Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[loveschach]

Hi,

Go read a book or something before you start refuting things. Here, I'll get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Grakelin

you know how there's a difference between what the dictionary says a theory is and what scientists mean when they talk about theories?

yeah same thing applies here. I don't care what meanings people like to put to words but what you said is nonsense from a marxist perspective.

Also there's nothing in any of your links that say communism is a system of government

[Grakelin]

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Good try, though.

Marx states that the only way to solve these problems is for the working class (proletariat), who according to Marx are the main producers of wealth in society and are exploited by the Capitalist-class (bourgeoisie), to replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class in order to establish a free society, without class or racial divisions.

Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property  is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society.

In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to the policies of the various communist states, which were authoritarian governments that had centrally planned economies and ownership of all the means of production. Most communist governments based their ideology on Marxism-Leninism.

Did you just try to CTRL+F "Communism is a Government" or what?

EDIT: Seriously, let me spell out the difference for you. From Wikipedia:

Socialism is an economic and political theory based on public ownership or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.

Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property  is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society.

Communism incorporates Socialism. They are not the same thing. Communism can't really exist without Socialism, but Socialism can exist without Communism.

Of course, this sort of logic puzzle often trips people up (though, I've never had trouble with it), so I fully expect you to not to understand and claim that I've proven you right. That's fine, you can do so all you like. Just make sure you provide an URL to this post every time you do. The people who actually understand are the ones I want to talk to on the internet, anyway.

[loveschach]

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Good try, though.

Marx states that the only way to solve these problems is for the working class (proletariat), who according to Marx are the main producers of wealth in society and are exploited by the Capitalist-class (bourgeoisie), to replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class in order to establish a free society, without class or racial divisions.

Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property  is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society.

In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to the policies of the various communist states, which were authoritarian governments that had centrally planned economies and ownership of all the means of production. Most communist governments based their ideology on Marxism-Leninism.

Did you just try to CTRL+F "Communism is a Government" or what?

Social structures aren't necessarily states, champ.

And "Communist state" is a misnomer, like I said. No "communist state" ever called itself a communist state, but a "socialist state".

Either way there is nothing in any of those links that suggests that Communism is a system of government. That is, a way to organize a government.

[loveschach]

Of course, this sort of logic puzzle often trips people up (though, I've never had trouble with it), so I fully expect you to not to understand and claim that I've proven you right. That's fine, you can do so all you like. Just make sure you provide an URL to this post every time you do. The people who actually understand are the ones I want to talk to on the internet, anyway.

Uh looking at your edit, I actually think we're pretty much in agreement and this is all just semantics.

I like how you immediately got on your "imma big bad smug arguer on the internet" horse though hahahahahaha

[Grakelin]

Well, you got me. Somebody finally tried to enter into a nitpick argument so mindless that even I don't feel like bothering with it.

You can believe whatever you like, dude. I won't even ask you where you're getting your information (though it is apparently from a bunch of idealist Left websites), or why you feel the need to say false things and call out the sources for being 'misnomers', without even looking further into the chain of source material. I can't help but say that the reason nations don't call themselves communist states is for political reasons, but I won't actually discuss it with you any further. I can't really restrain myself from making a jab about your lack of reading comprehension skills.

But I won't actually continue this discussion. When people look at this thread, they will get to see our five post discussion, and they will be able to actually click on links, and read some sources, and maybe even scroll down to the list of sources provided on the page, and they will get to decide for themselves. And they won't have to get bored reading a drawn out argument.

You should be proud.

Ninja Edit: And stop double posting, there's an edit button. >: (

Ninja Edit 2: Though, it's a little bit ironic. There are lots of babies who would just click the report button after that comment. I lose once again for thinking that I'm beyond that sort of infancy. D:

[loveschach]

Ninja Edit 2: Though, it's a little bit ironic. There are lots of babies who would just click the report button after that comment. I lose once again for thinking that I'm beyond that sort of infancy. D:

Though not beyond throwing the smug dial to 11 over a p. simple semantic misunderstanding!

Let's just make sure we're clear on this.

Communism: A stateless and classless society. Communist can be used to describe organizations and movements that are striving for communism.

Socialism: A broad umbrella term blah blah includes communism. Is used by Marxists inspired by Lenin to describe the transitional stage between communism and capitalism.

I'm not sure what disagreement we had over capitalism.

[Grakelin]

You have it backwards.

[loveschach]

You have it backwards.

Oh you

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

Speaking of backwards, that's the kind of place Communism happens in.
Communism never seems to happen in functioning democracies.

[loveschach]

Speaking of backwards, that's the kind of place Communism happens in.
Communism never seems to happen in functioning democracies.

Germany and I think Italy came pretty close to having a revolution.

I'm not sure what your point is, either way.

[Jackrabbit]

Speaking of backwards, that's the kind of place Communism happens in.
Communism never seems to happen in functioning democracies.

Germany and I think Italy came pretty close to having a revolution.

I'm not sure what your point is, either way.

Germany was a long way from being a successful or even really functioning democracy at the time. I'm not sure about Italy.

I'm not sure of the point either, just thought I'd point that out.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

Speaking of backwards, that's the kind of place Communism happens in.
Communism never seems to happen in functioning democracies.

Germany and I think Italy came pretty close to having a revolution.

I'm not sure what your point is, either way.

Both times communism got a hold in Germany were when the country was royally buggered up; first time was in the 20's when the economy effectively committed suicide in flames, the second time was after the 2nd World War when the country had been devastated and divided.
Communism (and, for that matter, extreme facism) don't normally happen unless a country is a complete wreck. I think that's a rather telling flaw in a socio-economic theory if people only turn to it as a last resort.

[loveschach]

Speaking of backwards, that's the kind of place Communism happens in.
Communism never seems to happen in functioning democracies.

Germany and I think Italy came pretty close to having a revolution.

I'm not sure what your point is, either way.

Both times communism got a hold in Germany were when the country was royally buggered up; first time was in the 20's when the economy effectively committed suicide in flames, the second time was after the 2nd World War when the country had been devastated and divided.
Communism (and, for that matter, extreme facism) don't normally happen unless a country is a complete wreck. I think that's a rather telling flaw in a socio-economic theory if people only turn to it as a last resort.

Capitalism didn't exactly come about because people were happy and a-okay with Feudalism. I could say the same thing for all the Color Revolutions where there were uprisings in favor liberalization.

That's just a bizarre statement to me.

[Jackrabbit]

A form of government only turned to as a last resort? I don't think so. I think that it happened in the same way as most forms of government happen. A group believes that the government they have currently is not working, and push for a reform.

The Russians didn't turn to Communism as a last resort, they turned to it because Nicholas II was a pissant and their current government was fucking awful. People in Germany pushed for reform (towards Fascism and Communism, as a good example of two polar opposites) because they had no faith in the Weimar Republic and felt that their form of government would give them a better life, not because there were no other options.

[ChairmanPoo]

Marxist theory states that revolutions take place when the internal conflicts of a system have rendered it unstable. This would in principle exclude any functioning society, whether democracy, monarchy, or autocracy.
Perhaps it would be a better case to argue that there hasn't been a serious attempt at building a socialist society at an industrialized nation.