Cyprus-Forum.com

[Oceanside50]

Communism wasn’t conceived to facilitate material acquisition so it’s pointless in comparing it with capitalism which was.

I’m sure many of you think that acquiring maximum material goods and services is the way to go but that’s just ONE of many aspects of life that you need to look at when studying political ideologies.

Communism as its word suggests was conceived to facilitate communal living; see the Amish for a good example of that, where you’ll find that if done right it does work and the people living under it are quite happy.

The truth is that things like competition, material acquisition, individuality, and other similar aspects present in capitalism are completely unnecessary for a group of people to happily exist… so those who conceived Communism were not wrong in their conclusions.

I will stick with individuality, competition, material acquisition or the ability to acquire what I want and/or need.

You go join the Amish!

The point Marx and Plato were trying to make is that, devoting your time in acquiring material goods is a waste of time.. people aren't as you call them free, it's a different type of slavery. Acquiring knowledge for the masses were their ultimate goal not wasting your time acquiring material goods, which are pointless.

Or they try for materialism not knowledge...don't be confused with being trained and obtaining knowledge

It's flawed! The desire to succeed makes people try harder in education and obtain knowledge.

[repulsewarrior]

@ocean, thanks bro, i feel the same way about you, my neighbour to the south. (lollollollol)

[Get Real!]

Is Capitalism really the success some claim it to be?

"25 Cities With Extremely High Homeless Populations"

1. Manila, Philippines
2. New York City
3. Los Angeles, U.S.A.
4. Moscow, Russia
5. Mexico City, Mexico
6. Jakarta, Indonesia
7. Mumbai, India
8. Buenos Aires, Argentina
9. Budapest, Hungary
10. Sao Paulo, Brazil
11. San Francisco, U.S.A.
12. Seattle, Washington
13. Athens, Greece
14. San Diego, California
15. Tampa, Florida
16. Rome, Italy
17. Washington, D.C.
18. Chicago, Illinois
19. Tokyo, Japan
20. Baltimore, Maryland
21. Rio De Janeiro, Brazil
22. Dublin, Ireland
23. Indianapolis, Indiana
24. Denver, Colorado
25. Lisbon, Portugal

http://list25.com/25-cities-extremely-h ... pulations/


NB: 11 out of 25 of these cities are in the US!

[Paphitis]

Yes it is the answer because things are about 100 times worse in Communist Countries.

[Get Real!]

Yes it is the answer because things are about 100 times worse in Communist Countries.

Not according to this article... but don't worry too much you're too thick to be educated anyway.

[Paphitis]

Yes it is the answer because things are about 100 times worse in Communist Countries.

Not according to this article... but don't worry too much you're too thick to be educated anyway.

that's only an article about homeless in each city.

What about the 100 million people in China who don't even exist?

“We saw last year in 2011 that there were 2.41 million homeless adults and 179,000 under-aged homeless individuals and kids. These numbers are quite high, and national policies catering to helping these individuals have led to some progress already. In particular, efforts done for kids are especially obvious and there has also been a higher level of concern for homeless kids in society,” says Cheng Fucai, Associate Professor at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences.

http://gbtimes.com/life/homelessness-china

[supporttheunderdog]

My view of producer co-operatives is that they enable the smaller people to get together and better level the terms with the bigger while a consumer cooperative should give the benefits of scale in buying power to consumers - each have a part to play - but they each make the member a capitalist. I support the idea of cooperatives, provided they are properly run for the benefit of all members. (one only need look at the disaster of cooperative banking in Cyprus when the benefit fell to some borrowers who were lent money unwisely to the detriment of the depositors)

Where Communism as practiced went wrong is that is rapidly ceased to involve government of the people, for the people, by the people, (where the state withered away) and rather then being a dictatorship of the proletariat became a one party state which imposed its will on the people, indeed ruthlessly suppressing them when they sought to challenge "the party" with alternative views, eg the Hungarian Uprising, Prague Spring. Tienanmen Square, etc. It tried to impose state centralized control of production but that failed. It failed to reward innovation or success. Ultimately as practiced it failed to deliver what was needed, let alone wanted, by the people, and the introduction of перестро́йка and гла́сность showed up how flawed the system was and lead to the downfall of the system as practiced in the Soviet Empire and its Eastern European Satellites.

(my late father in law may have been one of the architects of перестро́йка and гла́сность where as an Academic as he was brought in to government at deputy minister level by Gorbachov and who remained to serve for a while under Yelstsin)

I suspect china has survived so far because it has moved away from rigid central control of the economy but rather has allowed rewards for innovation and success, and at the end of the day the people are not going to rise up if they have what they thing to be a reasonable and above all improving standard of living, despite a possible deficiency in democracy. Whether that state of affairs with a one party state continues is another matter.

[Robin Hood]

To resurrect this thread ………

I think it true to say that there has never been a ‘Communist State’, there were many that claimed to be so but none ever complied with values of true communism. The precursor to communism is to have socialism. So the comparison is between ‘Socialism’ and ‘Capitalism’.

The following video goes through events in the world today in a measured and informed way and is discussed by those that should know. What came out of it was that capitalism is the way to go but it has to be tempered with regard for social responsibility. What they all identified was that capitalism today is EXTREME capitalism and like any extreme works in the interest of the few to the detriment of the majority. If those in a position to do so can deregulate banking and as a result benefit themselves but only at a cost to everyone else it is a bad thing for all of us.

I found it an interesting and enlightening discussion ………. ‘The four horsemen’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fbvquHSPJU

This video was on a similar subject but covers it from the aspect of the US Federal Reserve’s involvement in events that led up to the 2008 financial collapse. Basically, how the banks create money as debt out of thin air, a debt the people have to repay with interest, a debt mountain that is growing rapidly and will eventually collapse. One question nobody seems to ask is "Where did the banks get all this money from in the first place …… if they are NOT creating it out of nothing?’.

‘Money for nothing'….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAYNW_vunfI[url][/url]

They are both over an hour and a half in length but well produced and, if the subject interests you, I think they are both worth watching.

[Paphitis]

What came out of it was that capitalism is the way to go but it has to be tempered with regard for social responsibility.

I can agree with that 100%

What they all identified was that capitalism today is EXTREME capitalism and like any extreme works in the interest of the few to the detriment of the majority. If those in a position to do so can deregulate banking and as a result benefit themselves but only at a cost to everyone else it is a bad thing for all of us.

That is completely debateable.

Some of the most "Socialist" States on the planet are nations like Sweden, Finland, Austria, Norway, Australia and Canada. These are examples of who is striking the right balance.

I found it an interesting and enlightening discussion ………. ‘The four horsemen’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fbvquHSPJU

This video was on a similar subject but covers it from the aspect of the US Federal Reserve’s involvement in events that led up to the 2008 financial collapse. Basically, how the banks create money as debt out of thin air, a debt the people have to repay with interest, a debt mountain that is growing rapidly and will eventually collapse. One question nobody seems to ask is "Where did the banks get all this money from in the first place …… if they are NOT creating it out of nothing?’.

‘Money for nothing'….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAYNW_vunfI[url][/url]

They are both over an hour and a half in length but well produced and, if the subject interests you, I think they are both worth watching.

I will address these when I have time to view them.

[repulsewarrior]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSBMXsx1O6I&list=PLMTk07rWd6ipNQMxJCHU19tyqyK_PAZqf[/youtube]

...i like this film.