Article discreditng the thesis that Mao "killed millions of people" in The Great Leap

[kandrathe]

Zeroing in on the elusive Joseph Ball

https://www.networksolutions.com/whois/r...aoists.org

He seems to be ;
Registrant Name: Joseph Ball
Registrant Organization: Joseph Ball
Registrant Street: 9 Bodney Road
Registrant Street: .
Registrant Street: .
Registrant City: London
Registrant State/Province: .
Registrant Postal Code: E81AY
Registrant Country: GB
Registrant Phone: +1.7799251045

Which according to 2006 Hackney zoning applications is owned by Matt Hypolite. Although, "Joe" is probably a renter, or bought it subsequently. The server IP is near Santa Marinella, Italy.

[FireIceTalon]

The problem with our immigration system is simple...

Immigration isnt' the problem at all. Here, or anywhere else for that matter. The problem is the economic laws of the capitalist system and conditions it creates that presupposes and necessitates immigration as a historically intrinsic feature of the system to begin with.

Being against 'illegal' immigration further dehumanizes a huge quantity of people who are, in a qualitative sense, already oppressed and socially stigmatized because of capitalist mythology and the attitudes it fosters toward people of other nations, and especially so when those people are not white. Just the very term 'illegal immigrant' itself is extremely derogatory and dehumanizing, and in most cases probably racist as well. This is all organically tied into capitalisms 'reserve army of labor' that fosters, creates, and reinforces competition between workers; both of the same nation and of different nations.

The only time "illegal immigration" was ever a problem here is when white european colonialists set foot on this continent and stole it from Native Americans, while enslaving and wiping out nearly 90% of said Native Americans in the process. So if you want to start deporting people based on an national status of '(il)legality', well, that would mean every white person here would have to start packing their bags tomorrow. So, you may want to re-think your position on the subject of immigration (legal or not).

[kandrathe]

The problem with our immigration system is simple...

Immigration isnt' the problem at all. Here, or anywhere else for that matter. The problem is the economic laws of the capitalist system and conditions it creates that presupposes and necessitates immigration as a historically intrinsic feature of the system to begin with.

Being against 'illegal' immigration further dehumanizes a huge quantity of people who are, in a qualitative sense, already oppressed and socially stigmatized because of capitalist mythology and the attitudes it fosters toward people of other nations, and especially so when those people are not white. Just the very term 'illegal immigrant' itself is extremely derogatory and dehumanizing, and in most cases probably racist as well. This is all organically tied into capitalisms 'reserve army of labor' that fosters, creates, and reinforces competition between workers; both of the same nation and of different nations.

So... Lemme-get-this-straight... Somebody living in the hell-hole of El Salvador seeks to escape being victimized by their own countrymen aka. Mara Salvatrucha, so they come to the US to rebuild their lives. But, to you, it is the person offering them money in exchange for labor that is victimizing them? Nay, you said dehumanizing them, and its not the gangsters turning them into human cattle in brothels, or mules running drugs through a deadly gauntlet of jungles and deserts that are to be feared, but "capitalists". Illegal means... it is against the laws that already exist. Why wouldn't someone have taken the case, "illegal immigrant" itself is extremely derogatory and dehumanizing" to the courts then? We have laws defending human and civil rights.

Oh, wait, they have. In the face of the 1996 Clinton administration "dehumanizing" laws, they have upheld the rights of people to due process, and to petition the government for consideration.

https://www.aclu.org/other/analysis-immi...n-policies

You missed the part where I said I wanted more immigration, and to "decriminalize" it by making what is now classified as "illegal" into what is more likely a "temporary worker" seeking a better life.

The only time "illegal immigration" was ever a problem here is when white european colonialists set foot on this continent and stole it from Native Americans, while enslaving and wiping out nearly 90% of said Native Americans in the process. So if you want to start deporting people based on an national status of '(il)legality', well, that would mean every white person here would have to start packing their bags tomorrow. So, you may want to re-think your position on the subject of immigration (legal or not).

Then, you wouldn't be opposed to opening your home, or apartment to whomever wants to flop there. No borders means no occupation problem. Unlike you, I'm staying within the current legal system, as flawed or irrelevant as you may want to believe it to be. As far as we know, the rules of the First Nations was that non members of the tribe should die. Unfortunately for Native Americans, they lost, and/ or were swindled out of the land by the Europeans. I'm not opposed to some equitable, workable justice for them, unless you are suggesting expelling all emigrants and their ilk from the past 400 years, which is pretty unworkable (leading to civil war). Was it illegal for the Asians when they invaded North America, and South America some 30 to 10 thousands of years ago? What do you you suggest for those of us with Native and European blood? What about those who were brought here against their will? Unlike you, I deal in the reality of what is and don't partake of unrealistic fantasy, like pure communism, or North America purged of European blood.

