Thread: Marxism Leninism

What do you mean by property after all?

[quote:1nh0mjbo][quote:1nh0mjbo]Free universities, free healthcare, free culture and guaranteed housing and work for everyone".

This quote explains why socialism is so popular - because people are naive and cannot think logically. The socialist propaganda is so successful, because it promises everything for free.[/quote:1nh0mjbo]Do you mean you can [s:1nh0mjbo]take[/s:1nh0mjbo] HAVE a free operation, even if it’s VERY expensive?[/quote:1nh0mjbo]Yes. Obviously "free" healthcare is not the result of a "gift from heaven" or similar... In a modern welfare state it is "free" thanks to the system of redistribution of profits generated from labour, production and interest. I.e. taxation. (I think it was done in a different way in communist countries, but I'm not familiar with how that worked.)

The end result is the same though: Hospitals are funded, medical staff are paid etc, etc --using the redistributed wealth. A normal citizen can walk into the hospital get diagnosed and treated for free - without dealing with any insurance claim or paying anything at all. No matter who is is, he will get treated the same.

In a reasonably free and open society you can also complain if you are not happy with the treatment or the staff. Any incompetent or corrupt managers will eventually lose their jobs. This guarantees that the system doesn't get corrupted or degenerates. This has worked well in most of Europe for 60 years now.

Am I a victim of propaganda because I believe that a system that offers free healthcare and free university education is preferable to the system in the US or countries that are modelled on the US?

Well, I am a well educated high-income earner who normally works very hard. In the UK I pay 25% tax on most of my income and 40% on everything above a certain sum. I am happy to do that. In Sweden I'd be paying a little bit more tax, but get more services in return. To be honest, I do not need or want most of these services... but others do.... and I am not so selfish as to deny them - I still have a comfortable lifestyle. Furthermore, one day I might be the one who needs the services of the welfare state! Peoples luck changes.

Those who live just to build up more wealth for themselves, or to protect inherited wealth are shallow and/or useless parasites. Of course people need to have incentives to work and be innovative --- but it ought not be the opportunity to create wealth beyond what they need for a comfortable life for their family. People who want to live in utter luxury while billions can hardly feed themselves, or while their fellow citizens live in shacks seriously disgust me.

If this makes me a "communist" in anybody's view - then that's fine! Incidentally I've never voted communist though and I am aware of the types of problems that occurred when Eastern Europe tried (and failed) to achieve communism.

I don't think the idea is dead though, and I wish there was a less violent, corruption-proof way of implementing it. A real communist society would be much nicer than anything that capitalism can achieve. But unfortunately, so far it's mainly a hypothetical idea although there might have been some aspects of it present in the USSR, DDR etc. Also in the Nordic countries although capitalism was always present there. I also have no doubt that most communist revolutionaries were idealists who wanted the best for their country even though it didn't work out that way in some cases.

Most people who talk about the evils of communism don't seem to know what they are talking about. Talk about propaganda - they've been taught to loathe something which they couldn't even define in three simple sentenes! That's straight out of Big Brother.

(The people on this forum, at least the Russians and other Eastern Europeans are the exception of course. They probably know much more about all this than I do, and light of their experiences I am not going to argue about this with anybody from there - including my friend Crocodile who was once a member of the Komsomol organisation.)

Originally Posted by Johanna

They probably know much more about all this than I do, ...

Johanna, you will know much more if you get this book and read it.
http://epicdystopia.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... ovich.html

Originally Posted by Johanna

Most people who talk about the evils of communism don't seem to know what they are talking about. [..]
The people on this forum, at least the Russians and other Eastern Europeans are the exception of course. They probably know much more about all this than I do, and light of their experiences I am not going to argue about this with anybody from there.

Ok, so you don't want to discuss the "evils of communism" with "the most people" because they don't know enough about the communism and you also don't want to discuss that with "Russians and other Eastern Europeans" because they know too much (or at least more than you).

Excuse my stupid question, but WHOM do you want to discuss the "evils of communism" with?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can only suggest the following options here:

1. With yourself.
2. With the very few other people who think exactly like yourself.
3. With the Antarctic penguins.

Nobody has ever come across evils or goodnesses of communism, because communism has never existed.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

1. With yourself.
2. With the very few other people who think exactly like yourself.
3. With the Antarctic penguins.

Perhaps -- but I've learnt a lot from some of the posts on this forum though. But I don't enjoy heated or hostile discussions, so I will back off.

Originally Posted by mishau

Nobody has ever come across evils or goodnesses of communism, because communism has never existed.

Just a question: Wasn't the Paris Commune that Marx wrote about somewhat close to communism? And many Christian groups live almost exactly like communism... apart from the fact that they are religious...

Perhaps Communism only works in small groups or on a local level. And none of the revolutions happened in the way that Marx predicted... So all the leaders of "communist" countries had to tweak the ideology a bit to fit their circumstances.

