What is your definition of Communism?

[fulano]

The basic concept is a society without private property or any real government in which distribution of wealth is done democratically and based on need instead of ambition or personal merit. Many variations exist but none of them have ever worked so far as I know so I am sticking with capitalism.

Ahem, most of the world's economy lies in shambles, as in right now. The rich have never been richer, and the poor have never been poorer, and the ever present gap just keeps widening. Right now we face the worst economical crisis in our generation, and you still stick with capitalism?

I'm ready to concede to anybody that instant shift to communism is not the best idea right now, but keeping things the way they are right now is just pure lunacy. Stuff has to change to contain the damn problem.

Why don't you look for the comparison between what was needed to combat world hunger efficiently and what was loaned as a financial rescue to the companies that got us in this mess?

The poor have been consistently dwindling in number since the industrial revolution and the rich have been consistently increasing in number since the industrial revolution. More people are rich than they wear at the beginning of the 20th century because we have more money now. This is all part of the economic cycle, even depressions are part of the cycle. Wait, whatever gave you the idea that one person having much more money than another person is bad.

Oh, man...you didn't just tell me that...

Those stats and its sources are like 4 years old, but you'll see for yourself:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

Things ain't getting better and that's all I'm gonna say on the matter.

And no, there is no such thing as an "economic cycle." The economy is not a natural occurring phenomenon, it isn't more natural than, say, those damn FURBIES. It is a man made construct, and a very unregulated missused one at that, let me tell you.

 

[Trace2010]

Communism is the perfect societal model from a holistic, people-oriented point of view.

Communism is an impossibility- human nature will force any type of communism anywhere in the world into a totalitarian dictatorship before the end of its first generation.

 

[Zer_]

*snip*

There's nothing inherently wrong with someone having more money then another. The problems arise when a rich person is not spending that money. The idea of Capitalism is that money is supposed to be circulating rather freely throughout the economy. Someone who is making more money should be spending more money essentially giving that money back to the poor. That isn't happening right now. The rich are just using that money to make more money and ONLY to make more money. It's not about living a comfortable life for them, they have that already. They just want more money. That's what we call greed.

EDIT: Also the so called solution to the problem is that the US is bailing out tons of corporations to prevent them from going under. The only problem with that idea is that they are essentially rewarding greed. Unfortunately there is no real solution to this issue unless you make some serious changes to the economic system.

 

[Sewblon]

The basic concept is a society without private property or any real government in which distribution of wealth is done democratically and based on need instead of ambition or personal merit. Many variations exist but none of them have ever worked so far as I know so I am sticking with capitalism.

Ahem, most of the world's economy lies in shambles, as in right now. The rich have never been richer, and the poor have never been poorer, and the ever present gap just keeps widening. Right now we face the worst economical crisis in our generation, and you still stick with capitalism?

I'm ready to concede to anybody that instant shift to communism is not the best idea right now, but keeping things the way they are right now is just pure lunacy. Stuff has to change to contain the damn problem.

Why don't you look for the comparison between what was needed to combat world hunger efficiently and what was loaned as a financial rescue to the companies that got us in this mess?

The poor have been consistently dwindling in number since the industrial revolution and the rich have been consistently increasing in number since the industrial revolution. More people are rich than they wear at the beginning of the 20th century because we have more money now. This is all part of the economic cycle, even depressions are part of the cycle. Wait, whatever gave you the idea that one person having much more money than another person is bad.

Oh, man...you didn't just tell me that...

Those stats and its sources are like 4 years old, but you'll see for yourself:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

Things ain't getting better and that's all I'm gonna say on the matter.

And no, there is no such thing as an "economic cycle." The economy is not a natural occurring phenomenon, it isn't more natural than, say, those damn FURBIES. It is a man made construct, and a very unregulated missused one at that, let me tell you.

The economy is as natural as people making love, you get together with someone else, go with your instincts at first and just take the most apparently logical step until you get what you came for or a myocardial infarction. Seriously the economy is a natural part of human interaction.

 

[Trace2010]

The basic concept is a society without private property or any real government in which distribution of wealth is done democratically and based on need instead of ambition or personal merit. Many variations exist but none of them have ever worked so far as I know so I am sticking with capitalism.

Ahem, most of the world's economy lies in shambles, as in right now. The rich have never been richer, and the poor have never been poorer, and the ever present gap just keeps widening. Right now we face the worst economical crisis in our generation, and you still stick with capitalism?

I'm ready to concede to anybody that instant shift to communism is not the best idea right now, but keeping things the way they are right now is just pure lunacy. Stuff has to change to contain the damn problem.