You have some very absurd ideas, and this is one of them. I think what you are lacking here is a sense of perspective. I suggest you should augment your understanding more directly by emigrating to China, or North Korea to work in collective farming for some years to gain an appreciation for the value of individuality, and the ability to market your skills directly to those who might seek them. This "capitalist" system is clouding your perspective.

[FireIceTalon]

So... Lemme-get-this-straight... Somebody living in the hell-hole of El Salvador seeks to escape being victimized by their own countrymen aka. Mara Salvatrucha, so they come to the US to rebuild their lives. But, to you, it is the person offering them money in exchange for labor that is victimizing them? Nay, you said dehumanizing them, and its not the gangsters turning them into human cattle in brothels, or mules running drugs through a deadly gauntlet of jungles and deserts that are to be feared, but "capitalists".

You say I lack perspective, yet this very passage here is the epitome of lacking perspective, so let me add it for you.

Black markets, brothels, and drug cartels ARE all part of and directly a resullt of the capitalist system and neo-colonialism. Whether these things are legal or not, is not the point here. The point is, like endeavors done in 'normal' markets, they are done for profit. Yes, many of these things are and result in terrible human rights violations. However, that doesn't exonerate capitalists who obey the so-called 'rule of law' of bourgeois society from their exploitative relationship with workers, or the attrocities that the 'legitimized' state apparatus makes on their behalf. It is because of their endless pursuit of profits that this entire system came to be and is. You can holler all day about how laws are designed to protect human and civil rights, and that they should be this way or that way - the only thing you will accomplish is spinning your wheels in idealist mud. At the end of the day these things will ALWAYS be secondary to the accumuliation of profits, and in fact, this very process is not only indifferent to human and civil rights but in fact probably encourages these violations - or such underground markets wouldn't exist. Capitalists in the regular markets are every bit to blame for exploitation and human rights violations as those who operate 'illegally' in the underground. The only difference is, the former have an established and organized police and state force to enforce their violent rule for them, whereas the latter operate in such a way as to enforce their rule directly themselves; a pimp who exploits sex workers being the perfect example of this. These underground markets represent capitalism at very arguably its worst, but again, it doesn't absolve 'law abiding' capitalists of their crimes against humanity either. We live in a system that brings out the worst in humanity.

From a pro-capitalist perspective, that is one of of the beauties of the 'rule of law system' - you can hide behind all the attrocities committed by the system that are inextricably tied to what your social and economic existence as a class is predicated upon, THEN, when the everyday mythology you indoctrinate the masses with in the education and media systems is no longer enough, you can just blame it on the State to absolve yourself of all responsbility when shit hits the fan; the very same state that exists to violently enforce your ruling position in society.

The problem though, isn't just capitalists. Privileged and racist white workers that buy into capitalist mythology hook, line, and sinker are just as much to blame.

We have laws defending human and civil rights.

What an insensitive and disgusting blanket statement that completely glosses over the historical attrocities and systemic brutality that Native Americans, blacks and all other non-white persons have and continue to endure in America. Your white privilege is really showing with that statement.

Tell that to the people of Standing Rock in ND, or the families of the countless black and latino men, women and children beaten, harassed, racially profiled, humiliated, and murdered by white police officers, who kill with near impunity, almost on a daily basis. They will most likely look at you like you are crazy, and for good reason.

Oh, wait, they have. In the face of the 1996 Clinton administration "dehumanizing" laws, they have upheld the rights of people to due process, and to petition the government for consideration.

Wait, you mean the same administration that implemented the extremely racist, sexist and anti-worker polices left and right; including The Crime Bill of 1994, the Three Strikes Law, and gutting of welfare that lead to more police surveillance and racial profiling of minority communities, increased mass incarceration (for profit!), and basically criminalized being poor? Policies that would have made any Republican administration grin from ear to ear? THAT adminstration, you mean?

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/02/welfa...verty-dlc/

The Clintons, and so-called liberals in general, are just as much useful idiots as conservative reactionaries are.

Then, you wouldn't be opposed to opening your home, or apartment to whomever wants to flop there. No borders means no occupation problem.

Um, there are more empty houses and apartments here than there is immigrants or homeless people in America, so indeed there is no occupation problem. Once again, the problem isn't immigration but artificial scarcity created by the capitalist system. But that isn't the point I was making anyways. The point is, is that white people are in absolutely no position to complain about immigration WHATSOEVER, not just because of history either, but because their primary objections to immigration (such as stagnant or declining wages) cannot be attributed to immigration in the first place. Their anger and frustration should be directed toward their bosses and the system that creates a boss-worker relationship to begin with, not at workers from other nations.