I was taught something like this, don't know if people in Russia agree with this: The USSR more or less abandoned the standard definition of Communism when Lenin said that they'd try to build Communism in only ONE country at first, and also when he said that a strong state and military was needed to protect against outside aggression.

Originally Posted by mishau_

Nobody has ever come across evils or goodnesses of communism, because communism has never existed.

It has. For a very limited number of people.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Originally Posted by mishau_

Nobody has ever come across evils or goodnesses of communism, because communism has never existed.

It has. For a very limited number of people.

It does then, judging by the watch that Resin is wearing.

http://www.gzt.ru/f/material/picture/bi ... mbnail.jpg

Originally Posted by Johanna

Just a question: Wasn't the Paris Commune that Marx wrote about somewhat close to communism? And many Christian groups live almost exactly like communism... apart from the fact that they are religious...

1) close isn't was
2) Paris Commune and Christian groups... I don't know how rich people were/became there, I suppose not very much. It could be a good solution if we remember how much poverty was around there in those times.

In Taiwan if you're totally poor you can come to a lama monsatry, regardless your nationality and citizenship, put on an orange toga, and come out every day with a basket to gather all what people will give you, food a great deal. Then you bring all that back and share among all the dwellers. Very strict, but very poor and very boring. If that's a sort of communism, I whish it never spread across all over the country.

Originally Posted by Johanna

But I don't enjoy heated or hostile discussions, so I will back off.

Come on! Don't be offended so easily! How hostile am I really? Heated - perhaps, but aren't your posts about the US foreign politics also heated? When you express your point of view you'd expect people either: (i) agree with you, (ii) disagree with you, (iii) ignore you, and finally (iv) ask you questions to better their understanding of your point of view. I'm just doing the later, that's all, really. If you worked in a PM role you know developers start asking all kinds of stupid questions as they want to think the scenarios through as much as possible. They hate it when they start working, develop significant portion of the code, and then stumble into inconsistencies which make the PM/BAs/architect to rethink their formal requirements. So, just perceive me as that kind of a stubborn developer who's trying to detect inconsistencies right from the start and we'll be friends.

Originally Posted by mishau_

It has. For a very limited number of people.

Who do you mean?

Originally Posted by mishau_

s
2) Paris Commune and Christian groups... I don't know how rich people were/became there, I suppose not very much. It could be a good solution if we remember how much poverty was around there in those times.
....Very strict, but very poor and very boring. If that's a sort of communism, I whish it never spread across all over the country.

I don't know either. But I think Marx used the word Communism because of the Paris Commune.

Does it matter if you are "rich" or not? As long as your material needs are met and you have a little "buffer" it isn't really that important IMHO. Money definitely does not bring happiness. The happiest people are not the richest.

Additionally, the planet simply cannot support 7 billion people living a Western consumerist lifestyle anyway, from an environmental standpoint. So capitalism in its present form is not a feasible long term strategy anyway.

Capitalism in it's present form was feasible in the West when a large part of the world was socialist and unable to live a consumerist lifestyle, and the others were stuck in the third world without education or any prospects of changing their lives. All this changed around 1990 with the changes in China, Russia etc.... Parts of India is also becoming modern.. also Brazil... Etc.
Plus, the population of the world was 4 bil in the 19980s and is 7 billion today.

And as a result, global warning is now taking place faster than all the worst case scenario predictions! Several wars have been started largely because of oil. The Middle East will soon face a water shortage. The current development / trend is not sustainable. If we don't change soon, the world will start going downhill fast....

But if becoming a rich person is ones objective - then any form of socialism is of course completely useless! Somebody who cares only about himself/herself getting rich fast should live in the most liberalistic country he can find. Minimal government, minimal regulation or taxation.

Personally, rather than becoming rich myself regardless of other peoples situation, I'd prefer see my own country / continent having a good standard of living, without excesses, and living in an environmentally sustainable way. I don't feel any need to be richer than other people. Once you are comfortable, what's the point?

People who seriously *believe* that they *need* designer handbags, luxury sports cars or holidays in the Seychelles need to have their heads examined.

I think, Johanna, you make a mistake when opposing poverty to richness and back. In fact, you're comparing richness and moderation or richness and asceticism. Few very poor people are happy, epescially if they have no money for medicine. They suffer indignity. And they die prematurely from different diseases. Being poor, really poor, isn't nice.

Originally Posted by Johanna

Additionally, the planet simply cannot support 7 billion people living a Western consumerist lifestyle anyway, from an environmental standpoint. So capitalism in its present form is not a feasible long term strategy anyway.

I think you kind of mixing two different things: the ownership principles and the environment. For example: the good old USSR had lots of the environmental problems in its territory. No better than the other countries. And some people say it was even worse.

