Can Someone Explain Communism?

[castille]

Ok, we're seeing people saying "Communism can solve any problem", or "Communism IS Utopia!", but nobody has ever explained the economic, social, and political issues in detail.



Several major points that need to be clarified about Communism:


HUMANITY: How will Communism erase human greed? For example, if I got the same food and water as everyone else, irregardless of working hours, I would work 1 hour per week, and do it in a casual manner. I know many people who would do the same.

GOVERNMENTS: How will Communism help countries like Pakistan, Libya, Burma, etc who are all under oppressive socialist governments, with enough bullets to shoot anyone who protests? Will those leaders suddenly give up all their power magically?

PRODUCTION: How will Communism ensure efficient production? Who will manage factories, ensure production levels are kept, if there is no leader? Will a worker from Bangledesh get to vote on a community issue for the town of Kansas, and how? Will all 6 billion of humanity have to vote on every issue that arises? Who will count those votes?

LAWS: Who will make the laws and enforce them? Will we leave it to mob rule (ie. lynch people), or complete democracy (ie. if 50.01% of a town decides to kill all Jews, then their wish will be granted)? Who will enforce those laws? Whoever has a gun?

LEADERSHIP: Basic animal and human instincts dictates there to be a leader. Even social groups have a leader. Who will lead Communism? If nobody leads Communism, then who will distribute the food? (don't tell me "The People", tell me WHO. The butcher? The baker?) And what will prevent them from corruption?

What if somebody forms their own city, and starts enslaving members of other cities? Don't tell me "it will never happen", because anything can happen.

SUPPLY NETWORKS: How will supply networks and distribution be formed? How do we determine the demand for certain products in certain regions? Who will coordinate and organise the distribution of bread/water to regions? What will ensure they do not take a bit more food for themselves?

And if we just say "the people will do this", then does this mean I have to walk 90 miles every morning to get my food? There isnt any farms nearby, so somebody has to deliver my food for me. But if they have to deliver my food, what stops them from taking more food for themselves? Again, don't say "Communism will cast a magic spell that removes greed from humanity". If it can be done, it WILL BE DONE. (just ask your local neo-Nazi)

[Waychel]

Ahh this topic is driving me crazy! :P

I can't deny I want to see the answers/explanations to these same questions myself, though.

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
Ok, we're seeing people saying "Communism can solve any problem", or "Communism IS Utopia!", but nobody has ever explained the economic, social, and political issues in detail.



Several major points that need to be clarified about Communism:


HUMANITY: How will Communism erase human greed? For example, if I got the same food and water as everyone else, irregardless of working hours, I would work 1 hour per week, and do it in a casual manner. I know many people who would do the same.

GOVERNMENTS: How will Communism help countries like Pakistan, Libya, Burma, etc who are all under oppressive socialist governments, with enough bullets to shoot anyone who protests? Will those leaders suddenly give up all their power magically?

PRODUCTION: How will Communism ensure efficient production? Who will manage factories, ensure production levels are kept, if there is no leader? Will a worker from Bangledesh get to vote on a community issue for the town of Kansas, and how? Will all 6 billion of humanity have to vote on every issue that arises? Who will count those votes?

LAWS: Who will make the laws and enforce them? Will we leave it to mob rule (ie. lynch people), or complete democracy (ie. if 50.01% of a town decides to kill all Jews, then their wish will be granted)? Who will enforce those laws? Whoever has a gun?

LEADERSHIP: Basic animal and human instincts dictates there to be a leader. Even social groups have a leader. Who will lead Communism? If nobody leads Communism, then who will distribute the food? (don't tell me "The People", tell me WHO. The butcher? The baker?) And what will prevent them from corruption?

What if somebody forms their own city, and starts enslaving members of other cities? Don't tell me "it will never happen", because anything can happen.

SUPPLY NETWORKS: How will supply networks and distribution be formed? How do we determine the demand for certain products in certain regions? Who will coordinate and organise the distribution of bread/water to regions? What will ensure they do not take a bit more food for themselves?

And if we just say "the people will do this", then does this mean I have to walk 90 miles every morning to get my food? There isnt any farms nearby, so somebody has to deliver my food for me. But if they have to deliver my food, what stops them from taking more food for themselves? Again, don't say "Communism will cast a magic spell that removes greed from humanity". If it can be done, it WILL BE DONE. (just ask your local neo-Nazi)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Okay, one by one. I don't pretend to have the only communist answers to these questions, just possible ones that I believe best and are open to improvement.