Unlike you, I'm staying within the current legal system, as flawed or irrelevant as you may want to believe it to be.

And that's part of the problem, is that you only navigate within the current given system without realizing the system itself is rotten to the core. You are like a doctor who wants to treat a cancer patient symptoms, but not the cancer itself, as all bourgeois historians, economists, and social commentators are

Unfortunately for Native Americans, they lost, and/ or were swindled out of the land by the Europeans. I'm not opposed to some equitable, workable justice for them, unless you are suggesting expelling all emigrants and their ilk from the past 400 years, which is pretty unworkable (leading to civil war).

Never said all white people should be deported. My point was, again, that they are in no position to complain about immigration if we look at historical context. Either way, it is pure fantasy to think that a profit driven system, built upon institutionally racist foundations, with more POC blood on its hands than anything else in history, will ever deliver justice and equality to Native Americans or other minorities. One has to be completely out of touch with reality and lack historical perspective to think otherwise. It would have happened long ago if it were possible. Is 500+ years of spilt Native American blood, genocide, slavery and poverty not enough to convince you of this? Capitalism, and its legacy of colonialism and the institutional racist foundations that it is predicated upon, are inseparable.

What about those who were brought here against their will?

You mean like the people in the African Slave trade that were stripped from the very arms of their familes and tribes, to be bought and sold, when white colonists had to find another population to enslave because they wiped out most of the indigenous population?

Unlike you, I deal in the reality of what is and don't partake of unrealistic fantasy, like pure communism, or North America purged of European blood.

No, what is pure fantasy is thinking this rotten system can be reformed in any way to protect and serve those it has historically oppressed, by design, from day ONE. Again, your white privilege speaks loudly here.

You have some very absurd ideas, and this is one of them. I think what you are lacking here is a sense of perspective.

Or maybe, I've just come to face the music, whereas you've yet to. Bottomline is, we simply speak a completely different political language.

There is nothing absurd about the observation of european colonialism. It is just acknowledging the fact europeans came here, wiped out and enslaved various populations in the name of profit and their worldview that they used as justifcation for it - and still use to this day for the continued oppression of these same minorities.

What is absurd however, are perspectives that espouse white privilege cloaked in euphemisms like "private property", "individuality", and the like being written as the only sensible (and therefore, acceptable) perspectives and any other proposed alternative or critique of the given order must be dismissed as absurd. Lest any other viewpoint that is a threat and puts into question the legitimacy of the current system being accepted as an acceptable perspective.

I suggest you should augment your understanding more directly by emigrating to China, or North Korea to work in collective farming for some years to gain an appreciation for the value of individuality, and the ability to market your skills directly to those who might seek them.

It's funny how pro-cappies put so much emphasis on individualism. But even if we play your game and put more emphasis on individualism than collectivism, its still pretty easy to make a reasonable argument that capitalism has about as much concern for 'individuality' as Trump does for women's rights. Or in more explicit terms, zero. The system treats humans as disposable entities, and cogs in the system to generate more profits then "replace" them when they cannot produce as much value as they previously did - and this holds true in both mainstream markets as well as the black market or other similar underground markets. It couldn't care less about each individual persons needs, and talents only in sofar as they can produce enough value worth expropriating.

This "capitalist" system is clouding your perspective.

LOL, quite the opposite. This certainly applies to yourself rather than me. As stated before, I see this system for what it actually is. I have no illusions about my social existence and what determines it. You see what you want to see. That is why Marxist perspectives and understandings of capitalism are superior to bourgeois ones - the former understands and observes capitalisms workings as they actually are, the latter observes it based on how they think it is, or should be. My understanding is from a materialist perspective, yours is entirely abstract and idealist.

[kandrathe]

...

Black markets, brothels, and drug cartels ARE all part of and directly a resullt of the capitalist system and neo-colonialism. Whether these things are legal or not, is not the point here. The point is, like endeavors done in 'normal' markets, they are done for profit.
...

This quote is enough to de-rail everything else you wrote. It is pure fantasy. Research Beijing black markets, or prostitution. But, that's right. We're not talking about *real* places. We're talking about the communist fantasy land that never has, and never will exist. There always was, and always will be greed inside people, no matter how many prisons, gulags, or retraining camps you make. You cannot beat "orderly communist" into people, or greed out of them. In fact, prisons are about the most free-market place you will find. Everything is illegal, so the market is level. Which, by the way, is why the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and every other communist hell hole ever made in the *real* world is ruled by tyrannical fear.

"At the Liyuan Dog Market, the largest canine bazaar in China, animals are often mistreated and sometimes die just a week after purchase, but dog lovers have few other options when they want to buy a pet."

[FireIceTalon]

This quote is enough to de-rail everything else you wrote.

