strybjorn Grimskull wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
"It would require people having the right mindset."

And the Gulag is born.

But everything does rely on people having the right mindset, especially a social change as dramatic as communism, and not everybody has to go in a Gulag if they disagree, people can agree to disagree, most people do, all that it does is stop the change, and that might even be a good thing to a certain extent, longer to figure things out.

 Frazzled wrote:

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
"It would require people having the right mindset."

And the Gulag is born.

But everything does rely on people having the right mindset, especially a social change as dramatic as communism, and not everybody has to go in a Gulag if they disagree, people can agree to disagree, most people do, all that it does is stop the change, and that might even be a good thing to a certain extent, longer to figure things out.

History disagrees. Inevitably the gulags get a rip roaring in any communist regime.

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:
Marx was one person no one person is %100 correct all the time that's why you listen to the majority not the minority.

Communism, by its own definition can not be a dictatorship.

 Frazzled wrote:
Its not an agree to disagree. Marx himself said the government had to be a dictatorship. Its integral to the concept. He then strangely thought you could move beyond the dictatorship to a utopian society.

monarchial dictatorship to state dictatorship to PROFIT!

 Frazzled wrote:
Lenin started the predecessor to the NKVD.

 poda_t wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Lenin started the predecessor to the NKVD.

Becasue the CIA has a spotless record for not ruining other countries and creating regimes operate from the proceeds of narcotics which wind up in the US...

 p_gray99 wrote:
Yes, the CIA might not be perfect but just because capitalism has its (multiple irreversible and ultimately catastrophic) faults doesn't mean that communism is any better. If we're trying to find a way to make a perfect system, then we know none of those currently in existance are what we want.

Back on topic: Has communism with democracy ever been attempted? I know it wouldn't be faultless, but we can't simply say it would flat out fail if it's never been tried. Then again, I'm not sure we should try it given the results that could be created if it didn't work...

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Marx said it required a dictatorship? Maybe I'm misremembering, or maybe he just wrote differently at some point, but I could've sworn he said it required a democracy.

PhantomViper wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Marx said it required a dictatorship? Maybe I'm misremembering, or maybe he just wrote differently at some point, but I could've sworn he said it required a democracy.

Marx doesn't mention a dictatorship specifically, he mentions a revolutionary movement as a necessity and that the resulting "Revolutionary Class" becomes the ruling class for the duration of the transition period = a dictatorship.

 MetalOxide wrote:
Both communism and capitalism ends up with the top 1% lording it over the 99%.

 dæl wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Marx said it required a dictatorship? Maybe I'm misremembering, or maybe he just wrote differently at some point, but I could've sworn he said it required a democracy.

Marx doesn't mention a dictatorship specifically, he mentions a revolutionary movement as a necessity and that the resulting "Revolutionary Class" becomes the ruling class for the duration of the transition period = a dictatorship.

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

Not quite.

PhantomViper wrote:

 dæl wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Marx said it required a dictatorship? Maybe I'm misremembering, or maybe he just wrote differently at some point, but I could've sworn he said it required a democracy.

Marx doesn't mention a dictatorship specifically, he mentions a revolutionary movement as a necessity and that the resulting "Revolutionary Class" becomes the ruling class for the duration of the transition period = a dictatorship.

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

Not quite.

Well, yes, but the Marxist definition of democracy isn't exactly the same as the definition that we currently use... Marxism uses the literal Greek definition i.e. "rules of the masses" and denounces the western liberal democracy as being a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" that keeps the proletariat under its control.

So the Marxist interpretation of "Dictatorship of the proletariat" needed to implement communism is allot closer to a "real" dictatorship than it is to our current Democracies...

Or at least that is my interpretation of it from what I've read, I'm not a political sciences student so chances are that I'm wrong somewhere!

 MetalOxide wrote:
Both communism and capitalism ends up with the top 1% lording it over the 99%.

 p_gray99 wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
Both communism and capitalism ends up with the top 1% lording it over the 99%.

Yes, but the difference is that with capitalism the top 1% are having a great time because they're the only ones with everything they want while the bottom 30% starve.
And while the top 1% still rule in communism, that's not to say they necessarily have the best time of it. If the communism is working, they still get just the same stuff as everyone else, they just get the added bonus of a headache trying to keep it all running.

 Frazzled wrote:

 p_gray99 wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
Both communism and capitalism ends up with the top 1% lording it over the 99%.

