«

[Grinder]

I think that was already said.
In answer to ribell's post:
The argument about Henry Ford paying his workers is clearly right, but what is this about Castro? Imagine he chose a successor before his death that was just sucking up to him and pretending to adore the idea of Communism. After his death, the guy would completely go berserk, kill everyone in the government and make himself an absolute ruler of the island. Well done, Fidel, you have just made a fool of yourself.
That is where I personally think this particular theory is wrong. The rest is okay.

[Mighty Midget]

To Grinder: About your worries about inherited dictator-position: The thing is that this scenario is, by definition, anti-communism. 'True' communism, which we have never seen 'in action', so to speak, cannot allow leaders pointing out their successors. Communism states that the SELECTION of leaders is in the hands of 'the people', through their own committees.

Now, a different question alltogether is: Are humans bright enough to run a society in a way that would actually work? Capitalism not only allow destruction, but under certain cicumstances demands destruction. Anarchy is flawed because it depends on a very large body of humans to agree in an eye blink, which clearly won't happen. Communism is, imho, flawed simply because it demands a long term vision carried by an equally large body of humans. When that doesn't happen, you get the fubar version called state capitalism. Stupidity is one big vision-killer.

(<- simple version)

Edit: For the record, I'm pessimistic about politics in general and as a whole. I can't think of a actual way to make it work simply because I don't believe we have the brains. Sure, we made rockets and whatnots, but those things are not all that important evidence of intelligence. Intelligence is more than math and pattern-recognition. "Neither Right nor Red!".

[Grinder]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mighty Midget @ May 28 2006, 09:11 AM) [snapback]232700[/snapback]</div>

To Grinder: About your worries about inherited dictator-position: The thing is that this scenario is, by definition, anti-communism. 'True' communism, which we have never seen 'in action', so to speak, cannot allow leaders pointing out their successors. Communism states that the SELECTION of leaders is in the hands of 'the people', through their own committees.[/b]

True.

[Havell]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mighty Midget @ May 28 2006, 10:11 AM) [snapback]232700[/snapback]</div>

To Grinder: About your worries about inherited dictator-position: The thing is that this scenario is, by definition, anti-communism. 'True' communism, which we have never seen 'in action', so to speak, cannot allow leaders pointing out their successors. Communism states that the SELECTION of leaders is in the hands of 'the people', through their own committees.[/b]

Incorrect. In true Communism there are no leaders, it is, by definition, a stateless, classless society.

The system of the working class selecting their own leaders is Socialism; which is commonly seen as a transitional stage between what state of government existed beofre, and true Communism.

And rlbell, I don't really see the logic in your suggestion that the success of a leader is measured in how well he hands over power.

[Mighty Midget]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Havell @ May 28 2006, 11:23 AM) [snapback]232734[/snapback]</div>

Incorrect. In true Communism there are no leaders, it is, by definition, a stateless, classless society.

The system of the working class selecting their own leaders is Socialism; which is commonly seen as a transitional stage between what state of government existed beofre, and true Communism.
[/b]

1 incorrect. A true stateless society is anarchy. Communism do have leaders, only not in it's classical sense. 'Leader' in a commie society means someone who is responsible for coordinating the efforts when such coordination is needed, these leaders can be called down with immediate effect. OR: if it's the committees wish, the leader can be granted extended responsibility as seen fit and called for by the committees. BUT this leader will answer to the same committees, thus he/she has no power to grasp the power for him/herself. All leaders can form a committee that CAN be called a government. Obviously, this government has no power other than what's granted them, for as long as the lower committees see it as beneficial.

2 half-correct. It is true that socialism has a crossbreed government, somewhere a 'modern' one and a communist one. But communism do also have a form of government. See 1.

(don't get me wrong, I'm not a schoolar in these matters. It's half opinion, half knowledge)

[Danny252]

Split..

[U-Boat Commander David]

Spit... LOL

THX Danny! k:

[gregor]

A lot of communist countries were doing bad because:
1. they were doing already bad before they became communist countries
2. they were (are) being opposed by other countries instead of doing normal trade with them for example. Cuba is still under sanctions. who knows how life would be like there if there weren't any sanctions...

another thing is that Stalinism in Russia was not really communism. as one already pointed out communism is also supposed to be democratic. In fact i think here it was more democratic than now. because groups, such community boards and local communites had quite a lot of decision making on them. and therefore the whole life was run a bit more democratic in that way. the problme offcourse is if someone appears whihc believes that government should be removed in any way possible. they were locked up.

but it was not different in USA for example. they locked up or killed allegged communists and also they still put you to jail if you make threats to the country or government. not really democratic is it?

Also as one pointed out here the problem really is that to make it work you would need majority of countries or better all of them having it. which is a hard thing to do and have.
there is also the problme of revoltion. which is violent (supposed to be?) and after which the peoplel that took power during it don't step down or form a propper government. so it often remains dictatorship.

The funny thing i noticed here is that same people are in power. ok a couple of new ones arrived. but basically the opposition (so called right wing) to previous government is basically people that were in power during communism, but didn't get high enough and were dissapointed over communism because of that. and the sad part is that there was a reason why they couldn't get any higher - they are incompetent.

[PrejudiceSucks]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mighty Midget @ May 28 2006, 11:53 AM) [snapback]232738[/snapback]</div>

1 incorrect. A true stateless society is anarchy. Communism do have leaders, only not in it's classical sense. 'Leader' in a commie society means someone who is responsible for coordinating the efforts when such coordination is needed, these leaders can be called down with immediate effect. OR: if it's the committees wish, the leader can be granted extended responsibility as seen fit and called for by the committees. BUT this leader will answer to the same committees, thus he/she has no power to grasp the power for him/herself. All leaders can form a committee that CAN be called a government. Obviously, this government has no power other than what's granted them, for as long as the lower committees see it as beneficial.
[/b]

Have you ever heard of anarcho-communism? It's by far the most workable of communist ideologies, because it works on a community-sized level, but all across an area.

So, for example, a village, or a small suburb shared its possessions, and work towards a common goal. Since there's no real need for money, it isn't used, and people barter-trade with their nearby communities to improve their lives a bit.

In case of attack, communities would try and work together to fight off the attackers, and would then disband their militias.

It would probably work if enough people saw it as a good idea, and it wasn't just clamped down on like all previous efforts of communism.

[_r.u.s.s.]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gregor @ May 29 2006, 09:11 AM) [snapback]232901[/snapback]</div>

1. they were doing already bad before they became communist countries
[/b]

socialistic, not communistic. communsitic state NEVER existed. it's an idology, a final stage of socialism. if it had existed, it would be like utopia. but it's realy impossible to do, so socialism served just as a tool to controll all the people