Not by a long shot. Everything I stated above still holds true and is easily observable by anyone who isn't brain dead (or in denial to protect their ideology).

There always was, and always will be greed inside people

Prove it. Until you can, I will just dismiss this for what it really is: pseudo-scientific, biologically deterministic crud used as justification for the explotation and oppression of people everywhere.

no matter how many prisons, gulags, or retraining camps you make. You cannot beat "nice" into people.

Um, capitalism already does these things, and it does so ruthlessly so what the fuck are you talking about? Beating nice into people? This doesn't even make any fucking sense, it sounds like more of your fake scientific "human nature" crap that has no relation to material reality.

At the Liyuan Dog Market, the largest canine bazaar in China, animals are often mistreated and sometimes die just a week after purchase, but dog lovers have few other options when they want to buy a pet.

Not sure what point you are trying to make with this article? That people will try to make profits any way they can regardless of rules, laws, and regulations so long as we have a capitalist system that fosters and perpetuates greed? If so, yes, that is true, no one said otherwise. If not, then what is your point?

Black markets exist as a result of laws and restrictions placed on certain goods and services in regular markets; they are a natural consequence of the system. People will resort to illegal transactions to realize those profits to avoid higher taxes or be able to generate profit in general, and people will also try to get certain things that they deem necessary for themselves that are illegal in regular markets in many places (for instance, someone who buys marijuana to relieve physical pain they may be enduring that legal pharmaceutical drugs cannot). However, to argue that they are not part of or a result of the capitalist system at large is just plain false, cause they most certainly are. It has zero to do with human nature, and everything to do with material conditions. The only way you will ever get rid of black markets is if you get rid of capitalism itself.

[kandrathe]

Not sure what point you are trying to make with this article?

EXACTLY!

You don't understand. The most heinous "capitalism" exists in COMMUNIST CHINA! Not the out of the way, out of sight parts. Right in the middle of BEIJING!!! The city with the most black markets, most paid off officials, most prostitution, most exploitation...

You. ARE. Clueless.

[FireIceTalon]

One problem, China is a capitalist country that is ruled by a party that calls itself "The Communist Party of China". The predominant economic system and mode of production however, is indeed capitalism. President elect Trump could start calling himself a communist tomorrow morning, it doesn't change the fact that America is still a capitalist country. Most of the Scandinavian countries have a social democratic form of government, however the mode of production is, you guessed it, still capitalism. Iran is governed by a theocratic state. Mode of production is still capitalist.

No, I'm not clueless. I just don't speak the incoherent language called "bullshit" that you seem very fluent in, so forgive me if I can't entirely make sense of what you are saying. You failing to make the important distinction between 'mode of production' and system of government has no bearing on my political competency. Either way, i'm afraid your article only assists in affirming my earlier points.

Also, the "most heinous" forms of capitalism is rather subjective and not really something us Marxists concern ourselves with - its like asking what smells worse between dogshit, pigshit, and horseshit; it doesn't matter they all stink horribly. The point is, ALL capitalism and its internal economic laws and social relationships, in general, sucks ass regardless of who manages it.

Anyways, I've spent enough time on this discussion today, more than I should have probably. I am going to do something more interesting and productive now, like work on my music library. You take care Kandrathe.

[kandrathe]

So... As I said... "We're talking about the communist fantasy land that never has, and never will exist."

[FireIceTalon]

and never will exist."

This is 'absolute determinism', which the following article does a superb job of discrediting.

I will simply leave you with this final nail in the coffin for the credibility of bourgeois ideology, hit decisively with the Marxist hammer:

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/...lyneux.htm

Before dealing directly with these issues it is worth noting that bourgeois thought has never been able to resolve the problem of determinism. Rather it has swung back and forth between voluntarist idealism, which ignores social conditions and places all the emphasis on 'great' individuals and ideas, and mechanical materialism which stresses the unchangeable nature of people and society. Both these positions reflect aspects of bourgeois society viewed from the top down. On the one hand the bourgeoisie standing at the head of society, freed from productive labour and living off the exploitation of others, is able to flatter itself that its ideas and deeds rule the world. On the other hand looking down on the masses it sees them there as mere objects, passively driven this way and that by the requirements of capital accumulation. Bourgeois ideology thus attacks Marxism both for being too deterministic and for not being deterministic enough.

From Max Weber onwards bourgeois sociology and its related disciplines have condemned Marxism for its 'crude' economic determinism, its underestimation of the autonomy of ideology, politics and culture and its insistence on the central importance of class. Bourgeois historians have repeatedly tried to undermine any notion of an overall pattern of development in world history, concentrating their fire particularly on the schema outlined by Marx in The Communist Manifesto, and attacking the idea that the English and French Revolutions had any determinate class character or any historical necessity.