Yes, but the difference is that with capitalism the top 1% are having a great time because they're the only ones with everything they want while the bottom 30% starve.
And while the top 1% still rule in communism, that's not to say they necessarily have the best time of it. If the communism is working, they still get just the same stuff as everyone else, they just get the added bonus of a headache trying to keep it all running.

The regimes in China, USSR, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, and Nicaragua prove the falsehood of that statement.

 Frazzled wrote:

 p_gray99 wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
Both communism and capitalism ends up with the top 1% lording it over the 99%.

Yes, but the difference is that with capitalism the top 1% are having a great time because they're the only ones with everything they want while the bottom 30% starve.
And while the top 1% still rule in communism, that's not to say they necessarily have the best time of it. If the communism is working, they still get just the same stuff as everyone else, they just get the added bonus of a headache trying to keep it all running.

The regimes in China, USSR, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, and Nicaragua prove the falsehood of that statement.

 Frazzled wrote:

 p_gray99 wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
Both communism and capitalism ends up with the top 1% lording it over the 99%.

Yes, but the difference is that with capitalism the top 1% are having a great time because they're the only ones with everything they want while the bottom 30% starve.
And while the top 1% still rule in communism, that's not to say they necessarily have the best time of it. If the communism is working, they still get just the same stuff as everyone else, they just get the added bonus of a headache trying to keep it all running.

The regimes in China, USSR, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, and Nicaragua prove the falsehood of that statement.

 p_gray99 wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
Both communism and capitalism ends up with the top 1% lording it over the 99%.

Yes, but the difference is that with capitalism the top 1% are having a great time because they're the only ones with everything they want while the bottom 30% starve.

Food Insecurity and Very Low Food Security iv
•In 2011, 50.1 million Americans lived in food insecure households, 33.5 million adults and 16.7 million children.
•In 2011, 14.9 percent of households (17.9 million households) were food insecure.
•In 2011, 5.7 percent of households (6.8 million households) experienced very low food security.
•In 2011, households with children reported food insecurity at a significantly higher rate than those without children, 20.6 percent compared to 12.2percent.
•In 2011, households that had higher rates of food insecurity than the national average included households with children (20.6 percent), especially households with children headed by single women (36.8 percent) or single men (24.9 percent), Black non-Hispanic households (25.1 percent) and Hispanic households (26.2 percent).
•In 2011, 8.8 percent of seniors living alone (1 million households) were food insecure.
•Food insecurity exists in every county in America, ranging from a low of 5 percent in Steele County, ND to a high of 37 percent in Holmes County, MS.v

Very low food security can be characterized in terms of the
conditions that households in this category reported in the
food security survey (households without children classified
as having very low food security reported six or more foodinsecure
conditions and households with children reported eight
or more food-insecure conditions, including conditions among
both adults and children). Thus, the defining characteristic
of “very low food security” is that, at times during the year,
the food intake of household members was reduced and their
normal eating patterns were disrupted because the household
lacked money and other resources for food. In the 2011
survey, households classified as having very low food security
(representing an estimated 6.8 million households nationwide)
reported the following specific conditions:
• 99 percent reported having worried that their food would
run out before they got money to buy more.
• 97 percent reported that the food they bought just did not
last and they did not have money to get more.
• 95 percent reported that they could not afford to eat
balanced meals.
• 97 percent reported that an adult had cut the size of meals
or skipped meals because there was not enough money
for food.
• 91 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more
months.
• 95 percent reported that they had eaten less than they felt
they should because there was not enough money for food.
• 65 percent reported that they had been hungry but did not
eat because they could not afford enough food.
• 48 percent reported having lost weight because they did
not have enough money for food.
• 27 percent reported that an adult did not eat for a whole
day because there was not enough money for food.
• 21 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more
months.
• All households without children reported at least six of
these conditions, and 66 percent reported seven or more.
(Conditions in households with children were similar,
but the reported food-insecure conditions of both adults
and children were taken into account.)

