What is your definition of Communism?

[Plauged1]

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).

??????????????
I didn't write that. You have me mistaken with ultimateend.
I am trying to read up on communism, so, if you will excuse me...

 

[Nomad]

Communism isn't an ideology as such, and its status depends on how you look at it, really. Firstly it can be the common name of various marxist schools of thought (marxism, leninism, maoism, trotskyism, titoism and so on and so forth). But perhaps the most correct way of describing it is as Marx intended, in which communism is the final stage of social development in a region. A capitalist society evolves into socialism through the revolution of the masses, caused by outrage at the poverty and inequality the system imposes upon them. The socialist stage is focused on abolishing private ownership and class struggle, furthering the cause of the masses through the proletarian dictatorship. When the process is complete, reaching perfection due to the leadership by the people themselves - who will enact the reforms that benefit the society due to being the majority of the society themselves, the society evolves into communism. In the communist stage of society, the state is abolished as it is no longer necessary. This is because with the elimination of private ownership, you also eliminate greed - as there is no longer any possibility to amass an excess horde of wealth. With the elimination of greed, you also eliminate crime - when everyone has equal access to the economic surplus, there is no longer any need for crime, as everyone's needs are provided for. With the eliminination of crime, you also eliminate the need for a controlling power - meaning the state. A communist society is equal and wealthy by default, although it is debatable whether or not this utopia is actually achievable in practise due to the flaws inherent in man.

Che Guevara once said, though, that "To build communism it is necessary, simultaneous with the new material foundations, to build the new man and woman".

Idiot.

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.

For a great little history lesson that's generally totally ignored, check out the Latvian documentary "The Soviet Story".

Thanks for your time. Idiot.

First of all, the fact that you think the Soviet Union was genuinely communist shows us that you don't know what you're talking about. The Soviet Union was run according to something generally referred to as "Real socialism" - in which a "communist" state themselves admit that "Our socialism may not be up to the standards of the classic theory, but the difference is that ours exist in practise". There is a general consensus among political scientists and historians that Real Socialism has more common traits with fascism than it does with actual communism. You can see it rather easily, really. Is it left-winged (as in does it strive to further equality and prosperity among the common man rather than adhearing to the "jungle's law")? If no, then it is not socialist.

Also, the notion of a "communist state" is a logical fallacy, as communism by definition cannot exist under statehood - according to Marxist theory, communism is established first when society is equal and class struggle has been eliminated. The transitory step from capitalism, where there is a state (which, in fact, is not supposed to accumulate power, but rather get rid of it), is called socialism. So while it is not possible to be a "communist state", it is possible to be a "socialist state". However, the Soviet Union was certainly not one of those.

Now, as for your (largely irrelevant) claim of the USSR and Germany being all friends before 1941, that's just untrue. Or are you forgetting (for example) the Anti-comintern pact of '36?

"recognizing that the aim of the Communist International, known as the Comintern, is to disintegrate and subdue existing States by all the means at its command; convinced that the toleration of interference by the Communist International in the internal affairs of the nations not only endangers their internal peace and social well‑being, but is also a menace to the peace of the world desirous of co‑operating in the defense against Communist sub­versive activities"

The peaceful activities between the two powers were largely based on the Soviet Union's inability to maintain their status through a prolonged war due to their collapsing war machine, and Germany being far too busy in the west to be able to redirect troops to battle the Soviets. In fact, one of the main goals of the German campaign already from the start was to create "lebensraum" for the German populace by annexing parts of the Soviet territory.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

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

Capitalism or Communism?
Communism is a form of socialism(yes I know it predates it be bear with me) that only works in towns and villages, once you get into industrial societies or large modern societies it loses power and momentum because the governing mandates of communism can not maintain itself with such large operating costs. IE Communism is a form of Socialism which in itself can be either democratically or dictatorially bent.

The US is as socialistic as it is uncontrolled capitalist, we don't pay 60% taxes for nothing. Hell the Swiss almost have more rights than we do and they are at 80% and they have functioning socialistic programs... The US has not been a real capitalist since before the depression and the reinvention of corporate America.


