[Krasniy Yastreb]

And no krasniy does not have a good point I have to go but ill refute his post when I get back.

Didn't you already? Anyway, let me hypothesise....

Supposing a far left group of people got into the Democrat Party and changed it's policies to those near or identical to those of communism. Like the movement of all means of production and infrastructure into the hands of the state etc.
Supposing also there was great support for this new movement in the US (far fetched I know but bear with me), like the kind of support that would get the leftists into power.

So at the point where all the big businesses that rule America were about to be turned into co-operatives, where all personal profitmaking elements would be eliminated etc., do you honestly think that the rich elite that have everything to lose would sit back and let it happen? That they would not use their enormous lobbying power over the state to supress this new threat, despite the fact it would be chosen by the majority?

It is my opinion that they would go tooth and nail to beat it down by whatever means necessary, even if it means using the state to bring it down illegally. That would not be the freedom and choice the US claims to cultivate so well.

Therefore it is obvious that the lobbying factor you claim as minor actually has the capability to tear apart freedom...

[jaakko]

It is my opinion that they would go tooth and nail to beat it down by whatever means necessary, even if it means using the state to bring it down illegally. That would not be the freedom and choice the US claims to cultivate so well.

This brings to mind Chile, and oh so many others...

The capitalists have so many means at their hands when their democracy fails meet their interests, using them depending on situation. Sabotage, media manipulation (such as in Venezuela), violence by the police and armed forces of the bourgeois state apparatus, military coup, sponsoring a fascist movement and bringing it to power. The point is, no matter how "democratic" any state appears, in the end games it's always class dictatorship.

[Freedom]

I can only give my personal opinion on this, as i refuse to make assumptions as to what would happen in that case(although it is probable).

My personal feeling on this is that i have no problem with any political persuasion as long as it stays within the confines of the Democratic institutions. If for example a far left party happened to find itself in power having passed all necessary proceedures under the constitution and done so peacefully using grass roots democratic movements to get support for their cause and the majority of the populace agrees with them, then they deserve the right to follow through on its policies whatever they may be for the designated time period on that country until the next election.

I only ever agree with coups(for the most part) if they are in authoritarian regimes...anyone in a democracy that feels the need to organise a coup, is making up for his/her lack of oratory skills or other methods of peaceful persuasion.

It is my opinion that they would go tooth and nail to beat it down by whatever means necessary, even if it means using the state to bring it down illegally. That would not be the freedom and choice the US claims to cultivate so well

What about the opposite. In a Socialist Country on the transition to communism(i hope i got that right) what if a popular group of Bourgeoisie + Petty Bourgoise infiltrated the hierachy of the ruling party in the "Peoples Democracies" and attempted to regain private property rights, privatise the means of production and install a Republican Democracy...wouldnt the hardline commies and maybe the working classes attempt to overthrow this too?

This is the problem of all types of government. They will fight to retain themselves and their power. Whether Authoritarian Right, Authoritarian Left or a Democracy.

Also a note to the Cappies arguing their side, i'd suggest you try to limit your argument to vindicating Republican style Democracy rather than Free Markets and limited government and what have you...as you'd have to be one hell of a scholar to argue a communist into becoming a Conservative....remember the burden of proof is on the side of the Authoritarian rather than the Democrat.

Anyway this will be my final entry to this debate, as it dont interest me that much...i dunno why i posted in the first place.

Well, Happy arguing

[Krasniy Yastreb]

What about the opposite. In a Socialist Country on the transition to communism(i hope i got that right) what if a popular group of Bourgeoisie + Petty Bourgoise infiltrated the hierachy of the ruling party in the "Peoples Democracies" and attempted to regain private property rights, privatise the means of production and install a Republican Democracy...wouldnt the hardline commies and maybe the working classes attempt to overthrow this too?

By the time a Socialist country would start the transition to communism, the basic rules of communism would be written into it's constitution, therefore the the efforts of the bourgeoisie to restore capitalism would be outlawed. This could be said to be a lack of freedom, but those safeguards must be in place, since socialism is unique in that the danger of a return to capitalism is a great one, whereas capitalism generally stays as capitalism until a significant group makes a significant move to evolve out of it.

i.e. capitalism can be said to be the lazy urge to stay in bed in the morning, which is easy to follow and comfortable but generally unproductive. Communism is the reasonable need to get out of bed and start your day, harder but more rewarding for society as a whole.

[ItsMe]

"Also a note to the Cappies arguing their side, i'd suggest you try to limit your argument to vindicating Republican style Democracy rather than Free Markets and limited government and what have you...as you'd have to be one hell of a scholar to argue a communist into becoming a Conservative....remember the burden of proof is on the side of the Authoritarian rather than the Democrat. "

I'm not trying to convert them...I would have to counter brainwash them which I do not have the means to do.