HUMANITY - Well there's two bits in there to be answered, greed and laziness. IMO, human's are born as a blank slate, the only primal instinct being survival. In a capitalist system and ones previous to it, greed was a neccesary part of survival. However, under communism, greed is no longer neccesary for survival, due to the fair distribution of wealth, rather than the polarisation of wealth. If it is no longer neccesary, it would, again IMO, fade out over time.
As for laziness, workplaces would be democratised. That is, rather than a boss saying who works too little, it would be the workers themselves. As the laziness of ones damages the other workers, they could bring him up for not working hard enough. If he persists, they could vote for his removal. Therefore everyone would be encouraged by each other to work as hard as is needed.
As with many things, I cannot give evidence to support my opinions as the conditions in which to test them, socialism, have never been brought about.

Governments - In a Marxist view of history, capitalism follows feudalism, as communism will follow capitalism. However, unlike previous progressions of historical era, which have been elite led, this will be worker led. Thus, while individual countries previously could progress alone, as there was tight control by elites to maintain stability, this is not the case with the communist progression. Thus this revolution cannot occur on a country level, or tight controls must exist, leading to hell holes like NK. The communist progression MUST, if it is to be succesful, worldwide.
So, firstly all countries must be capitalist if there is to be a worldwide progression to communism. Thus countries like the ones you suggested, and many more, must become fully capitalist before the progression can occur.
And also, in my opinion, as well as being capitalist, these nations must for some time be liberal nations. If not, the citizens of these nations will not have experienced the rights and freedoms that should exist under real communism. And if they havn't, it is too easy for oppurtunists to become dictatorships in these countries, as the populace cannot tell the difference.

PRODUCTION - Within the workplace the workers will have the power to elect, and recall, managers. These people will work to ensure such things. If they abuse their power, the workers can recall at any time the manager. This is not creating a hiearchy in society, as the managers are under the control of the workers. Nor is the manager beneath the worker, as they have put themselves forward for the position. This also has the benefit of people putting themselves forward for such jobs because they enjoy the work or the challenge, rather than simply doing it for the money. This COULD be of benefit in many areas, as if you do it for the enjoyment, you are more likely to put more effort in, rather than doing as little as you can for the money you get.
A Bangladeshi worker may vote on decisions that affect a Kansas worker in the same industry if for example they were deciding on the CEO of their industry. If, and some communists are against this, there is a world council, forum not government style, that argues the best courses of action for humanity (any decisions to be ratified by referendum, and delegates permanently subject to recall) there may also voting in one region of the world that affects another.

LAWS - This is also another sticking point between communists. I believe that we would need a period where laws are still around, at least until this utopian dream starts becoming reality. These laws would be formed by an elected local council (the public would be free to engage in the arguments of its formation), ratified by referendum, enforced by council appointed and locally ratified, militias, led by an elected sheriff/mayor. Laws will be interpreted by elected judges. Rulings could be overturned by a qualified majority of the public.

Thats one way of doing it, and I made that up in five minutes from previous ideas I've encountered.

As for guns, I personally believe that anyone that isn't a criminal or insane, should be allowed a gun, following a six month course at a gun club to train them in the weapons use. This prevents any oppurtunists deciding that they are going to re-establish a heiarchy against the will of the people, as they can revolt.

LEADERSHIP - IMO there is no need for there to be a 'leader', after about 1820 and prior to Churchill, Britain had no single leader and was lead by a cabinet government of about 20 people. Prominent figures did emerge, such as Disraeli, but this was not for their leadership, rather their charisma, intelligence and the policies of the government of the time. It was only after WWII that the PM really became the focus of government. The same can be said for the US, it was only from Roosevelts expansion of the White House and the Presidents duties that the Presidential office truely overtook Congress.
However, I still havn't said there is no leadership, and I agree to an extent, there should be some leadership of sorts. This would be the most intelligent people of society being elected to councils, in order for them to publicly debate with each other the best ways in which things should be done. However, before they can enact there plans the plans would require the mandate of the public through a referendum. Therefore there is some leadership, in that the most intelligent people, after being elected, can put forward their views to society, and its scrutiny.

If someone decided to establish their own city outside of the communist sphere, thats fine, as long as they aren't planting themselves ontop of something essential like an oil supply. But I doubt any workers would go with them voluntarily, because why would they work for someone else in a different system, where you get less for your work, when they can work for themself under the communist sphere. If however they decided to kidnap people to put into slavery, once this was recognised the councils from each area could co-ordinate their militias against the new city.

DISTRIBUTION - I've seperated this because it is such a big part of the new system. Again, this is only one way of doing things, the one I agree with at the moment. One way is the voucher system. Replacing money, the vouchers allow people choice over what they want for the work they have done, while preventing the accumulation of wealth into the hands of individuals or minorities. This is because the vouchers will be dated, and if not used in time become invalid. The vouchers could be divided into essentials, such as food and clothes vouchers, plus luxuries vouchers for less important things to living but still important to life, such as computer games or extra food for when you have parties. These vouchers would be handed in at main supermarket type areas for the goods you wanted.

