NationStates Jolt Archive

As soon as people hear the word "communism," they renounce it as a dictatorship of evilness. That's not REAL communism. Real communism is a classless society where everyone gets equal shares and nothing is owned privately. That is also kinda bad. In the classless society part. Because if you kill someone, and some says,"You're under arrest against charges of murder!" You could just reply," You're not the boss of me!" That's not cool. MY communism is where some people are slightly above eachother, though elected, and still get the set amount, just as everyone else. If they become corrupt and issue themselves more rations, they can be immediatly ousted, if the person can give a good reason. Now that could work!xxx(In theory!)

I dislike communism because it is irresponsible, it puts society over the individual, and in the implementation it would create either a mega hierarchy or a reverse hierarchy.

Here's a friendly warning; you are not going to change any minds here. I sympathise with your point of view but most people (mainly americans) have it fused into their head that communism = Stalin, the USSR, Gulags, Leninism, and all that trash from the 20th century. That fact that Marx predicted the fall of the USSR, and that only the socialist road to classless society has been proven the wrong way, passes completely over their heads. McCarthyism is still a fresh corpse.

As soon as people hear the word "communism," they renounce it as a dictatorship of evilness. That's not REAL communism. Real communism is a classless society where everyone gets equal shares and nothing is owned privately. That is also kinda bad. In the classless society part. Because if you kill someone, and some says,"You're under arrest against charges of murder!" You could just reply," You're not the boss of me!" That's not cool. MY communism is where some people are slightly above eachother, though elected, and still get the set amount, just as everyone else. If they become corrupt and issue themselves more rations, they can be immediatly ousted, if the person can give a good reason. Now that could work!xxx(In theory!)

Here, Here!

Your right the entire point of communism is it should be a democratic party system
Technically though this was the case in soviet Russia, but the problem is you could only vote for candidates that the party put forward, its just too imperfect it assumes man is infallible.

Problem is Communism, as in Das Kaptial and Communist Manifesto, Communism Is a primarily economic theory, there’s really not that much politics in it, i struggled to find it when i read das kapital.

Problem was Charlie Marx, for all his utter brilliance as a economic philosopher, really was pretty damn cryptic when it came to the political side.

He’s a philosophers philosopher, I really struggled to understand most of Das Kaptial, that’s the problem its not very accessible, so its very easy for someone as did happen to play on the simplistic principles of sharing and equality and then build a on oligarchy around it as happened.

Realistically, it’s the most morally justifiable theory, but some one should really do back to it and rework a lot of it.

Perhaps I will make that my mission once I get my Doctorate, who knows

I don't hate communism, I just find it to be a naïve and ignorant system. It ignores at best or denies at worst basic human nature in its premises, and, as a supposed system for human society this is something it can not afford to do.

It is disliked, resented, reviled or whatever negative attitude term you care to place on it, because it grabs hold of and twists the raw nerve of capitalism.

Capitalism does not protect the least well off from the effects of the actions of the better off. It is a heartless and cruel system. It is still, however, the best system we have as we are all, internally, concerned more with ourselves and those near to us than with humanity as a whole over all time and locations.

There are those who argue that any unfairness should be eliminated, but all they do about this is argue. They do not go giving their possessions, their capital, to those that are without. The communist supporters are generally extremely hypocritical when their actions, rather than their words are examined.

*ducks flame bolts*

Here's a friendly warning; you are not going to change any minds here. I sympathise with your point of view but most people (mainly americans) have it fused into their head that communism = Stalin, the USSR, Gulags, Leninism, and all that trash from the 20th century. That fact that Marx predicted the fall of the USSR, and that only the socialist road to classless society has been proven the wrong way, passes completely over their heads. McCarthyism is still a fresh corpse.

To imply that dislike of communism boils down to ignorance is symptomatic of the flaws of idealist thinking. You are convinced that dissent is due to error, so don't see the errors in your own system. Arrogance leads to poor self-criticism.

Communism has been shown in practice to lead to the deaths of millions, whatever its original intention. I know that Stalin didn't follow orthodox Marxism, but that doesn't mean that the attempt to achieve communism was not inherently susceptible to totalitarianism. I believe it is, because the bureaucracy needed to implement communism provides people with a massive amount of power, and power corrupts.

Even avoiding the failures of the method used to attempt to achieve communism, communism is utterly against human nature. To imagine that people can live together in a co-operative system without the need for a state goes completely against what people experience in every day life. People are far too sensible to believe idiotic ideas like that. It would in reality probably be more like Lord of the Flies. That is why people don't go for theoretical communism. Zurtania made an attempt to address this problem, but he necessarily goes striaght back to the idea that people need the law to govern them (and therefore a government to make the law), and pure communism is not achieved. Or if that is still communism then it still wouldn't work because you still have the problem of a fanciful view of human behaviour.

