Is it UNamerican to believe in communism?

[Azred]

Of course it isn't un-American. Those in the world who have claimed to be Communists in the past have not followed true Communism, only a watered-down version of "power to the people" in order to gather backing for a revolution. They have given Communism a very bad name....

Unfortunately, Native Americans were not Communists. A warrior could own a horse, but since a horse is considered private property this rules out Communism.

Is the Post Office still a monopoly? I can mail a letter through FedEx, or would that reclassify the letter as "freight"? Ack...sometimes things get fuzzy. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

[Stratos]

Being a communist doesn´t mean owning absolutely NOTHING, rather that the goverment control the resources and the production of wares and services and then distribute them as they see fit.

There are still people today who shares almost everything, monks and nuns for example.

BTW what exactly is considered to be unamerican, I mean who really defines that?

[Epona]

Originally posted by Stratos: Being a communist doesn´t mean owning absolutely NOTHING, rather that the goverment control the resources and the production of wares and services and then distribute them as they see fit.

No I'm sorry but you're wrong. Communism is NOT about the state controlling resources at all, that is what happened in the USSR true - but as Azred pointed out, the word Communism was misused. Read literature about communism from before Stalin, and you will see that communism is not about state control!

I have said this before and I'll say it again. I'm not a Buddhist, but if I went round telling everyone I met that I was a Buddhist, and I lived a Buddhist way of life, people that I met who knew nothing about Buddhism would think that being Buddhist meant getting drunk a lot, being obssessed with 'does my hair look ok still?' and 'oooh I've got a spot of dirt on my shoe', and flirting. That is what happened with the USSR - the word Communism was used to describe a state that was NOT communist - and alas everyone now thinks that communism = horrible state dictatorship. That doesn't mean it's the correct definition of the word though!

[LordKathen]

Very eloquent Epona. I found this with a simple Google...

"Communism is a society without money, without a state, without property and without social classes. People come together to carry out a project or to respond to some need of the human community but without the possibility of their collective activity taking the form of an enterprise that involves wages and the exchange of its products. The circulation of goods is not accomplished by means of exchange: quite the contrary, the by-word for this society is "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs".

With communism the government of people gives way to the administration of things. Contrary to the illusion produced by the present society the state and its institutions are not the inevitable result of the growth and complexities of societies, but the opposite, the result of the frantic socialisation of the species without community. The necessity for distinct organs of administration, repression and assistance has its cause in the maintenance of class society. The state is the defender of the dominant class which is increasingly integrated into it. It is forced to alleviate destitution which is increased by a social life where man becomes a predator for man.

With communism the oppositional but complementary relationship between the political and economic spheres disappears, i.e. between the citizen supposedly governing society in freedom and equality, and the producer as a slave to material necessity, hierarchy and the despotism of the factory. Communist theory and struggle are a critique of economy and politics."

http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/

Pretty much sums it up, I would say...

[ 04-01-2003, 06:28 AM: Message edited by: LordKathen ]

[Dreamer128]

com·mu·nism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmy-nzm)
n.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Communism

\Com"mu*nism\, n. [F. communisme, fr. commun common.] A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.

Note: At different times, and in different countries, various schemes pertaining to socialism in government and the conditions of domestic life, as well as in the distribution of wealth, have been called communism.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Communism

n 1: a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership 2: a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

[Stratos]

Originally posted by Epona: Quote: Originally posted by Stratos: Being a communist doesn´t mean owning absolutely NOTHING, rather that the goverment control the resources and the production of wares and services and then distribute them as they see fit.

No I'm sorry but you're wrong. Communism is NOT about the state controlling resources at all, that is what happened in the USSR true - but as Azred pointed out, the word Communism was misused. Read literature about communism from before Stalin, and you will see that communism is not about state control!