That system has been suggested for ages now, and has flaws, but these can be remedied by technology. So instead of using vouchers, dated credits could be put onto a credit card. This prevents people stealing vouchers. To get the credits you could swipe the card through a machine that will only provide one set of fresh credits per day or per week to each card.

Supply Network - As with the workplace, people could be elected from each workplace and each district ward to ensure each industry provided for its workers and each town could co-ordinate with each other on the maintenance of the infrastructure neccesary for distribution.
As for people taking something on the side for themself, this would be prevented in the same way it is now, policing, but by the electorally accountable militias, rather than government controlled police that work for the government rather than the people. As well as measures internal to the industries, as there is now, such as checking the stock before it leaves the depot and ensuring it all ends up at the destination.

The last possible flaw you wanted to know about is something that can and does happen under capitalism, so I don't see why it is brought up as a flaw of communism.

[Impenitent]

G... 1. tabla rasa? nope... humans are born with drives as are all living things... greed and self interest is primary among them... why does a baby cry? it wants something? greedy baby demanding something...
or is that learned as well?

2. historical requirements... the whole world must be capitalist... this alone insures that communism will never even get started...

3. "This is not creating a hiearchy in society, as the managers are under the control of the workers."
no hiearchy? yet there is control by the mob of workers... alas, that mob is the hiearchy... "there is a world council, forum not government style, that argues the best courses of action for humanity" the mob of communist workers will vote and demand that everyone, specifically those who object, follow this utopian plan... that is a hiearchy... do you not see the contradictions?

4. laws? who needs laws? just whip up emotional fervor amongst the mob and vote on it... no protection from the communist mob is needed (and protection cannot exist because that would be government and hiearchy)... that boy needs a good 'ol commie style lynching because he is ... and not producing... tell me this isn't possible and wouldn't happen on whims everyday...

5. the philosopher kings? "This would be the most intelligent people of society being elected to councils, in order for them to publicly debate with each other the best ways in which things should be done." since when does the society elect the most intelligent anything? who would judge? tell me this isn't government... hardly equal either...

5a. "If however they decided to kidnap people to put into slavery, once this was recognised the councils from each area could co-ordinate their militias against the new city." the council? you mean the mob? the government? their militia? organize the thugs for the ends of the mob? and we moan about the us in iraq or israel in the west bank... why in communism we can whip up the mob into a militia and kill people who are equal with no government... no greed there... greed of the benevolent communist mob?

6. I've brought this up before... "One way is the voucher system. Replacing money, the vouchers allow people choice over what they want for the work they have done, while preventing the accumulation of wealth into the hands of individuals or minorities. " vouchers do not replace money, vouchers become the new rate of exchange in lieu of money... it is still private property and hoarding vouchers will happen... but they will expire... then they will hoard other things... but the communist mob will have to unite and kill the equal voucher/property hoarders... dated credits? same thing...

6a. electorally accountable militias? I vote we kill him... watch it happen...

human, all too human...

Imp., Sorry to interrupt your ranting for a minute but it is rather known that babies do not cry out of greed. They cry until they're fed & stop it when they are fed enough. Unless they have a disorder or unless they have the bad luck of having parents thinking that they're greedy giving so much food that they cry because they have an indigestion.

I know you love to project your self-image to others but, unfortunately, that is a learned emotional self-defense trick for the rather weak. You'd be better off changing your self-image than believing everybody is like you.

GN

[castille]

Ok, about your replies:


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)

<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

HUMANITY
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)

As the laziness of ones damages the other workers, they could bring him up for not working hard enough. If he persists, they could vote for his removal.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Leave things to mob rule eh? The Cultural Revolution in China (where thousands were murdered by youth mobs) showed the power of "giving power to the people". What if they vote for his execution because hes a Jew (and every fine German knows Jews are all evil!)?


GOVERNMENTS
You STILL haven't explained how people will be governed. Will we resort to mob rule? Local boys carrying AKs? Liberal democracies still see crime and corruption; the corruption will only extend into Communism.


PRODUCTION
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
Within the workplace the workers will have the power to elect, and recall, managers. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Two words: Adolf Hitler. He also won democratically. People are not ruled by economics and logic; they are ruled by emotion.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)

If, and some communists are against this, there is a world council, forum not government style, that argues the best courses of action for humanity<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

So in other words, a group of Communist Elites will decide on the fate of humanity. Just like the USSR, Cuba, China, and North Korea.


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)

This is also another sticking point between communists. I believe that we would need a period where laws are still around, at least until this utopian dream starts becoming reality. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

This is EXACTLY how the Soviet Union and China become dictatorships. What if those who enforce the laws don't want to give up their power? Just like Mao and the PLA, Stalin and the NKVD, Kim Il Song and his elite Communist leaders.


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)

Therefore there is some leadership, in that the most intelligent people, after being elected, can put forward their views to society, and its scrutiny.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Did Adolf Hitler debate in an intelligent manner? If not, why did so many people worship him? In front of a crowd, its not intelligence that counts. Just look at the socialist protests. "Death to America!" And the crowd goes wild and burns another flag!


