Communism

[Nemesis]

I've wandered here from volconvo.com and I've realized that there are many misconceptions about communism. I'll will try my best to clear the clouds of confusion from your minds.

Part I: The Rich
I've noticed a very high sentiment, that communists are just jealous of rich people. First, in order to understand this you must examine what is the purpose of the employer, landlord, Ceo., etc.

The sad fact of the matter is that the rich contribute nothing to society, and create slavery. This slavery is described as wage slavery. The rich are stealing from the working class. Here is a great quote from the ABCs of Communist Anarchism by Alexander Berkman:

Learned men have figured out that the worker receives as his wage only about one-tenthof what he produces. The other nine-tenths are divided among the landlord, the manufacturer, the railroad company, the wholesaler, the jobber, and other middlemen.

It means this:

Though the workers, as a class, have built the factories, a slice of their daily labor is taken from them for the privilege of using those factories.That's the landlord's profit.

Though the workers have made the tools and the machinery, another slice of their daily labor is taken from them for the privilege of using those tools and machinery. That's the manufacturer's profit.

Though the workers built the railroads and are running them, another slice of their daily labor is taken from them for the transportation of the goods they make. That's the railroad's profit.

And so on, including the banker who lends the manufacturer other people's money, the wholesaler, the jobber, and other middlemen, all of whom get their slice of the worker's toil.

What is left then - one-tenth of the real worth of the worker's labor-is his share, his wage.

Can you guess now why the wise Proudhon said that the possessions of the rich are stolen property? Stolen from the producer, the worker.

Hopefully that helped you realize that the possesions of the rich are stolen property. Communists are not jealous, they just yearn for economic equality.

Part II Law & Government:
Law & Government are repressive by nature. Government means control over you by the upper class. They might work under a guise such as freedom, but in actuallity freedom can only be achieved with the abolition of government. They accuse the poor man of theft when he steals bread to save his family, but the rich capitalist who has finished dumping toxic chemicals into rivers, and causing cancer to those nearby is left untouched. The purpose of law in the capitalist system is to protect the rich upper class, serving the ultimate hypocrisy. They also do a very good job at squelching public opinion, which we will delve into later on.

One of the most disturbing things that the government creates is nationalism. This leads to brutal and bloody wars, for an example see Israel and Palestine. Nationalism allows for a state which people think their lives are worth more than others, and leads to more inequality.

Part III Church and School:

The government makes sure that one doesn't find out, and remains brainwashed about communism and anarchism. They use the church and the school in order to indoctrinate the youth of the country. Many in this forum are under the guise that teachers teach communism to their children. This is an indefinite lie. When I was in school we said the pledge of allegiance, and were taught that communism meant hate and fascism. My nephew is being taught the same things in 7th grade, his teachers say communism is evil. The church and the school teach you to bow down to authority, saying that the government and the upper class deserve their money, and that the poor will always be poor no matter.

This is why I support the abolition of the church. Many misinterpret this as the outlawing of religion, which it most certanly is not. Instead it is the abolition of organized religion, to stop the brainwashing of youth, and to stop youth being forced to practice certain religions because their parents do.

Part IV Organization of Communism

Communsim functions as sort of a web of interdependence. Each artisan realies on the other artisan for materials and products. Each worker that contributes equally gets goods based upon their need, so they class division will finally be broken. One might say "what if one worker realises that he can get the same amount even if he worked less." If this happened the populace would vote to expell the worker from the web.

Part V Misconceptions on Communism
T
he main problem is with communism many governments claiming to be communist destroy what communism stands for. Cheifly this is equality and freedom, which aren't present in the old USSR, Cuba, and North Korea. If one examines communism they realizes the fascism and totlaltarianism is the exact opposite of communism, which is pure democracy.

Mind you this essay was putting communism very simply, so please post questions and observations. I have one request; please keep the posts civilized, and have an open mind. Also post why. Many forums have not adhearred to this, and it makes it very difficult for a debate. Thanks for your time!

-Nemesis

[MO]

pfff! Crack a book! It has been tried and it hasn't worked too well.

[Nemesis]

MO, the only places pure communism has been tried is in Kibbutzes and Amish villages. Once agains if you read the essay, then you would realize that nations that claim to be communist are, in actuallity, are not. This includes USSR, Cuba, China, and North Korea. Please read the essay next time.