I just like debating and since I am a right winger ill debate what I believe in=]

[ItsMe]

"i.e. capitalism can be said to be the lazy urge to stay in bed in the morning, which is easy to follow and comfortable but generally unproductive. Communism is the reasonable need to get out of bed and start your day, harder but more rewarding for society as a whole."

Actually in capitalism if you stayed in bed you wouldnt make any money.

In a communistic government if you stayed in bed others would produce what you need.

[jaakko]

What about the opposite. In a Socialist Country on the transition to communism(i hope i got that right) what if a popular group of Bourgeoisie + Petty Bourgoise infiltrated the hierachy of the ruling party in the "Peoples Democracies" and attempted to regain private property rights, privatise the means of production and install a Republican Democracy

Well, that's pretty much what did happen according to Marxist-Leninist analysis on the Khrushchevite coup and its equivalents in Europe.

...wouldnt the hardline commies and maybe the working classes attempt to overthrow this too?

Yes, and they did. But it wasn't (in USSR and its allies) that simple when the "infiltrators" (in quotations because many, if not most of them, weren't conscious agents but rather happily ignorant tools) masquerade as communists and realise the capitalist restoration in a cautious, gradual manner (before speeding it up).

But still there was communist, working class opposition. The Khruschevites had to expell members and complete local organisations of the party during the inner-party struggles of the 50's and early 60's. After that the Marxist-Leninist were forced to mainly act from outside the CPSU. I happen to have an English translation of a programme of one 'revolutionary communist' grouping. There were others all around the country.
"The Incidents in Georgia, March 1956"

Anyway, I'm not "condemning" the bourgeois state for what it is (ie. not allowing socialist policies to be implemented on large scale). I don't claim the socialist state to be any different in this respect (it's just more vulnerable as it's a state for a transitional type society and because it's meant to represent a class that is numerically much larger and widespread and less organised on the general than is the capitalist class of developed nations). The reason I argue about the issue of 'state' is because most of pro-capitalists claim the capitalist state to be "democratic" in the idealistic sense of the word. Something I wouldn't claim about even the most democratic socialist state.

[Enigmatic]

The problem with "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" is that either a mechanism is required to determine what people need - ie a state, with potential for corruption, exploitation - or people just take what they like.

While I don't actually remember posting it, it is interesting that this question has been avoided...

[jaakko]

The problem with "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" is that either a mechanism is required to determine what people need - ie a state, with potential for corruption, exploitation - or people just take what they like.
*needs the Star of Africa diamond and a cellar full of fine wines*

There are other possible kinds of organisation than state. Of course the distribution would still be regulated, even if the needs of the people can be fully met or even exceeded. So you would be given your cellar full of wines only in that case if for some reason there had been such a large overproduction of wines.

[Nox]

This is an unbelieveable coincidence...I just read an article about how a US couple came here to give birth and get their children our citizenship.

Now you Kiwi's are all the way up to one in a row. We have this happen often ... daily.

It happens. Poor people would like to be richer. Third world populations would probably like to live in a rich, developed nation.

Totally true ... and this is precisely my point ... with this addition: With multiple "rich, developed nations" to choose from, why is the US of A such a favorite (and not just Mexicans) for folks around the world ... if we are so bad?

People do not immigrate to places that are worse then where they came from.

They do, but in much smaller numbers thatn the other way around. Mostly for cultural reasons or a change in situation.

I agree, but I think you meant to say, 'considerably' smaller numbers.

Nox

[Krasniy Yastreb]

Actually in capitalism if you stayed in bed you wouldnt make any money.

In a communistic government if you stayed in bed others would produce what you need.

I was speaking metaphorically...

[Enigmatic]

There are other possible kinds of organisation than state.

Yes, but most of them are hierachical in nature and thus resemble the state in every possible manner - the status of the masses being determined by the few. The only other possibility is a direct democracy, which in addition to being inefficient would not neccessarily ensure that those in need were those who received it.

Of course the distribution would still be regulated, even if the needs of the people can be fully met or even exceeded.

Regulated by whom?

So you would be given your cellar full of wines only in that case if for some reason there had been such a large overproduction of wines.

Which would be unlikely, since there would be no incentive to produce a surplus of wines. Without a state setting production goals and enforcing the redistribution of produce, there would also be no incentive to expend labour on producing goods even for those deemed in need of it, once people had met the needs of themselves and those who they wanted to support.
At least the "exploited" workers in a capitalist system obtain material benefit from their endeavours. Feeding freeloaders, on the other hand, requires additional effort for no gain.