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)

If someone decided to establish their own city outside of the communist sphere, thats fine, as long as they aren't planting themselves ontop of something essential like an oil supply. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

So if a group of people set up a city on top of an oil well, all the Communist "Utopias" will band together and destroy them? It would make Bush proud.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)

So instead of using vouchers, dated credits could be put onto a credit card. This prevents people stealing vouchers. To get the credits you could swipe the card through a machine that will only provide one set of fresh credits per day or per week to each card.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

A hacker's paradise. Can YOU trust your life savings with a computer? I hope not.

You also forget the urge to save. What if I want to save up my money for a rainy day? "Sorry sir, but you have to spend your money, or else the Communist Police will steal it from you." A lot of Confucian Asians would no doubt oppose this (ie. 2 billion people).



</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
As for people taking something on the side for themself, this would be prevented in the same way it is now, policing, but by the electorally accountable militias<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

How will a stupid teenager with an AK47 find out I've been stealing dried bread from the stocks? I could simply claim the bread was stolen by somebody else. Societies that prevent personal achievement will always see somebody trying to steal something.



Your theories are good, but you forget one thing: the transition to Commuism is the perfect breeding ground for opportunitists to take power for themselves! Mao Zedong is a prime example: he refused to give up his power, and hung onto it, and nobody could do anything about it. The Army, Communist Elites, and anyone with a gun was on his side.

A transition of power in any situation always leads to opportunity to grab power. Its not difficult. "A man with a gun is a man with power." Your militias are more likely to support a dictator who promises them more wealth.

I know if I was a militia leader, and some big guy at the top says "You can either live like the peasants, or join my cause and live like a king", I would join his cause. We've got enough bullets to shoot any peasant who rebels.



Want to know how effective rebellion is? Just ask the people of North Korea if they want to overthrow their leader.

[Impenitent]

Guido... Imp., Sorry to interrupt your ranting for a minute but it is rather known that babies do not cry out of greed.

it is? they cry because they want something... food, water, to be cleaned, attention, what have you... they want something, they cry...

that is the definition of greed...

greed

\Greed\, n. [Akin to Goth. gr?dus hunger, Icel. gr[=a][eth]r. [root]34. See Greedy.] An eager desire or longing; greediness; as, a greed of gain.

2 "...I know you love to project your self-image to others but, unfortunately, that is a learned emotional self-defense trick for the rather weak."

nice ad hominems... not true, not logical... you'd be better off learning how to argue

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
Ok, about your replies:


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)

<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

HUMANITY
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)

As the laziness of ones damages the other workers, they could bring him up for not working hard enough. If he persists, they could vote for his removal.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Leave things to mob rule eh? The Cultural Revolution in China (where thousands were murdered by youth mobs) showed the power of "giving power to the people". What if they vote for his execution because hes a Jew (and every fine German knows Jews are all evil!)?


GOVERNMENTS
You STILL haven't explained how people will be governed. Will we resort to mob rule? Local boys carrying AKs? Liberal democracies still see crime and corruption; the corruption will only extend into Communism.


PRODUCTION
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
Within the workplace the workers will have the power to elect, and recall, managers. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Two words: Adolf Hitler. He also won democratically. People are not ruled by economics and logic; they are ruled by emotion.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)

If, and some communists are against this, there is a world council, forum not government style, that argues the best courses of action for humanity<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

So in other words, a group of Communist Elites will decide on the fate of humanity. Just like the USSR, Cuba, China, and North Korea.


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)

This is also another sticking point between communists. I believe that we would need a period where laws are still around, at least until this utopian dream starts becoming reality. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

This is EXACTLY how the Soviet Union and China become dictatorships. What if those who enforce the laws don't want to give up their power? Just like Mao and the PLA, Stalin and the NKVD, Kim Il Song and his elite Communist leaders.


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)

Therefore there is some leadership, in that the most intelligent people, after being elected, can put forward their views to society, and its scrutiny.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Did Adolf Hitler debate in an intelligent manner? If not, why did so many people worship him? In front of a crowd, its not intelligence that counts. Just look at the socialist protests. "Death to America!" And the crowd goes wild and burns another flag!


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)

If someone decided to establish their own city outside of the communist sphere, thats fine, as long as they aren't planting themselves ontop of something essential like an oil supply. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

So if a group of people set up a city on top of an oil well, all the Communist "Utopias" will band together and destroy them? It would make Bush proud.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)

So instead of using vouchers, dated credits could be put onto a credit card. This prevents people stealing vouchers. To get the credits you could swipe the card through a machine that will only provide one set of fresh credits per day or per week to each card.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

A hacker's paradise. Can YOU trust your life savings with a computer? I hope not.