In a sense its akin to what happened with slavery, you had land owners who were spending more money to up keep their slaves and thugs(middle men) to manage them all and with the advent of machinery to make work more effeaint and the march of the abolitionist movement everything fell into place to end world standardized slavery.

 

[Trace2010]

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.

But your picture is still too narrow:

what other reasons would a bank have for making dumb loans to people that have no opportunity of paying them back?

Contrary to "popular media" belief, there were more external forces at work than just this.

...and if it was just this, then why are we not allowing this stupidity to go belly-up?

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

But your picture is still too narrow:

what other reasons would a bank have for making dumb loans to people that have no opportunity of paying them back?

Contrary to "popular media" belief, there were more external forces at work than just this.

...and if it was just this, then why are we not allowing this stupidity to go belly-up?

THis is how I see it, if I am wrong well then I am normal

I'd say that the business model for bad loans allowed a market to thrive to give people loans at bloated rates and when they could not pay out on those bloated rates the lenders not only got a profit from what was paid but they get got the property back allowing double dipping under the right circumstance.

Not only was their a market for it the industry itself had its hand in the cookie jar vaing to make a profit off of regurgitated goods.

I can't blame for trying to make do with what they can get out of the system I can blame government for not trying to regulate it so their corporate fuck buddies could make a huge profit off a lop sided industry that was held up with a bubble..... Government should have let business suffer and restructure and give the populace the billions to get themselves out of debt, this would have allowed business to cut off the weak parts and remake themselves to have a chance at all that money the populace gained, trickle down dose not work as the rich tend to invest with the rich, trickle up tends to work if applied correctly.

 

[Zer_]

*snipped*

Okay so what's your explanation on the economic downslide. Oh yeah don't give me the whole cycle bullshit, because despite having its ups and downs there is a general trend in the economy as a whole. And in case you're not fully aware it's somewhere along the lines of downhill.

The same logic can be applied to many more problems with the economy, not just investment. Actually though it is all about investment, just different types of investment.

 

[Pikka Bird]

First of all, the fact that you think the Soviet Union was genuinely communist shows us that you don't know what you're talking about. The Soviet Union was run according to something generally referred to...blablabla...

When did I say that I thought USSR was an example of true communism? Please tell me, because I seem to have forgotten completely.

Now, as for your (largely irrelevant) claim of the USSR and Germany being all friends before 1941, that's just untrue. Or are you forgetting (for example) the Anti-comintern pact of '36?

You do know that the SS and NKVD (later KGB) were buddies for quite a while, right? With one part, NKVD, hunting down escaped jews on behalf of the SS, and German marxists living in Russia were handed over to Gestapo.

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 the practical way of making all men equal was to kill off millions of people who weren't deemed equal enough.

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

No, but as far as I recall (though I can't find a source right now) Marx was all for the above route to equality.

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.

Plauged1: Indeed you didn't. Odd, don't know what happened. May I blame the quote system of this board?

 

[Nomad]

Actually Nazis preferred to have a large government with huge influence on economy aka socialism. [...]

I believe what you are referring to is central planning, aka planned economy. Not socialism.

And while the notion of the historic materialism is largely based on economics, there are other parts of it than economy. So when referring to planned economies, be clear about that rather than to automatically assume all planned economies equal socialism.

Edit: New posts while I was typing.

First of all, the fact that you think the Soviet Union was genuinely communist shows us that you don't know what you're talking about. The Soviet Union was run according to something generally referred to...blablabla...

When did I say that I thought USSR was an example of true communism? Please tell me, because I seem to have forgotten completely.

Now, as for your (largely irrelevant) claim of the USSR and Germany being all friends before 1941, that's just untrue. Or are you forgetting (for example) the Anti-comintern pact of '36?

You do know that the SS and NKVD (later KGB) were buddies for quite a while, right? With one part, NKVD, hunting down escaped jews on behalf of the SS, and German marxists living in Russia were handed over to Gestapo.

You brought up the USSR, which means you must consider them communist. Otherwise I don't see the relevance of the USSR to the topic at hand? You wouldn't bring up Spain or Canada in the same spirit. And yet it's pretty much the same deal, as both Spain and Canada are about as communist as the Soviet Union ever was.

