WAR 1971

[johnee]

A communist society, by definition, is a stateless society. A stateless society can't have a state. The wiki link is about states that were ruled by a Communist Party of some sort, which is not the same as a 'communist state'.

So, who rules in a communist society? People?

Who rules on behalf of people?

Wiki link is the generally accepted view of what is considered a communist state. Just because you or someone else as has an utopian ideal of communism does not discredit it.

Try looking beyond Wikipedia.

Thanks for the advice. But for this occasion, it is more than enough.

 

[trackwhack]

Hey ice berg, why are you not guiding us back to the topic?

China is a dictatorial regime (actually, mafia state) that exploits the masses, justified by the pretense of communist utopia and enforced through brute force.

The next Tienanmen Square incident will be the last one for the CCP. There is no escaping that.

 

[The Messiah]

Getting high already?

troll alert!

 

[civfanatic]

How would you differentiate pure communism with anarchy solely on the basis of governance ?

A communist society would be one in which all property and the means of production are held in the hands of the people in common (i.e. rather than in the hands of the state or a privileged class). Theoretically, there is no economic inequality because everyone has equal access to resources.

Anarchy is a very broad term which simply refers to an absence of a state. There could be an anarchist society where property is still concentrated in the hands of a very small percent of the population, or where there is widespread economic inequality. Therefore, while all true communists can be considered to be anarchists of some sort, not all anarchists can be considered communists or even leftists. Take, for example, the anarcho-capitalists.
Anarcho-capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The Messiah]

A communist society would be one in which all property and the means of production are held in the hands of the people in common (i.e. rather than in the hands of the state or a privileged class). Since there are no classes, there is no economic inequality in the real sense because everyone has equal access to resources.

Anarchy is a very broad term which simply refers to an absence of a state. There could be an anarchist society where property is still concentrated in the hands of a very small percent of the population, or where there is widespread economic inequality. Therefore, while all true communists can be considered to be anarchists of some sort, not all anarchists can be considered communists or even leftists. Take, for example, the anarcho-capitalists.
Anarcho-capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes i know that. I was asking only about the governance of the people part ? Both desire a stateless society but there must be difference in area of governance. In anarchy it would be free for all while in communism every person would have the same world view and thus need for a state, class etc wouldn't be necessary.

 

[civfanatic]

So, who rules in a communist society? People?

Yes.

Who rules on behalf of people?

No one. In the Marxist theory of communism there are no states or nation-states.

Wiki link is the generally accepted view of what is considered a communist state. Just because you or someone else as has an utopian ideal of communism does not discredit it.

Here is something else from your beloved Wikipedia:

Communism is a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of a classless, moneyless, revolutionary and stateless socialist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Thanks for the advice. But for this occasion, it is more than enough.

Judging by your lack of knowledge on communism and your confusing of Marxist-Leninist states with communist societies (which are two very different polities), it is clearly not enough.

I give advice sparingly, and usually for good reason.

 

[civfanatic]

Yes i know that. I was asking only about the governance of the people part ? Both desire a stateless society but there must be difference in area of governance. In anarchy it would be free for all while in communism every person would have the same world view and thus need for a state, class etc wouldn't be necessary.

My view is that a communist society would be organised around small self-sufficient units (communes) of 150-200 or so people. The people in these communes would entirely govern themselves with little or no outside interference. The numbers in each commune need to be kept small because because millions of people cannot govern themselves, you would need a large and complex state for that. You are right that the people in the society would need to have the same or similar world view; that can easily arise from common education as it happens even today in many cases.

 

[The Messiah]

My view is that a communist society would be organised around small self-sufficient units (communes) of 150-200 or so people. The people in these communes would entirely govern themselves with little or no outside interference. The numbers in each commune need to be kept small because because millions of people cannot govern themselves, you would need a large and complex state for that. You are right that the people in the society would need to have the same or similar world view; that can easily arise from common education as it happens even today in many cases.

But i cant see that stage being reached unless there is profit to me made because greed is part of the human nature and it takes great self restraint to contain it which many people dont have. First of all poverty would have to be removed and the population would have to be stabilized because if it keeps growing then if all people are to have the same living standards then it would be pretty low since the earth has limited resources. Unless replicators like in star trek drops out of the sky there wont be stateless or classless people.

 

[trackwhack]

Marx was a fool. Communism cannot exist unless the species is asexual. Thats why communism does exist and is the only form of society in single celled animals.

 

[The Messiah]

I wouldn't say he was a fool but an idealist.

 

[Ray]

 

[agentperry]

paksitan ignorant and destructive military leadership only took one lesson that too wrong that civilians should be kept under stricter rule. instead of allowing the whole nation to grow as a whole while interference, where things go out of proportion.
the same is done in balochistan and the only reason why balochistan is still with pakistan is that it is not along India. if it was along Indian borders then BD-2 would have hit the theaters long back.

for now, pakistan federal govt needs to be weakened so that the map only shows what tells the world that ok for time being pakistan is one.