You also forget the urge to save. What if I want to save up my money for a rainy day? "Sorry sir, but you have to spend your money, or else the Communist Police will steal it from you." A lot of Confucian Asians would no doubt oppose this (ie. 2 billion people).



</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
As for people taking something on the side for themself, this would be prevented in the same way it is now, policing, but by the electorally accountable militias<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

How will a stupid teenager with an AK47 find out I've been stealing dried bread from the stocks? I could simply claim the bread was stolen by somebody else. Societies that prevent personal achievement will always see somebody trying to steal something.



Your theories are good, but you forget one thing: the transition to Commuism is the perfect breeding ground for opportunitists to take power for themselves! Mao Zedong is a prime example: he refused to give up his power, and hung onto it, and nobody could do anything about it. The Army, Communist Elites, and anyone with a gun was on his side.

A transition of power in any situation always leads to opportunity to grab power. Its not difficult. "A man with a gun is a man with power." Your militias are more likely to support a dictator who promises them more wealth.

I know if I was a militia leader, and some big guy at the top says "You can either live like the peasants, or join my cause and live like a king", I would join his cause. We've got enough bullets to shoot any peasant who rebels.



Want to know how effective rebellion is? Just ask the people of North Korea if they want to overthrow their leader.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Damn this is gonna take ages to clear up what you ignored. Perhaps I am leaving holes in my writings because I think some things to obvious that there is no need to write them.

HUMANITY - Where did I say leave it to the mob? If you are at your workplace and you see someone consistently slacking you would bring it to the workplace. The worker would be warned, and as the group knows he may be a slacker they will pay more attention to him. If he continues everyone will have known about it and can then vote to throw him out. There, a democratic workplace. Now I know many of you might be scared at the idea of democracy, the unwashed masses having control over there own lives rather than distant elites, but it is a good thing.
As for your crack about Jews, as I have stated further down my previous post, all countries must achieve a liberal democratic state first in order for the people to learn to respect other peoples rights and lives. I don't see why any group, unless so desperate it will listen to the bullshit of demagogues, would want to infringe on the rights of another.

GOVERNMENT - People WON'T be governed, not in the traditional sense. Local councils, subject to recall, will do the jobs of 'governing', but they will be fully democratic to prevent them governing for themselves rather than their electorate.
And I've already said no to mob rule, its democratic rule tempered by liberalism. And why would any intelligent council appoint teenagers to become the local militia? Male teenagers hormones are off the chart anyway so give them an AK and they really would pose a risk. No, militia would be responsible, well trained citizens.
Under capitalism there is a very good reason to be corrupt, you aid your survival, as long as your not caught. But under communism if you were stealing things from your workplace, not enough would be delivered, risking the chance that you would not get supplies from another industry, thus threatening your living conditions. So why be corrupt?

PRODUCTION - What has Adolf Hitler got to do with electing people to be managers of a workplace? I'm sure he could have orchastrated the genocide with the power of a sandwhich production line manager. The sort of power Hitler had would be unachievable. And Hitler was only elected into power because Germany was so racked with poverty that its citizens would listen to any excuse and fabled solution to its problems, and Hitler had easy answers to both those needs.

Why would some communists elites rule the world? This forum has no power, except to debate on TV, or whatever communication device, what they think is best for humanity. It takes the ratification of a referendum to begin anything, and still requires the populations active work to achieve it, since this council would have no executive capabilities to execute its plans. More importantly, these people would be elected, not the self appointed figures of Mao and Kim Il Song.

If someone didn't want to give up the US presidency, what happens? Nothing, he still gets kicked out anyway, its just tough for them. I don't see why any councillor or judge that wanted to stay where they were would do anything different. Besides, IMO, these councils should only cover around 50 000 people at most, so its not like the councillors would have much power anyway.

But as I have already said, the entire sane, none criminal populace would be armed and trained, so if anyone tried something like that, they could revolt and replace them.

"Did Adolf Hitler debate in an intelligent manner? If not, why did so many people worship him? In front of a crowd, its not intelligence that counts. Just look at the socialist protests. "Death to America!" And the crowd goes wild and burns another flag!"

Hitler was presenting his views to crowds of desperate people searching for answers, and he gave them some, ones that played upon old fears. But why would such a similar set of circumstances arise to allow another Hitler figure to come about? Prior to any communist revolution I want all countries to be liberal democracies. That would mean these people have all been educated, and have grown up respecting rights. There had been no such culture in Germany, except in the Universities, nor had their been in Russia. So there is no reason to suggest that under a communist system people would ignore there upbringing in a rights respecting culture.

"So if a group of people set up a city on top of an oil well, all the Communist "Utopias" will band together and destroy them? It would make Bush proud"

Destroy them? It would be stopped before they built upon the oil, therefore preventing the need to destroy them.

And as you have highlighted with Bush, such a policy goes on under capitalism, not just communism, making it irrelevant as we are purely working on the flaws of communism here.