Why don't you look for the comparison between what was needed to combat world hunger efficiently and what was loaned as a financial rescue to the companies that got us in this mess?

The poor have been consistently dwindling in number since the industrial revolution and the rich have been consistently increasing in number since the industrial revolution. More people are rich than they wear at the beginning of the 20th century because we have more money now. This is all part of the economic cycle, even depressions are part of the cycle. Wait, whatever gave you the idea that one person having much more money than another person is bad.

Oh, man...you didn't just tell me that...

Those stats and its sources are like 4 years old, but you'll see for yourself:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

Things ain't getting better and that's all I'm gonna say on the matter.

And no, there is no such thing as an "economic cycle." The economy is not a natural occurring phenomenon, it isn't more natural than, say, those damn FURBIES. It is a man made construct, and a very unregulated missused one at that, let me tell you.

First of all, there is an economic cycle- it is a documented system of Bear and Bull markets that closes about once every twenty years or so.

Secondly, you will not be able to solve the problems through a change in economic systems in one country because most of the companies you want to point at are now GLOBAL- they do not have to answer to union rules or supply/demand from one market. Wal Mart has successfully told the labor unions to go screw themselves, I am waiting for the American auto makers to do the same.

Thirdly, stop playing with your pet Furby at home...it's a dead market, and I don't see anymore commercials for them advertised (and most of them are on clearance).

 

[Trace2010]

*snip*

There's nothing inherently wrong with someone having more money then another. The problems arise when a rich person is not spending that money. The idea of Capitalism is that money is supposed to be circulating rather freely throughout the economy. Someone who is making more money should be spending more money essentially giving that money back to the poor. That isn't happening right now. The rich are just using that money to make more money and ONLY to make more money. It's not about living a comfortable life for them, they have that already. They just want more money. That's what we call greed.

EDIT: Also the so called solution to the problem is that the US is bailing out tons of corporations to prevent them from going under. The only problem with that idea is that they are essentially rewarding greed. Unfortunately there is no real solution to this issue unless you make some serious changes to the economic system.

"The rich are only using that money to make more money, and that is called greed."

Seriously, what type of propaganda bullshit is this?

NEVER MIND, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: Do you even know HOW someone makes money from money?

TIME OUT: kudos on the bailout comment, though...that whole plan is probably going to fail.

 

[Zer_]

*snip*

There's nothing inherently wrong with someone having more money then another. The problems arise when a rich person is not spending that money. The idea of Capitalism is that money is supposed to be circulating rather freely throughout the economy. Someone who is making more money should be spending more money essentially giving that money back to the poor. That isn't happening right now. The rich are just using that money to make more money and ONLY to make more money. It's not about living a comfortable life for them, they have that already. They just want more money. That's what we call greed.

EDIT: Also the so called solution to the problem is that the US is bailing out tons of corporations to prevent them from going under. The only problem with that idea is that they are essentially rewarding greed. Unfortunately there is no real solution to this issue unless you make some serious changes to the economic system.

"The rich are only using that money to make more money, and that is called greed."

Seriously, what type of propaganda bullshit is this?

NEVER MIND, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: Do you even know HOW someone makes money from money?

Uh gee I think they call it interest. Interest aside though, a corporation may invest in expansion, where yes they hire labor and some of their money gets poured back into the hands of average people but that expansions sole purpose is to make more money so all that money they spent is back in their hands and then some.

 

[ChaoticLegion]

Communism is a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. This is a simplified deffinition of communism, reguardless of whether a body claiming to be communist differs from it or not.

 

[Dele]

Communism is: BS. Basically the same as nazism (which was in fact based on exactly the same writings and social ideals) with the main exception that the two can't agree on which group of society needs to be eradicated to achieve something akin to socialism.

Dude, the Nazis were Fascist, and the Communists (as we know them, you know, the USSR) and Fascists tend to hate one another.

Don't be fooled by the fact that Nazi stands for something along the lines of "German socialist party", as they simply chose that name because Socialism has/had positive connotations in Europe.

Actually Nazis preferred to have a large government with huge influence on economy aka socialism. It would not have been a giant leap to become another USSR.

 

[Horticulture]

Someone in one of the other economic system threads quoted:

"A Communist sees a rich man and says, no man should be this rich. A Capitalist looks at a rich man and says, everyone should be this rich."

My take:
A Capitalist looks at a rich man and says, "Every man should be this rich!" A Communist looks at a poor man and says, "No man should be this poor!"

Getting to the point of convergence is still tricky...

