Originally Posted by Muffindo
So you believe that every reaserch organisation is privatised and works for profit?
Not every. A great deal are.
Originally Posted by Muffindo
Regarding unnecessary goods ; I think you're overinterpreting Marx there. Did you ever hear of a communist government that banned sugar because there were more effective ways to give enough glucose to people? Besides, it's not becaue he invented the concept that his words are written in stone.
The chocolate milk thing was just an example. The concept still applies.
Originally Posted by Muffindo
You're referring to a disfunctional communist society ; Animal Farm criticises totalitarism and specifically stalinism more than communism. The fact that inequalities are systematically found in communist countries is because they're often the result of a coup after an oppressive capitalist regime. Then the military leaders who orchestered it are obviously put in power and taking the military approach ; they realise that order would last much longer in a dictatorship. Dictatorships lead to corruption, inequalities and oppression ; they are not communist of thought.
Under the definition of Communism in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
Originally Posted by Muffindo
Consider a democratically elected communist party, where would the inequalities come from? When the people have the power, they are able to hold a barrier every time the government becomes to authoritarian.
Communism itself remains a totalitarian form of government. Socialism is probably what you're referring to.
Which is confusing, since Capitalism is economic and Communism is a government. Shouldn't the debate be more centered towards Capitalism v. Socialism?
Originally Posted by Redundant
You cannot generalize for what reason they do it nor does it hardly have anything to do with the topic.
They get sponsored because someone or something hopes to benefit from their work and that is how it woks.
I can generalise ; anyone that's a genius enough to achieve a level of understanding of a reasercher without actually being interested in the reaserch and that wants money will be an economist. Or any other hard job that pays well. I see nothing wrong with the government being the sponsor and benefiting only from their direct discoveries and not by selling them.
Originally Posted by LWafflez
Not every. A great deal are.
Maybe in the US? Even there, I think the most famous reaserch institution is NASA. I'm not going to debate this further because I really don't have a clue where to start searching for reliable figures confirming any of our claims. I can only speak from personal experience and I can tell you that in the mere geophysics departement of Earth sciences funded by governments, there is such a huge and efficient web of information that people in Europe know have already estimated the moment magnitude of an Earthquake in the Japanese sea before the Tsunami reaches shore.
The chocolate milk thing was just an example. The concept still applies.
Then rephrase the concept, please, I don't think I understood. Were you saying that in a communist society anything that isn't deemed necessary isn't produced?
Under the definition of Communism in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
I'm pretty sure we're debating the theory advocating elimination of private property. Maybe definition 2)b) is definition 1)a) in your 1962 edition.
Communism itself remains a totalitarian form of government. Socialism is probably what you're referring to.
Which is confusing, since Capitalism is economic and Communism is a government. Shouldn't the debate be more centered towards Capitalism v. Socialism?
Capitalism is an economic system ; communism is a government that is incompatible with capitalism. I think the question is perfectly pertinent. As for socialism, Marx describes it as a stage between capitalism and communism ; I think if someone knows what he's talking about, he is. It's a very vague term, for instance when Mitterrand (member of the PS, Parti Socialiste) was president of France, he did what can be considered a 'social' act by nationalising banks. He didn't abolish private property or try to.
Originally Posted by nblx
In russia it was communism and most people were happy, althow that they had no freedom. They were working with pleasure, it was cleen, manufactures worked at full power. Population of russia was growing.
And then, after communist system failed, we got full freedom (almost anarchy): unlimited alchogol and drugs, killings and stealing, stupid wars and lying... etc.
Now there is formal war between goverment+those who behind the goverment ( that always thinking how to put more and more money to the country budget, "stealing" it from common people, and selling natural sourses, using stupid laws and acts (then they steal money from budget to buy yachts, lands and property all over the world)) and between common people (small business owners and workers), that have to discover schemes how not to pay taxes and duties to goverment. Everybodies know this situation and act almost openly. Corruption is higher that ever. (You'd better pay 5000 rub to 1 officer, than pay 50000 to goverment). Population lower than in II world war. Very very durty all over the country. 2 main cityes Moscow and Saint-Petersburg living, the rest country surviving.. So now, its much more worst that when it was communism. Thats my present opinion..
But when i was young and got full freedom, i was very glad, that there are no communism and i was not "in cage" like my parents were.
P.S. Most of you guys didnt live in communism and have no idea how it is, that's why you think it is bad..
P.P.S. Im not communist.. I just hate the present Russian system. It's realy realy SUX!!!! And it obviously that i wanna immigrate (and most want to)
P.P.P.S. If there wasnt comminusm in russia in II WW time, we wont survive, so the whole anti-facism Europe.
~sorry for bad eng.. i hope you got my point..
You fail, there was no communism in Russia. USSR was a socialistic country and there are a lot of differences between these two political systems. Socialism is a pre-stage of communism and it includes the things that were in the Soviet Russia (absolute government power, repressions etc.) Actually, if USSR succeeded in building something that could be 'like' the communism, the world would have been different now.
However, if we talk in general, communism is an Utopia. No one would like to live like the others do (i.e. there are only two types of boots all the country wear). And the ways to "build" the communism wouldn't work in the most of the counties nowadays, even in Russia.
And yeah, saying that
2 main cityes Moscow and Saint-Petersburg living, the rest country surviving..
is just ridiculous. If you've never been to any Russian cities except Moscow or St. Petersburg that isn't the reason to proclaim such things.
No one would like to live like the others do (i.e. there are only two types of boots all the country wear).
Why?Why would any government be stupid enough to keep to two pairs of boots when they know people have different tastes? How is having choice in footwear conflicting dependent from private ownership? Besides, even if aesthetical individualism were jeopardised, it's a great opportunity to make people develop either moral identity or more profound thoughts about collective life.
