AMEN!

Forget what Communism is in theory...Communism exists in practice and people have suffered under it and are still suffering under it. Cuba, North Korea, North Vietnam,

Communism, in practice, is a system of madness. It violates all principles of liberty.

Tell that to the thousands of Cubans who risk their lives trying to escape...the Castro Communist regime.

And after that why don't you write a letter to Castro and his brother and insist they return 341 Catholic Schools to their rightful owners and allow them to get them up and running again?

Everything is wonderful when you remove human nature from the equation - just not realistic.

this is Lucas in a nutshell 

Oi, talk about the blind commenting on the (so called) blind, read this:

I've said this same damn thing many times in this thread alone, so I'm going to just leave the long list at two. That being said, KFC...straight up, you're being assinine. Nitro, like I said..*points up to the two of many comments he made*. Clearly, if anyone is reading my comments, they'll see that I've acknowledged that I see communism in two ways - the REALISTIC real world way, and theory. Apparently a few of you can't seem to reconcile that, jebus.

~AJ 

Yeah and we're tired of hearing it. Take it over to the sci-fi blogs, Lula's comment obviously involves life's reality, not your fantasy world. Like you said (again and again) we know you admire your fantasy communist utopia, since you can't show where it has or potentially will exist, twice is too many times to mention it (in this particular forum).

And please don't have a fit because no one is indulging your theories. You were called on it, be man enough realize that. Anyone that desires to learn theoretical communism can pick up a copy of Marx's works and get it from the horses mouth and not a groupie.

If you're being obtuse, which you are in my opinion, I'm going to be blunt about it. Clearly you're seeing what you want to see, because I've acknowledged the failings of communism if it is applied in the world. You're just not seeing, or refusing to see that.

Nitro, again, you're being obtuse.

Let me my opinion down for you:

There are two parts ot my opinion, the realistic and the theoretical. Clearly, I understand the differences. I've said time and time again that I approve of Communism in THEORY. Shall I say it again? THEORY. I know that communism, in the real world, will not work; it won't because of numerous reasons that I'm sure everyone knows.

Clearly a person who is actually taking a second to stop and think about what I've stated would understand what I am saying - that I know it will not work and that its real world application is pointless. I'm differentiating between theory (or ideal circumstances) out of the desire to see the end of many things, like hunger, etc. and the reality that it won't work for many reasons. Plus, another reason why I only think communism is noble in theory is because ultimately, the cost for to work properly, is too much. That same person would understand that there is a difference between thinking something is decent in theory, and then in reality.

A person can IN THEORY think that something is ideal or great - but understand the practical application (as well as moral/ethical) is not fit for the way the world is.

Am I getting anything across? Or should I just move on.

~AJ

I must be the complete opposite to you then because I disapprove of communism in theory and approve of it in practice.

While I don't think that "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" is a good system (I think it describes a form of slavery), I do believe that it is sometimes necessary or beneficial to practice it.

Families are run on that basis. And they have to be because children cannot fence for themselves. So parents must be forced, by nature and by society, to provide for their children. They must provide according to their ability and according to the children's needs.

Similarly, while I generally disprove of the basic system, I recognise the achievements of the kibbutz movement since the late 19th century and don't think a modern state could be created from nothing using any other system.

I also think Stalin's Russia and Mao's China were efficiently run states, for the purposes of their masters. I still disagree with what they wanted to do. But I agree that communism was the best way to do it.

And finally, while I disagree with the principle of income tax (which is also charged according to means and then used according to needs), I agree with it being necessary until we have another tax system (for example one that charges according to use rather than means).

AJ, it is telling in itself that both countries, Russia and China, recovered considerably as soon as the dropped the communistic take on economy and allowed farmers to sell part of their harvest for profit and to own property again. Chinese president was Ping and something like that happened under Lenin in the 20ies. Lenin was so sure that the socialist world revolution is the right way that he allowed people to use the principles of market economy again - just to show that socialism was superior. As soon as he did that, people weren't starving and Russia as a whole did better - but just for a few years. As soon as Ping opened up China - well, China has become a global economical player since, the big rival of the US. They buy and use the most steel in the whole world.