The SS and NKVD were not "buddies", they were suborgans to their respective governments, who at the time maintained peaceful relations with eachother. As such, they had no policies of their own, but rather adopted the policies they were told to adopt. Their policy was therefore the policy of the nation. Anyway, peaceful relations does not equal alliance. It's natural for great powers sitting at eachother's borders to want to cooperate to some degree in order to prevent large-scale conflicts. I cite as sources Hitler's speeches and plans for Lebensraum, the anti-comintern pact and the Soviet archives of military and political correspondence. At one point, field marshal Zhukov of the Soviet Union had (with a few other generals) devised a plan for a pre-emptive strike on Nazi Germany, which was rejected by Stalin on account of the Soviet Union not yet having prepared their war machine - which had been largely devastated by the Great Purge, and was generally outdated as it was due to the Soviet Union having inherited the weak Russian industry.

Edit: Also, please try to maintain a certain measure of civility in the debate, there's no point in calling the other participants "idiots" and "morons". And when shortening a quote, please do not insert additional text ("blabla") as it may confuse new readers. Instead, use symbols to show you have shortened the entry (for example [...]).

 

[Dele]

Actually Nazis preferred to have a large government with huge influence on economy aka socialism. [...]

I believe what you are referring to is central planning, aka planned economy. Not socialism.

And while the notion of the historic materialism is largely based on economics, there are other parts of it than economy. So when referring to planned economies, be clear about that rather than to automatically assume all planned economies equal socialism.

First of all I was not referring to planned economies but to mixed economies. Secondly, since the widespread meaning of socialism as government ownership, it's justifiable to talk about socialism equaling all kinds of planned economy or mixed economies. It's a similiar thing with the word chauvinism.

 

[Pikka Bird]

You brought up the USSR, which means you must consider them communist. Otherwise I don't see the relevance of the USSR to the topic at hand? You wouldn't bring up Spain or Canada in the same spirit. And yet it's pretty much the same deal, as both Spain and Canada are about as communist as the Soviet Union ever was.

Can we give it a rest with the blaming me of not knowing that the USSR wasn't a communist regime? I believe we went over it plenty of times, and I've never said that they were. Bringing something up in relation to something doesn't mean you equate one with the other. I was merely pointing out how the vision of communism can quickly turn into a major ruse of the wrong people are at the helm (Lenin, Stalin).

The SS and NKVD were not "buddies", they were suborgans to their respective governments, who at the time maintained peaceful relations with eachother. As such, they had no policies of their own, but rather adopted the policies they were told to adopt. Their policy was therefore the policy of the nation. Anyway, peaceful relations does not equal alliance. It's natural for great powers sitting at eachother's borders to want to cooperate to some degree in order to prevent large-scale conflicts. I cite as sources Hitler's speeches and plans for Lebensraum, the anti-comintern pact and the Soviet archives of military and political correspondence. At one point, field marshal Zhukov of the Soviet Union had (with a few other generals) devised a plan for a pre-emptive strike on Nazi Germany, which was rejected by Stalin on account of the Soviet Union not yet having prepared their war machine - which had been largely devastated by the Great Purge, and was generally outdated as it was due to the Soviet Union having inherited the weak Russian industry.

I certainly consider the German benefits of the Molotov?Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939 to be more than just small-time cooperation. Hundreds of thousands of tons of Russian iron- and chrome ore, raw iron, mineral oils and grain fuelled the German war machine for quite a while.
Plus, when Luftwaffe's bombers came down on Polish cities in September '39 they were guided by Russian radio towers in Minsk. Soviet propaganda claimed that the invasion of Poland was to combat aggressive Polish fascism and that Germany had helped them vanguish it.
When Germany invaded Norway the attack was launched from a naval base in Murmansk which Stalin had provided.

Et cetera... Hardly small-time cooperation to avoid friction.

