This is rather lengthy but it is the program of CPUSA.


Working people around the world have always sought a future without war, exploitation, inequality, and poverty. They strive to build a brighter future, one based on democracy, peace, justice, equality, cooperation, and meeting human needs. That future is socialism, a system in which working people control their own lives and destinies, and together build a better world. The Communist Party USA is dedicated to the struggle for socialism in this country. This document is our Party’s program, a statement of our principals and goals and a guide to action along the road to Socialism USA.


SOURCE

Communism and socialism are ways for those who feel they can never reach a higher class feel better about themselves. They stop trying and want to get rid of everyone above them, not because they want equality, but because they just want more than they have and are jealous of others. My parents worked hard to come up from immigrants(mother legal and father illegal) to a higher social position. They worked hard and made it, and both communism and socialism are the types of governments that would destroy what my parents have accomplished, destroy the company my father has built from the ground up, and destroy everything I personally ask for. Yes, social equality is what we need, but economic equality is earned and worked for.

Communsim destroyed the Ukraine, laid waste to South American countries, and failed both the USSR and the People's Republic of China. That is way the USSR dissmantelled, and China's strongest and most powerful section is Hong Kong(so powerful that it can be considered almost it's own country), made powerful through capitolism.

trivium666fan wrote:Communism and socialism are ways for those who feel they can never reach a higher class feel better about themselves. They stop trying and want to get rid of everyone above them, not because they want equality, but because they just want more than they have and are jealous of others. My parents worked hard to come up from immigrants(mother legal and father illegal) to a higher social position. They worked hard and made it, and both communism and socialism are the types of governments that would destroy what my parents have accomplished, destroy the company my father has built from the ground up, and destroy everything I personally ask for. Yes, social equality is what we need, but economic equality is earned and worked for.

Communsim destroyed the Ukraine, laid waste to South American countries, and failed both the USSR and the People's Republic of China. That is way the USSR dissmantelled, and China's strongest and most powerful section is Hong Kong(so powerful that it can be considered almost it's own country), made powerful through capitolism.

Here too are many many misunderstandings. Communists are socialist, but socialist are not communists. true communism as it was envisioned by Marx has NEVER been tried. With the short experiment known as the "Paris Commune". Yes, communism would do away with private ownership of the means of production. Communism did not ruin Russia or Ukraine or China--cults of personality ruined those mentioned.

There are stages society will go thru capitalism then on to socialism and finally communism, which is the total abolishing of the State. Yes, it is a theory and yes people hjave really f*cked up the theory. The world's so called communist states were not so they were state capitalism.

There are many branches of Communism as there are with socialism--but the end result that communist seek is the empowerment of the people and the elimination of an all intrusive state.

I have always believed that the people should have the power of the state.

I hope this will help a bit in the understanbding of the term.

[quote="CHUQ']
Here too are many many misunderstandings. Communists are socialist, but socialist are not communists. true communism as it was envisioned by Marx has NEVER been tried. With the short experiment known as the "Paris Commune". Yes, communism would do away with private ownership of the means of production. Communism did not ruin Russia or Ukraine or China--cults of personality ruined those mentioned.

There are stages society will go thru capitalism then on to socialism and finally communism, which is the total abolishing of the State. Yes, it is a theory and yes people hjave really f*cked up the theory. The world's so called communist states were not so they were state capitalism.

There are many branches of Communism as there are with socialism--but the end result that communist seek is the empowerment of the people and the elimination of an all intrusive state.

I have always believed that the people should have the power of the state.

I hope this will help a bit in the understanbding of the term.[/quote]


Communism, as defined by Karl Marx is not the abolishion of the state, but as a completely state-run economy. Socialism is where a state helps people survive if they cannot make it on their own. China's only profitable points are that they own our debts(a capitolist idea) and Hong Kong's allowance of capitolism in it. The USSR's military build-up left it without any ability to survive, and the USSR's rape of the Ukraine(and their motto of "starve them, and kill those who are slow to die") to help it's people survive just left other countries screwed over.

trivium666fan wrote:[

"From the moment all members of society, or at least the vast majority, have learned to administer the state themselves, have taken this work into their own hands, have organized control over the insignificant capitalist minority, over the gentry who wish to preserve their capitalist habits and over the workers who have been thoroughly corrupted by capitalism — from this moment the need for government of any kind begins to disappear altogether. The more complete the democracy, the nearer the moment when it becomes unnecessary. The more democratic the "state" which consists of the armed workers, and which is "no longer a state in the proper sense of the word", the more rapidly every form of state begins to wither away.

"Then the door will be thrown wide open for the transition from the first phase of communist society [Socialism] to its higher phase [Communism], and with it the complete withering away of the state.

The above is a statement of action. I do believe that you may be confusing state with society, they are not necessarily the same thing. Again USSR was not a communist country, in name only, it was state captialism. Becxause Stalin raped mthe Ukraine does not mean that all communists are the same in beliefsa or actions. Hell, even Lenin, when dying did not want Stalin to replace him. He was an authoritarian, no better than Hitler.