So communism appears to most people to be nonsense theoretically and highly dangerous in practice. It's no surprise that it hasn't got very far lately.

Here's a friendly warning; you are not going to change any minds here. I sympathise with your point of view but most people (mainly americans) have it fused into their head that communism = Stalin, the USSR, Gulags, Leninism, and all that trash from the 20th century. That fact that Marx predicted the fall of the USSR, and that only the socialist road to classless society has been proven the wrong way, passes completely over their heads. McCarthyism is still a fresh corpse.

I love when people make blanket generalizations but still believe they've said something pertinent and intelligent.

There's a very good site that deals with the new communist paradigm of the 21st century, but unfortunately the server is down for maintenance.

Here's a Google Cache anyway (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:4tM85OWNL2sJ:redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php%3Fsubaction%3Dshowfull%26id%3D1082898978%26archive%3D%26cnshow%3Dheadlines%26start_from%3 D%26ucat%3D%26+Redstar2000+Papers&hl=en&client=firefox-a)

Please note that his views are neither unique nor representative - an awful lot of communists and anarchists still hold on to the old dogmas, especially the 'clash of personalities' that occurred between Bakunin and Marx.

Communism ignores the basic human attempt at self-improvement. Furthermore, it ignores the fact that all animals, including humans, will act only in a way that they feel is best for them. In a communism, working hard neither improves your status nor gives you any other reward of any kind. As such, the system will quickly disintegrate as food and necessities of all kinds disappear.

I think communism would be a pretty cool thing if it worked out. This book the naked communist points out something interesting though, that if in a communist government, everyone has a car, yet, when a new model of car comes out, there isn't going to instantly be a new car for each person, so how do you decide who gets the newer car while the others need to still drive their old ones. It just goes on about how that one example can be applied all over, and that communism would essentially stop itself in its tracks as far as any kind of bettering standards of living, because you'd have to do it for EVERYone...and it would cost a ton to do that all at once, and a lot of manpower...like who's installing the new plumbing in the plumbers house while he's installing the new plumbing at someone ELSE's house hah. It's just a near impossible idea without some democracy and maybe even a little bit of capitalism thrown in there. The good thing about capitalism is you can be as much as you work yourself to, that's just awesome...or not so awesome if you're lazy. <---Another problem with communism, lazy people. If they're getting the same amount while being lazy, what's stopping the normally productive people from becoming lazy because they feel they're doing more and shouldn't HAVE to be doing more because they're in an equal society...everyone becomes lazy....progress stops. We'd just have to brainwash everyone :D, problem solved.

Why wouldn't people hate Communism? It threatens their stature of being better than other, I was debating with someone about it and they said, "I don't like it because Communism equalizes wages,". so Okay, yeah, but you only don't like that because then you can't advance and become better than your peers. The problem with Communism is the Co-operation part, instead of competition, because obviously we are a highly competitive society, like animals, and like to be of higher stature than others, who doesnt? So now we are animals, well aren't we supposed to be better than animals or something? That seems to be the perception in society. Also many people seem to be against it for essentially the same reason -- that it creates listlessness, but, I think this could be overcome by some form or other, by emphasizing on the co-operation part, someone how formulating that into, if I help out, it helps me too.

Communism only works in theory. Why work when you can just mooch it off the efforts of a hard-working person? That is just human nature, and nothing can change it. Not that communism is evil or anything, it just doesn't work. Without poverty, there would be no wealth. Without sickness, we would not appreciate our health. Without hardship, we would not appreciate ease. Face it...we need the bad as well as the good. People need to struggle and compete to better theirselves, and therefore their country. :)

Most people hate it because they've been raised to hate it. They don't really know anything about it other than what they've been told in school and such. Some of the stuff written about communism really is quite over the top.

Most people hate it because they've been raised to hate it. They don't really know anything about it other than what they've been told in school and such. Some of the stuff written about communism really is quite over the top.

Precisely. It has been ingrained into society since the very begining.

You're all fools, communism doesn't work. Man is too greedy for it.



An Idiotic Reason I've heard:

"Communism would work in small societies."

Wrong.

A small society who agree would work in communism, but than again that's not communism. It's just a bunch of, "friends", living amongst eachother sharing.


Communism is against everything that Democracy has to say. Why we fought them is because we knew that our system worked better. Why don't you see that people don't HAVE enough morals and why USSR fell? And China is reverting to a Democracy.


Communism simply doesn't work. Karl Marx was a idealist...fool, who was living a dream land where everyone can accept eachother.

Communism is against everything that Democracy has to say. Why we fought them is because we knew that our system worked better. Why don't you see that people don't HAVE enough morals and why USSR fell? And China is reverting to a Democracy.


Go and learn something please before opening your mouth. Democracy and communism are not opposed in any way whatsoever. A democratic society can be communist or capitalist. A dictatorship can be socialist or capitalist (It can not, by definition, be communist).