I have said this before and I'll say it again. I'm not a Buddhist, but if I went round telling everyone I met that I was a Buddhist, and I lived a Buddhist way of life, people that I met who knew nothing about Buddhism would think that being Buddhist meant getting drunk a lot, being obssessed with 'does my hair look ok still?' and 'oooh I've got a spot of dirt on my shoe', and flirting. That is what happened with the USSR - the word Communism was used to describe a state that was NOT communist - and alas everyone now thinks that communism = horrible state dictatorship. That doesn't mean it's the correct definition of the word though![/QUOTE]But isn´t the dictatorship of the proletariat a necessity, according to many communists, before the society can become equal and classless. It´s true that it´s not goverment control that communism is all about, but no communist country have gotten farther than that.

I suppose there is a difference between the ideology and how it turned out in reality.

[Thorfinn]

Correction, D*Ranged, the problem with Marx's work has nothing to do with greed, but with basic flaws in economic theory. Greed just gets the blame because it indicts capitalism, since greed is taught to be the primary idea behind capitalism.

There were several basic flaws in his communism -- value theory of labor being the biggest, but perverse incentive is a close second.

The value theory of labor was that any good should be priced based on the amount of effort put into it, i.e., the amount of labor it contains. This should have been clearly false on the face of it -- if similar effort yields similar price, then if I go out and get a few oil colors and a canvas, and spend a couple days in front of it, I will have a work of art that sells for the same price as a Picasso. When you pour whole milk into a separator, at least two streams come out -- milk and cream. Since there is no difference in the effort getting the whole milk, and since bottling cream is no harder than bottling milk, obviously the prices should be identical. A Porsche takes about the same amount of effort to construct as a Yugo, so the prices should be very similar. It should be clear that value theory of labor, one of the primary underpinnings of communist theory, is wrong. Price is not how much it "costs" to make something, but how much a consumer wants that good.

Another huge problem with communism is perverse incentive. No one has a particular incentive to maintain anything. A very simple example is just look around your school (assuming you are still in HS) or visit the nearest gas station men's room. (Ladies, if you really want to get the full picture, see if you can get some guy to make sure the room is empty, and take a look for yourself.) Do you treat you school building any differently than your own home?

If you want to get a good idea of what worldwide communism would look like, just imagine a gas station restroom. Everywhere you look.

No, it is not Unamerican to believe in communism. However, it does require a highly developed suspension of disbelief...

[The Lilarcor]

Originally posted by LordKathen: Very eloquent Epona. I found this with a simple Google... "Communism is a society without money, without a state, without property and without social classes. People come together to carry out a project or to respond to some need of the human community but without the possibility of their collective activity taking the form of an enterprise that involves wages and the exchange of its products. The circulation of goods is not accomplished by means of exchange: quite the contrary, the by-word for this society is "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs". With communism the government of people gives way to the administration of things. Contrary to the illusion produced by the present society the state and its institutions are not the inevitable result of the growth and complexities of societies, but the opposite, the result of the frantic socialisation of the species without community. The necessity for distinct organs of administration, repression and assistance has its cause in the maintenance of class society. The state is the defender of the dominant class which is increasingly integrated into it. It is forced to alleviate destitution which is increased by a social life where man becomes a predator for man. With communism the oppositional but complementary relationship between the political and economic spheres disappears, i.e. between the citizen supposedly governing society in freedom and equality, and the producer as a slave to material necessity, hierarchy and the despotism of the factory. Communist theory and struggle are a critique of economy and politics." http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/ Pretty much sums it up, I would say...

Like I said, the Native Americans were more communists/communal, not totally, just like America is not a totall Democracy, its more of a republic with democratic characteristics.

And on the side note, when my AP American History teacher was in college, someone came up to him to sign a petition to get their party on the ballot, he started signing and asked which party, and it was the communist party.

[Kakero]

since it's not unamerican to believe in communism already. will you people accept a communist party be set up in your country?

[Timber Loftis]

Thorfinn, EXCELLENT post. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] Good summary of the labor theory of value.

Kakero, we *do* have a communist party in America. I had a college professor who was a card-carrying member. Interestingly, he co-taught my "Ideology and Justice" class.