 

[Dele]

*snip*

There's nothing inherently wrong with someone having more money then another. The problems arise when a rich person is not spending that money. The idea of Capitalism is that money is supposed to be circulating rather freely throughout the economy. Someone who is making more money should be spending more money essentially giving that money back to the poor. That isn't happening right now. The rich are just using that money to make more money and ONLY to make more money. It's not about living a comfortable life for them, they have that already. They just want more money. That's what we call greed.

Investing and saving is what we usually call progress and it is the fuel of our economies. No wonder USSR failed...

 

[Trace2010]

*snip*

There's nothing inherently wrong with someone having more money then another. The problems arise when a rich person is not spending that money. The idea of Capitalism is that money is supposed to be circulating rather freely throughout the economy. Someone who is making more money should be spending more money essentially giving that money back to the poor. That isn't happening right now. The rich are just using that money to make more money and ONLY to make more money. It's not about living a comfortable life for them, they have that already. They just want more money. That's what we call greed.

EDIT: Also the so called solution to the problem is that the US is bailing out tons of corporations to prevent them from going under. The only problem with that idea is that they are essentially rewarding greed. Unfortunately there is no real solution to this issue unless you make some serious changes to the economic system.

"The rich are only using that money to make more money, and that is called greed."

Seriously, what type of propaganda bullshit is this?

NEVER MIND, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: Do you even know HOW someone makes money from money?

Uh gee I think they call it interest. Interest aside though, a corporation may invest in expansion, where yes they hire labor and some of their money gets poured back into the hands of average people but that expansions sole purpose is to make more money so all that money they spent is back in their hands and then some.

Yes, and what does a bank DO with the money that is growing interest? Does it just sit in a vault and collect rust?

And what is expansion? the growth and development of business in order to make more money by providing either more or better quality of service to the consumer- if that is not happening, then the company will not make enough money to cover the cost of expanding, and will have to cut back, downsize, or go out of business. That's the cycle in a nutshell.
The main problems with that statement is the lack of competition and an uneven playing field, which (due to the global economy) is more difficult to circumvent than it used to be. There is a reason Sam Walton started his company in Bentonville, AK.

HINT: By not allowing this to happen, our government will put big business in a state of flux.

 

[fulano]

The basic concept is a society without private property or any real government in which distribution of wealth is done democratically and based on need instead of ambition or personal merit. Many variations exist but none of them have ever worked so far as I know so I am sticking with capitalism.

Ahem, most of the world's economy lies in shambles, as in right now. The rich have never been richer, and the poor have never been poorer, and the ever present gap just keeps widening. Right now we face the worst economical crisis in our generation, and you still stick with capitalism?

I'm ready to concede to anybody that instant shift to communism is not the best idea right now, but keeping things the way they are right now is just pure lunacy. Stuff has to change to contain the damn problem.

Why don't you look for the comparison between what was needed to combat world hunger efficiently and what was loaned as a financial rescue to the companies that got us in this mess?

The poor have been consistently dwindling in number since the industrial revolution and the rich have been consistently increasing in number since the industrial revolution. More people are rich than they wear at the beginning of the 20th century because we have more money now. This is all part of the economic cycle, even depressions are part of the cycle. Wait, whatever gave you the idea that one person having much more money than another person is bad.

Oh, man...you didn't just tell me that...

Those stats and its sources are like 4 years old, but you'll see for yourself:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

Things ain't getting better and that's all I'm gonna say on the matter.

And no, there is no such thing as an "economic cycle." The economy is not a natural occurring phenomenon, it isn't more natural than, say, those damn FURBIES. It is a man made construct, and a very unregulated missused one at that, let me tell you.

First of all, there is an economic cycle- it is a documented system of Bear and Bull markets that closes about once every twenty years or so.

Secondly, you will not be able to solve the problems through a change in economic systems in one country because most of the companies you want to point at are now GLOBAL- they do not have to answer to union rules or supply/demand from one market. Wal Mart has successfully told the labor unions to go screw themselves, I am waiting for the American auto makers to do the same.

Thirdly, stop playing with your pet Furby at home...it's a dead market, and I don't see anymore commercials for them advertised (and most of them are on clearance).

But what you don't say is that that which you refer as a well dcoumented economic cycle belongs to a very specific kind of economy, and that's the capitalist economy. But sadly, to even to say that there are economic cycles is ridiculous even in capitalism because you can't predict jackshit in the long run, you can't even predict how the market will look day in a week. Even predicting the weather has produced better results. After all, economic systems are a bunch of mathemathical hypoteses, and you are just as good as the assumptions you make.

And yeah, I agree you can't just change the problem by just changing one economic system because of the nature of the global companies. I get that. And THAT is what in the long run will be their undoing. Unequality will be just too great and things will just explode.