-Nemesis

[Q]

The Communist Manifesto represents a misguided philosophy, which teaches the Citizens to give up their RIGHTS for the sake of the "common good," but it always ends in a police state. This is called preventive justice. Control is the key concept. Read carefully as this is a direct excerpt from the manifesto by Karl Marx:

1. Abolition of private property.
2. Heavy progressive income tax.
3. Abolition to all rights of inheritance
4. Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. A Central Bank.
6. Government control of Communications and Transportation.
7. Government ownership of factories and agriculture.
8. Government Control of Labor.
9. Corporate farms, regional planning.
10. Free education for all children in Government Controlled schools.

Why communism doesn't work is simple. It magnifies the good of the community to the [exclusion of] the individual. By its very nature, it defies the laws of "Human nature". People value their individuality, and want their contributions to be compensated and recognized. Communism eradicates that principle.

Why capitalism doesn't work: It magnifies the good of the "corporate proletariat to the [exclusion of] the worker. Again, it goes against human nature, by not recognizing the value of each individual's contributions, by bestowing gratification and recognition upon the very few.

Both have as little to do with true free market economy as a wet rope. Neither does very well as an economic system. Lenninist communism fell very quickly into totalitarian socialism, which is a total government controlled economy. It failed.

Robertson style capitalism has fallen into disrepair as the result of greedy CEOs, and a corporate polit-bureau in Washington that cares nothing for the good of the individual.

Both scenarios foster revolution. Both scenarios lead to failure.

The only way to ensure a true free market and [healthy] economy, is for each individual to be compensated in direct proportion to what he/she does. (See "Shortage or Sabotage").

One hundred years ago in this country, 95% of all individuals owned their own business. Today, 95% of all individuals work for someone else. This country has turned its back on one of the fundamental principles which made it great: The individual initiative that is "Free Enterprise".

As a Christian, I agree to the abolishment of "organized religion". It has about as much to do with true Christianity as a wet rope too. As long as religion is organized under federal guidelines of what the UCC defines as a 501C3 corporation, they go against the commands of he who is the one they worship. Organized religion, sponsored by government [501C3 corporations] have no place in Christianity. A relationship with God is a purely personal matter - "Go into your closet and pray, for those who wail in the public eye on the street corner already have their reward".

Schools claim that communism is "evil", however they have a very crafty way of interjecting the "communist ideal" into their lessons. It is part of the way to slowly and imperceptably indoctrinate the young into the communist way of thinking.

When I was young, I was spoon fed the hogwash that "communism is evil" too. Yet in almost the same breath, a socail studies teacher would say: "I was in Viet Nam. We were there esentially telling these people: 'Look how far America has come in 200 years', while the Soviets were there telling them: 'Look how far we've come in 50 years', so who would you follow?" I had to raise my hand and ask the question: "Let's turn the pages of our history books back a few chapters. Didn't we just cover WWII, and learn that we [America] basically brought 'Uncle Joe' and his Soviet Union out of the dark ages by supplying them with tanks guns planes and all manner of technology?"

Of course I was not well liked by many of my teachers. If the sheeple in this country are ever awakened, and come to truly understand the way of the "corporate proletariat", the money cartel, and the bleeding of our economy through the use of privatized fiat currency, our own economic system and indeed our very government shall face a revolution not unlike the original, and it shall go the way of the old Soviet Union.

Until then, the sheeple shall continue to be enslaved, and be "fat dumb and happy".

Sleep well America - Q.

[Walter]

True collective economies require a purity of motive, spirit and honesty, three virtues that cannot exist among the people when a ruling class decides it likes its position in a truly collective environment.

Communism is simply taking economic collectivism to the next step. Unless and until purity of motive, spirit and honesty can be required, Communism will fail. As long as greed, avarice and lust for power exists in the human genome, those who find themselves in the Communist ruling class will become "the Rich". To integrate that idea in Nemisis's post, "the sad fact of the matter is that the Communist Ruling Class contributes nothing to society, and creates slavery. This slavery is described as wage slavery. The Communist Ruling Class are stealing from the working class."

[proudmemberVRWC]

Nemisis

Let's see, how can I put this in a civilized way....hmmm... Oh I've got it.

What a load of fecal matter!

