[mr.calisto]

And if they're anything like my old party they're going to wet themselves in excitment over this article. "Someone mentions us. And it isn't our own party newspaper!"

[dosugxxx]

Originally posted by Aivo½so
Communism is so 1900s There are lot's of changes in the world coming. The social system will continue to change also. Definitely it will continue to be more communistic than capitalistic. The market is already failing more everyday.

[RonPeeredob]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


Delusional. 100 years ago if someone would have said that the social system was going to look like it does today I'm sure they would also be called delusional. Those who think things are going to stay the same are the deluded ones.

[Sydrothcoathy]

You don't get to vote for the future.

[YonkFiorc]

^

That's why we sometimes call Communism a religion. They share so much with the millenarians.

[Hlennisal]

Originally posted by Darius871
Are you aware of just how much your baseless assumptions sound just like those of millenarian religious whackos? You might as well be saying "Christ's 1,000-year reign will definitely start in this century, because people are getting more sinful everyday." No, because there is good reason to believe that the world will become more communist in the future. For example, it has become more communist in the last 100 years. Also, the world population will stop increasing in the next 100 years. These aren't the only reasons either. The other belief is nothing more than faith.
Regardless of whether communism or capitalism is "right" or "wrong," any assertions as to the inevitability of either can only be described as delusional. It's exactly that sort of quasi-religious faith that largely led to 20th-century Marxism's failure in practice. Maybe with a nice dose of less comforting realism you guys could have succeeded. Exactly, but the general trend towards communism is not related to experiments with it during the last century. I'm also, not predicting that things come out all rosey either, just that things will change. Although I hope for the best.

[OrefZorremn]

Originally posted by Kidicious
There are lot's of changes in the world coming. The social system will continue to change also. Definitely it will continue to be more communistic than capitalistic. The market is already failing more everyday. Tell that to China, why don't you? Are they a case of having to get worse before getting better?

[Bvghbopz]

Originally posted by Elok
Tell that to China, why don't you? Are they a case of having to get worse before getting better? I don't think of it as getting worse, because I don't think you can have a communistic society without having a failed capitalistic society.

[tiereenny]

On a side note; Kid is right about something.

The state is much more present in the economy than 100 years ago. You just have to check how much is the presence of the state in the GDP. The problem is with Kid thought; It can help the spread of Corporatism. Not Communism.

[TolleyBoymn]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Progressive income tax, social security, and national health care are social democratic reforms, not communist. No way bud. Economic equality was a socialist idea way before there were social democrats. All of those things can not be achieved through the market. Only government involvement can achieve them. That's communism.
All that has to happen now to achieve a communist society is market failure on a large scale.

And the proletariate will somehow magically self-organise to seize and control the means of production? Large scale market failures without appropriate levels of class-consciousness and an influential vanguard leadership are more likely to yield a degeneration into fascism. Why do you say that? I don't think class-consciousness is as important as democratic minded citizens.

[happyman]

Originally posted by Kidicious
All of those things can not be achieved through the market. Only government involvement can achieve them. That's communism.

I was going to respond to your other posts, but from the above I already know it's just going to boil down to you having idiosyncratic definitions of key terms in the first place, which makes debate impossible. Wasn't there another recent thread where the same exact thing happened?

Government Involvement = Communism?

Could any real communists please chime in against this imposter?

[LSg44PDu]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Corporatism is market failure. I disagree that govt involvement causes it. Or maybe you are using a different definition of corporatism than I am. Corporatism, as I used it, is when there is a rise in the numbers of lobby & interest groups and their main activities are to influence the government to have more rights, subsidies, quota.

They want their part of the cake bigger, without contributing to make the cake bigger.

[rionetrozasa]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't think of it as getting worse, because I don't think you can have a communistic society without having a failed capitalistic society. So China wasn't legitimately communist before? Or is it historically inevitable that certain societies yo-yo back and forth?

[daguy]

Originally posted by Elok
So China wasn't legitimately communist before? You could say it's illegitimate, but that's not the point. The point is just that it did not evolve out of a failed capitalist system so it's not the kind that I'm refering to.
Or is it historically inevitable that certain societies yo-yo back and forth? I don't think it's inevitable but a possibility.

[enurihent]

I hate you all. You took what could have been an amusing thread and turned it into a debate with Kid. Couldn't you at least tried to channel che if you were dieing for yet another Cap/Com debate?

[actifadepette]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I hate you all. You took what could have been an amusing thread and turned it into a debate with Kid. Couldn't you at least tried to channel che if you were dieing for yet another Cap/Com debate? That is like the mouse flipping the cat the bird.

[kesFockplek]

Why don't you spare us and actually read some Marx before pretending to know what you're talking about.

I might as well define Communism as a purple-monkey-dishwasher and demand that you refute arguments I make based on that definition.

[GypeFeeshyTes]

Originally posted by Darius871
Why don't you spare us and actually read some Marx before pretending to know what you're talking about.

I might as well define Communism as a purple-monkey-dishwasher and demand that you refute arguments I make based on that definition.
What would be the problem with that definition?

[n2Oddw8P]

By the way Kid, who's that in the avatar? Who ever it is, they are easier on the eye than that demented cat.

[GeorgeEckland]

Originally posted by Aeson
Capitalism didn't develop Social Democracy. (Unless it's a product you can buy at Wal-Mart or something...) I think Amazon do it, though.

Democracies have adopted Social reforms to offset Capitalism's shortcomings. Well, that's another way of putting it. I would argue that at the time of the initial reforms, there was little difference between the capitalist class and the governing class. Capitalism (to personify it) feared social instability.