Addendum:
Economic warfare from the US is also what caused Pearl Harbor (i.e. the false flag op. to get US into WW2): http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1930
Hardly, it is about common usage. ‘Natural’ is an antonym of ‘artificial’.
A ridiculous argument. Clearly there must be, and indeed is, a distinction between something that occurs naturally and the artifical constructions of ‘natural’ creatures.
But is that a reflection on trade, or a reflection on the intellectual development of primates to the point that they have constructed trade customs?
The fact is that crude communism required a dicatorship of the proletariat to crush it’s opponents.What were y’all expecting a crude communist tea party to banish the evil bourgeois? Did you seriously think that this could even be attempted without the promotion of some over others? How could you be so naive?
I never denied this but it can’t be said that the Japanese treated their citizens as military tools only because of US economic warfare. Also, it can’t be said that the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor caused the Americans to violate the rights of their citizens during WW2.
When the Communist Manifesto was written even conservatives advocated dictatorship.
http://marxmyths.org/hal-draper/article2.htm
No modern communists advocates a dictatorship. Stalinists aren’t communists at all.
Actually, it can be used either way, and all “artificial” really denotes is that something was constructed, not that it is necessarily unnatural…
Ridiculous is the denial of calling trade natural.
It isn’t a reflection on anything! It just shows how ingrained it is in the species’ nature, as much as satisfying its needs requires it puts in some kind of effort.
And that pertains to the conversation how?
I’m not interested in arguing semantics so would you mind giving your own criteria for “communism”, and “socialism”?
You can make any assertion you want. I doesn’t make it less false.
He was obviously criticizing “The dictatorship of the proleitariat” I was pointing out how during that time period advocates of dictatorship were not all that rare.
Communism: A stateless, classless society in which the means of production are democratically owned.
Socialism: A society in which the means of production are collectively owned.
Markus is still not willing to answer my challenge.
on any given issue, a democracy is split into classes, the majority and the minority, and one is above the other.
Communism: a utopian contradiction in terms, when pursued as a goal brings death and poverty.
popularity is a funny ole thing. (women writing to jailed psychopaths and embarking on romantic relationships and so on…)
So what? An advocate of dictatorship is an advocate of dictatorship no matter that the time period. Dare I say that the Classical liberals were very much alive during this period?
“Collectively owned” is an oxymoron. When property is owned it is an individual, who can think and act, rather than some holistic collective that owns it.
Marxists believe that social class is to a great extent defined by the wealth and property/means of production that one owns. If one owns much property, and derives an income from it without directly labouring (i.e. Capital) then they are called bourgeoise capitalist pigs. If one owns little wealth, and all of ones income derives from so-called wage slavery, then one is called a proletariat. If this is right (feel free to correct me) then a propertyless group in society whose task it is to “manage” others is not entirely a contradiction… alternatively, they have internal contradictions. In any case the first manifestations in written literature of very close to socialistic and utopian thought can be found in Plato’s Republic. I’m getting most of this from Alfred Sudre’s chapter on the communism of Plato. He was the first person every to write a History of Communism, yet is almost completely forgotten. Given how recently I found out about him, I haven’t read all his book yet, just a few extracts. Here’s a link to Histoire du Communism. I hope you can read in French, I don’t think it was ever translated into English, only German.
Plato envisaged a sort of Guardian class which would manage the society and economy, i.e. the modern equivalent of a bureaucrat, except that some Guardians would also have to fulfill the role of soldiers, so really his Guardian class encompasses both the role of bureaucrats and soldiers. However, given that Marxists view social class as directly proportional to one’s ownership of property and the means of production, and since Plato’s Guardian technically owned no property, then they are not that much of a class in themselves (debatable, but I’m not arguing for a one-to-one relationship).
The fallacy of course is that one need not own property directly to have power over others. I.e. managers in a company often own little or no stock, yet they control and have more influence over the company than the stockholders, hence agency costs. Stalin was by far the most powerful person in the Soviet Union, because although he owned little (or no?) property directly, he had command over all of the economy and everyone else.
Fairness is subjective; who will get to decide what is fair what is not fair?
Unreasonableness is also subjective; who will get to decide what is unreasonable and what is not unreasonable? Also, happiness is subjective who will get to decide what is happy and what is not happy? So goes for “little pay”. So you would rather have people starve to death, but not homeless, than have people be homeless, but have food?
