The Communists are getting power.. again.. Oh GOD!

Australia is just following the US so we arent much better.

 

so you believe all systems are wrong..

well if it wasnt for past generations working to the bone
here the west would have little

and as for fat cats well look to footballers
from world wide teams
look to fast food chains .....feeding the kids full of fat.
and a buisness should not be for profit...
it the system was for the people
we would have many buisnesses who
give back to the people ,what they need to live
work it out please....

and really do you believe the capitalists let communism work..

until we free ourselves from the fat cats
and our own taxes...
we shall never see a world which shares
its wealth.

maybe its the west that has given so much hatred to
the system changing because it has let
all people down ....including your dad...
even my dad ..so
who should we feel sorry for..
all the working class

computer .. mine no a present from famliy
and many working class famlies have these
its cheaper than vsiting the theatre every week
cinema of fast food chains.
no community centres so they pay
for home entertainment.


u see how it works now..

anyway
thank you for reply
to my reply
sorry you havent seen past a profit system
instead of seeing a sharing system......
that works which has never happened in this world really
and i hope one day it will....

from saff
love n peace

 

Communism could never work, human nature will not allow it. You say how a business should not be for profit. 97% of people who open a business want to make a profit for themself, without the incentive to make a profit, you would barely have business, and a good deal of inventions and low cost items wouldn't exist since there would be no competition to create them.

 

Umm, no. I believe communism doesn't work.

People all over the world work too. The fact that our ancestors "worked to the bone" is because the capitalist system here encourages hard work.

Irrelevant discourse.

The gospel according to you. Do you really think that anyone would bother to start a business if they had no incentive to do so? North Korea has tried that approach and failed miserably.

No, you would have government-owned businesses that skim money off the top, oppress their employees, and have very low productivity because they're interested in stability rather than profit. You wouldn't have any privately owned businesses at all.

"The government pretends to pay me, and I pretend to work" is a common lament among workers in communist nations. Where's the incentive to work if you aren't going to profit by doing so?

 

Kandahar, as I have already stated, she is living in a fantasy world. I lived under communism, thanks but no thanks, you can have your precious Marxist ideas and your communes, your oppression, your robbery and your theft, sapphire, but the people of Eastern Europe, China, and Cuba are/were sick of it.

 

Funny how the one defending communism doesn't actually live in a communist nation...

 

Agreed. I always find it funny when dumbass American and Western European kids talk about how evil capitalism is, using the laptops their parents bought them, while sipping on their Starbucks.

 

Maybe we have such popularity because we created fair wages,free healthcare and education etc.?




You didn't have communism. The closest thing you got was some kind of deformed socialism. Socialism is the transitional stage in marxist theory. A socialist society was established in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

Communism is a stateless, classless society without money or markets.

Socialism is completely different.

Most likely you have no idea what communism is.

Communism is not about opression, robbery or theft.

If people in Eastern Europe are sick of socialist rule, why do 69 percent of the Russian population say that they had a better life under USSR then todays capitalist russia? Why do 10 percent of the Russian population vote for the communist party?

Why do 60 percent of the romanians say that they were better of under socialism, then capitalism?

Why?

 

Rather than making excuses for the failure of communism around the world by saying that they weren't "real" communist countries, perhaps you should examine their political structure. Perhaps communism was the REASON that they all fell into corruption and totalitarianism.

Because the present-day systems are just as bad. The kleptocracices in power in those countries have simply modified the state's economic policy from "rob from the rich to give to the poor" to "rob from the rich to give to ourselves."

Look at a country that has actually made the jump from communism to capitalism for a better perspective. Poland or China come to mind. How many citizens of THOSE countries do you think want to return to communism?

