Am I a Communist? Are You?
 

At the end of the day I just want a home to live and some food and some occasional sex.

I would be happy.

At the end of the day thats all I aim for.

Just a little home, a little fun and a job that grants me a right to live.

I do not think that I ask much but as an American, even Walmart, TacoBell's offerings are not granting me the needed thing to live properly.

There is enough room on this planet to grant every living human being 20 Miles. I can not maintain 800 sq feet.

Trying to find something philosophical to say but cant come up with anything. No, you are not a commie..

Ever thought of migrating to Cuba?

yes, Cuba will suit you fine. They will find you a job and occasional sex. Girls out there love foreighners. You even will not have to pay them. Communism is really great!

Good for you :helpme !!

can someone tell me what a communist is/are?

In theory the opposite of capitalism.
A government system that is not built upon self interest but equality amoung it's citizenry. Thats it in short.

The Laymens sumamry:

communism, fundamentally, a system of social organization in which property (especially real property and the means of production) is held in common. Thus, the ejido system of the indigenous people of Mexico and the property-and-work system of the Inca were both communist, although the former was a matter of more or less independent communities cultivating their own lands in common and the latter a type of community organization within a highly organized empire.

In modern usage, the term Communism (written with a capital C) is applied to the movement that aims to overthrow the capitalist order by revolutionary means and to establish a classless society in which all goods will be socially owned. The theories of the movement come from Karl Marx, as modified by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, leader of the successful Communist revolution in Russia. Communism, in this sense, is to be distinguished from socialism, which (as the term is commonly understood) seeks similar ends but by evolution rather than revolution.

Notice the Western language in that description.
However...
In the short Communism was the biggest threat to Democracy, however these day's the American Democracy is really not a Democracy at all, but a Republic.

IN Communism, you are essentially given a job based on your accumin and ambition, and educational achievements. You do good ya move up ya do bad you stay in your position in the society. Communism is prone to exploitation however of the people, just like all government systems.

Communist is good, if everyone works hard in the country. But usually people get lazy, as they know they will get paid, so they don't work as hard. There is nothing to motivate the people to work hard.

That doesn't make you a communist :2 cents: :2 cents:

"Democracy" vs. "Republic"
The definition of the word "democracy" from the time of ancient Greece up to now has not been constant. In contemporary usage, the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.

In constitutional theory and in historical usages and especially when considering the works of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with a constitution is referred to as a republic. Using the term "democracy" to refer solely to direct democracy retains some popularity in United States conservative and libertarian circles.

The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom of the individual. For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10 advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy precisely to protect the individual from the majority. [4] However, at the same time, the framers carefully created democratic institutions and major open society reforms within the United States Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of democracy, but mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a balance of power, and a layered federal structure.

Modern definitions of the term "republic", however, refer to any state with an elective head of state serving for a limited term, in contrast to most contemporary hereditary monarchies which are representative democracies and constitutional monarchies adhering to parliamentarism. Older elective monarchies are also not considered to be republics.

I am not but I am all for helping people to help themselves.

I believe if you make $100,000 a day you deserve to make that much.
Why would people pay you that money if you don't deserve it? If you was the smartest of billions of people then you should make as much as you can..just look at google they worked hard and they are worth all success. And we all know that they had competition when they started.

capitalism makes the better products, because everyone cares about their own products, and work hard for their own business.

when you are promissed to have everything :)
Utopia. All needs are lined according to one standart.
Absolute crazyness in one word.:Oh crap

Thats a discussion about Capitalism and it's place in a proper government.

"Karl Marx understood capitalism as an historically specific mode of production (the way in which the productive property is owned and controlled, combined with the corresponding social relations between individuals based on their connection with the process of production) in which capital has become the dominant means of production (Burnham). The capitalist stage of development or "bourgeois society," for Marx, represented the most advanced form of social organization to date.

