I'm irish, and i'd be happy to see Ireland continue it's journey from the backward culturally stagnant British backwater to a functioning member of the European Union. (back in the 60s when this country was largely influenced by the Catholic church, and other vested interest groups - things have changed for the better, it took until 92 that you could ge tcontraception without a prescription)

and yes, i voted yes to lisbon, twice. That fact is i don't know the idiots in Dublin who make our laws; I don't care if it is idiots in Brussels who decide instead.

Which may seem like a weird comment for someone who would have supported the break with Britian in the 20s. (mainly because of bad management from Westminster, but i guess that is a matter of history, and guess what Irish people are taught this 'made up' nationalism...)

I must be honest I'm the opposite. I totally oppose all european union, yet I couldn't be more against the break up of the United Kingdom.
I guess it's because I view the people of these islands as my countrymen ( except now the southern irish, for obvious reasons). But I reckon that I'd have been opposed to irish independence at the time.
I'm willing to admit that I'm somewhat of a British "nationalist" in the sense I want Britain to be strong and great, but not in the sense of Hitler/BNP. Sort of old liberal/old torie style " having nationalist interests" is probably the thing I'm closest to. Which is tthe reason I'm opposed to Europe.
( Another reason to go along with my hatred of centralised and big government)

@ The Master Warrior: "Point out the flaws of communism? Okay, I'll bite.

One of its objectives is to eliminate religion, as religion is considered private property."

Ermmm, no. The main problem communists have with religion is that they're intelligent enough to realise how stupid the concept of god is.

I love the fact that you right-wingers hate the idea of the government "telling you what to do" yet you are often perfectly willing to allow priests to tell you how to live your lives.

"...Another is to eliminate private property in general, which isn't fair to anyone. (I won't bother explaining twice; I hope everyone here is smart enough to figure that out)"

It's pretty fair to those who own little or no private property.

@ Draugnar: "@The_Master_Warrior - I hate to tell you this, but there is no such thing as a communist country in this world. Those so called "communist" countries are in name only. They do not practice communism. By definition, communism has no rulers and each person does what they can to contribute and receives what they need based upon that need."

Very well put, Draugnar. Even though you and I disagree fundamentally, you nonetheless demonstrate why you are in an intellectual class above The Master Warrior.

The best thing that can be said about countries with communist governments is that they were / are, in theory, working towards this goal. Communism is a goal, not a political programme that can be fully implemented on day one.


(Oh and on the concentration camps issue, sorry for starting people off on a tangent but my answer would be the British concentration camps for Boer civilians during the Boer War).


@ BBanner: "One thing that needs to be understood here by all parties is that "human law" or "human nature" is dictated largely by the circumstances and inputs into those particular individuals that make up the society...(and the whole of the rest of that post).."

Wonderful. I have always argued that there is NO SUCH THING as "human nature" - it is determined by the society that people grow up in. At the moment the majority of people grow up in societies driven by greed. They are therefore taught that "greed is good" and they become greedy "by nature". Whereas in fact this is not "in their nature" at all - they have in fact been taught it.


@ Draug: "@BBanner - Proof?! Look at the human rights violations today in China."

China is not a communist country, nor is its ruling party making any attempt to move towards a communist state of affairs. You fail on this one.


@Rule Britannia: "Please explain why the average amount the poor( bottom half of wage earners) have in the u.s/u.k is so much greater than it was in the eastern block/ is in china or cuba. "

In China's case the comparison is irrelevant because China is not communist (See above).

In Cuba's case this is largely because the USA has used its Navy to impose a strict economic blockade on Cuba from the 1960s to the present day. In any case, a comparison on wage grounds alone does not show the true picture. For example a poor Cuban recieves much, much better health care and education than a poor American.


@ Rule Britannia: "im british, and it's horific the way the labour government attempt to rule our lives and take half our money."

Mine! Mine! Mine! Selfish, selfish, selfish. What makes it YOUR money in the first place? Those are society's resources you're talking about, not yours personally, and they should be distributed in whichever way benefits society as a whole.

"However, the single worse thing must be the centralised E.U. The people of Britain have never had a say on the E.U."

100% correct on this particular point. The EU is dangerously undemocratic. A lot of important decisions are made at european level that the British public have basically no control over. The current EU system is not democratically accountable and is in need of serious reform. At least this is one issue you and I can agree on.