 

[Nomad]

So you're saying one pact meant they were friends? The Soviets signed the pact because they gained from it, not because they liked the Germans. Both the Soviets and the Germans violated the pact in various little ways anyway. Personally I'd say that leadership propaganda, official statements, military correspondence and ideological rhetoric - along with defense/information pacts with other nations (anti-comintern pact) directed at eachother - trumps one territorial influence-pact that benefited both sides.

Seriously. Germany comes to the Soviets and says "Hey, we're going to invade Poland in a bit. How'd you like to receieve half their territory for free, in exchange for you not stabbing us in the back while we take on the rest? Hell, let's throw in the baltic states and Bessarabia in that deal, and call it a day."

Why in god's name would a totalitarian regime hell-bent on the pursuit of power and expansion say no to that deal? They didn't do it because they liked Germany, they did it because they had a shitload to gain and nothing to lose.

 

[saejox]

Software piracy ( the most common socialist movement, believe it or not)

 

[Pikka Bird]

Nomadic: I don't think either side's motivation is for you and I to decide, but here's my view anyways: I just think Stalin went way beyond what the treaty called for and in helped Germany speed up their conquest. He even went as far as to advise the European Communist parties to sabotage national resistance movements and help the nazis. Have you seen any of the Soviet concentration camps? Remember how the German ones had great motivators like "Work makes you free" hanging over the entrance? Well, the Soviet ones did too ("Work is an honour" was one, for instance. When they cleared out the German KZ camps, they didn't tear them down but just prepared them for a new administration). Imagine the uproar you had told your satellites all over Europe about the evils of Germany, only to roll in later on and construct the same type of camps with the exact same slogans, only in a Cyrillic font. If Stalin had drummed up resistance against the nazis from whichever side he could someone would eventually figure out that they were fighting against at least some of the same ideologies that USSR was founded upon.
The way I see it, Stalin's cooperation had two reasons. One- supporting Hitler's conquest from as many sides as possible and making his subjects blind to the nature of nazism would help ease the transition when he rolled in with his own brand of fakey-communist fascism, which in turn leads us to number two- covertly helping Hitler along would make his status as the great liberator seem even more impressive and awe-inspiring.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Equality. Everyone works for the government, no one is rich and no one is poor. Now sure for the rich people out there it would be shitty since they will be losing all their fortune, but for the poor people out there? Not that bad.

 

[Sane Man]

Equality. Everyone works for the government, no one is rich and no one is poor. Now sure for the rich people out there it would be shitty since they will be losing all their fortune, but for the poor people out there? Not that bad.

Other than the mass murderings, it's a pretty good thing, you know, as long as you live, shut your mouth, and pretend to be in Heaven.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Equality. Everyone works for the government, no one is rich and no one is poor. Now sure for the rich people out there it would be shitty since they will be losing all their fortune, but for the poor people out there? Not that bad.

Other than the mass murderings, it's a pretty good thing, you know, as long as you live, shut your mouth, and pretend to be in Heaven.

The way it was applied was, indeed, not that "good". The idea itself isn't bad, but the way it was applied it was.

 

[veloper]

Communism is the utopian life that the communists promised, was supposed to come after their authoritarian socialism.

The closest thing to communism achieved in reality is the kind of tribalism you see in primitive, isolated societies.

 

[Nomad]

Nomadic: I don't think either side's motivation is for you and I to decide, but here's my view anyways: I just think Stalin went way beyond what the treaty called for and in helped Germany speed up their conquest. He even went as far as to advise the European Communist parties to sabotage national resistance movements and help the nazis. Have you seen any of the Soviet concentration camps? Remember how the German ones had great motivators like "Work makes you free" hanging over the entrance? Well, the Soviet ones did too ("Work is an honour" was one, for instance. When they cleared out the German KZ camps, they didn't tear them down but just prepared them for a new administration). Imagine the uproar you had told your satellites all over Europe about the evils of Germany, only to roll in later on and construct the same type of camps with the exact same slogans, only in a Cyrillic font. If Stalin had drummed up resistance against the nazis from whichever side he could someone would eventually figure out that they were fighting against at least some of the same ideologies that USSR was founded upon.
The way I see it, Stalin's cooperation had two reasons. One- supporting Hitler's conquest from as many sides as possible and making his subjects blind to the nature of nazism would help ease the transition when he rolled in with his own brand of fakey-communist fascism, which in turn leads us to number two- covertly helping Hitler along would make his status as the great liberator seem even more impressive and awe-inspiring.