As for the furbie you don't know what you are talking about. You just show your obvious self serving ignorance there. It's not a dead market because it is a market of love, and while I don't have physically have a Furbie with me to help me push through the tough times in my life, I will always have one in my heart because I believe in love, and above all, I deeply, deeply believe in the Furbies and what they stand for in this cold heartless world where greed and apathy have suddenly become values and all that is sacred has been forgotten, and... ...really, is anyone still reading this shitty paragraph?! What is wrong with you? Schadenfreude much?

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

let me tell u y christianity is communism reason1: they brain wash people
reason2: they make people belive in dis shit so they can donate money
reason3: they tell u how to think and wat to do

additional: if u belive in a light that created the universe u r a RETARD!!!!

If you belive in the big bang theory a light in a sense did create everything or at least started everything...all that explosive pressure will create a illuminating effect.

Call it gods work, call it ishmail for all I care religion has a purpose to refine the mind and soul of humanity when applied with "figurative logic"(IE taken figuratively), when you take it literally logic and reason are discarded for traditionalism, antiquation, stagation of the mind the soul and the body. Which leads to ignorance and intolerance being made holy creating fascist sects to wage war on each other till the end of time.

So don't be a opportunistic fan boy people, take all things figuratively, god is tired of his ants raiding each others mounds in his name!


========================
Communism is in a sense is utopiaisim, realistically its often a way for dictators or noble classes to claim total control of a region/nation via propaganda and lies.

So the primary factors of "real world" communism is you have a society of the the super rich and the poor with a minimal middle class or no middle class as a middle class is not needed since they have no rights and are nothing more but peasants for the rich to use anyway they can.

Secondary factors of "real world" communism is poverty and warring intent.

Mind you real world capitalism is protectionist, monopolistic and wants to make civil infringement more criminal than murder and rape so they can do away with the thing call government and herd society directly from the upper corporate management.

Capitalism should be more about governments ensuring a free non monopolistic market with a heavy bent to national interest of the government and the population not the rich bastards who are stealing from everyone and draining the nation dry while their at it....

 

[Zer_]

Yes, and what does a bank DO with the money that is growing interest? Does it just sit in a vault and collect rust?

And what is expansion? the growth and development of business in order to make more money by providing either more or better quality of service to the consumer- if that is not happening, then the company will not make enough money to cover the cost of expanding, and will have to cut back, downsize, or go out of business. That's the cycle in a nutshell.
The main problems with that statement is the lack of competition and an uneven playing field, which (due to the global economy) is more difficult to circumvent than it used to be. There is a reason Sam Walton started his company in Bentonville, AK.

HINT: By not allowing this to happen, our government will put big business in a state of flux.

A bank will seek to loan the money out. Problem is by putting out loans they aren't putting money back into the economy at all, they are simply taking more since loans have interest. The only time a bank would ever lose money in a deal like that is when someone cannot pay back the loan.

Here's what happened to the economy in a nutshell.

The Rich People (Usually large corporation owners and hyper wealthy business men) seek to invest their money into banks or other corporations. The banks now need to take this invested money and live up to the interest rate. They then use this money to loan it out to people seeking loans. So someone gets this loan and uses it to furnish his home or whatever else. For a while everything is fine, people are paying back their loans (and interest) on time, banks make money, the rich people investing money into the bank's fund makes money.

Now the rich person is making a ton of cash simply by investing his money into a fund. The bank itself is also making a ton of cash by using that invested money to give out loans at high interest rates so they can then make a profit for both the bank and mr. rich investor too. What happens when there's no more money to take from people? The bank gives out loans to people who can't pay it back, the rich man invests more money hoping that he will get a larger return. The banks are pressured to sell more loans and eventually shit hits the fan.
The rich person is making money that simply doesn't exist, the banks are stuck because they see that they can't actually live up to the interest rates of invested cash and thus they need to sell more loans, but who are they going to loan their money out to?

The people viable for loans are already in dept, they've already gotten their loan, hell in desperation (and stupidity) those who cannot afford the loan have also gotten their loan (and are in even more debt). Mr. Super rich guy is angry because he lost like 10% of his total net worth, banks are angry because they lost 30% of their net worth, and the average person is angry because they lost what could be called their whole life's worth.

 

[Booze Zombie]

My definition of Communism is: A form of Governance which has never been implemented and twisted versions of which have been used by malicious dictators.

A utopian society which is fundamentaly flawed and bound to descend into socialism.

Socialism is supposed to be the economical side of Communism, I do believe...

 

[Pikka Bird]

your an IDIOT!. communism and fascism(Nazism)are total opposites in ideology and theory, and while in practice they may seem to boil down to simple dictatorships, they were still in fact very different.