At the same time the socio-biologists have condemned Marxism and every form of left wing and socialist thought for its 'utopian' failure to grasp that inequality, hierarchy, class and competition (along with war, racism and sexism) are encoded in our genes and thus ineradicable.

and

Bourgeois ideology, as we noted in the opening section of this article, oscillates between idealist voluntarism, which rejects the determining role of material conditions and social relations, and mechanical materialism which sees human beings as passive objects and denies the role of conscious human practice. Both these modes of thought are generalisations arising from contradictory aspects of the social being of the bourgeoisie and the social nature of capitalism. Idealist voluntarism reflects the position of the bourgeoisie as a ruling class, living off the labours of others, which imagines that its ideas and its will are the demiurge of history. Mechanical materialism reflects the subordination of the bourgeoisie itself to the economic laws of capitalism and its view of the working masses as mere factors of production.

Marxism rejects both these positions by taking as its starting point the social being of the working class. The working class encounters directly and inescapably the determining effects of both physical nature, the weight of the stone, the resistance of the metal, the cold of the winter, the heat of the sun, and of economic and social relations, the pressure of poverty, the necessity to sell its labour power, the impact of unemployment, the invisible but real obstacles to social mobility. Yet, at the same time, the working class is continuously and directly involved in the conscious effort to transform both nature and social relations. Potentially it has the collective power to overturn the entire social system and establish a new society in which it will simultaneously produce and consciously direct production. It is on this foundation that Marxism transcends idealism and mechanical materialism in dialectical materialism which finds its highest expression in conscious revolutionary practice. Conscious revolutionary practice is activity which makes use of the fullest possible understanding of all the natural and social forces constraining and shaping human behaviour in order to tip the balance in favour of the working class and rescue humanity from the abyss.

The entire article is on point, but the quoted paragraphs especially stood out to me since they highlight the inconsistencies, unscientific, and general problematic irrationalism of bourgeois thought. The actual refutation of 'absolute determinism' however, is not present in the quoted text because of the length and complexity which the author goes into, but is discussed near the top of the article following the first two quoted paragraphs I provided, beginning under the heading "Determinism: absolute and relative". You may want to read that section in understanding why overly zealous, predictive statements like "pure communism will never happen" are not only logically absurd and childish, but in general, meaningless in the face of ever changing material conditions.

The problems of bourgeois idealism, especially in the context explained above, are numerous and obvious since they completely ignore or downplay the social forces that shape our existence. Less obvious, but equally flawed, is the mechanical materialism employed by bourgeois social scientists and psychologists.

'Mechanical materialism' has never been able to prove its hypothesis on any legitimate and thoroughly scientific level that inequality, hierarchy, racism, competition, and other philosophical nonsense used by ideologues of the given social order, are innate and unchanging to the human species (rather than being ideas that have to be and in fact are socially learned). There isn't a SINGLE credible scientific source to support this hypothesis, it is entirely heresy - at best. At worst, propagandistic mumbo jumbo. Marxism, by contrast, has numerous credible and scientific sources that can reasonably support its historical conclusions in various spheres; be it history, economics, sociology, psychology, political science, or historical/cultural anthropology. This is because it is governed by relative determinism, which is broader and more flexible and thus allows it more explanatory power than bourgeois explanations of society that are premised upon either absolute determinism or absolute/strong indeterminism; the former is inflexible, narrow, and too rigid while the latter suffers from being overly broad and based on loose abstractions.

Granted, Marxism cannot directly disprove the notion of an innate biological nature of humans that determines their thought processes and behavior, but it doesn't need to. The party making the claim of a positive, in this case the supposedly indisputable but lofty claim of an intrinsic and unchanging nature of humans, ALWAYS has the burden of proof. ALWAYS. Just as atheists do not have the burden of disproving the existence of god, but theists DO have the burden of proving his/her existence.

So long as the material conditions of capitalism continue to generally reflect the social, historical, and economic analysis of it as seen using the method of Historical Materialism, Marxism will remain not only relevant, but it will be the more accurate, cohesive, and fundamental understanding of human society than any form of bourgeois thought can ever muster.

[kandrathe]

and never will exist."

This is 'absolute determinism', which the following article does a superb job of discrediting.

For the record, I'm not French. I have no "bourgeois ideology".

Nor do I aspire to riches, or hedonism.

If I must be labeled, I have a conservative Midwestern, pragmatic, liberal ideology, seasoned with the realities of raising teens in an overly decadent and narcissistic society.

No. It is my claim/ opinion that it will never happen based upon your record of success so far. Do you *really* believe 6 billion people will peacefully coexist for long in a stateless, rule free, purely democratic society? Oh yeah, and pigs fly!

So why hasn't "true communism" ever been implemented and why out of all the attempts at communism, has it always led to authoritative regimes where the power is concentrated in the hands of an elite oligarchy?