Following Adam Smith, Marx distinguished the use value of commodities from their exchange value in the market (Scott 2005). Capital, according to Marx, is created with the purchase of commodities for the purpose of creating new commodities with a higher exchange value higher than the sum of the original purchases. For Marx, the use of labor power had itself become a commodity under capitalism (Scott 2005); the exchange value of labor power, as reflected in the wage, is less than the value it produces for the capitalist. This difference in values, he argues, constitutes surplus value, which the capitalists extract and accumulate. In Das Kapital, Marx argues that the capitalist mode of production is distinguished by how the owners of capital extract this surplus from workershahaha8212;all prior societies had extracted surplus labor, but capitalism was new in doing so via the sale-value of produced commodities.[6]

For Marx, this cycle the extraction of the surplus value by the owners of capital or the bourgeoisie becomes the basis of class struggle. However, this argument is intertwined with Marx's labor theory of value asserting that labor is the source of all value, and thus of profit. This theory is contested by most current economists, including some contemporary Marxian economists (Scott 2005). One line of subsequent Marxian thinking sees the centrally-planned economic systems of existing "communist" societies that were still based on exploitation of labor as "state capitalism."[7]"



The way I see it is simple.
Our current system is based on the exploitation of labor for a surplus.
In short our current system is not fair to the individual labor worker.

Yet supposedly we live in a Democracy/Republic.:1orglaugh

It's right there in your first post. You're just modest, not a communist.

"In his 1936 The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, the British economist John Maynard Keynes argued that capitalism suffered a basic problem in its ability to recover from periods of slowdowns in investment. Keynes argued that a capitalist economy could remain in an indefinite equilibrium despite high unemployment. Keynes therefore raised the prospect that the Great Depression would not end without what he termed in the General Theory "a somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment."

Keynesian economics challenged the notion that laissez-faire capitalist economics could operate well on their own, without state intervention used to promote aggregate demand, fighting high unemployment and deflation of the sort seen during the 1930s. However, the premises of Keyneshahaha8217;s work have since been challenged by neoclassical and supply-side economics and the Austrian School.

Another challenge to Keynesian thinking came from his colleague Piero Sraffa, and subsequently from the Neo-Ricardian school that followed Sraffa. In Sraffa's highly-technical analysis, capitalism is defined by an entire system of social relations among both producers and consumers, but with a primary emphasis on the demands of production. According to Sraffa, the tendency of capital to seek its highest rate of profit causes a dynamic instability in social and economic relations."

John Maynard Keynes Theories might be right after all.

"From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs"

I think that is the famous Marx line of what Marxism is in a nutshell and it makes a lot of sense (unfortunately only in theory).

Move to Europe in most countries you don't have todo shit and still get more
than enough money from social secuity to rent a house, decorate it, buy fancy
clothes, go out clubbing, buy drugs and fuck whores.......all that can be done
without a job......at least in Holland you can.:thumbsup

The downfall of communism in a nutshell: Why work harder if you won't earn more? People in capitolist countries invent new technologies and cure disease, because they can get rich. You can't do that in communist countries.

Actually it doesn't. Which is why it didn't work.

Let's take a simple factory as an example:

You have guys that work hard and have good ideas on how to improve products. Then you have guys who only do the minimum but complain a lot. According to that theory you'd punish the first for being good (by giving them more and more work without reward) and reward the latter for being bad (by giving them less work but more pay, because they "need" it).

The theory is complete nonsense. It's the essence of injustice. It's not that it was a great theory that unfortunately didn't work because people are assholes. The reason it failed was because it cut off the natural connection between work and reward. The natural result was a massive drop in production and then (oh wonder) all of a sudden there was nothing left to distribute. The mistake made is that man's wealth is not a natural resource that's just there an then unevenly distributed. Need doesn't make bread magically appear. Wealth has to be produced and it belongs to him who produced it. The economic theory behind that basic insight is capitalism. The theory that ignores it is socialism in any way shape or form.


So it's not "nice theory, bad practice". It's "the theory sucks and produces results accordingly".

Just had to say that. It hurts me inside when I hear people refer to socialism as a good but impractical theory. I

I?m a communist and proud to be one. Hell, even Jesus was a communist so you know it must be good.

You can do that in finland too, that's why I'm moving out. I don't feel like paying for some bums armani jeans and night out.

Let me give you a good example what communism for adult business would be: ALL THE PAYSITES WOULD GRANT FREE ACCESS FOR EVERYBODY. Do you like the idea? :)

Mr. AlienQ a question for you and the educated !!!
 