A political system that is only good on paper and can never work in reality is not worth talking about. Human nature does not work like that, we don't think we are all equal and should all the get exactly the same. There is a social pecking order, as there is in many mamal herd or pack animals - Wolves, deer, lions.. probably alot more. I don't want to liken humans with animals, just to show that forming a social rank is natural and that the fact that not everybody is infact  equal is natural as well. That doesn't mean that the intrinsic value of every human being isn't the same, but those two things are not identical. It

Socialist/liberal ideas in Germany only work because usually, before they come into power, libertarian and conservative administrations made enough money for them to spend. All their ideas of social justice etc. rely on money that they want to take away from the rich. "Wealth for everybody" was the slogan of the left party, closest to communist as you can get in Germany. But the voters didn't vote enough for the Social democratic party to form coalitions to be able to form a government, even alot of workers, the traditional clientel of the SPD, didn't vote for them because they know, if the economy is down everybody suffers, so they voted the FDP (libertarian party) and the CDU, the conservative party. No socialist country I know of treats their people good or kind in the long run, you are not allowed to think for yourself and the government takes care of everything. It is easy for those who just muddle along - you don't have to worry, you're treated like stupid child all your life and just have to do as you're told until you die.

Amen, Utemia.

And the current trend in the SPD is just too weird. They are arguing that the reason a majority of the population voted for conservatives and liberals (the FDP with the traditional meaning of the word "liberal") was because the SPD wasn't left-wing enough!

Good news from Thuringia and Saarland though.

In both states the socialists were close to forming a government (in Thuringia as leaders of a coalition with the SPD and in Saarland as a junior partner in a SPD/Green/Socialist coalition). And in both states the attempt failed as the SPD in Thuringia decided to support a conservative prime minister instead and the Green party in Saarland decided that they'd rather work with conservatives and liberals than with the socialist party.

It is worth to note that the Social Democratic party in Germany (SPD) was traditionally anti-communist and has only recently given up that stance, although with massive opposition by traditional social democrats. The German Green party has generally two wings, pro-communist and anti-communist.

The Schroeder/Fischer government of the early 2000s was dominated by the anti-communist wings of SPD and Greens. (It might shock American readers, but Schroeder was the pro-American guy among the SPD. Fischerof the Green party was well-known for his more hawkish stance anyway.)

btw, Nitro, I want to apologize for my temper. It's just annoying when something is simply said and it's either ignored willfully, or whatever. What I said is pretty simply, but yet you, as well as others, just dont seem to get it. I dont know why, and i don't know how much more simple and basic i can get in explaining it.

Anyways, again, i apologize for my outuburst.

~AJ

Please...the horse was dead long ago (you practically said so yourself).

None necessary (ever). I have more worries than what anyone can type online, opinions don't upset me. Which is exactly why I wrote what I did in the first place. This is a good place to test your opinions among others, just don't expect folks to agree with you 100% of the time (be glad for 10%). If you're too sensitive to have someone criticize some of your remarks you should either stop writing or find a place where everyone agrees with you to spare your feelings. I don't think you want to do that, so leave the thin skin out of your writing. I'm not the first to bring this to your attention. If you get upset here you're in for a very hard life. Just my 2¢. 

Your argument was based on theory and Lula's was on fact. Which one wins out? You can say the word "Theory" till your blue in the face, once Lula threw out what the world generally regards as fact, it should have ended there, but you tried to defend your original words by qualifying it with your "theory" disclaimer. Yes, everyone saw and understood that you used a hypothetical. All you accomplished was moving the discussion away from the facts to the defense of your word usage. You're under a misconception if you believe that I or anyone else didn't understand what you said. I hope this helps you. Perhaps a third party, that read the exchange, can chime in and tell you if my analysis is correct or incorrect, because you don't want to take my word for it and that's fine too.

All you had to do was simply acknowledge that. In the discord of our arugment/discussion, there was no way I could tell that you were acknowledging anything that I said. Your words pushed me to assume you merely being stubborn and refusing to admit that I was differentiating between ideal theory, and real world practicality - that, as I stated elsewhere - I'm not some wide eyed idealistic zombie. All right?

That being said, perhaps a large part of it was my fault. Maybe I wasn't explaining myself clearly, I don't know.

Yet you kept on saying I was applying it to reality, which as I've said, I'm differentiating between theory on paper, versus reality. *shakes head* Really...certainly you get that. What is ticking me off is that you're continuing to assert that I'm trying to say Communism will work in the real world - which as I said - won't work. I'm frigging acknowledging my understanding of that. I get it, really I do. Honestly, I feel like I'm talking to a child that refuses to llisten.

You know, I'm proud of the idealism and hope that makes up a decent pecentage of me. That doesn't mean that I don't see the world realistically and practically - why do you think I'm so damn cynical? I see things as they are, but I also hold out hope (albeit ironically contrasted to my cynicism) for the best of humanity - the end of various world problems that people are too freaking apathetic to care about, or just don't give a damn.

~AJ