I am not a communist, nor a socialist. I am a free market libertarian capitalist and supporter of democracy.

I can state my opinion in three simple points:

People hate communism because it does not work
Communism does not work because people suck.
People suck because they need incentive to work, they will not work(at least not to the best of their ability) without motivation, communism takes away that motivation by not directly rewarding people for thier actions, that is why communism does not work and capitalism does.

:eek: (big surprise...)

As soon as people hear the word "communism," they renounce it as a dictatorship of evilness. That's not REAL communism. Real communism is a classless society where everyone gets equal shares and nothing is owned privately. That is also kinda bad. In the classless society part. Because if you kill someone, and some says,"You're under arrest against charges of murder!" You could just reply," You're not the boss of me!" That's not cool. MY communism is where some people are slightly above eachother, though elected, and still get the set amount, just as everyone else. If they become corrupt and issue themselves more rations, they can be immediatly ousted, if the person can give a good reason. Now that could work!xxx(In theory!)
i loath communism because it is centered on the idea that somebody else is entitled to what i earn, what i build, and what i make. communism is grounded in the selfishness of people who know they can't cut it on their own. i have no respect for them, and i will never be willing to live under a system where i am expected to feed and clothe them.

It seems I have disturbed a couple of hornets.


To imply that dislike of communism boils down to ignorance is symptomatic of the flaws of idealist thinking. You are convinced that dissent is due to error, so don't see the errors in your own system. Arrogance leads to poor self-criticism.

On the contrary. I am a vicious critic of the practices of the 20th century socialist road to communism. Unlike most conservatives however, I don't generalise and throw out the baby with the bathwater - I recognise the fact that it was the fault of socialism, which failed to deliver on classless society, which thus far is still an unanswered question as to whether it is a viable society or not.

Communism has been shown in practice to lead to the deaths of millions, whatever its original intention. I know that Stalin didn't follow orthodox Marxism, but that doesn't mean that the attempt to achieve communism was not inherently susceptible to totalitarianism. I believe it is, because the bureaucracy needed to implement communism provides people with a massive amount of power, and power corrupts.

'Communism' is not at fault in this instance, but socialism is.

Even avoiding the failures of the method used to attempt to achieve communism, communism is utterly against human nature. To imagine that people can live together in a co-operative system without the need for a state goes completely against what people experience in every day life.

Yes, classless, stateless society is a completely new order of society. It seems so fantastic that it's against 'human nature'.

Speaking of human nature, let's examine the issue of human nature. One can assume it is one of two things. It is either a static property built into us at a genetic level, in which case no matter what society humanity adopts, nothing will change human nature. Well we certainly need to eat, breathe, crap and socialise. These have all been a feature of human societies. What has not been an ever constant feature of human society is the drive to own as many material possessions as possible. Hunter-gatherer societies, far from being the epitome of poverty, are quite healthy societies. In fact, until the invention of the state with the first kings of nations, there was not such a thing as private property nor the desire to own such. Before then people did indeed have use patterns over certain objects and pieces of land, and these use patterns were respected - force was doubtless used. Other tribes invading your hunting grounds (Part of your use pattern) would have been driven off and/or killed.More Here (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/Property.html)

This leads us to our second conclusion about human nature; That it is shaped by the material conditions around it. Since capitalism encourages people to possessive, so people will be possessive in order to function within that society, just as those in hunter-gatherer times thought it unthinkable to not have a hunting ground providing essential meat. But we all know of course that that changed with the advent of agriculture.

People are far too sensible to believe idiotic ideas like that. It would in reality probably be more like Lord of the Flies.

Or rather, capitalist society constantly tells them that communism is unachievable, and they believe that regardless of truth. Especially since books like The Lord of the Flies are read at school, a book whose basic message is typically Hobbesian; that man is predator upon man.

Venalion

Communism ignores the basic human attempt at self-improvement.

How so?

Furthermore, it ignores the fact that all animals, including humans, will act only in a way that they feel is best for them.

Communism is an inherently selfish ideology; those adherents who aren't intending to set up a mega-charity that happens to have the label 'communism', wish themselves to be free of wage-slavery and state oppression; the only way to free themselves is to free everybody else as well.

In a communism, working hard neither improves your status nor gives you any other reward of any kind.

This link might be of interest to you then. (http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:8uuUrShX2kIJ:www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php%3Fsubaction%3Dshowfull%26id%3D1083202823%26archive%3D%26cnshow%3Dheadlines%26start_from%3 D%26ucat%3D%26+Clean+the+sewers+*Redstar2000&hl=en&client=firefox-a) Unfortunately the original server hosting the page in question is down for maintenance.

As such, the system will quickly disintegrate as food and necessities of all kinds disappear.

This implies that communism 'simply happens' without the people gaining any sort of class consciousness. An impossibility.

Communism-doesn't-work. It doesn't work because its flawed from the base. It excepts everyone to work for the good of everyone, not for the good of themselves.