[Nemesis]

Q, I agree with Alexander Berkman's view on communism more so than Marx.
Your points make no sense, as their is no governments, corporations, or currency. Also, one has many more rights under communist anarchism (Berkman's view) than one does under representative republic and capitalism. (USA) They have freedom from wage slavery, freedom from government, freedom from law, and freedom from compulsion.

Walter, there is no such thing as a communist ruling class, or any other type of heirarchy.

Proud member, your post offers no evidence to explain your claim, and I suggest that you offer reasons why? and an argument to back up your claim.

[ItWillNeverWork]

I think people are getting their wires crossed here. Nemesis claims to be an Anarcho-Communist not a Communist.

Whilst I am not to up on the details of what this involves exactly, I can assure you from what I do know that this is a completley different strain of communism from the marxist-lenninist systems of communism that the USSR and other State-Communist countries operate under.

Maybe Nemesis can explain to us why an Anarchist Communist society would not descend into tyranny in the same way the USSR did?

[proudmemberVRWC]

Nemesis said:

Proud member, your post offers no evidence to explain your claim, and I suggest that you offer reasons why? and an argument to back up your claim.

I thought my statement made fairly clear my feelings about Nemisis' post. Nemisis postulates in the opening statement to clear up misconceptions about communism. He/She does not do that. He/She merely rambles about the Rich, Law & Government, and Church and School. Then he/she spouts a utopian "what if" scenario, and finishes with this literary gem:

"The main problem is with communism many governments claiming to be communist destroy what communism stands for. Cheifly this is equality and freedom, which aren't present in the old USSR, Cuba, and North Korea. If one examines communism they realizes the fascism and totlaltarianism is the exact opposite of communism, which is pure democracy."

Maybe I should refine my original post to read:
What a pointless, uninformed, rambling load of fecal matter!

Nemisis -
Here is the legal definition of communism:
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 280

Communism.  A system of social organization in which goods are held in common, the opposite of the system of private property; communalism, any theory or system of social organization involving common ownership of agents of production of industry, the latter of which theories is referred to in the popular use of the word "communism" while the scientific usage sometimes conforms to the first alone and sometimes alternates between the first and second; also the principles and theories of the Communist Party.  A system by which the state controls the means of production and the distribution and consumption of industrial products.

[Q]

Isn't Anarchy and Communism a contradiction in terms? For there to be true equality among people, there has to be rules. That is that when one becomes greater than another, the "rules" must kick in and re-equalize them. Hence, there must be a means to enforce the "rules" as it were, such as a government. Anarchy cannot exist in the presence of a government. Anarchy in its truest form is "No government".

So, I would seek an explanation on how the "rules" of communism are to be enforced without any government.

Q.

[Nemesis]

First of all I will let Berkman explain communist anarchism.

"CAN YOU tell us briefly," your friend asks, "what Anarchism really is?"

I shall try. In the fewest words, Anarchism teaches that we can live in a society where there is no compulsion of any kind.

A life without compulsion naturally means liberty; it means freedom from being forced or coerced, a chance to lead the life that suits you best.

You cannot lead such a life unless you do away with the institutions that curtail your liberty and interfere with your life, the conditions that compel you to act differently from the way you really would like to.

What are those institutions and conditions? Let us see what we have to do away with in order to secure a free and harmonious life. Once we know what has to be abolished and what must take its place, we shall also find the way to do it.

What must be abolished, then, to secure liberty?

First of all, of course, the thing that invades you most, that handicaps or prevents your free activity; the thing that interferes with your liberty and compels you to live differently from what would be your own choice.

That thing is government.

Take a good look at it and you will see that government is the greatest invader; more than that, the worst criminal man has ever known of. It fills the world with violence, with fraud and deceit, with oppression and misery. As a great thinker once said, "its breath is poison." It corrupts everything it touches.

"Yes, government means violence and it is evil," you admit; "but can we do without it?"

That is just what we want to talk over. Now, if I should ask you whether you need government, I'm sure you would answer that you don't, but that it is for the others that it is needed.

But if you should ask any one of those "others," he would reply as you do: he would say that he does not need it, but that it is necessary "for the others."

Why does every one think that he can be decent enough without the policeman, but that the club is needed for "the others"?

"People would rob and murder each other if there were no government and no law," you say.

If they really would, why would they? Would they do it just for the pleasure of it or because of certain reasons? Maybe if we examine their reasons, we'd discover the cure for them.

