What do YOU think Communism is?

[Malagan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%...ublic_of_China
Located in East Asia, it is a single-party state governed by the Communist Party of China (CPC)

A party who through Chinese capitalism govern the country economically =P
"Bamboo capitalism" I believe it was referred to as in an article

[Deathcries]

Communists ruled the northern section of my country during the war, so while I can't enumerate the horrors they inflicted in as great a detail as anyone who lived under the Soviet umbrella, I can safely say that in my experience the most ardent Communists on boards like these are dumb, idealistic western kids who come from countries that never had to deal with communists, gulags, pogroms, and the like.

Someone who has had family live with communism. You are so right on so many terms. I agree people have no clue, and seriously have their head shoved SO FAR up their asses, they just don't get it. Just like when people thought everything was peaceful and beautiful untill terrorist drove their planes into the trade towers. Seems like alot have already forgotten, or just don't really care if innocent people die or not.

[murfle]

Karl Marx said it a bit better... "Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite! "

The problem with non communists speaking about communism is they really have no idea what they are speaking about. The main idea is that the wealth is spread out equally among the working class people. and pretty much fuck the rich... this just hasn't ever worked out in any society EVER because Greed trumps goodwill. Socialism is as close as people can get to a functional form of pseudo-communism. Capitalism is the biggest enemy of Communism.

" I am not a Marxist. " Karl Marx

[Deathcries]

Shut up and go read The Communist Manifesto.

Then, come back when you've gained a fundamental understanding of what communism is.

Don't read fairy tales.

User was infracted for this post.

[xile]

No I can say what I feel. Robbing, Killing is legit punishment around they world. In Communism you say what you feel you get the hurt. Big difference.

In some forms of practiced communism, but that doesn't match up with the ideas of communism in anyway. You describe something significantly more like a dictatorship which is primarily what communism has been turned into today. You have a dictator/communistic mix and in china you see a smidgen of capitalism creeping in. Don't act like for a minute that what china has or anyother government is even close to ideal communism because it's not and communism will never work because of human nature. I.E. the perversion of ideal communism into practiced dictatorial communism

[Deleted]

I think communism is where everyone shares everything and people are supposed to be all equals. Everyone gets a perfectly even piece of the pie and carries everyone else's weight evenly.

But, obviously that's a fairytale. But, then again, commercialism isn't totally working perfectly for us either.

I think the problem is that everyone in here believes that a communist society has no rules.

A communist society IS a controlled group of people. But the thing is... Everyone helps control it. If you don't work for what you earn, you get warned and/or kicked out. By everyone.

[Sunseeker]

Don't read fairy tales.

Then you obviously need to GTFO this discussion because if you've never read about it, you've got no fucking clue what it is!

[araine]

Communism and fascism is both extremely closely tied together. And i find that frequently rightwing pundits in USA brand things like Social liberalism as communism.

Communism and fascism is in the basics the same thing. totalitarian government that look to control most aspect of your private life. Such as reproductive etc etc. Remember when the shipyard workers went on strike in Poland and USA said attacking unions from having bargaining rights is NOT freedom. Well same thing came to USA, when far rightwingers looked to and worked hard to get rid of union rights such as the right to CBA.

And noone would claim those people are like the old USSR but they stood for the same point of views towards unions and civil liberties of the working people. Hence why the far right and the far left is basically the same thing just different name on it

[Deleted]

BUT THEY WERE NOT COMMUNISTS GASJGLJGKLNAFKLFANFD

Okay. Let's take this slowly.

Once upon a time there was the idea of communism. Then the Soviet Union popped up. The leader during the second world war, Joseph Stalin, took the ideals of communism and twisted them to fit his own plans. He then sold them to the public and the world as communism.

Communism does not dictate totalitarianism. Please try to understand this.

Everyone who does not listen to this guy is just not interested in truth... everything he says is true... I mean many people here claim to know soooo much... but have you ever talked to people who lived in these so called "communist" countries?