Without the incentives, there's only one way to get people to do what they should. And thats by forcing them, just like every communistic society has done. Not a single one has been even remotely democratic.

And Communism has managed to kill some 100 million (thats 100 000 000) people in only a century.

i loath communism because it is centered on the idea that somebody else is entitled to what i earn, what i build, and what i make. communism is grounded in the selfishness of people who know they can't cut it on their own. i have no respect for them, and i will never be willing to live under a system where i am expected to feed and clothe them.
i have to say that (ideally) i would except such a system but only if they wre to do the same to me, understand? its like the old saying "Do unto others as you would have done unto you.", the only problem is people will never live up to thier end, people will always cheat you, people will never do something that doesn't help them, people cannot be trusted. And THAT is where communism fails communism is for idealist fools who believe that there are still enough good people out there that the one your speaking to or of might actually be one, but frankly i have to say that i cannot believe any of that, I have long since come to the realization that any sort of decent human beings are few and far between and i dont pretend even for a second that i might oneday meet one.
(but this is just my opinion, and to each his own.)

I dislike communism because it is irresponsible, it puts society over the individual, and in the implementation it would create either a mega hierarchy or a reverse hierarchy.


thats the point society IS more important than the individual

American Propaganda and Stalin.
I say give it about 60 years then most of the Americans that lived the 'cold war' will be dead and people wont care any more, those who are not steadfast capitalists that is.

Commies are dreamers!
it is based on a theoretical society that is impractical, and inefficient. communism suppresses the best and boosts the worst in society. i am all for equality but people must face the facts that some individuals are better at some things then others. there are those who become scientists, and surgeons and there are those who are simple workers on assembly lines. these occupations are not equal and should not be treated as such as they would in a communist society.

In capitalism the cream rises to the top, those who work hard and are dedicated will be rewarded in a capitalist meritocracy. there is always room for advancement, and this creates an efficient and productive work force.

You know, there's something odd about many of the "communist" nations of today. They did not rise from Capitalist societies, but qausi-feudalist aristocracies! Communism can only be achieved once it goes through Socialism. Socialism can only arrise from Capitalism.

Communism has never existed, and therefore has never killed anyone.

Socialism cannot really be looked as a whole, it must be looked at by the schools of it. Stalinism and Maoism are the most famous. Along with Castroism and Juche, they are the only Socialist schools which is not democratic.

Capitalism, however, has killed far more people throughout it's history than Juche, Stalinism, Maoism, or Castroism - combined.

I think it's mans greed that kills communism for some part. I read once that one of the ideas of communism is that no one should be a leader, all should be 'comrades'. I have not seen a comunist nation yet without a leader and always a bad one at that.
Modern wizdom has made it clear that a nation can not be like Marx had in mind. Communist or not I think we can all agree that such a nation as Marx had in mind would be nice to see. I am not Communist by the way.

I dislike communism not only because it is a system which dooms entire nations to grinding, despondant universal poverty, but because what it would involve is one of the few things I actually find morally abhorent (I'm not generally a particularly moral person).

Assume I make something, using my own knowledge, time and labour. An urn, a sack of wheat, a steel girder, whatever. In a reasonably unrestricted market, I can sell my urn or my girder to people who need urns and girders, but perhaps don't have the urn-related knowhow or time, or can't be bothered to make an urn themselves. They give me money in exchange for my urn, with which I can buy food, clothes, better urn-making equipment, or whatever else I need.

Now, assume a communist state arises. I make an urn, but I'm not allowed to exchange it for anything, instead I have it taken from me against my will. What possible reason do I have to produce any more urns? I mean really, why fucking bother? I may as well direct all my urn-energy towards sitting around doing nothing, since making any more urns will just waste my time and effort.

This scenario occurs in every single industry, and pretty soon, everyone's just dicking around instead of doing anything. Why produce something if it's just going to be taken from you as soon as you make it? What a pointless waste of energy that would be.

Now, what possible non-violent means do "The People" (I'm saying this before all you angry communists cry "But under communism there is no government!") have of making anybody do anything? Giving them food? Good luck with that, all the farmers have given up farming thanks to the actual negative payment they inevitabely get (I count having your produce taken from you after putting in effort and time as a negative profit). Appeasing us isn't going to work, because The People don't have any resources with which to appease us.

There's only one logical way to make production resume without actually allowing people to buy and sell what they want. The People simply shoot everyone who doesn't work! The beautiful simplicity! A worker's paradise is achieved.

See the problem?

First off, you have to learn to distinguish "Communism in Principle" from "Communism in Practice."

The former is a nice happy ideal of equality and plenty. It has also rarely been attempted, and never been achieved, mostly because it is currently physically impossible to achieve.

The latter is gulags, repression, suppression, the KGB, famine, and 80 million dead.