Questions used:

1. “We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy
more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
2. “The food that we bought just didn’t last and we didn’t have money to get
more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
3. “We couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.” Was that often, sometimes, or
never true for you in the last 12 months?
4. In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in the household ever cut the size of
your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
5. (If yes to question 4) How often did this happen—almost every month, some
months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?
6. In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because
there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
7. In the last 12 months, were you ever hungry, but didn’t eat, because there
wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
8. In the last 12 months, did you lose weight because there wasn’t enough money
for food? (Yes/No)
9. In the last 12 months did you or other adults in your household ever not eat for
a whole day because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
10. (If yes to question 9) How often did this happen—almost every month, some
months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?
(Questions 11-18 were asked only if the household included children age 0-17)
11. “We relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed our children because
we were running out of money to buy food.” Was that often, sometimes, or
never true for you in the last 12 months?
12. “We couldn’t feed our children a balanced meal, because we couldn’t afford
that.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
13. “The children were not eating enough because we just couldn’t afford enough
food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
14. In the last 12 months, did you ever cut the size of any of the children’s meals
because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
15. In the last 12 months, were the children ever hungry but you just couldn’t
afford more food? (Yes/No)
16. In the last 12 months, did any of the children ever skip a meal because there
wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
17. (If yes to question 16) How often did this happen—almost every month, some
months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?
18. In the last 12 months did any of the children ever not eat for a whole day
because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

 p_gray99 wrote:
*sigh*
Apparently now I'm online I'm not allowed to exaggerate. But my point was that far too many people go without while a very small number have far too much, as has been discussed in previous topics.

d-usa wrote:They provide their source on the link:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/884525/err141.pdf
Quotes in spoilers:

Spoiler:

Very low food security can be characterized in terms of the
conditions that households in this category reported in the
food security survey (households without children classified
as having very low food security reported six or more foodinsecure
conditions and households with children reported eight
or more food-insecure conditions, including conditions among
both adults and children). Thus, the defining characteristic
of “very low food security” is that, at times during the year,
the food intake of household members was reduced and their
normal eating patterns were disrupted because the household
lacked money and other resources for food. In the 2011
survey, households classified as having very low food security
(representing an estimated 6.8 million households nationwide)
reported the following specific conditions:
• 99 percent reported having worried that their food would
run out before they got money to buy more.
• 97 percent reported that the food they bought just did not
last and they did not have money to get more.
• 95 percent reported that they could not afford to eat
balanced meals.
• 97 percent reported that an adult had cut the size of meals
or skipped meals because there was not enough money
for food.
• 91 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more
months.
• 95 percent reported that they had eaten less than they felt
they should because there was not enough money for food.
• 65 percent reported that they had been hungry but did not
eat because they could not afford enough food.
• 48 percent reported having lost weight because they did
not have enough money for food.
• 27 percent reported that an adult did not eat for a whole
day because there was not enough money for food.
• 21 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more
months.
• All households without children reported at least six of
these conditions, and 66 percent reported seven or more.
(Conditions in households with children were similar,
but the reported food-insecure conditions of both adults
and children were taken into account.)

Questions used:

1. “We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy
more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
2. “The food that we bought just didn’t last and we didn’t have money to get
more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
3. “We couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.” Was that often, sometimes, or
never true for you in the last 12 months?
4. In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in the household ever cut the size of
your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
5. (If yes to question 4) How often did this happen—almost every month, some
months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?
6. In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because
there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
7. In the last 12 months, were you ever hungry, but didn’t eat, because there
wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
8. In the last 12 months, did you lose weight because there wasn’t enough money
for food? (Yes/No)
9. In the last 12 months did you or other adults in your household ever not eat for
a whole day because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
10. (If yes to question 9) How often did this happen—almost every month, some
months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?
(Questions 11-18 were asked only if the household included children age 0-17)
11. “We relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed our children because
we were running out of money to buy food.” Was that often, sometimes, or
never true for you in the last 12 months?
12. “We couldn’t feed our children a balanced meal, because we couldn’t afford
that.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
13. “The children were not eating enough because we just couldn’t afford enough
food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
14. In the last 12 months, did you ever cut the size of any of the children’s meals
because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
15. In the last 12 months, were the children ever hungry but you just couldn’t
afford more food? (Yes/No)
16. In the last 12 months, did any of the children ever skip a meal because there
wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
17. (If yes to question 16) How often did this happen—almost every month, some
months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?
18. In the last 12 months did any of the children ever not eat for a whole day
because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

PhantomViper wrote:

 p_gray99 wrote:
*sigh*
Apparently now I'm online I'm not allowed to exaggerate. But my point was that far too many people go without while a very small number have far too much, as has been discussed in previous topics.

Except that that percentage of people is demonstrably much lower in western capitalist democracies than in any other form of government / economic model in recorded history.

Much like Democracy is the worst form of government with the exception of all others so is Capitalism the worst form of economic model with the exception of all others...