 

well under capitalism

FTSE-100 companies {the top ten on the stock exchange } earned
48 times pay of an average employee at the end of 2000.

natwest was given 3 million to sweeten the top mans sacking

sainburys received 1.2 million to clear his desk....


while our children buy the feed the world record

which we heard in the 80s to help the starving..
so this is good you believe...


i believe socialism can work ,with all the ideas
of great thinkers from our past..
a party to represent the people..working
people
before you take a long walk along the yellow brick.
oz is just another company manking profit..

thank you for replys

love npeace from saff

.

 

No, not true. It has nothing to do with "failures of comunism".


A communist society is not a socialist society. I don't want to sound arrogant, but I think I should know, since I am a communist, and have actually studied marxist theory.






A correct definition of communism would be:


Communism (no example so far)

1. Any philosophy advocating a classless, stateless society without money or markets organized according to the principle “from each according to ability, to each according to need” 2. In Orthodox Marxist theory it is stage of history coming after socialism (dictatorship of the proletariat) when the state has “withered away” and society is run according to the principle “from each according to ability, to each according to need”


Dictatorship of the Proletariat (China, for example)

Also called a “workers’ state.” In Orthodox Marxist theory, a state controlled by the workers and used to suppress the bourgeoisie. This will “wither away” during the transition from socialism to communism. The USSR, China and other not so notable states such as Vietnam, Cuba, Angola, Tanzania and Laos all claimed to be in this "dictatorship of the proletariat," none ever claimed to have achieved communism. In communism there would be no government.




Socialism (China, for example)

1. A belief that human society can and should be organised along social lines - that is, for the benefit of all, rather than for the profit of a few 2. A type of reformist politics advocating nationalised industries and workers rights 3. In Orthodox Marxist theory, the stage after capitalism but before Communism in which the dictatorship of the proletariat rules and individuals are paid according to how much they work. China, the USSR, etc. all claimed to be in this socialist stage, none ever claimed to be in communism. That is why the USSR was called the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics and not the Union of Soviet Communist Republics. 4. Also a form of post revolutionary society in its own right.

 

We've already been through the apologist standard excuses.

Regardless of whether a hypothetical communist utopia is bad or not (and as a rule, hypothetical systems tend to look pretty good - nobody hypothesises about a new, crappy economic system to make their name in the world), what we have learned from history is that when communists, working together in a communist party, try to move a society towards communism, the results are invariably bad and quite often catastrophically so.

Its easy to see that its all a ruse anyway - communists distancing themselves from Soviet socialism (under the COMMUNIST, not socialist, party) - only long enough to turn around and support it again (Look, 10% of Russians vote communist! Communism ain't so bad!).

 

to all about why we the socailist party believe in marx...

from me....



many times since his death in 1883,karl marxs ideas have been dismissed
as irrelevent,but many times since,interest in his ideas has resurfaces as each
new generation which challengers the unequal,unjust and exploitative nature
of the capitalist system looks for ideas and a method to change the world we live in............

marxs ideas.a body of work collectively described as marxism.was added to
by his closest collaborater frederick engels after marxs death and
subsequently added to and enriched by the writings and living experience
of lenin and trotsky....
who led the 1917 october russion revolution.

for any person looking to change the world in a socailists direction the ideas
of marxism are a vital,even indispensable ,tool and weapon to assist
the working class...
in its struggle to change society...
most people who describe themselves as socialists will have at one stage or another looked at marxist ideas and,unfortunately ,some have chosen
to ignore the rich experience and understanding that marxist ideas add
to an understanding of the capitalist world and how to change it....

however marxs ideas are once again becoming fashionable even amongst
people marx would have regarded ad his political opponents,having
been voted the thinker of the millennium in a bbc poll in 2000,marx has now been taken up by university professors and city analysts alike as offering one of the most
modern ways to understand globalised capitalism....

but,for socialists who wish to permanently remove capitalism and establish
a global socialist system ,we dont just look to marxist ideas just for a methord of understanding as important as that is, marxism helps us understand the present struggles of the working class and oppressed masses around the world and anticipate the most likely course of events in the future.
achieving such an understanding allows us to orientate correctly
to political movements and economic developments and work out our
plan of action in the form of appropriate slogans,demands,and campaigns........


this is what is written for people on the cover of a socialist party
magazine...introducing marxism...

maybe all who find capitalism good should read this carefully..
thank you for your time

love n peac from saff.