Alright, if you won't accept my information, I'll quote historians.

Let's begin by looking at the international events the respective countries participated in between 1936 and 1941.

The spanish civil war - the republican party wins the elections in Spain, shortly thereafter Franco leads an army rebellion against the new government. Franco was a fascist, as a point of reference. Germany supports the army rebellion, sending considerable aid to the nationalist side, including the famous Condor Legion. The Soviet Union sends their material support (along with war supplies) to the republican side. Now, if they were pals, they'd be supporting the same side here - as they'd be sharing a common interest to see one side win.

1937 - Hitler holds speeches saying the german populace needs "lebensraum", which can be found to the east. Specifically, Poland and the Soviet Union. Quote from the book "World war II", "the meaning was clear. Unless Poland and the Soviet Union agreed to cede territory, only war could realize Hitler's goals.".

From the same book; "Ribbentrop offered what the allies could not - the eastern half of Poland and a promise that Germany would not interefere if Stalin were to attempt to retake Finland and the baltic states that had broken free from the Soviet Union. Stalin, who was not yet ready for war, took the offer." As stated, the pact offers them half of Poland, the baltic states and Finland... In exchange for not declaring war on Germany. Yeah, clearly the Soviets were great friends of the germans. Otherwise they wouldn't accept a treaty that had all positive effects and no negatives. Again, I quote: "During the weeks before the German invasion of Poland, Stalin was only too well aware that his country wasn't ready for war. He signed a non-aggression treaty with his archenemy Hitler thinking that, given half of Poland and free hands in the baltic states, this would give him a buffer zone against a possible future German invasion." Look. 1939, and Stalin accepts the treaty as a precaution against a future war with Germany. Not friendly.

Now, examples of propaganda posters from the years between 1939 and 1941, from each respective side.

Soviets:

Spoiler

Germans:

Spoiler

From the occupied areas of France in 1940

Moving on! "[...] When he (molotov) finally left Germany, a furious Hitler was convinced that the final test of power with bolshevism could no longer be postponed.", again about the situation in 1940.

Look, the Soviets and Germans were never friends. They just avoided being outright enemies for a time in order to secure their respective interests. The Soviets to gain time to build up their war machine, and the Germans to gain time to dispose of the french/belgians/dutch/norwegians/danish/brits and so on and so forth.

I've just stuck to the accounts of H.P. Willmott, Robin Cross, Charles Messenger, Michael Barrett, Mark Grandstaff, Michael Paul and David Welch in this, but they were more focused on the war as a whole than the Soviet-German relations. That's because there really is a historical consensus about the things we're discussing here, and it's counted as common knowledge that the relation between Germany and the Soviet Union was tense at best. But if you want, I can go dig up the Soviet archives for correspondence, I guess. It'd be rather pointless, though.

 

[Sane Man]

Equality. Everyone works for the government, no one is rich and no one is poor. Now sure for the rich people out there it would be shitty since they will be losing all their fortune, but for the poor people out there? Not that bad.

Other than the mass murderings, it's a pretty good thing, you know, as long as you live, shut your mouth, and pretend to be in Heaven.

The way it was applied was, indeed, not that "good". The idea itself isn't bad, but the way it was applied it was.

I was going to be sarcastic again, but decided twice in a row was even too much for a jerk like myself. It is not a good idea even theoretically. Unless you would envy the life of an ant, wanting nothing for himself except for what is good for everybody else.

Humans cannot live like that, and therefore even theoretically it is a terrible idea. The only way it would work is if you changed human nature, changed man into a "New Man". Unfortunately for most communist dictators they saw humans not changing to their ideal, so they simply tried to force the "mold" so to speak on those humans.

 

[Scarecrow38]

My definition is pretty simple but I think it encompasses communism.

A system of social organisation that goes against human nature and... if by some miracle it was put sucessfully into practice, it would have to be in a way that makes relations with other countries impossible.