Correct capitalization and proper use of the apostrophe will go a long way in helping you not look like an idiot yourself. However, your moronic tantrum over something you're not reading the full meaning of, and which everyone else has put behind them, will be difficult to overcome.

I like your avatar but good lord man if this is honestly the tint of glasses you wear to examine the world you may want to check into another brand.

I will not change my brand. They were custom made. Read through the thread, please.


...and I still think everyone needs to check out that documentary ("The Soviet Story" by Edvins Snore).

 

[Mullahgrrl]

Idiot.

Wow, thanks a lot... Read into it, guy. I mean, really read into it and don't just flick through a Wikipedia entry like some crap-flinging baboon. Then you'll see the similarities, and if you look up some quotes from the man himself (Hitler, y'know) then you'll clearly see that at the very core marxism and nazism are basically the same. I know they are generally considered polar opposites, but when why and how this misunderstanding was born is beyond me, because it's extremely ignorant.

And check this out: The nazi and communist parties of Germany and Russia respectively were collaborators during the first years of WWII until Stalin reckoned he'd be better off if he could pretend to stem the tide to the east and emerge from the war as some sort of saviour.

Look, Its a pretty fucking big difrence between communism and the soviet union political enteties. They didn't have communism there and they weren't communists, they had communism as an utopian future ideal. The stage after the (then)current they would say.

No, communism is about all men being equal. Nazism is about killing anyone who isn't.

And dont even begin to mix Marxism into this, Marx was never a communist.

 

[Trace2010]

The basic concept is a society without private property or any real government in which distribution of wealth is done democratically and based on need instead of ambition or personal merit. Many variations exist but none of them have ever worked so far as I know so I am sticking with capitalism.

Ahem, most of the world's economy lies in shambles, as in right now. The rich have never been richer, and the poor have never been poorer, and the ever present gap just keeps widening. Right now we face the worst economical crisis in our generation, and you still stick with capitalism?

I'm ready to concede to anybody that instant shift to communism is not the best idea right now, but keeping things the way they are right now is just pure lunacy. Stuff has to change to contain the damn problem.

Why don't you look for the comparison between what was needed to combat world hunger efficiently and what was loaned as a financial rescue to the companies that got us in this mess?

The poor have been consistently dwindling in number since the industrial revolution and the rich have been consistently increasing in number since the industrial revolution. More people are rich than they wear at the beginning of the 20th century because we have more money now. This is all part of the economic cycle, even depressions are part of the cycle. Wait, whatever gave you the idea that one person having much more money than another person is bad.

Oh, man...you didn't just tell me that...

Those stats and its sources are like 4 years old, but you'll see for yourself:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

Things ain't getting better and that's all I'm gonna say on the matter.

And no, there is no such thing as an "economic cycle." The economy is not a natural occurring phenomenon, it isn't more natural than, say, those damn FURBIES. It is a man made construct, and a very unregulated missused one at that, let me tell you.

First of all, there is an economic cycle- it is a documented system of Bear and Bull markets that closes about once every twenty years or so.

Secondly, you will not be able to solve the problems through a change in economic systems in one country because most of the companies you want to point at are now GLOBAL- they do not have to answer to union rules or supply/demand from one market. Wal Mart has successfully told the labor unions to go screw themselves, I am waiting for the American auto makers to do the same.

Thirdly, stop playing with your pet Furby at home...it's a dead market, and I don't see anymore commercials for them advertised (and most of them are on clearance).

But what you don't say is that that which you refer as a well dcoumented economic cycle belongs to a very specific kind of economy, and that's the capitalist economy. But sadly, to even to say that there are economic cycles is ridiculous even in capitalism because you can't predict jackshit in the long run, you can't even predict how the market will look day in a week. Even predicting the weather has produced better results. After all, economic systems are a bunch of mathemathical hypoteses, and you are just as good as the assumptions you make.

And yeah, I agree you can't just change the problem by just changing one economic system because of the nature of the global companies. I get that. And THAT is what in the long run will be their undoing. Unequality will be just too great and things will just explode.

As for the furbie you don't know what you are talking about. You just show your obvious self serving ignorance there. It's not a dead market because it is a market of love, and while I don't have physically have a Furbie with me to help me push through the tough times in my life, I will always have one in my heart because I believe in love, and above all, I deeply, deeply believe in the Furbies and what they stand for in this cold heartless world where greed and apathy have suddenly become values and all that is sacred has been forgotten, and... ...really, is anyone still reading this shitty paragraph?! What is wrong with you? Schadenfreude much?

LMAO !!!

Dude, you are a trip!