 

Please allow me to continue this fine tradition.

 

Whether or not you believe in communism, you have to admit the fact it would almost never work. Socialism is the transitonal stage to communism, for communism to ever take place though, you would need a government to willing say "Ok, we've done our job, now let's step down and let the communities run themself" Do you ever think that would happen?

 

Then when you say that a true communist state has never really existed, you aren't really saying all that much. You're just saying that we shouldn't judge communism IN PRACTICE because a theoretical communist utopia has never existed. Similarly, one could say that you can't judge the faults of capitalism IN PRACTICE because Adam Smith's laissez-faire economy or Ayn Rand's objectivist society has never existed. One could say that you can't judge mass genocide IN PRACTICE because no one has ever succeeded in ethnically cleansing the world. None of these arguments are sound.

If you aren't going to judge theoretical communism based on its applications in the real world, then it's just another theory that cannot possibly ever be successfully applied to the real world. Do you think its just a coincidence that every single state that has dabbled in communism - without a single exception - has turned into an economic sinkhole?

 

The USSR, Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.


The so-called "communist countries" has NEVER claimed to be communist.

Yes, under the communist party, but their objective so far was to establish a socialist society.


Have you ever seen for example the economic developments in socialist countries?

When was this?

 

The economic developments in socialist countries are not that impressive.

 

You can say that what my family and millions of others lived under was not, "True communism" but the fact is we don't want to try it again. Furthermore the whole notion of communism is selfish: taking what others have for yourself in an attempt to be economically equal: that is called stealing--what Russia, Cuba, and others have done was the same thing, except it was by the government, ie: Legalized Theft.

“from each according to ability, to each according to need”

This basically states it does not matter how much you work, you will enjoy the same benefits as others, no matter how much harder or longer than they work than you. It also means if I am left a nice inheritace by my relatives, the community has, "access" to it---complete nonsense.

 

I suggest reading "Socialism in Cuba," by Leo Huberman and Paul M. Sweezy. It's a good book that talks about the developments on Cuba after the revolution. The gains in the Russian revolution was also quite impressive.


To quite Trotsky, in Revolution Betrayed (I am copying this because I think it's a good example):


1. The Principal Indices of Industrial Growth

Owing to the insignificance of the Russian bourgeoisie, the democratic tasks of backward Russia—such as liquidation of the monarchy and the semi-feudal slavery of the peasants—could be achieved only through a dictatorship of the proletariat. The proletariat, however, having seized the power at the head of the peasant masses, could not stop at the achievement of these democratic tasks. The bourgeois revolution was directly bound up with the first stages of a socialist revolution. That fact was not accidental. The history of recent decades very clearly shows that, in the conditions of capitalist decline, backward countries are unable to attain that level which the old centers of capitalism have attained. Having themselves arrived in a blind alley, the highly civilized nations block the road of proletarian revolution, not because her economy was the first to become ripe for a socialist change, but because she could not develop further on a capitalist basis. Socialization of the means of production had become a necessary condition for bringing the country out of barbarism. That is the law of combined development for backward countries. Entering upon the socialist revolution as "the weakest link in the capitalist chain" (Lenin), the former empire of the tzars is even now, in the 19th year after the revolution, still confronted with the task of "catching up with and outstripping”— consequently in the first place catching up with—Europe and America. She has, that is, to solve those problems of technique and productivity which were long ago solved by capitalism in the advanced countries.

Could it indeed be otherwise? The overthrow of the old ruling classes did not achieve, but only completely revealed, the task: to rise from barbarism to culture. At the same time, by concentrating the means of production in the hands of the state, the revolution made it possible to apply new and incomparably more effective industrial methods. Only thanks to a planned directive was it possible in so brief a span to restore what had been destroyed by the imperialist and civil wars, to create gigantic new enterprises, to introduce new kinds of production and establish new branches of industry.