I think this in and of itself says something about the theory called communism, namely that it is flawed and not applicable to real life. It is an idealistic pipe dream ignorant of human nature. This is because democracy, being a government based on choice and freedom, is antagonistic to a planned economy which is based on limiting choice.

This is also why communist revolutions inevitably lead to an authoritative dictatorship or oligarchy. The material wants and needs of any populace are diverse and ever changing. Capitalism can meet these needs because it changes with market demand, innovates, and fills niches. A planned economy cannot. When the general populace holds the political power and the people have the freedom of expression, then they will vote to according to their wants and needs and their perception of the needs of the nation as a whole. These opinions are not uniform and differ from individual to individual and from group to group. This is counterproductive to an authoritative planned economy which attempts to create an equal level of consumption amongst every individual. The end result is that any fledgling communist state will be forced to choose between democracy (assuming it even had it to begin with) and its planned economy. Either the economy will become more capitalist to accommodate the diversity of the individual needs, ceasing to be "planned" (maintaining a democracy), or it will concentrate all power into a ruling elite who will control the economy and buffer it against the fickle desires and needs of the people.

Thus we must conclude that the theory of communism is flawed from the beginning due to the incompatibility of both democracy and planned economies and that is why a "true communist" state has never and never will exist.

[FireIceTalon]

For the record, I'm not French. I have no "bourgeois ideology.

But you do. Whether you are French or not is entirely irrelevant; one's nationality has absolutely no bearing on their political orientation.

Nor do I aspire to riches, or hedonism.

Perhaps you don't. But again, this isn't a prerequisite for identifying with bourgeois ideology. It is entirely possible, and quite common in fact, to have no desire to be super wealthy but still hold bourgeois conceptions of the world.

Do you *really* believe 6 billion people will peacefully coexist for long in a stateless, rule free, purely democratic society?

I guess that depends on how you define "peacefully". You seem to think of communism as this "free love, lets all just get along and love eachother, and sing around the camp fire" society. If so, then it is absolutely no wonder why you think its impossible. But this is a faulty conceptual premise of what communism is. It is because we have CLASSES, which have irreconcilable interests, that presupposes the necessity of a state and state imposed violence to maintain that social relationship and hierarchy, as to why we don't peacefuly co-exist now.

Indeed, there will always be people who don't like another person, or don't get along with another person, for whatever reasons. That being said, that doesn't mean that humans generally speaking, do not tend toward cooperation rather than competition. If we tended toward the latter, we would have wiped ourselves out ages ago - probably long before capitalism even came into existence. It is this tendency that has helped us manage to survive as a whole species even in a barbaric vicious system of class antagonism, a system that is a betrayal of this natural relationship and a system that encourages us to act against our own rationality - and this is true of both capitalists and workers, both of whom are alienated not just from eachother but from achieving their 'species essence'.

As for the "another view" you posted, it is chock filled with various fallacies and inaccuracies, which I will now proceed to dismantle one by one, with ease. I have no idea where you got this piece, but the person who wrote it has at best, an infantile knowledge in the understanding of political economy - to the point of it being pure comedy.

So why hasn't "true communism" ever been implemented and why out of all the attempts at communism, has it always led to authoritative regimes where the power is concentrated in the hands of an elite oligarchy?

Because as I've explained plenty of times before, and most recently to Ashock in the autism thread, the bourgeois has done everything in its power to BE SURE that this was the final outcome. Then, they could write history as they please based upon THEIR version of it so as to keep their privileged position in society legitimized by a false and misleading account of history. This argument also doesn't even bother to take into consideration that in most countries where revolution took place, the productive forces of the given society, and in many cases the mode of production, were to small or lacked the capacity necessary to even build a workers socialist state, let alone achieve communism. Marxists have noted and accurately critiqued these issues for years long before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, so this question was long answered. They have no bearing, however, on future revolutionary movements.

I think this in and of itself says something about the theory called communism, namely that it is flawed and not applicable to real life. It is an idealistic pipe dream ignorant of human nature.

And once again, there is no reason to believe of "innate" human nature. Show me the scientific evidence of this notion, or its just all philosophical circle jerking that amounts to nothing but assumptions without any concrete support.

This is because democracy, being a government based on choice and freedom

Illusion. Freedom and choice for who? Certainly not for the masses of workers. Anyone with even a middle school level education of politics knows that bourgeois democracy is both a sham and farce that is easily observable - one doesn't even need to be a Marxist to really see this. Most people are coming to realize, finally, that the state does not exist to serve them, but exists to preserve the social order and the long term interests of the ruling class.

is antagonistic to a planned economy which is based on limiting choice.