"A hacker's paradise. Can YOU trust your life savings with a computer? I hope not.

You also forget the urge to save. What if I want to save up my money for a rainy day? "Sorry sir, but you have to spend your money, or else the Communist Police will steal it from you." A lot of Confucian Asians would no doubt oppose this (ie. 2 billion people)."

Trust my life savings to a computer? What life savings? And what has someone to rob from me, they can have what I have anyway through their work.

And the communist police wouldn't steal your money, apart from the police and money not existing, as the vouchers would simply be out of date.

And what need is there to save for a rainy day, its not like your job is going to be taken from you (without another waiting) just because some faceless CEO is trying to boost profits? You can get everything you need materially through your work, thus defeating the point of saving.

"How will a stupid teenager with an AK47 find out I've been stealing dried bread from the stocks? I could simply claim the bread was stolen by somebody else. Societies that prevent personal achievement will always see somebody trying to steal something."

Again this is not relevant to this discussion because it is not a feature of communism alone but entirely possible under capitalism. Why do 99% of people under capitalism not steal from their workplace? Same reason they wouldn't under communism. As with it is now, apart from most people finding stealing morally objectionable, if they are caught, most likely by a colleague, they will be handed to the police. If someone was caught, most likely by a colleague, they would be handed to the militia.

And again, its not some stupid teenager with a gun, its a trained militia made of local citizens.

"Your theories are good, but you forget one thing: the transition to Commuism is the perfect breeding ground for opportunitists to take power for themselves! Mao Zedong is a prime example: he refused to give up his power, and hung onto it, and nobody could do anything about it. The Army, Communist Elites, and anyone with a gun was on his side."

Yes, the transition to Communism does afford a great oppurtunity to those who try for it. But I believe that as the population would be armed, and well experienced in war after a revolution, they would not sacrifice there new found freedom to such oppurtunists. Sadly communist revolutions were attempted in countries still in the throws of feudalism, making success impossible to begin with.

Cynacism only keeps people down. We can't get any better than this the surfs must have also thought under feudalism, and now you and so many say the same thing of capitalism.

Remember the militia are appointed by a council, who are elected, and both are fully accountable to the electorate once in such positions. The populace wouldn't vote for people suspected to make moves in directions towards such dictatorship. And if they did, they could fight the populace.These peasents as you call them would themselves be armed and trained, I don't see how say 5000 militiamen could fight 45 000 revolutionaries.

I bet they do want to overthrow him, but (i'll have to check on this) I don't think the North Koreans are an armed populace.

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
G... 1. tabla rasa? nope... humans are born with drives as are all living things... greed and self interest is primary among them... why does a baby cry? it wants something? greedy baby demanding something...
or is that learned as well?

2. historical requirements... the whole world must be capitalist... this alone insures that communism will never even get started...

3. "This is not creating a hiearchy in society, as the managers are under the control of the workers."
no hiearchy? yet there is control by the mob of workers... alas, that mob is the hiearchy... "there is a world council, forum not government style, that argues the best courses of action for humanity" the mob of communist workers will vote and demand that everyone, specifically those who object, follow this utopian plan... that is a hiearchy... do you not see the contradictions?

4. laws? who needs laws? just whip up emotional fervor amongst the mob and vote on it... no protection from the communist mob is needed (and protection cannot exist because that would be government and hiearchy)... that boy needs a good 'ol commie style lynching because he is ... and not producing... tell me this isn't possible and wouldn't happen on whims everyday...

5. the philosopher kings? "This would be the most intelligent people of society being elected to councils, in order for them to publicly debate with each other the best ways in which things should be done." since when does the society elect the most intelligent anything? who would judge? tell me this isn't government... hardly equal either...

5a. "If however they decided to kidnap people to put into slavery, once this was recognised the councils from each area could co-ordinate their militias against the new city." the council? you mean the mob? the government? their militia? organize the thugs for the ends of the mob? and we moan about the us in iraq or israel in the west bank... why in communism we can whip up the mob into a militia and kill people who are equal with no government... no greed there... greed of the benevolent communist mob?

6. I've brought this up before... "One way is the voucher system. Replacing money, the vouchers allow people choice over what they want for the work they have done, while preventing the accumulation of wealth into the hands of individuals or minorities. " vouchers do not replace money, vouchers become the new rate of exchange in lieu of money... it is still private property and hoarding vouchers will happen... but they will expire... then they will hoard other things... but the communist mob will have to unite and kill the equal voucher/property hoarders... dated credits? same thing...

6a. electorally accountable militias? I vote we kill him... watch it happen...

human, all too human...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

1. Why do babies cry? Because they want something? What wrong with that, it doesn't make you greedy, a baby is trying to communicate something with its limited abilities.