If you want to use China as a example, then you are looking at a form of market socialism, not communism, again in name only. look at it closely and it is state capitalism.

If you would like we can compare the rape of Ukraine to the rape of the Native American. What would that make the US? This quote sounds loike the technique that the US tried against NAs. "starve them, and kill those who are slow to die").

I never said America was any better than any other country. For the most part, America is based on rape, pillaging, and murder(as well as most other countries, especially all of those in latin america, Japan, the Phillipines, Hawaii, many countries in the Middle East, etc.). European countries are the only ones that aren't, because they were causing most of it.

But capitolism at it's purist is a stronger form of economy than communism. Communism in itself is a form of economy, so it's lead to the dissappearance of a government(which is the state) seems a bit off.

Communism in it's actual definition has never been tried, and neither has capitolism. So the existing form of communism is what I refer to. It is the government's control over economy. No actual money, but more trade(some people build, others teach, and others cook, and so they share their abilities with one another). Socialism and communism, in theory, are basically the same idea, for the most part. State capitolism is the only thing that has been tried because it is a known fact that communism(the lack of currency and merely a distribution of "necessity" instead of earned capitol) fails.

No, Stalin's actions do not define that of the rest of the "communist" countries. But the excuse for his actions is the same for many other actions taken by other leaders. Cuba's starving nation, along with Korea's poverty, Vietnam's implement of their "Doi Moi" policy(the authority of the state remaining unchallenged, private ownership of farms and companies, deregulation and foreign investment are encouraged), to survive, Lao's "endangered" population, etc. are all great examples of the using of the excuse of "communism" or "socialism" for actions.

We are debating here and I enjoy it, thanx. The only reason capitalism is a success is the involvement by the government. look at the recent market decline, if the Fed had not intervened there would have been a crash. So the whole idea of free markets, is a sham. The best, purist form of capitalism is the drug trade.

That is the problem we have, we draw on experiences more than theory. Allk theories are bastardized by their leaders. An opposition once takes power, will become the same as those it replaces and in about 10 minutes. That theroum can be tested--look at the Dems in Congress, they became an extension of the conservative agenda.

Economics is part, but not all of the socialist/communist philosophy. people judge these form s by the leaders like Stalin. but feew look past the bad guy. USSR had a good healthcare system, education from elementary thru college, employment (maybe not glamorous, but they had work) and the public transit system was adequate and maintained.

Again when I look at a theory I look for how it helps the people, I care nothing about its leaders. Unfortunately, history will focus on the authoritarians and not the life of the people. These guys were a/holes, please I am and have never defended Staloin, Mao, etc. There is no "excuse" for what they did to their people in the name of communism.

I was in Moscow in 1970, you could eat off the streets for that was a persons job to keep the city clean. I was there again in 1995, the streets were filthy, homeless all ove St. Basil begging. Now if I was an average Russian, I would much prefer a small apt. with healthcare, joib and education over what a large percentage are dealing with now.

Market socialism at its best in China, Vietnam, Laos--it is not communism, it is state capitalism with a few social programs. What is endangering them is the influx of massive multinationals that are driving the economy. More and more are leaving the countryside for the cities and more money. That is good, but the agriculture will suffer and they will be forced to either buy outside the country or impliment programs that will keep farmers at home. In other words, a socialized program.

With all this said, do I like communism? As a theory yes! Since I believe in the power of the people and not that of economic giants, then I like it. Crap, I was in the socialist party for 10 yrs working on various programs. Yes, I left. Why? Not because I thought it was a failure, but because I did not agree with the idea of national campaigns. I thought that local would be better.

I will continue to try and empower the people until I croak. The people are America, not the leaders who are self-serving after they get elected.

There can never be a pure form of government through theory. Theory is practical. Theory in itself is always perfect. But you cannot add the imperfections of humanity and expect to have a perfect government. So to expect a pure form of capitalism or communism is out of the question. And focusing on the existing forms of each economic idea, we can see that, for all it's flaws, capitalism is the best choice.

Yes, there are similarities between a government and it's rebellious opponents when in office. But there are key differences. A government falls under change but can still keep some aspects because that is the way it has survived, and big changes can cause draw backs. Just take Iraq as an example: we remove the way the country was surviving and now there is more violence than ever.

Although economy is not the only aspect to socialism or communism, it is the largest portion of it, because they are considered economic policies. Australia has a good healthcare system, we have good employment(no matter what anyone says, going to other countries, you can tell we do), and although our education is not as great as it should be, for the most part that is on the public and not so much the government. And if you want clean cities and streets, go to Singapore.