Who, North Korea? North Korea trades with China. Who, China? China trades with the world and is capitalist. Also, please don’t ignore the existence of black markets in socialist/communist/whatever nations.
Are you serious? Look at how much so-called communist China has progressed since its government loosened its economic stranglehood. People can actually leave the country now. For Jesus of Nazareth’s sake, their is a Rolex shop at the Beijing airport. What’s wrong with exploitation?
Are you saying that the folks that work in higher ranks of the communist government are altruistic? Lol. Look at Fidel Castro; he lives in a mansion, has bodyguards, and get driven around. How did you determine China to be over populated?
Lol. Yes, it was a paradise unless you were a Jew and had your stuff stolen.
Yes, it causes all those class conflicts because the politicians blame all the problems on everyone besides themselves.
Don’t worry as long we have the right leaders, all will be good. caugh Mao caugh Stalin caugh Pol Pot caugh Lol
There are other communist failing to point out.
What is “shallow material wealth”? Everytime I breathe out, I provide the CO2 that plants need to grow. Wait, how is capitalism killing us?
Yes, this is one reason that socialism is anti liberty; as in, having the liberty to leave the country.
Please explain the first sentence.
No, the State has been behind all wars. Damn it, I just realized that when you say “capitalist”, you actually mean mercantilism/mercantilism. Anyway, is that why national-socialist Germany invaded its neighbors?
Marx and Engels were bourgeoisie.
Yes, that is why socialism and communism are utopian.
Property can be collectively owned because it can be collectively used/benefited from. It cant be owned by everybody but it can be owned by a group of people. Like I would say that if there is a forest that the entire community benefits from (by it creating oxygen for them to breathe, being pleasent, people going on camping trips there) I would say that they should be able to restrict access to it and defend it as a group if someone decides they want to tear it down and build a strip mall for example.
If communism/socialism is so great and capitalism is so evil, why do people from such countries run to mixed capitalist first world countries? Don’t they know they’re going to be poor and exploited?
- I’m not advocating dictatorship keep in mind.
"By the nineteenth century political language had long included references to the “dictatorship” of the most democratic assemblies, of popular mass movements, or even of The People in general. All Marx did at the time was apply this old political term to the political power of a class."
http://marxmyths.org/hal-draper/article2.htm
2)
I don’t really understand your argument? Two spouses can collectively own a house. You and your friend can collectively own a business. What problem do you see with workers democratically controlling the workplace?
Where are these communist countries? Lol.. The sufficient working conditions in industrialized nations are not a gift from the economic system itself they are a gift from collective struggle against the system i.e. unions and the labor movement.
“The sufficient working conditions in industrialized nations are not a gift from the economic system itself they are a gift from collective struggle against the system i.e. unions and the labor movement.”
Really? So where can I sing up to get an office instead of a cube? I can even pay a fee 
And socialist countries had labor unions too. So why didn’t they help with the working conditions? What about the living conditions? The range of goods and services available to people?
You are correct social classes are determined by wealth and ownership of means of production to some extent, like you said. Communism aims to eliminate the state because the state is compiled of a ruling, oppressive social class that maintain their power through force. The state is also a capitalist entity. You could argue of course that Stalin in fact owned all the land in the Soviet Union, I’m sure he could send his thugs to seize land left and right but for arguments sake, I’ll agree he did not own the land directly. A reason why communist’s aim to eliminate the state is because the state is just as bourgeoisie as the factory owner. The factory owner reaps money through exploitative wages, the president reaps money through a death threat.
I don’t agree with a guardian class which would inevitably be the state. I’m anti-statist. I don’t get why to open your post you were correct in saying that Marxists view social classes by wealth and ownership of property and means of production to some extent but to conclude you say “Marxists view social class as directly proportional to one’s ownership of property and the means of production,”. Please clarify how you jumped from “to some extent” to “directly”.
It sounds like an interesting read. I googled the author and title but all that came up was your post :p. I can’t read French or German anyway.
What does that first sentence mean?
What socialist countries? The Soviet Union, a state capitalist country? Let’s use America as an example, go back when there was child labor, no minimum wage, horrid hours and so on. How did we go from that to no child labor, a minimum wage, and decent hours? Hint: America has a very bloody labor history.