Suppose you and I and a score of others had suffered shipwreck and found ourselves on an island rich with fruit of every kind. Of course, we'd get to work to gather the foot But suppose one of our number should declare that it all belongs to him, and that no one shall have a single morsel unless he first pays him tribute for it. We would be indignant, wouldn't we? We'd laugh at his pretensions. If he'd try to make trouble about it, we might throw him into the sea, and it would serve him right, would it not?

Suppose further that we ourselves ant our forefathers had cultivated the island and stocked it with everything needed for life and comfort, and that some one should arrive and claim it all as his. What would we say? We'd ignore him, wouldn't we? We might tell him that he could share with us and join us in our work. But suppose that he insists on his ownership and that he produces a slip of paper and says that it proves that everything belongs to him? We'd tell him he's crazy and we'd go about our business. But if he should have a government back of him, he would appeal to it for the protection of "his rights," and the government would send police and soldiers who would evict us and put the "lawful owner in possession."


That is the function of government; that is what government exists for and what it is doing all the time.

Now, do you still think that without this thing called government we should rob and murder each other?

Is it not rather true that with government we rob and murder? Because government does not secure us in our rightful possessions, but on the contrary takes them away for the benefit of those who have no right to them, as we have seen in previous chapters.

If you should wake up to-morrow morning and learn that there is no government any more, would your first thought be to rush out into the street and kill some one? No, you know that is nonsense. We speak of sane, normal men. The insane man who wants to kill does not first ask whether there is or isn't any government. Such men belong to the care of physicians and alienists; they should be placed in hospitals to be treated for their malady.

The chances are that if you or Johnson should awaken to find that there is no government, you would get busy arranging your life under the new conditions.

It is very likely, of course, that if you should then see people gorge themselves while you go hungry, you would demand a chance to eat, and you would be perfectly right in that. And so would every one else, which means that people would not stand for any one hogging all the good things of life: they would want to share in them. It means further that the poor would refuse to stay poor while others wallow in luxury. It means that the worker will decline to give up his product to the boss who claims to "own" the factory and everything that is made there. It means that the farmer will not permit thousands of acres to lie idle while he has not enough soil to support himself and family. It means that no one will be permitted to monopolize the land or the machinery of production. It means that private ownership of the sources of life will not be tolerated any more. It will be considered the greatest crime for some to own more than they can use in a dozen lifetimes, while their neighbors have not enough bread for their children. It means that all men will share in the social wealth, and that all will help to produce that wealth.

It means, in short, that for the first time in history right justice, and equality would triumph instead of law.

You see therefore that doing away with government also signifies the abolition of monopoly and of personal ownership of the means of production and distribution.

It follows that when government is abolished, wage slavery and capitalism must also go with it, because they cannot exist without the support and protection of government. Just as the man who would claim a monopoly of the island, of which I spoke before, could not put through his crazy claim without the help of government.

Such a condition of things where there would be liberty instead of government would be Anarchy. And where equality of use would take the place of private ownership, would be Communism.

It would be Communist Anarchism.

"Oh, Communism," your friend exclaims, "but you said you were not a Bolshevik!"

No, I am not a Bolshevik, because the Bolsheviki want a powerful government or State, while Anarchism means doing away with the State or government altogether.

"But are not the Bolsheviki Communists?" you demand

Yes, the Bolsheviki are Communists, but they want their dictatorship, their government, to compel people to live in Communism. Anarchist Communism, on the contrary, means voluntary Communism, Communism from free choice

"I see the difference. It would be fine, of course;" your friend admits. "But do you really think it possible?"

[Nemesis]

Q, as you can see rules need not be enforced under communist anrchism.

Proudmember, sorry for the confusion. Communism is just the economic frame work like capitalism. Anarchy is the political/social frame work like representative republic.

[proudmemberVRWC]

Nemisis,
I understand that distinction. I am, however, still puzzled by the reason for your original post. Were you responding to a different thread that I may have missed where there was confusion about communism?

May I suggest a site for you to visit?

www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part1

Interesting isn't it?

[Nemesis]

Hmmmmm, I read most of the link. I kept having to laugh when I heard the word communist regime. Once again, communist anarchism has never been tried.

The reason for my orginal post was that I kept seeing people posting misconceptions on communism in other posts. So I decided I was in the mood for debate anyways and I posted the topic.