2. If those requirements arn't met, then yes it will never happen, or very very unlikely. But if you are a supporter of liberal democracy, and capitalism, then you yourself should be trying to make it happen. And I'll be happy to help. And if you are all right, that liberal democracy plus capitalism is the best form of government, then I'll admit I was wrong and enjoy this new world. But you have to build your liberal democratic world before you can say for definate it is the best thing possible.

3. Ahh yes, a heiarchy of one layer. Oh wait, thats not a hiearchy now is it? Just because power would be in the hands of the populace rather than a minority of elites or aristocrats it doesn't mean there is a new heiarchy. If there is nothing BUT workers then there can be no hiearchy, is there is no-one above or below.

4. Why would it happen? Why would an educated populace that isn't desperately poor listen to the ravings of an oppurtunist? Its only the desperate who will listen to these types of ideas because they want a solution to there problems of not living decently. And as everyone would live decently, plus be educated, I ask again why would they listen to these demagogues?

5. Are you just not reading what I write. Council=Councils, okay? These councils are elected. They control the militia, this militia acts as a policing unit, but they are not police because they are fully accountable to the public, unlike police. Got it? Now if someone established a seperate state that was kidnapping people, the councils would get together to organise their militias against the kidnappers. What are you so aghast at about that? If someone declared Arkansas to be seperate from the rest of the US and was kidnapping other Americans to work for it, would you want somebody to go in and stop it? Or would you say 'ah now, we cannot be a mob and organise and offensive against them, which would be so unruly of us now'?

6. How can they hoard things that expire? And as for hoarding other things, what would be the point? If say they hoarded TV's, if they tried to 'sell' them to someone else, they would have to be for something exactley the same value as the telly, or else the buyer would knowingly lose out, so why would anyone buy these TV's? And if they were buying them for exactley the same value, what benefit does the seller get?

7. Why would people vote to kill someone?

I really must live in a different world to you people. Where I live people try to get along with each other, and it doesn't take police or a government to do it. However you must live in a world where you are all rabies infested wild animals, waiting to kill each other if it weren't for those kindly police officers and noble politicians.

[Impenitent]

G.
1. "HUMANITY - Where did I say leave it to the mob?... If he continues everyone will have known about it and can then vote to throw him out. "

all get together and VOTE to lynch him... err throw him out... that IS leaving it to the mob...

1a "I don't see why any group, unless so desperate it will listen to the bullshit of demagogues, would want to infringe on the rights of another."

unless the mob votes to infringe upon his rights... any group?

2 "I've already said no to mob rule, its democratic rule tempered by liberalism."

what tempers it? majority rule? the majority is the mob... does the mob exersize liberalism when it votes to remove a member?

3. "This forum has no power, except to debate on TV, or whatever communication device, what they think is best for humanity."

sounds a lot like televangalism... they know that you'd best live your life for jesus... the non-ruling philosopher kings are contributing suggestions to influence the mob? please... but no religion in communism... except the forum of arguing communists act as such by telling you how to live

you have too many contradictions with which you must deal

the communist/anarchist theories collapse under their own contradictions...

[Impenitent]

G.
1. as shown before... "1. Why do babies cry? Because they want something? What wrong with that, it doesn't make you greedy, a baby is trying to communicate something with its limited abilities." that is the definition of greed... babies are born greedy, it is not learned

2. "liberal" (in the american sense of the term) democracy is worthless... equal freedom is an oxymoron...

3. heiarchy of one layer. Oh wait, thats not a hiearchy now is it?

yes it is a hiearchy... the "under" submits to the "upper"... not equal, not free... enslaved by the mob... the tyranny of the "democratic" 50.001%

4. Why would it happen? Why would an educated populace that isn't desperately poor listen to the ravings of an oppurtunist?

because they could easily be persuaded that they could have better
why? they want more... they are greedy by nature... that's why... deny it all you like, but your precious utopia will never appear because of that very reason...

5. Council=Councils, okay? These councils are elected. They control the militia, this militia acts as a policing unit, but they are not police because they are fully accountable to the public, unlike police. Got it?

they are what they do... they are police... shoot you dead, but you voted... who holds them to account? the police police? the council of the council watchers? digging it deeper...

6. people hoard things... it is what people do... people are greedy, sorry, but they are...

7. Why would people vote to kill someone?

why would they vote to exclude the "non-worker?" but by excluding him, you are sentencing him to death because as you have argued before the society is everything, that which is outside the society dies... voting him out is passing a death sentence on him...

...people trying to get along... fine... but you are blinding yourself to the reality of human nature... not everyone agrees, not everyone tries to get along... that is the trick of freedom... they are free to act against your desire, and bet on it, they will...

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
G.
1. "HUMANITY - Where did I say leave it to the mob?... If he continues everyone will have known about it and can then vote to throw him out. "

all get together and VOTE to lynch him... err throw him out... that IS leaving it to the mob...