Jamiet -- for clarification, do you support socialism (that's really what "communism" is, a broken and impure brand of socialism with its own connotations)?

I just want toss my hat in the ring.

I come from the 4th most populous state in India - West Bengal. There are about 80 million people who live in this state. And little known to the rest of the world, West Bengal has the world's longest-running democratically elected communist government. Pretty unique huh?

Let me tell you a little about what has happened in this state.

You may have heard about the Tata Nano, the world's "cheapest" car, originally it was planned to be manufactured in West Bengal, but, as a result of uprisings from the local farmers (instigated by politicians) the factory moved to another state. As a result of this sort of politicking West Bengal has been held back in terms of development for the last 60 years (ie. since India's independence).

India is by no means an equal country, about half of India's population are below the poverty line. But, interestingly the affluent middle-class numbering at about 300 million (the population of the entire USA) is slowly on the rise as a result of economic liberalistion in the country.

Getting back on point. After India's independence the ruling Congress party took a socialist view to running the country. I'm not overly familiar with the various political philosophies so I'll leave you to decide what it means in India’s contexts but suffice to say the country was very wary of foreign investments and took a very strict view of any foreign trade. It was only in the early 1990’s that India’s economy was liberalised. Again I’m not an economist so I can’t rattle on about what this really meant, but, as the world has seen in the last decade and a half India’s economy has substantially grown.

But, do you know which state in India (although having one of the HIGHEST literacy rates in the country) is still faring pretty badly? West Bengal. Continuing under Communist rule has meant that virtually no major corporations are willing to set up manufacturing facilities in the country and the IT boom that has seen many other states/cities in India grow financially has completely passed Kolkata (capital of West Bengal).

Communism has destroyed my home state.

I have realised what the problem is, and I’m sure others have realised it too. With such a high literacy rates many of the residents of West Bengal read Marx and found his views to be exactly what the country needed (in the middle part of the 20th Century). India was poor, the poor were getting poorer with no end in sight. The communists thought they had the answer, but, like USSR and China and North Korea COMMUNISM DOES NOT WORK. The reason is simply because since the dawn of Imperialism humans have only known one thing: Greed. Once in power it’s hard to just hand everything back to the people. It’s hard to “redistribute wealth” when the wealthy are giving kind donations to your coffer. The poor in West Bengal stayed poor but they had the promise of a better life.

What has worked in India is liberalisation and capitalism. Yes the rich have gotten fat of it, but, at least some of the poor are able to pick themselves up and become the middle-class. Unfortunately, this is not happening in my communist run state.

Wrong. There are wanna-be communist countries, and they prove that communism is not practical on a nationwide scale, and any attempts at communism will result in failure.

really informative general, cheers for that.

"and why do you care so much about others? most of them do not want to help you, why get stuck on helping everyone else and help yourself first. if everyone watches out for themselves then nobody has to worry about anyone else."

Because we don't control nature and every external event, and banding together is the only way to minimize their importance in our lives.

Example: If there's a bunch of street thugs who start making their own law, in situations where society is generally banded together the police force will be able to handle them, while when it's free-for-all, the thugs can kill you just because they don't like how you look because nobody will give a damn. By collectively preventing or acting against harm done to others, you are acting against harm happening to yourself.

Example2: Your home is suddenly destroyed because over-abundant rain caused a mudflow where there had never been any before. Social net = you aren't completely fucked over for something you had no control over, all for their own or insufficient social net = look at New Orleans.

Example3: You take a walk outside and get bitten by a mosquito, you get the west nile virus. Public health means you get affordable treatment, otherwise you are fucked over and put in debt over medical bills.

Individualism only works in contexts of abundance (where work always CAN provide for what you need) and perfect living conditions (no crime, no disease, no accidents, etc.). Otherwise, if people only care for themselves and not others, everyone suffers because unforeseeable and uncontrollable events will be dramatic to those they affect.

"@BBanner - Proof?! Look at the human rights violations today in China. Look to Tiananmenn Square."

You do know that the students who did that protest had chosen the Internationale as their theme song, right? You know, the *international communist anthem*?

@RB, i hope you were talking to the general, but i suppose the comment might have been meant sarcastically at TMW.