The premise of a planned economy is to produce goods for consumption and need rather than for profit. It has nothing to do with limiting choice, though the limiting of choice may or may not be a natural consequence. Much in the same way that free healthcare, education, etc would be a natural result of socialism, but not what defines it either in practice or as a political theory. Indeed, it is incompatible with a liberal democratic government, who as mentioned above, exists to preserve capitalist social relations. Thats because a planned economy based on production for human need and consumption doesn't require a state of any sort. States exist to uphold class antagonisms. You aren't saying anything that is not basic knowledge to any Marxist already, and in fact, you are only agreeing and confirming what we've said for nearly two fucking centuries already!

The material wants and needs of any populace are diverse and ever changing.

Not really. The fact people need shelter, food, clean water, clothing, etc is common to all human beings survival and doesn't ever change. LOL, its so funny that capitalist apologists seem to forget this minor detail, yet this was Marx's STARTING point which is also explained in the article I provided in my prior post.

Capitalism can meet these needs

Nope it can't, and that is the crux of the problem. If it could we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, and in fact, the entire historical socialist and communist movement would have never developed in the first place as a reaction to capitalisms inability to meet human need if it were able to accomplish this. However, it cannot and does not. It doesn't even come remotely close.

innovates, and fills niches.

No, it absolutely doesn't. Humans do these things, not capitalism. The only thing capitalism does is arrange it in such a way that these things are done for profit and not social improvement (if it does happen, it is merely an afterthought that is viewed with indifference relative to the accumulation of capital). Which leads us to....

A planned economy cannot.

Sure it can, and it has. And it will do so much more effectively and efficiently. Innovation and technology under capitalism are constrained and fostered in such a way in the direction of profitability, which is why we have problems like Planned obsolence, artificial scarcity, overproduction (which in itself has numerous consequences, including destruction of the environment), and artificial demand (i.e. the constant advertising to get us to buy crap we don't need so corporations can get ever more profits, and this is carefully tied in with planned obsolence).

When the general populace holds the political power

They don't. The ruling capitalist class does.

and the people have the freedom of expression, then they will vote to according to their wants and needs and their perception of the needs of the nation as a whole. These opinions are not uniform and differ from individual to individual and from group to group.

Ideology is false consciousness

The end result is that any fledgling communist state will be forced to choose between democracy (assuming it even had it to begin with) and its planned economy.

False dilemma here. There is no state, and there is absolutely nothing that says society cannot be ran by the very people who make it run. Who makes it run NOW? The answer is, the workers - who create all wealth in society. Who would make it run under communism? The same people who make it run now. The difference is that it would be THEY who democratically decide their life decisions and THEY who direct production for social consumption and use - instead of having to live and partake in endeavors that are predicated upon the needs of a parasitic, corporate class that lives off the labor of the masses.

In fact, a planned economy will also help people to realize the full potential of their talents and aid in helping them to utilize those talents in the best way possible; whereas capitalism misdirects talent and its utilization all the time because it creates so many useless, boring, unfulfilling and in general, shitty jobs that no one really cares about doing (but they do them because they must, or face starvation and homelessness under the threat of state enforced violence).

The following article is hardly from a Marxist perspective, but I think its useful in understanding these points better and raises very serious questions:

http://evonomics.com/why-capitalism-crea...d-graeber/

Either the economy will become more capitalist to accommodate the diversity of the individual needs, ceasing to be "planned" (maintaining a democracy), or it will concentrate all power into a ruling elite who will control the economy and buffer it against the fickle desires and needs of the people.

Same false dilemma.

Thus we must conclude that the theory of communism is flawed from the beginning due to the incompatibility of both democracy and planned economies and that is why a "true communist" state has never and never will exist.

And given what I've said, I'd say this conclusion is false and has no merit. Whoever wrote this, not only doesn't understand communism, they don't understand capitalism either. Surely, you have something better than this? This was way too easy for me.

[Jester]

As for the "another view" you posted, it is chock filled with various fallacies and inaccuracies, which I will now proceed to dismantle one by one, with ease.

...

Surely, you have something better than this? This was way too easy for me.

Careful you don't get your red cape caught in a turbine.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

This was way too easy for me.

Because you are under the false assumption that this is an argument...

99.99937107% of the USA is beyond your clinging infantile suckling at the teats of a dead discredited ideology. You are merely tilting at windmills.

150 years ago this guy Marx had some interesting ideas. They ultimately resulted in wide spread suffering and death at the hands of despots.

If you want a real critique, sink your teeth into Marx after communism - The Economist

"So is Marxism: a creed complete with prophet, sacred texts and the promise of a heaven shrouded in mystery. Marx was not a scientist, as he claimed. He founded a faith. The economic and political systems he inspired are dead or dying. But his religion is a broad church, and lives on."