"True" communists should be really, really REALLY pro-space exploration and development. Because that's the only way that we'll ever have the kind of near-infinite resources that it will take to make Communism feasible for a planet of 6 billion people.

Communism-doesn't-work. It doesn't work because its flawed from the base. It excepts everyone to work for the good of everyone, not for the good of themselves.

You mean like abbeys, and monstaries do? Or the way in an nuclear family one of the parents will head out and make the money that supports the family as a whole.
Yeah Humanity doesn't do that at all, we have to be rewarded ;)

Without the incentives, there's only one way to get people to do what they should. And thats by forcing them, just like every communistic society has done. Not a single one has been even remotely democratic.

You have never, ever, in your life done something just because you could? Our insticts can be overcome, its part of what makes us of a higher order of animals than say...Mice.

And Communism has managed to kill some 100 million (thats 100 000 000) people in only a century.

Presuming A). You can prove that figure, and B). You can prove these people were killed by a econmocially driven political philosphy. C). Given todays world population of 6Billion, even that many dieing a year, is not that great. 1.67% of the world's population, about 10% of China's population (who are all communist).

I dislike communism not only because it is a system which dooms entire nations to grinding, despondant universal poverty, but because what it would involve is one of the few things I actually find morally abhorent (I'm not generally a particularly moral person).
Perhaps you can enlighten me, I have always found the idea that selflessness being morally abhorent to be, kind of funny in a way.

Assume I make something, using my own knowledge, time and labour. An urn, a sack of wheat, a steel girder, whatever. In a reasonably unrestricted market, I can sell my urn or my girder to people who need urns and girders, but perhaps don't have the urn-related knowhow or time, or can't be bothered to make an urn themselves. They give me money in exchange for my urn, with which I can buy food, clothes, better urn-making equipment, or whatever else I need.

Which wouldn't have been the case before the advent of montary exchanges in place of batering, but before that you could have batered for it, and before that we lived in tribal systems that in their own way were socialist/communist.

Now, assume a communist state arises. I make an urn, but I'm not allowed to exchange it for anything, instead I have it taken from me against my will. What possible reason do I have to produce any more urns? I mean really, why fucking bother? I may as well direct all my urn-energy towards sitting around doing nothing, since making any more urns will just waste my time and effort.

Except for it isn't taken from you, you make urns, your neighbor raises goats. You neighbor lets his goats provide for the Community, your Urns are used for the Community for whatever purposes are needed by the Community.

This scenario occurs in every single industry, and pretty soon, everyone's just dicking around instead of doing anything. Why produce something if it's just going to be taken from you as soon as you make it? What a pointless waste of energy that would be.

Unless you happen to be anti-materlist and accept that nothing is owned by anyone else, in which case nothing is taken, it is only used by the people who need it more.

Now, what possible non-violent means do "The People" (I'm saying this before all you angry communists cry "But under communism there is no government!") have of making anybody do anything? Giving them food? Good luck with that, all the farmers have given up farming thanks to the actual negative payment they inevitabely get (I count having your produce taken from you after putting in effort and time as a negative profit). Appeasing us isn't going to work, because The People don't have any resources with which to appease us.

The People don't have to make people do things, as The People as you term them are everyone involved in a communist society, they share equally no one taking or giving more than others in their own specially trained skill. The problem comes is that in the adminstration of the giving and taking, indviduals begin to think that they have a better right to things than others, creating a more Lennist/Stalinist state or Maoist depending on dervations within it.

There's only one logical way to make production resume without actually allowing people to buy and sell what they want. The People simply shoot everyone who doesn't work! The beautiful simplicity! A worker's paradise is achieved.

See the problem?
It worked well for the Railroads in America, using pinkerton dectectives, and goverment soliders to stop people from getting a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

Why is everyone answering a different question to the one that was asked?

Question Asked: Why is communism hated?

Question being answered: Why does communism not work?

These are not equivalent questions. Try to explain why it is demonized, why it is portrayed as evil? That it is workable or unworkable has nothing to do with this question.

Because there is no simple answer to why something is hated, just like there is no simple reason for a war.

As soon as people hear the word "communism," they renounce it as a dictatorship of evilness. That's not REAL communism. Real communism is a classless society where everyone gets equal shares and nothing is owned privately.
My problems with it are

(a) lack of private property
(b) lack of independent enterprise - everything you do has to be for the community
(c) it doesn't and cannot work!

Most people hate it because they've been raised to hate it. They don't really know anything about it other than what they've been told in school and such. Some of the stuff written about communism really is quite over the top.

I started out open minded about communists, then I came to NS and gradually began to dislike it. I like my freedom. I like my inequality. I like my private things. What's hard to understand? It's like living in a flat where your roommate just takes your shit all the time. That's what public ownership is like.