@TMW: if you had any understanding of science or logic you'd understand how stupid what you just said sounds.

@General: really cool, i did know some general information about how diverse India is, and how different it's many states are. My one indian friend was also rather anti-union - because unions can stop work and reduce production. I'm not sure which state he is from, but i'd like to hear your opinion on workers rights, and how to best protect them? (i imagine it will be signifigantly different from either a Europeans or Americans, America has 50 different states, while the EU only has 27 at present; India is 28 if i'm not mistake)

@RB: somehow i'm in favour of the EU for the same reason you oppose it. I can see Ireland as part of a EU which is effectively a superpower which could do great things in the world counter-balancing the US, and perhaps the rising east asian economies.

I would also see the benifit to Scotland of greater independance with the EU. (because they are a country would be more powerful)

"For everything you've said about helping the poor with communism, the society where the poor have been the best off is capitalsim. This is because competiton breeds advancement. Please explain why the average amount the poor( bottom half of wage earners) have in the u.s/u.k is so much greater than it was in the eastern block/ is in china or cuba."
Cite sources. I find this claim rather dubious. Be sure to compare people of the same time-frame in your reference (i.e. not 2009 norvegians vs. 1950 chinese).

"im sorry for that last comment, i was over the top- it was in respose to the simple sweeping away of a fact involving 20million lives.
but i gueninley don't believe you can deny that communism has lead to a massively disproportionate amount of murder compared to any other system."

Better reported and documented (if not fabulated) by anti-communist groups. It's far easier to count the number of people a single institution killed (say, a government), then the combined acts of hundreds of thousands of institutions (companies), especially when the former keeps at least some form of records and the latter, no. Mining companies still commit crimes against humanity in Latin america to increase their profits, this is what I consider "deaths caused by capitalism". Then you can add the wars that were caused because of capitalistic ambitions and countries: contra, iran, irak... Truth be told, you can attribute pretty much every war that's happened in the last few hundred years to capitalism, so I'll "suspect" that the toll is way over that moronic 100 million the "black book of communism" claims. After all, that number includes unintentional starvation through poor agricultural techniques (incompetence is independant of economical model, once these problems were fixed production was typically superb), the revolutions (which honestly, most deaths are the result of foreign funding to arm counter-revolutionist insurgeants or governments), and the wars (which again, typically only lasted and were so devastated because they were amplified by capitalist powers). If that 100 million includes those, then really, include all the capitalist wars since the last century, all the starvation that occured in all capitalist countries and colonies, all political repression in capitalist countries and colonies, all crimes committed in other countries (Vietnam with Agent Orange, terrorism against Cuba)...

Honestly, no matter how tyrannical and cruel and bloody some of these regimes were, they still pale in comparison to capitalism. Saying X is better than Y because Y did A times Z isn't worth anything unless you also state how many times X did Z.

BBanner, communism isn't evil. It's proven not to work. Trying it again would be an unnecessary waste of millions more lives.

["For everything you've said about helping the poor with communism, the society where the poor have been the best off is capitalsim. This is because competiton breeds advancement. Please explain why the average amount the poor( bottom half of wage earners) have in the u.s/u.k is so much greater than it was in the eastern block/ is in china or cuba."
Cite sources. I find this claim rather dubious. Be sure to compare people of the same time-frame in your reference (i.e. not 2009 norvegians vs. 1950 chinese).]

Also, use representative values. GDP/capita is not representative, nor is average income. Cubans might make very few US$/year, but life over there is also dirt cheap. Also, do use pre-1991 numbers, before Cuba was denied the right to trade with anyone through the loss of their greatest trade partner.

@general

From what you are saying, capitalists and idiots screwed your state, not communism. Your region did not enrich itself because *foreign investors refused to set themselves up in your state*. If the state failed to compensate for foreign entrepreneurs setting themselves up by investing themselves, well, that's the fault of your own government, but that isn't inheritably because they are communist.

"You take a walk outside and get bitten by a mosquito, you get the west nile virus. Public health means you get affordable treatment, otherwise you are fucked over and put in debt over medical bills."

Only if you didn't EARN health insurance or are too lazy to apply for Medicare/caid.

If it were public healthcare, you would get triaged right away, and sit in a waiting room for three days of complete hell. Then you would die or get a bottle full of generic pills that don't work worth a damn without even seeing a doctor.