I am not a communist, however I really like the ideals; the problem is that such methods of describing the world political structures, for the most part does not address the issue of hidden classes that span there entire world; such seems to have a freestyle management system that will be different in the many communities around the world; even if they are in the more know-en defined structures of government that is pointed out by you Mr. AlienQ

I just want to point out to everyone that I do agree with Mr. AlienQ with everything he had said, however the concept of hidden classes and how they overlap every political system around the world should be addressed !

If you are wondering what I mean by hidden classes then look at some of the most powerful families around the world who control what ever they need to with very little effort... Everything just falls together... Such powerful people do not concern themselves with what other people think, they just watch out for their own and political ideas are a far after thought.

Mr AlienQ, you are very bright; how would you define such a matter? or do you believe that there are no families or individuals who are not classified by borders?

Communism is the worst shit.

I'm an anarchist. Is that close enough?

I am not that bright, but I appreciate the thought.

Idea's and theories have no border's now we are able to communicate with one another anywhere on the planet. However the hard part is accepting or even finding concepts to live by. Idea's and theories are either adopted or ignored. Those who think of such things in some places of the world are murdered for there introduction or vieing for power.
America has it's own native political prisoner's and outcast's, so my government system is not immune from any other on the planet. All countries have Political prisoner's.

The only possible border's are the mind's willing to accept a given idea in leadership. I would suppose it helps when pitching the concept such that it cater's to the advantage of those accepting the rulership. Perhaps a measure of convenience, with a promis of security of individual life within the accepted system, or in some cases a promis of "Freedom".

I am saying fuck freedom, what is that? I just want a house and yard, some occasional sex and a good job that allows me to live my life in peace.

As history has proven time and time again, a populace dessimated by force leads to insertion of a new rulership as well seemingly with much more ease with the sacrifice being innocent lives in the wake of an usurper.

In short I believe that I live in a system that is unfair, there must be a better way.

i guess you understand the difference now between "self promotion" and "burning bridges"
:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Back to USSR? No, thanks...
 

Today's Russia, former communist country, has plenty of difficulties. But even with all its madness I refuse to go back to the country it used be. I also want to have a place of my own and live there with my beloved. That doesn't mean I'm a communist. I belive I have more opportunities for that in the country I live today.

Why is it that the brightest people are always held back?
 

Your perhaps the brightest person I have ever spoken to !

You speak what is and you get straight to the point without a political party as which to make points from and feel like you have to support just to be excepted! Very neutral and very cool headed ! Yea your bright... Don't put up with others negative attitudes...

When people hear communist and associate it to your name, your going to have many people take a disliking to you without even reading your entire post because people are scared to get out of their dream worlds... Of course not everyone lives in such dream worlds, however changing ones views on what is and is not except-able from what the world shows us is a skill that needs to be developed over time and with those who's mental capacities shines!!!

Your attitude and your vision I think would be great as a security expert who should work as a pubic contractor as to kelp keep the peace between the hot heads!!! I really think you should get into profiling! perhaps the different policing groups or military could use a person like you... I know the world can!

If you could just wake the fuck up and realize you are nothing but a average designer, you could maybe start doing average work for average webmasters, giving you a average income, so you can buy your average things.

Even people working on MacD have what you are asking for - that should give you a clue, but I guess you still don't get it

This is only for the average !
 

I don't make it a habit of putting down people, however your comment sounds average! Perhaps fastfun this poor guy has looked for the longest time for something to support himself with, but for some valid reason cannot find some work to support himself with, he is not the only person in that situation!, and besides that you think with a job at MacD, that you really can take care of yourself properly? Living is a very expensive game to be played with the rest of the world...

there are two descriptions:

1) the factual description is someone for a social system where alot is public property so everyone got the same, economically speaking

2) the name the US govermnent gave to people they felt they needed to demonize, to stir up fear amongst its citizens - in the land of the free nobody was allowed to express 'communistic' ideas or they would be arrested by the SS..uhm.. i mean the police.

Actually the theory makes complete sense but not if you come to it from the perspective of living in and observing human nature in a capitalist system. I do not agree with you that human nature precludes people to give of themselves as much as they are capable if the end goal is the good of all. It just is wonky in the context of a capitalist system where human nature appears differently based on how we are socialised to look at work and each other and what normalcy is...Basically, I think human nature can evolve and it reflects the social/economic system it appears in.