And, you sir, are one of its zealots.

[FireIceTalon]

Because you are under the false assumption that this is an argument...

Yes, what you presented was an argument, nothing more nothing less.

99.99937107% of the USA is beyond your clinging infantile suckling at the teats of a dead discredited ideology.

You have it backwards. Marxism is beyond 99.99937107% of the USA, of which a significant portion still believes a fictional book from the Bronze Age to be literal truth right down to the very last letter. So, I'll take their opinions on Marxism with a grain of salt.

Also, Marx isn't anymore discredited than Newton is by the Theory of Relativity.

150 years ago this guy Marx had some interesting ideas. They ultimately resulted in wide spread suffering and death at the hands of despots.

Right, just as Darwin's theory of Evolution and Natural Selection led to wide spread suffering and death at the hands of despots. You sir, are a fucking troll.

"So is Marxism: a creed complete with prophet, sacred texts and the promise of a heaven shrouded in mystery. Marx was not a scientist, as he claimed. He founded a faith. The economic and political systems he inspired are dead or dying. But his religion is a broad church, and lives on."

Marx was a social scientist, and Marxism is scientific in that it offers a framework to understanding nature, society, and humanity. It explores and attempts to discover the way society is constructed. Capital Vol.1 for instance, is quite scientific, grounded in material reality and a billion times more credible than the fairy tales in your Bronze Aged text.

As for Marxism being a religion, this is impossible since for any framework to be religion, it must be built upon a metaphysical premise to which its conclusions are founded upon. Marxism lacks such a metaphysical component, and therefore is not a religion. Unless of course, the word religion means literally anything to you.

Communism will be realized long before Jesus ever falls out of the sky. PERIOD. FACT. END OF STORY.

But at this point I think you are just trolling for the sake of trolling. So, I'm not interested in conversing with a troll, but I'm sure Ashock gladly will. You are two peas in a pod. Grow the fuck up.

[Alram]

Karl Marx couldn't even support himself and his family. He lived in filth and squalor. When it came to personal finances he was an economic failure. How could this economic failure of a man produce a successful economic theory?

[FireIceTalon]

Karl Marx couldn't even support himself and his family. He lived in filth and squalor. When it came to personal finances he was an economic failure. How could this economic failure of a man produce a successful economic theory?

I don't blame him for not working. 99% of the jobs under capitalism are pointless, repetative, unfulfilling, boring, shitty and dehumanizing, and whats more is that the value you produce is expropriated by the parasitic, private property owning classes - who DON'T work for a living and live off the labor of an army of wage slaves. I absolutely deplore the fact that I have to work or face starvation, homelessness and state enforced brutality if I dont. FUCK THIS SYSTEM. Marx also had extreme health problems which compromised his capacity to work throughout much of his life.

Either way, this is just an ad-hominem and has absolutely zero bearing on his economic and social analysis.

[kandrathe]

Also, Marx isn't anymore discredited than Newton is by the Theory of Relativity.

No. Newton was not wrong. For low speeds and low gravity Newton is highly accurate.

Most of Marx's crucial predictions supporting his economic theory have not come to pass. He was just wrong.

[FireIceTalon]

Most of Marx's crucial predictions supporting his economic theory have not come to pass. He was just wrong.

More like, this is your wishful thinking talking.

Marx's analysis of the capitalist system was near spot on, and we are seeing the beginning of the systems end now as we speak. It is failing all over the world, which is why we are experiencing so much political and social upheaval in almost every corner of the globe.

Oh, you want to say "but communism hasn't ever existed yet"? Marx never said communism was inevitable, only that it was possible due to the contradictions within the capitalist system, that it was in the objective class interests of the proletariat based on this analysis (which still holds true) and thus historically necessary (but not inevitable). The goal of communists right now, obviously, is not to establish communism because we are a long ways off from doing this. The goal of communists right now is to educate and organize workers into a political force as a class and eventually into a party of and in itself.

The capitalist system is an utter failure, responsible for more death, human suffering, misery, exploitation, and environmental destruction of the planet than ANY thing else that has been developed in our time, and the defense of it is an UNTENABLE political position. It puts even organized religion to shame by comparison.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/karl...t_20150531

Just about everything in that article has indeed come to pass. This system is NOT sustainable. Communism may not be the inevitable result of all this (though communists must fight for this outcome, since we know what the alternative is), but capitalisms demise is indeed, inevitable one way or the other. You can bank on that (no pun intended).

[Jester]

Marx never said communism was inevitable, only that it was possible due to the contradictions within the capitalist system, that it was in the objective class interests of the proletariat based on this analysis (which still holds true) and thus historically necessary (but not inevitable).

Can you explain what it means for something to be historically necessary, but not inevitable?

-Jester