When I had a profusely bleeding head wound (I won't go into details, but I can if anyone wants to hear), I was rushed to the hospital. I got in the ER, a paper towel in one hand, covering the wound, and what was left of the roll in the other hand. I got staples and was sent on my merry way 20 minutes later. After the staples were in (put in by a doctor) all I did was hand them my employer's insurance card, wait for a reciept to print, and recieved a home care guide for my wound. I walked out the door, called a cab, and went home. And I didn't have to pay a goddamn penny.

The solution to health care is to give massive tax cuts to companies that provide their employees with insurance. But we can't do that without bankrupting the US unless we de-socialize health care.

Communists - are any of you willing to explain your ideal communist society in 2-300 words? You folks keep saying what communism *isn't*, but I can't recall reading what it *is* exactly.

How about you read the Manifesto, which lays it out in pretty clear detail and it's very short? http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

TMW is apparently one of the few Americans with working health insurance that won't get denied coverage for a variety of reasons. Congratulations.

@ the.dibster: "Jamiet -- for clarification, do you support socialism (that's really what "communism" is, a broken and impure brand of socialism with its own connotations)?"

I reject your description of communism as 'broken and impure' however in response to your query, yes I do support socialism. Of course "socialism" is a very broad term, but in very general terms, yes.


@ general: I am not going to argue with you about the political economy of West Bengal, as you live in India and I have never visited your wonderful country.

For what it's worth, according to Wikipedia the economy of West Bengal has experienced considerable economic growth since the late 1990s and for much of the 2000's West Bengal's economy out-performed much of the rest of India, and has experienced the third-fastest economic growth among Indian states in recent years. I am not an expert on the region and have no way of verifying how accurate the Wikipedia article is, but it paints a very positive picture of West Bengal's economy.


@ Tolstoy: "Communists - are any of you willing to explain your ideal communist society in 2-300 words? You folks keep saying what communism *isn't*, but I can't recall reading what it *is* exactly."

Ok, very basically - trying to keep to a 300 word limit so not going into detail on every issue:

1. INDUSTRY AND EMPLOYMENT:
All major productive forces would be controlled by the people via the state.

Unemployment is eliminated. Everyone who is capable of working can have a job, and the system does its best to ensure everyone has a job that suits their skills and which they will find as stimulating or rewarding as possible. Further to this it is acknowledged that some jobs, whilst essential, are not enjoyable (refuse collection, for example) and steps are taken to compensate workers for this - perhaps in giving them greater leisure time. Ensuring full employment would also mean that many workers would enjoy a shorter working day. In return for good working conditions and stimulating work, everyone would be expected to work to their potential and not slack off.

2. REWARDS:
Following the above the system would ensure that every worker's needs (food, clothing, shelter, mental and social stimulation, etc) were met. This does not mean "everyone gets the same", since different people have different needs, but it does mean everyone gets a fair share of what is produced by society.

3. PEOPLE NOT IN EMPLOYMENT:
People not working (ie retired people or people unable to work due to illness or disability) would also have their needs met by society as above.

4. EDUCATION & HEALTHCARE:
Education and healthcare would be provided at a good standard to everyone free of charge.

5. TAXES:
There would be no taxes. Since the state would control the forces of production, taxes would not be needed. What currently comprise the profits of private industry would instead be used by the state to provide the services needed by everyone in society.

6. POLITICAL REPRESENTATION:
At local level political decisions would be handled by two kinds of elected bodies working together - one representing towns/districts like a local authority does today, and one representing workplaces, like a trade union. These two bodies would appoint representatives to a regional body or forum which would make decisions at a higher level, and the regional bodies would in turn appoint the national-level representatives.

And at that point I'm just about up to 300 words so I'll stop.

jamie- one question. What if people didn't want to do the job assigned to their "needs"? What if not everyone worked? what would happen to those who didn't work, or who protested against their "suits and skills designed jobs"?
Would the goolag come and get them? because the soviets didn't emphasize what happened to said people .....will you??
To all socialists I'd like to ask a question- if we had communism in the u.s.s would you be pro not allowing anyone in or out? because that something else the eastern block had: no right to leave. Would you also be pro not having the people have any contact with the outside world?
And for all the capitalist battering; id like to point out that not only was the U.S.S.R non- capitalist, but so was "national socialist germany". In fact, do all the commie romantics something called the nazi-soviet pact? the soviets and nazis revealed that really they were brothers fighting to change society against the elite. so i guess from now on i can refer to the likes of jamie, orathaic and bbanner as the nazis. sounds good.