I know someone's going to correct me and inform me about the 'true' nature of communism, or 'true' communism (what you really mean is perfect communism, which is by definition perfect so it's a circular argument thinly disguised). And I might expect a healthy dose of how 'ignorant' I am too and some references to some fat books on the subject so I can better my understanding of a theoretical sociopolitical system.

So don't. I'm just saying, we're not mindless automatons who are agents of the oppressor class keeping YOU down so don't even think of saying it! I HATE that.

no, you are using the wrong words, you used Democracy in the place of Capitalism. America was against it because we are Capitalist, and the the Big time Capitalists and big wigs that largely own the country/government would be threatened by Communism. What is the corrolation between Democracy then? Democracy works well with Capitalism, it should however, be able to work well with Communism too. Why are we setting up Democracy in Iraq? Sure Democracy is a great system, better than dictatorship, but Democracy is good for Capitalism, and Capitalism in Iraq is good for American Corporations.

i loath communism because it is centered on the idea that somebody else is entitled to what i earn, what i build, and what i make. communism is grounded in the selfishness of people who know they can't cut it on their own. i have no respect for them, and i will never be willing to live under a system where i am expected to feed and clothe them.

You like a system where people are oppressed to the point that they can not even get out of that rut, where they are virtually owned by the landed aristocracy, of which keeps it so that to afford clothes and food is all they can handle, which provides extremely little room to excel.

Karl MArx was banned in the west for too long. Most people have read the bible 1000 times but have not read a single book about communism. They make assumptions based on what they have seen on TV.

As soon as people hear the word "communism," they renounce it as a dictatorship of evilness. That's not REAL communism. Real communism is a classless society where everyone gets equal shares and nothing is owned privately. That is also kinda bad. In the classless society part. Because if you kill someone, and some says,"You're under arrest against charges of murder!" You could just reply," You're not the boss of me!" That's not cool. MY communism is where some people are slightly above eachother, though elected, and still get the set amount, just as everyone else. If they become corrupt and issue themselves more rations, they can be immediatly ousted, if the person can give a good reason. Now that could work!xxx(In theory!)

1. Communists are utopianists. They're generally completely unrealistic about how things will actually work.

2. Communism is a nice idea, but since it goes against human nature, it is unworkable and instead leads to dictatorships, police states and totalitarianist regimes.

3. Karl Marx was not realistic at all. He had a whole bunch of "what if" ideas that all contradict the way humans are hardwired to be making his dream completely unworkable. See point #2.

4. Marx did not consider scarcity at all when costructing his ideas. Scarcity is what drives economy. People who have rare talents are harder to find then a janitor and thus their services are in greater demand. The high demand and low supply drives value up. Low demand and high supply drives value down. This is why doctors make LOTS of money and janitors don't.

Edit:
5. In a communist society, there is NO opportunity to better your life, you simply take what you are allotted and that's it. What's the point of living if your life has no chance of getting better, if you can't choose your destiny?

Communism/socialism has subverted half the worlds people into unberable poverty and starved many dozens of millions. There is no real way to do it, it can only end in poverty.

Here's why I don't like it--capitalism works better.

Why is everyone answering a different question to the one that was asked?

Question Asked: Why is communism hated?

Question being answered: Why does communism not work?

These are not equivalent questions. Try to explain why it is demonized, why it is portrayed as evil? That it is workable or unworkable has nothing to do with this question.

I can answer that. Communism is hated for the same reason Liars and Frauds are despised.
It promises Heaven on Earth, but delivers something far worse. It is hated, because under even Perfect Communism, Liberty does not exist in a communist system.
Communism is hated because it is bait-and-switch, it is the lazy-man's paradise and the workingman's hell, because "From Each according to his Ability, to Each according to his need" sounds wonderful, but what it is is enforced "Selflessness" without reward. It is sameness, it means that no matter how hard you work, you can never have more than others think you ought.
Communism is hated, because it is an idealistic lie, built on circular reasoning, about fictional people.

Communism is hated because it requires automata instead of people, because it denies the individual's worth, and finally...

Communism is hated, because it is a system that People can not long endure. It is hated, because, like many things that are hated, it does not work.

Abbeys that resemble communist societies are driven by a combination of faith, and fear of god-a higher power that can not be bargained with, that sets an absolute. VERY few people can endure being monks, and few Monks can endure long in an open society (This being why they go to Monasterys and abbeys in the first place).

Go and learn something please before opening your mouth. Democracy and communism are not opposed in any way whatsoever. A democratic society can be communist or capitalist. A dictatorship can be socialist or capitalist (It can not, by definition, be communist).

I am not a communist, nor a socialist. I am a free market libertarian capitalist and supporter of democracy.

Here's a better point (at least I think so): China is becoming more and more a capitalist country every day. It is creeping in from every direction and there is NOTHING the Chinese government can do to stop it. I've got a friend who teaches in China as part of a teacher exchange program, and according to him, capitalism is becoming more and more prevelant every day. There are all sorts of things happening, like families cooking larger meals, so that the women of the house can take the extra soup and sell it off the streets in town. This isn't unusual, it is happening in EVERY avenue in life, up to those who run multi-national corporations and the Chinese government itself. All these people are finding ways of creating products and services to sell on the market to make a little extra money.