1a "I don't see why any group, unless so desperate it will listen to the bullshit of demagogues, would want to infringe on the rights of another."

unless the mob votes to infringe upon his rights... any group?

2 "I've already said no to mob rule, its democratic rule tempered by liberalism."

what tempers it? majority rule? the majority is the mob... does the mob exersize liberalism when it votes to remove a member?

3. "This forum has no power, except to debate on TV, or whatever communication device, what they think is best for humanity."

sounds a lot like televangalism... they know that you'd best live your life for jesus... the non-ruling philosopher kings are contributing suggestions to influence the mob? please... but no religion in communism... except the forum of arguing communists act as such by telling you how to live

you have too many contradictions with which you must deal

the communist/anarchist theories collapse under their own contradictions...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

And voting someone out of the workplace is different from democratically electing a different government? You are after all throwing someone out of their workplace. Or do you consider this to be leaving things to the mob? If so then I support the mob fully.

I've already said that communism could only occur after the world is entirely a liberal democracy, thus creating a political culture of ingrained liberalism. In Britain there will never be a BNP government voted into power? Because we have an ingrained liberal culture. Same goes for the ANP in the US, it isn't going to get into power because the ingrained political culture means that nobody will listen to such shit stirring arseholes.

Using your terms now, when the mob votes someone out of there workplace they would exercise liberalism as would anyone. They wouldn't vote them out because they were black, jewish, female or gay, but because they were slackers or thieves.

The forum does have no power as in executive power. Of course they have the power to influence, that is undeniable and exactly why they are in that forum. They go up to the podium, argue their point and counter others and hope people agree with them. But as the power to influence is not a feature exclusive to communism it is pointless to argue over it if you are supporting capitalist western democracy, because you are also arguing against that too.

[Impenitent]

G.
-Using your terms now, when the mob votes someone out of there workplace they would exercise liberalism as would anyone. They wouldn't vote them out because they were black, jewish, female or gay, but because they were slackers or thieves.

the mob votes as the mob votes... the reasons for voting are beside the point... there is equal freedom for everyone EXCEPT the unequal unfree individuals, for whatever reason the mob wishes, who are voted out of the society...

no power as in executive power? hitler had no power as in executive power until he was elected... did he do everything? no, he argued and convinced the people to act for him... he went up to the podium and argued didn't he?

[G. Adams]

These people wouldn't be voted out of society, they would be voted out of that workplace, they can move to another one, and as long as they arn't idiots they will have learnt their lesson, and try harder.

Hitler preached his hate to a receptable crowd. It was only receptable because of the situation it was in; poor and no hope. Hitler gave them a hope. Such a situation would not arise under communism, because there is no poverty.

And no, Hitler didn't argue on the podium, he ranted. I don't remember seeing anyone step up after him to provide a counter argument. You can't argue unless there is an opposing view to argue with.

[Impenitent]

G.

they can move to another and another and another and another...
they can't be idiots... that wouldn't be EQUAL... they don't have the freedom to be idiots...

to a receptable crowd... poor and no hope... we voted you out... no poverty, but you are out... you didn't produce so you are out... no receptable crowd there... only vote a few out so they can't form their own army to overthrow our revolution...

do you see your circle yet?

there is no opposing view until the mob elects an opposing view... the mob can't vote for what the mob doesn't know... no argument? we voted for an argument...

no one stepped up after him to argue because they were all stepping behind him to do as he bid... did they elect to do? not with ballots, but because the majority did do as he bid, he won the "election"

yes there were plenty of opposing voices to hitler, the mob who voted for hitler through their actions simply refused to listen to the other side...

[G. Adams]

No-one opposing him? I don't think you know much about Weimar Germany. There were over a million Communist Party members in Germany opposing him.

And he didn't win the election as such, his party won a majority, but President Hindenburg still opposed him, only taking him as Chancellor to stop the Nazi party from repeatedly dissolving the reichstagg. Hitler then had the Reichstagg burnt down in order to enact emergecy powers to close down left wing oppostition. When Hindenburg died he jumped at the chance and took power. He was not elected to his presidential post, he simply merged it with the chancellors post, creating the position of fuhrer.

[Impenitent]

you are dancing around the issue

millions did oppose him, yes... but even more accepted him...

if they hadn't accepted him, they would have threw him out or refused to listen to his orders... but that's a "pure" democracy isn't it? the majority of germans "won", hitler took and maintained power, that is the historical fact of the "democratic" actions... and what of the millions who didn't fit the new party line? they got "voted" onto trains...

[castille]

There is an old Asian coinage about voting...."It only takes 50+1 to vote for a dictator."

That means if 50+1 want something, the 49% of people will be oppressed under laws they dont want, rules they dont want, and options they dont want.



Now onto your topics:

HUMANITY
How do you know somebody is slacking off? What if everyone just hates that person and votes him/her off, even if that person is working hard? At