Well, RB, let me respond to your accusations and finger pointing as soon as the historical record changes to show that the Nazis DIDN'T kill and intern German communists, or that Hitler didn't invade the Soviet Union. Are you done with unfounded assertions, or should we let you ramble on?

At this point you're just two posts away from claiming 9/11 was an inside job by the communists run the Illuminati's Fourth Moon Base of the Beast (Hallowed Be His Name), so just keep that in mind.

Are you suggesting it wasn't? :P

The Soviet union wanted to invade Germany when the Germans went into Czechslovakia, in 1938 - however the British and French were unwilling to go along(see aooeasement: Neville Chamberlain, Peace in Our Time). Given that they make a tactical decision keep themselves safe by agreeing to a non-agression pact(the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact) with the Nazi Germany. (and dividing Poland, taking latvia, estonia and finland as Soviet territories) This was also driven by the legitimate Soviet fears that the Capitalists (brits and french) would surround and invade the soviet union.

So it was a result of failed negotiations with the capitalists of europe, and self-preservation; not any similarities with Nazi germany.

Please note the USA also drew up plans to haev the world divided into their spheres of influence and a Nazi-Europe sphere of influence, (with also perhaps a Japanese-Asian sphere) which while perhaps unpopular with some Americans and American politicians might have come to pass had it not been for pearl harbour (depending on public opinion and political will)

This is a link to the Euro-sphere - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/EUFA.png - the supposed current EU sphere of influence - where ENP European Neighbourhood Partners, and ACP African Caribean Pacific group of states are included - This is essentially the European Empire - no longer divided between Soviet Russia and the United States - The time of the British Empire is long over.

Had the Nazis won their sphere of influence would have been about this 70 years ago. he EU is definitely a better society to live in, both from economic freedoms, political freedoms, freedom of speech and the freedom to criticise. The Japanese lost the war aswell and are now something like Britian, with the US across the Ocean and the new super power growing just across it's sea, in the form of china.

Is it better to be in the tent pissing out or outside pissing in? Britian could do fairly well outside of the EU, but it will never return to it's former position as a world super-power. Get over it.

"At this point you're just two posts away from claiming 9/11 was an inside job by the communists run the Illuminati's Fourth Moon Base of the Beast (Hallowed Be His Name), so just keep that in mind."

"Are you suggesting it wasn't? :P "

Figles: you should know better the communist run illuminati doesn't have that kind of influence over the Islamic peoples front, it's the Zionist Freemasons who oganised 9/11 from their Anartican Nuclear weapons testing facility. (Christianity and Islam are just Branches of the world wide jewish sect! They have differences so as to distract them, and unite themselves agaisnt a common enemy: each other)

@Jamiet99uk:

I don't have an issue with your definition of communism.
.
I especially like the idea of eliminating unemployment in 'developed' countries by reducing the lenght of the working week. I also like the idea that people would have the opportunity to seek further education in their leisure time. (remembering that your leisure time will be greatly increased) and it would be free education.

Though i do think some educational reform is needed anyway, on the job training would be cool. More practical educational expierences even from a young age (mid-teens) could be better.

That same leisure time could also be put to use for entrepenurial activities - experiments, new services, etc. but basically making you are looking at freedom of choice for what the individual wants to do with their free time - reform of copright law to encroauge sharing of ideas - the only problem i see with this kind of system is who decides what is neccesary and which ideas to promote.

Capitalism does it simply by assuming people will make smart decisions with their own money. And i am not an out and out communist in that i think there are useful ideas which can be taken from Capitalism - some sort of socialist middle ground...

Well, the issue comes with the definition of capitalism... is capitalism a system where goods and activities can be freely exchanged, or is capitalism a system where labor-power is sold to producers who control the means of production and who have far more capital than labor-power does? Because I don't find anything wrong with the former; the second one is where we get into exploitation of workers.

I live in israel, where they have communes (Kibbutzim)
Some of them are insanely wealthy (avg 160,000$ a year per person.
Lesson?
Communism does best in a capitalist economy. strange