As soon as people hear the word "communism," they renounce it as a dictatorship of evilness. That's not REAL communism. Real communism is a classless society where everyone gets equal shares and nothing is owned privately. That is also kinda bad. In the classless society part. Because if you kill someone, and some says,"You're under arrest against charges of murder!" You could just reply," You're not the boss of me!" That's not cool. MY communism is where some people are slightly above eachother, though elected, and still get the set amount, just as everyone else. If they become corrupt and issue themselves more rations, they can be immediatly ousted, if the person can give a good reason. Now that could work!xxx(In theory!)

There's a BIG problem.

On the contrary. I am a vicious critic of the practices of the 20th century socialist road to communism. Unlike most conservatives however, I don't generalise and throw out the baby with the bathwater - I recognise the fact that it was the fault of socialism, which failed to deliver on classless society, which thus far is still an unanswered question as to whether it is a viable society or not.

Communism cannot work BECAUSE it demands classlessness, yet class is hardwired into us. If there is a chance for an individual to elevate themselves and they have the desire to, they will and that can't be stopped. Communism creates the ultimate temptation for such a seizure of power, the economy is based off of central planning. Someone must do the planning and that someone will effectively and single-handedly control the entire country. The only way away from central planning is to have an economy that self corrects supply and demand, and capitalism does that superbly.

Socialism is far more likely to work then communism. Countries that adopt some socialistic policies while keeping a mainly capitalist economy are thriving (Europe, Canada and even America to a certain extent). These are by far the most successful economies on Earth, the average individual enjoys the highest standard of living, health care and retirements in the history of the world.

A few arguments/counter arguments that haven't been made yet:

1) What we call human nature is in actuality human habit.

2) Why, in a Communistic society, would someone be allowed to not work?

3) There is nothing within the concept of democracy that necessitates capitalism. I would argue that you can't have capitalism in a democracy, but, of course, I have a different idea of what the purpose of democracy is than most people.

4) There is a difference between private property and personal property.

5) If you work harder, you benefit the community, and by benefitting the community, you benefit yourself.

More to come...

Gotta hate something.

Gotta hate something.

no, we all have to love each other and jump around in the land of fairy gumdrops while giving each other nice big kisses and smelling sweet flowers while we embrace the natural beauty of the Mother Earth.

I dislike communism not only because it is a system which dooms entire nations to grinding, despondant universal poverty, but because what it would involve is one of the few things I actually find morally abhorent (I'm not generally a particularly moral person).

Assume I make something, using my own knowledge, time and labour. An urn, a sack of wheat, a steel girder, whatever. In a reasonably unrestricted market, I can sell my urn or my girder to people who need urns and girders, but perhaps don't have the urn-related knowhow or time, or can't be bothered to make an urn themselves. They give me money in exchange for my urn, with which I can buy food, clothes, better urn-making equipment, or whatever else I need.

Now, assume a communist state arises. I make an urn, but I'm not allowed to exchange it for anything, instead I have it taken from me against my will. What possible reason do I have to produce any more urns? I mean really, why fucking bother? I may as well direct all my urn-energy towards sitting around doing nothing, since making any more urns will just waste my time and effort.

This scenario occurs in every single industry, and pretty soon, everyone's just dicking around instead of doing anything. Why produce something if it's just going to be taken from you as soon as you make it? What a pointless waste of energy that would be.

Now, what possible non-violent means do "The People" (I'm saying this before all you angry communists cry "But under communism there is no government!") have of making anybody do anything? Giving them food? Good luck with that, all the farmers have given up farming thanks to the actual negative payment they inevitabely get (I count having your produce taken from you after putting in effort and time as a negative profit). Appeasing us isn't going to work, because The People don't have any resources with which to appease us.

There's only one logical way to make production resume without actually allowing people to buy and sell what they want. The People simply shoot everyone who doesn't work! The beautiful simplicity! A worker's paradise is achieved.

See the problem?

After the fall of the USSR, there were lots of stories that came out about how things were and most of it was news since people were forcefully kept in the USSR (I think that in itself says volumes about what kind of place the USSR was). People would come to work drunk and sleep under their work bench, because they got paid whether they worked or not. Shortages were common place. Ever see Moscow on the Hudson? Lines that were several blocks long for toilet paper, or shoes that were only available in a few sizes (most likely not the size that fits you). This might be dismissable if it were only from a few people, but this is common knowledge. Go to Russia and those who were alive and working during the USSR will all tell you similar stories of never ending shortages (even though the broadcast news always bragged of how production of everything was always up) and long lines for basic necessities.

A few arguments/counter arguments that haven't been made yet:

1) What we call human nature is in actuality human habit.