I mean I was born and raised in GDR (for people who don't know "German Democratic Republic") and I think I know some stuff about this so called "Communists"... and this wasn't Communism... ideas were into this but all in all it just wasn't communisn because the idea just works in an Utopian world... just like Tharaldriel already said.

[xile]

Don't read fairy tales.

No you just shake your head and base all your evidence on poorly draw conclusions based on anecdotal evidence that have little if any relevance to the real meaning of this discussion, which mind you is what is communism. Going about spouting information based upon the utter failure that is the adaption of marxists ideas to actual society is useless. Communism is nothing like what is shown in china or russia those are frankly piss-poor adaptations twisted with greed and bad human nature that led to a dictator/communist regime that ended up entirely disregarding most of what communism stood for. Communism by definition works to get rid of the same thing you cite as what these things have, a ruling elite, which mind you i gurantee you see in china today. In an ideal world which communism was implemented in (which mind you will never happen) the president is on the same level as the garbage man, while one may have more power than the other they do not abuse it for their own personal means and their views are the same which is the bettering of the country as a whole because it will help all.

Is this applicable in real life? No. Don't blame the system, blame the inherently flawed people that you and i are.

[Vuljatar]

So, the reality is, more work may not mean more pay at all, more work may just mean more work. Which means the mystical equation that you seem to be dancing around actually stating of more work translating into more pay, doesn't actually exist, because more work could quite easily, and often does mean less pay.

So then the Capitalist hard work for good pay system really doesn't exist any more than your accusation that everyone would get everything for free with no work in Communism. It's just opinion and hot air.

Trolling. /sigh

For the benefit of others reading this thread, I will repeat what I have already said three times:

Working harder will, generally, much more often than not, get you paid more. That is a fact.

Now if you'll excuse me I need to go to my job, where I work long hours for low pay. I work hard, and thanks to my hard work I will be promoted, I will get raises, and I will improve my quality of life on my own personal merit.

[Stelio Kontos]

I don't care what Communists say REAL communism is, I judge an ideology based off of its real world effects, and the effects of Communism wherever it was implemented has been terrible.

Apologists, be they religious, political, or any other ideology, always fall back on the No True Scotsman fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

No true Scotsman is an intentional logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it.

The term was advanced by philosopher Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking: Do I sincerely want to be right?.[1]

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
—Antony Flew, Thinking About Thinking (1975)

A simpler rendition would be:

Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Student: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

When the statement "all A are B" is qualified like this to exclude those A which are not B, this is a form of begging the question; the conclusion is assumed by the definition of "true A".

An example of a political application of the fallacy would be in asserting that "no democracy starts a war", then distinguishing between mature or "true" democracies, which never start wars, and "emerging democracies", which may start them.[2]

[Volks]

I know what Communism is, and it's the opposite of Freedom!

[Malagan]

I don't care what Communists say REAL communism is, I judge an ideology based off of its real world effects, and the effects of Communism wherever it was implemented has been terrible.

Apologists, be they religious, political, or any other ideology, always fall back on the No True Scotsman fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

No true Scotsman is an intentional logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it.

The term was advanced by philosopher Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking: Do I sincerely want to be right?.[1]

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
—Antony Flew, Thinking About Thinking (1975)

A simpler rendition would be:

Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Student: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

When the statement "all A are B" is qualified like this to exclude those A which are not B, this is a form of begging the question; the conclusion is assumed by the definition of "true A".

An example of a political application of the fallacy would be in asserting that "no democracy starts a war", then distinguishing between mature or "true" democracies, which never start wars, and "emerging democracies", which may start them.[2]

So, if I strap a cone on my head and say I'm a unicorn, you will judge your opinions on unicorns based on me?
'cause I dont think I'd do those "Friendship is Magic" unicorns much justice.

