the same praxis and ideas, if applied to a different culture and set of historical and material conditions.

Alright, then. So how can you boast this amount of reading and still peddle such a simplistic class analysis? like even maoid views on the national question show more nuance.

How is it any more "simplistic" than Marx himself? The only critical classes on a geopolitical level when we're talking about conflicts between (and largely even within) states are the working class (as an advocate of the Juche Idea, I'd say that in the modern world, intellectual, industrial, and agricultural workers have class interests in common insofar as they derive their income from their labor) and the capitalist class (who derive their income from exploiting the value of the former's labor).

For the lumpenproletariat, outside of immediate conflicts, where they can play a decisive role - generally to the highest bidder, in broad terms - they tend not to be a primary influencing political force. Ideally I'd like to seem them absorbed into the working class as much as possible, so they'd share their conditions and thus interests.

And while petty bourgeousie, by definition, share interests with the capitalist class, they're just puppets, not the ones holding the reigns of power. They're just the cogs in the machine of the capitalists' machinations, and it makes more sense to analyze the problem at its source the way I see it.

And of course, a person of any class background could individually choose to hold any political or ideological tendency. Engels owned capital, the Color Revolutions had some working class advoates. Generally, though, a person's own class interests are going to be at least a strong influencing factor in what side of the class war they will take. I could see, as the world economy becomes more polarized, a lot of the lesser owners of capital slipping into the ranks of the working class in terms of interest (and probably material conditions as well). Further, this all has to be analyzed within the context of each individual nation's historic and material conditions. A policy for one nation should certainly not be 'copy and pasted' for another.

[Dokrib Choseon]

"Jucheism" isn't a proper word - for reasons I highlighted in my other post.

Beyond that, it's nice to see what a substantative amount of theory you've been able to contribute to this dialog. Childish insults and references to trite stereotypes go a long way indeed in proving your case.

Ok, well Juche and Communism are mutually exclusive.

So from insults to unsourced assertions. You're moving up in the world.

Funnily enough, Kim Il Sung certainly considered himself to be within the Marxist-Leninist intellectual tradition, and quotes from other thinkers within it quite extensively in his work. Tito also exchanged a lot of theoretical and political disourse with him, and certainly considered himself a Marxist-Leninist as well.

[Apparatchikstan]

Goods and Services tho. Communally provided.
Utopian in nature.

Utopianism unfortunately can never work. People will always be different.

And don't forget imperfectable. There will never be a "perfect" political theory developed by humans. Even worse, history has shown that you are more likely to end up in a place where you might be the only person who acknowledges 2+2=4, and Big Brother is coming for you with a rat cage to reeducate you.
Individualism is a self-defense mechanism to help protect against the likely event of having to survive batshit crazy masses. If people had a stronger sense of this, the French and Russian Revolutions wouldn't have degenerated into campaigns of terror, and people like Hitler would never maintain power.

[Brillnuck]

Utopianism unfortunately can never work. People will always be different.

And don't forget imperfectable. There will never be a "perfect" political theory developed by humans. Even worse, history has shown that you are more likely to end up in a place where you might be the only person who acknowledges 2+2=4, and Big Brother is coming for you with a rat cage to reeducate you.
Individualism is a self-defense mechanism to help protect against the likely event of having to survive batshit crazy masses. If people had a stronger sense of this, the French and Russian Revolutions wouldn't have degenerated into campaigns of terror, and people like Hitler would never maintain power.

There is no perfect. Perfection is just a lie.

[Apparatchikstan]

And don't forget imperfectable. There will never be a "perfect" political theory developed by humans. Even worse, history has shown that you are more likely to end up in a place where you might be the only person who acknowledges 2+2=4, and Big Brother is coming for you with a rat cage to reeducate you.
Individualism is a self-defense mechanism to help protect against the likely event of having to survive batshit crazy masses. If people had a stronger sense of this, the French and Russian Revolutions wouldn't have degenerated into campaigns of terror, and people like Hitler would never maintain power.

There is no perfect. Perfection is just a lie.

It's not a lie, per se. Just not achievable in a physical universe. Ironically, however, the concept gives conscious beings a goal post to strive for to maximize their potential beyond natural selection.