 

[agentperry]

the best form of govt was soviet provided it had been thru USA. chinese is at 90% of the ideal govt but this remaining 10% is too much to ignore

 

[Tomcat]

I wouldn't say he was a fool but an idealist.

seems like you are blinded sided my sir

 

[JAISWAL]

.
.
Dhaka Fall Promo - YouTube

 

[JAISWAL]

Here is full hamoodur rehman commission report:

The War Inquiry Commission was appointed by the President of Pakistan in December 1971. In its secret report, never made public in Pakistan the commission, headed by then Chief Justice of Pakistan, Hamoodur Rahman, held widespread atrocities, other abuses of power by Pakistani generals and a complete failure in civilian and martial-law leadership responsible for the loss of East Pakistan. The report dwells on a range of sins: killing of thousands of Bangladeshis—both civilians and "Bengali" soldiers—rape, pan smuggling, looting of banks in East Pakistan, drunkenness by officers, even an instance of a Brigadier "entertaining" women while his troops were being shelled by Indian troops. It recommended a string of court-martials and trials against top officers . Nothing ever happened. The army's role in splintering Pakistan after its greatest military debacle was largely ignored by successive Pakistani governments.

The Commission examined nearly 300 witnesses and hundreds of classified army signals between East and West Pakistan. The final report was submitted on October 23, 1974, detailing political, administrative, military and moral failings of then Pakistan.
.
.
Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report

 

[johnee]

'Not communist enough' refrain sounds to uncannily similar to 'not islamic enough' theme of our neighbour to the west. Any failure is quickly ascribed to the 'wrong implementation' rather than the ideology. Because the communist states have failed, we are now told that they were not communist enough.
The unreasonableness of 'Stateless' society is quite clear to any rational person. Anyway, before a state becomes communist it has to go through socialism. Dictatorship of proletariat in theory has always translated into the dictatorship of party in implementation. And in many cases, dictatorship of party has simply meant dictatorship of a tyrant.

No theory can be implemented perfectly. Ground situation forces any theory to be customized during implementation. Lenin, Stalin and Mao have adopted communism with suitable changes. Yet, it has been spectacular failure in all its avatars. It may have done some good in parts as a counter-balancing idea to crony-capitalism, it may have had noble intentions at its start, but it has been thoroughly proved that it was simply impractical from its very start. By supporting and promoting dictatorship of tyrants, the ideology has done extra-ordinary damage to the world. Many societies and nations have been destroyed under this foolish and self-glorifying idea.

Now, the a communist claims the failure of the communist state is because it was not communist enough just as an islamist claims failure of an Islamic state is because it was not Islamic enough. Their solution is pure communism and pure islam respectively.

 

[civfanatic]

But i cant see that stage being reached unless there is profit to me made because greed is part of the human nature and it takes great self restraint to contain it which many people dont have. First of all poverty would have to be removed and the population would have to be stabilized because if it keeps growing then if all people are to have the same living standards then it would be pretty low since the earth has limited resources. Unless replicators like in star trek drops out of the sky there wont be stateless or classless people.

Personally I don't think a large-scale implementation of communism is possible, especially not in the present world. Communism can work on a small-scale, as it has in the past, but on a large-scale it will inevitably fail because there will be too many de-stabilising factors.

Communism is the ideal form of organisation among clan-sized organisations of a few hundred people, but to govern a large population a state of some sort is necessary.

 

[civfanatic]

Marx was a fool. Communism cannot exist unless the species is asexual. Thats why communism does exist and is the only form of society in single celled animals.

Does this mean our earliest ancestors were asexual single-celled organisms? After all the manner in which the earliest hunter-gatherer societies lived can be described as 'communist' in every sense: there was no private property besides personal belongings, no state, no social classes. Resources were very scarce, and so everyone played an equal role in ensuring the survival of the community. In fact this stage of human development was labeled by Marx and Engels, quite accurately, as 'primitive communism'.

And no form of 'communism' exists among single-celled organisms (not animals, as animals are multicellular eukaryotes). If anything single-celled organisms are among the most competitive organisms that we know of.

 

[trackwhack]

Does this mean our earliest ancestors were asexual single-celled organisms? After all the manner in which the earliest hunter-gatherer societies lived can be described as 'communist' in every sense: there was no private property besides personal belongings, no state, no social classes. Resources were very scarce, and so everyone played an equal role in ensuring the survival of the community. In fact this stage of human development was labeled by Marx and Engels, quite accurately, as 'primitive communism'.

And no form of 'communism' exists among single-celled organisms (not animals, as animals are multicellular eukaryotes). If anything single-celled organisms are among the most competitive organisms that we know of.

We dont know what our earliest ancestors did. However, if you and I were peers then and this hot chick came along, Id kill you to claim her for myself. All I am saying is communism fails miserably in the face of testosterone. Our desire to consummate with the most desirable individuals of the opposite sex does not allow for the idealist utopia that Marx preaches. This is not a fact limited to us alone, it can be seen in every species be it mammals, birds, insects. The only species that displays absolute adherence to communist ideals are asexual single celled animals.

You wont see ameoba A occupying more territory than ameoba B. You wont find a group of individuals ganging up together trying to gain an upper hand against another individual or group. There is absolute co-operation among the entire species or rather absolute non-co-operation as there is nothing to co-operate about. That is the purest display of anarchism. The only purpose is to multiply and when they do, they share space.