[electrikfuzz]

I don't care what Communists say REAL communism is, I judge an ideology based off of its real world effects, and the effects of Communism wherever it was implemented has been terrible.

Apologists, be they religious, political, or any other ideology, always fall back on the No True Scotsman fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

No true Scotsman is an intentional logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it.

The term was advanced by philosopher Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking: Do I sincerely want to be right?.[1]

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
—Antony Flew, Thinking About Thinking (1975)

A simpler rendition would be:

Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Student: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

When the statement "all A are B" is qualified like this to exclude those A which are not B, this is a form of begging the question; the conclusion is assumed by the definition of "true A".

An example of a political application of the fallacy would be in asserting that "no democracy starts a war", then distinguishing between mature or "true" democracies, which never start wars, and "emerging democracies", which may start them.[2]

We have a winner.

[Deleted]

I don't care what Communists say REAL communism is, I judge an ideology based off of its real world effects, and the effects of Communism wherever it was implemented has been terrible.

Apologists, be they religious, political, or any other ideology, always fall back on the No True Scotsman fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

No true Scotsman is an intentional logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it.

The term was advanced by philosopher Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking: Do I sincerely want to be right?.[1]

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
—Antony Flew, Thinking About Thinking (1975)

A simpler rendition would be:

Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Student: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

When the statement "all A are B" is qualified like this to exclude those A which are not B, this is a form of begging the question; the conclusion is assumed by the definition of "true A".

An example of a political application of the fallacy would be in asserting that "no democracy starts a war", then distinguishing between mature or "true" democracies, which never start wars, and "emerging democracies", which may start them.[2]

What you have seen is something sold as Communisn, but it wasn't Communisn, and that is the point YOU don't understand...

[Sunseeker]

Trolling. /sigh

The excuse of everyone who ever lost a debate. "oh noes! I can't defend my position even though I've repeatedly stated it's true but given no factual backing and this person still doesn't believe me! They must be a troll!"

Seriously, do you want to start flinging poo while you're at it?

Working harder will, generally, much more often than not, get you paid more. That is a fact.

You've gone from qualifying it as "might" to "generally", from "will" and now added "more often than not", how many more qualifiers do you need to add so that you might someday maybe, quite possibly, have even the slightest hint that this might not actually be the case 9/10 times?

Now if you'll excuse me I need to go to my job, where I work long hours for low pay. I work hard, and thanks to my hard work I will be promoted, I will get raises, and I will improve my quality of life on my own personal merit.

Ah, the other attack! "you clearly don't know what you're talking about since you don't have a job!". I work medium hours for medium pay and do my job just fine thank you, i'm simply not under the delusion that doubling my workload is going to magically make me rich.

[Deleted]

I don't care what Communists say REAL communism is, I judge an ideology based off of its real world effects, and the effects of Communism wherever it was implemented has been terrible.

Apologists, be they religious, political, or any other ideology, always fall back on the No True Scotsman fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

No true Scotsman is an intentional logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it.

The term was advanced by philosopher Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking: Do I sincerely want to be right?.[1]

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
—Antony Flew, Thinking About Thinking (1975)

A simpler rendition would be:

Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Student: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

When the statement "all A are B" is qualified like this to exclude those A which are not B, this is a form of begging the question; the conclusion is assumed by the definition of "true A".

An example of a political application of the fallacy would be in asserting that "no democracy starts a war", then distinguishing between mature or "true" democracies, which never start wars, and "emerging democracies", which may start them.[2]

Actually, it's more like this.

Let's assume that all zebras are friendly.

Now, we have a white horse who is a bit of a bitch. This white horse paints itself with black stripes. It then commits murder and adultery.

What you're saying is that, according to the above argument, zebras now commit murder and adultery regularly.

[Stelio Kontos]

And they keep falling back to that fallacy with feeble attempts to justify it.

[Deleted]

And they keep falling back to that fallacy with feeble attempts to justify it.

Are you even reading our arguments to the contrary...?