Usually, the humankind used to adapt to anthropogenic catastrophes by adopting newer and less harmful technologies. For example: when the certain megafauna and other (tasting delicious) species went short/extinct some 10,000 years ago (mainly due to the unrestricted hunting), the humankind had moved to a totally new principles of producing food - from hunting to agriculture. That allowed the human population to grow within the same ecological niche. So, due to the global warming (and stuff like that) the humankind is in transition to the other technologies. Also, technically, the humankind has the potential of extending its ecological niche beyond our planet. In addition, the "people living a Western consumerist lifestyle" tend to control their population effectively while the uncontrolled growth happens mainly in the other countries. (That is in referral to your note: "The Middle East will soon face a water shortage.")

So, to sum it up, YES - we need to worry about the environment, but NO - it has nothing to do with either form of the ownership (the Capitalism or the Communism) .

Economics can be considered a science of resource distribution. Efficient distribution. The resources are: food, air, water, energy, etc. In our world the distribution is extremely inefficient which is the main cause of crises and conflicts. The reason of this is politics. I wish there was a way to measure the hunger for power in people. It was easier to neutralise those who interferes with the natural distribution laws. Capitalism supports ambitions and greed. That's why it is inefficient and must be replaced. Mankind must do something with the 90/10 ratio. (90% of world's resources and wealth are controlled by 10% of population).

Originally Posted by Ramil

That's why it is inefficient and must be replaced.

Cool!! Replaced with WHAT though? And (also very important) HOW?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

That's why it is inefficient and must be replaced.

Cool!! Replaced with WHAT though? And (also very important) HOW?

We've already covered that in one of our discussions, as you remember. I dream of the world free of governments and borders where people group by principles different from mere living close to each other. Therefore, since my dream at the present time is yet another utopia I would support any change that would be a step closer to it. And I would support anything that would theoretically lead to collapsing of the current world government.

Originally Posted by Ramil

We've already covered that in one of our discussions, as you remember. I dream of the world free of governments and borders where people group by principles different from mere living close to each other. Therefore, since my dream at the present time is yet another utopia I would support any change that would be a step closer to it. And I would support anything that would theoretically lead to collapsing of the current world government.

Yes, I remember we spoke about it. So, would you also support anything that leads to collapsing of the current local governments? (Just for the consistency reasons. Think globally - act locally.)

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

We've already covered that in one of our discussions, as you remember. I dream of the world free of governments and borders where people group by principles different from mere living close to each other. Therefore, since my dream at the present time is yet another utopia I would support any change that would be a step closer to it. And I would support anything that would theoretically lead to collapsing of the current world government.

Yes, I remember we spoke about it. So, would you also support anything that leads to collapsing of the current local governments? (Just for the consistency reasons. Think globally - act locally.)

The local government is of no importance. It doesn't matter who would be the government locally since their policy would be dictated by necessities of their bosses. I would be indifferent to either collapsing or staying in power of the current local government. Until things change at the top, nothing would really change at the bottom.

Originally Posted by Ramil

The local government is of no importance. It doesn't matter who would be the government locally since their policy would be dictated by necessities of their bosses. I would be indifferent to either collapsing or staying in power of the current local government. Until things change at the top, nothing would really change at the bottom.

Ok, just be patient with me with my stupid questions. What do you consider the "top" or the "world" government? Wouldn't that be something like G8?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

The local government is of no importance. It doesn't matter who would be the government locally since their policy would be dictated by necessities of their bosses. I would be indifferent to either collapsing or staying in power of the current local government. Until things change at the top, nothing would really change at the bottom.

Ok, just be patient with me with my stupid questions. What do you consider the "top" or the "world" government? Wouldn't that be something like G8?

No, the top government are those whose interests are represented by the governments of the G8. I mean richest clans (about two dozen families) abiding mostly in USA who has been defining the world's politics during the last 80 years.

The 'official governments' (even if they are unaware of that) represent the interests of the richest.
But don't make the mistake of thinking that those who have many dollars (or Euros) are rich. They simply posess many worthless pieces of paper (those like Bill Gates, for example). I mean those who control the federal reserve, those who control the speculative oil prices, those who control the prices for gold - they are the true world's government.

Presidens and parliaments are nothing but puppets to entertain the masses. They don't control anyting. I would never belive that there is a country where a president is an independent figure. Such talks only make me laugh.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Presidens and parliaments are nothing but puppets to entertain the masses. They don't control anyting.

I agree with that statement when you speak about the local capitalistic governments. That's obvious. But what about the other local governments? For example, could you really say Stalin was a puppet?

Originally Posted by Ramil

No, the top government are those whose interests are represented by the governments of the G8. I mean richest clans (about two dozen families) abiding mostly in USA who has been defining the world's politics during the last 80 years. [...] I mean those who control the federal reserve, those who control the speculative oil prices, those who control the prices for gold - they are the true world's government.

Can you support that idea with any type of evidence? (And perhaps name anyone?)