As for the whole idea of people being empowered, I completely agree with you. But that has to do with my support of democracy, and the people's vote. That is how power is gained. I also don't believe in large companies over-running everyoen else. But I still believe in a persons ability to compete with eachother to make products that can please the people and earn something for their hard work and effort. And the idea that someone who worked harder to get where they are deserve more of an earning than someone who decided to do something that needs less effort to learn. That is capitalism at it's best, not it's purist, but at it's best. And the best form of economy that has been created so far.

I think we are in agreement, that the people should be the only voice in governemnt. we can tango around this subject until we both get blisters on our fingers. lol

The disagreement now is that capitalism is the best form. Again we could talk about theory and again we will agree that no theory is pure. My objection to capitalism is that it benefits a relative few, while the many struggle through life. Yes, if yoiu work hard and make it then you should be commended. But the old saying "it takes money to make money" is a true capitalist statement. Under capitalism, too many peopl will never have the opportunity. Under existing communism even fewetr would have the opportunity.

The biggest pro must people have for capitalism is that it is a free market and as such you will either live or die under this system. I say that the system in the US is a form of a state planned economy. If it were not, then the govt would not involve itself in the day to day operation. Even economic reports come out at different times as so not to effect the economy too adversely. That is palnning.

I try to get people to look at the system, and not try to say one is "e vil", the other "good". Yes, I have my opinions and you have yours. I will never tell you that yours are wrong, I just always tell your mine and let it go. We will not agree on this, which is cool! This has been an excellent exchange and I have enjoyed it.

I will post some other stuff and opinions I have on systems of govt in the poli sci section and would hope that you would find them worthy of comment.

trivium--I did not mean that the exchange weas over. Hope I did not piss you off, was never my intention.

CHUQ wrote:trivium--I did not mean that the exchange weas over. Hope I did not piss you off, was never my intention.

No, don't worry. I've been pretty busy, so at any point if I don't respond, it's probably not anything bad.

But yes, the idea that it "takes money to make money" is a capitalist saying, and I won't deny that. But, the idea that not everyone will have the opportunity is stated in such a way that it will always seem wrong, like other people failing instead of certain people succeding.. Yes, for one to succede another has to fail, for there to be an upper class there has to be a lower class, for one to make more money someone has to lose money, etc. But the way I see it is that those who honestly try harder can rise above those who don't work as hard.

Now, that being said, I believe that people are responsible for their success(which should be clear by now...I hope, haha). But, the government they created, that they pay for through taxes, should make sure they all have an opportunity to try for that success(this is the only point that I think I disagree with theoretical capitalism). Nonetheless, capitalism gives the idea of success.

Communism, on the other hand, takes away the idea of self-improvement or the bettering of your quality of life. People's desire to grow or triumph is stumped and taken away. It becomes into the idea that "everyone is the same already, and if one person gets more, than they are no longer equal." I've heard it said, "well, everyone's life can be raised." But that has to start somewhere, right? And starting it would already set an upper class for a while. And besides that, where would it start? It would have to continue staying at the level it is at, and usually, a starting nation with a new form of government won't start off with that high of a quality of life.

Your preception of the quality of life is correct, but only from a certain point of view. If you have nothing and I mean nothing, then a promise of a better life, whether an illusion or reality, has got to be appesaling. Remember I am talking about all people in all countries. Here in the US, communism will never take hold. Americans are geared for greed. It is never good enough, whatever it is that they accomplish, more is always needed. Because of that attitude, the American worker catches total hell. Look at outsourcing. Is it about a descent living for workers or accumulation of wealth? It is seldom about the qualkity of life for Americans. It is portrayed as a good thing, but I have yet to see the benefits for all. Again, I am speaking for all Americans and not just trying to excite into violence. If there is a way that all Americans have a descent life then I am all for it. The system that is in place now needs at least 4% unemplyment to be successful. Sorry, that is unacceptable to me. Every American deserves a job.

Trivium--I am posting in the political science section and would like to hear your opinions on the post. The first one was about voting. I look forward to your responses.

The outsourcing is a good way for companies to save money on products. For them their lives become better. But, honestly, I am not for outsourcing. I think U.S. businesses are for, and should be run-by, the U.S. people. If anyone wants a taste, they should be on the purchasing end, helping the people who helped in building up the company, not the creating end. On outsourcing, we agree that it is wrong. And yes, greed is what runs people. But everyone is run by greed. No matter what we do or say, we do it for ourselves.

I am looking forward to checking out your new blog. I will be posting something up soon(expanding on the idea that we do everything for ourselves). I am not exactly sure where, though.

Thanx I would appreciate your support on the blog and If you start one please let me know and I will visit.l


The problem with outsourcing is that we are turning over the economy to foreign nations and that could in the future bite us in the butt. Look at the financial crisis right now, China owns a bunch of American mortgages and that could be used later. Outsourcing helps few Americans, workers that is, but helps in the accumulation of wealth by the corporations.


I have some other things I want to post about participatory democracy, which is revolutionary. And another I am working on about an economy that I think would be good for the workers as well as for the business owners. Keep watching I will post when they are finished.

You have a good mind keep learning and keep asking questions.