He still doesnt realize he is not very good at this.

I think that's the main point in which we disagree. But I think the reason is a misunderstanding. The goal of "good of all" is flawed, I think.
If you say: People shouldn't just work for themselves, but for the good of all, this just means that you are not rewarded according to your actual productivity and that others (who are less productive) live by the results of your work.
This is completely okay, if you have agreed to this. And this is completely okay in capitalism. The moral problem appears when you want to keep what you've been working for (which is perfectly justified as far as I can see), you may do so under capitalism, but are punished under socialism. I have nothing against acts of benevolence, but enforcing altruism with a gun is just wrong and that's what is wrong with socialism.

So your idea is that man has no fundamental nature and can adapt to pretty much everything? I think that's wrong. And I think that the downfall of every nation that has tried socialism so far has pretty much proven that. People don't work if they can't choose what happens to the product of their labor.

damn double post :disgust

I also don't think it can ever work because it only makes sense in a utopian environment with no contact with the rest of the world after a long period of "orientation" of kids who have no contact with their parents...who were long kicked out of this utopia. Kind of like Pol Pot wanting to start the clock again at Year 0 in Cambodia.

So obviously that is impossible and very disturbing to even consider and I don't even know if human nature is that adabtable but I believe you cannot see beyond the boundaries of your experiences and our world-view in a capitalist society makes Marxism look like a stupid social order, but I think sounds beautiful if it was possible.

I'm taking note and when it comes time, I'm going to name names.:winkwink:

http://www.orlyowl.com/czarrly.jpg

It would be great if everybody on this planet deserve that!

Surely you should try to visit Cuba. I will stay at home, we have a lot of them here in the Czech republic.

fuck the commies! :thumbsup

The "perfect society" that Star Trek was based on was communism.

i am so totally a commie.
dot stoevsky, #1866
http://www.tucsonrollerderby.com/teams.php?id=2

:bowdown

Communism and capitalism are both collectivist systems under which the majority serve an elite. The only real difference is methodology and that capitalism is rather more efficient at turning citizens into production and consumption units for the benefit of that elite.

Capitalism is frequently supported becase many people equate it with free enterprise. But they are not synonymous. Free enterprise offers all that supposedly good stuff like competition, business efficiency, low prices, etc., etc. Capitalism is a perversion in that corporations and government frequently work hand in hand to ensure that the entry barriers for competition are such that they are near impossible to surmount. This while ensuring that most workers will earn at best enough for a reasonable lifestyle, but not enough to become a competitor. What remains is an illusion of free enterprise but only a shadow of it in reality.

Privately owned property, the rallying cry of capitalism is also largely an illusion and results primarily in people investing a large part of their labor into making a profit for banks. Banks in turn are allowed to function as they do courtesy of government, that same supposedly democratic government which supposedly represents the citizens, but at the same time as using corporations to enforce many of its laws, protects those corporations against liability suits, limits worker and consumer rights, etc.

Is there an alternative? Not really, because any system run by humans will take on human character. Thus however admirable the starting point, greed and self-interest will always dominate in the end. That, rather than fundmental flaws in the theory of either communism or capitalism are why both ended up with little to offer the average citizen.

Don't mistake our current system for ideal capitalism. What we have today is -as you have pointed out- a sick perverted version that only pays lip service to the ideal.

A system that offers you to buy your way out of the rule of the law, where your property rights are not really protected, where free enterprise is crippled by the government can hardly be called capitalism.

Full-blown communism has been tried. Full blown capitalism hasn't. I wonder why?

A starting point working against human self-interest would be a rather sick one. I mean, it's a quite perverted to tell people to work against their own good. If everybody's good is actually evil, for whose good am I then supposed to work?

All these attacks on self-interest are wrong anyway. Nothing but enslavement. It's like telling people: Jesus is watching you masturbate.

After all, you have to work for your self-interest just to survive. And you have to work for someone's interest, otherwise all the work would be pointless. Why is something valuable only because you don't want it? Why is something without value because you value it? All this "cry against selfishness" is nothing but punishing people for wanting to be alive.

It's sick.

(Please note that I'm against: "The good is everything I say it is.", too. That would be Nietzsche's point and I disagree with him there. :thumbsup )