The extraordinary tardiness in the development of the international revolution, upon whose prompt aid the leaders of the Bolshevik party had counted, created immense difficulties for the Soviet Union, but also revealed its inner powers and resources. However, a correct appraisal of the results achieved—their grandeur as well as their inadequacy—is possible only with the help of an international scale of measurement. This book will be a historic and sociological interpretation of the process, not a piling up of statistical illustrations. Nevertheless, in the interests of the further discussion, it is necessary to take as a point of departure certain important mathematical data.

The vast scope of industrialization in the Soviet Union, as against a background of stagnation and decline in almost the whole capitalist world, appears unanswerably in the following gross indices. Industrial production in Germany, thanks solely to feverish war preparations, is now returning to the level of 1929. Production in Great Britain, holding to the apron strings of protectionism, has raised itself 3 or 4 per cent during these six years. Industrial production in the United States has declined approximately 25 per cent; in France, more than 30 per cent. First place among capitalist countries is occupied by Japan, who is furiously arming herself and robbing her neighbors. Her production has risen almost 40 per cent! But even this exceptional index fades before the dynamic of development in the Soviet Union. Her industrial production has increased during this same period approximately 3 1/2 times, or 250 per cent. The heavy industries have increased their production during the last decade (1925 to 1935) more than 10 times. In the first year of the five-year plan (1928 to 1929), capital investments amounted to 5.4 billion rubles; for 1936, 32 billion are indicated.

If in view of the instability of the ruble as a unit of measurement, we lay aside money estimates, we arrive at another unit which is absolutely unquestionable. In December 1913, the Don basin produced 2,275,000 tons of coal; in December 1935, 7,125,000 tons. During the last three years the production of iron has doubled. The production of steel and of the rolling mills has increased almost 2 1/2 times. The output of oil, coal and iron has increased from 3 to 3 1/2 times the pre-war figure. In 1920, when the first plan of electrification was drawn up, there were 10 district power stations in the country with a total power production of 253,000 kilowatts. In 1935, there were already 95 of these stations with a total power of 4,345,000 kilowatts. In 1925, the Soviet Union stood 11th in the production of electro-energy; in 1935, it was second only to Germany and the United States. In the production of coal, the Soviet Union has moved forward from 10th to 4th place. In steel, from 6th to 3rd place. In the production of tractors, to the 1st place in the world. This also is true of the production of sugar.

Gigantic achievement in industry, enormously promising beginnings in agriculture, an extraordinary growth of the old industrial cities and a building of new ones, a rapid increase of the numbers of workers, a rise in cultural level and cultural demands—such are the indubitable results of the October revolution, in which the prophets of the old world tried to see the grave of human civilization. With the bourgeois economists we have no longer anything to quarrel over. Socialism has demonstrated its right to victory, not on the pages of Das Kapital, but in an industrial arena comprising a sixth part of the earths surface—not in the language of dialectics, but in the language of steel, cement and electricity. Even if the Soviet Union, as a result of internal difficulties, external blows and the mistakes of leadership, were to collapse—which we firmly hope will not happen—there would remain an earnest of the future this indestructible fact, that thanks solely to a proletarian revolution a backward country has achieved in less than 10 years successes unexampled in history.

This also ends the quarrel with the reformists in the workers movement. Can we compare for one moment their mouselike fussing with the titanic work accomplished by this people aroused to a new life by revolution? If in 1918 the Social-Democrats of Germany had employed the power imposed upon them by the workers for a socialist revolution, and not for the rescue of capitalism, it is easy to see on the basis of the Russian experience what unconquerable economic power would be possessed today by a socialist bloc of Central and Eastern Europe and a considerable part of Asia. The peoples of the world will pay for the historic crime of reformism with new wars and revolutions.