That is why children do those very things without being taught to do them? Children create classes and heirarchies amongst themselves even though they're told not to. That isn't habbit, that's something that's hardwired into us, that is instinctual. It can be fought, but not eaisly. It takes reckognition (which communism does not do, it just tries to ignore it). It takes education (which communism does not promote very well). It takes a will to want to over come (which communism actually does, at least for those who want it).

In the end, it still doesn't go away. As an example, it happens in dating. How is it decided which man gets to mate with the most beautiful women? First, a man must show that he does not have less social value then she does, he has to slot himself at or abover her in a social heirarchy, otherwise, complete dorks would be with beautiful women and they almost never are (unless they have TONS of cash and/or power).

In summary, communism is unworkable simply due to how humans choose their mates.

no, we all have to love each other and jump around in the land of fairy gumdrops while giving each other nice big kisses and smelling sweet flowers while we embrace the natural beauty of the Mother Earth.

Yes but communist gumdrops and the people's flowers. Big, gray, clunky.

That is why children do those very things without being taught to do them? Children create classes and heirarchies amongst themselves even though they're told not to. That isn't habbit, that's something that's hardwired into us, that is instinctual. It can be fought, but not eaisly. It takes reckognition (which communism does not do, it just tries to ignore it). It takes education (which communism does not promote very well). It takes a will to want to over come (which communism actually does, at least for those who want it).

In the end, it still doesn't go away. As an example, it happens in dating. How is it decided which man gets to mate with the most beautiful women? First, a man must show that he does not have less social value then she does, he has to slot himself at or abover her in a social heirarchy, otherwise, complete dorks would be with beautiful women and they almost never are (unless they have TONS of cash and/or power).

In summary, communism is unworkable simply due to how humans choose their mates.
Children learn from their surroundings. If they are surrounded by classes of people, then they will create classes of people.
The same is true for people choosing their mates. Women choose their mates in this way because they are told they're supposed to.

Okay, Capitalists, do something for me.

Tell me that you honestly believe that because of the ammount of money you earn, people are not social equals. Please, admit that you think that someone in the lower class is less of a person because they do not earn as much money as you.

Harder than you think, isn't it?

Okay, Capitalists, do something for me.

Tell me that you honestly believe that because of the ammount of money you earn, people are not social equals. Please, admit that you think that someone in the lower class is less of a person because they do not earn as much money as you.

Harder than you think, isn't it?

I can easily admit that someone who is less successful than me in financial terms is less successful than me. The terminology of class is irrelevant, unless you are using it in the very narrow american sense of wealth. Someone who earns less than me is a less successful human than me. This does not make them less human, it just makes them a less competent human. I have absolutely no problem with this idea.

What you are trying to do here is tie the quality of humanity to the quality of competence. To say that all humans are human is a truism, and a tautology, therefor meaningless. To say that all humans are equally competent is a plain lie. The lower class person is equally human but less competent.

Rather like the smaller lion is equally a lion, but just less successful in their society.

I can easily admit that someone who is less successful than me in financial terms is less successful than me. The terminology of class is irrelevant, unless you are using it in the very narrow american sense of wealth. Someone who earns less than me is a less successful human than me. This does not make them less human, it just makes them a less competent human. I have absolutely no problem with this idea.
So then you equate success with money?

It doesn't work and never will work, people like freedom.

So then you equate success with money?

Under a capitalist system, yes. There are rules to the game, if you know them and use them then then you can succeed. If we lived under some other system, then there would be some other measure of success, but as we live under a capitalist one, money it is.

Curiosity deriving from my answer above. What would be the measure of success under a communist system? (It is an essential part of our nature, to be able to evaluate our performance, our achievements, so if there is none, then communism fails on this aspect of our nature, regardless of the competitive/co-operative dispute)

It doesn't work and never will work, people like freedom.
Freedom...
What is freedom?
Freedom is no government they say!
Freedom is money!
Freedom is capitalism!
Freedom is working 15 hours a day for $10 dollars!
Better fight and die for freedom than let the commie take that away.
Freedom is getting killed fighting the commies.
That is freedom my friends.

Freedom eh? I see Communism as being more free then Capitalism, except one big freedom is lost, the freedom to exploit people for personal gain. Especially pertaining to your job, Communism is much more free. Now you get a job based upon your education and the people that you know, or connections, correct? so, poor education, and poor connections will result in a bad job. What if you can't afford the education, and your of a low class, you don't have the good connections? Not very free. Communism allows for those with the aptitude, free education (yeah, we have public schools, but i mean, complete free higher education), this would make anyone, willing to work hard enough in their education, available to go into the job of their choice. Now why would people want to work hard at school in such if they won't make more money!?? Okay, who wants the factory job of mundane, repitive work? Well, its the person who doesn't strive for something better that would get that. And hey, if thats the job you want, go for it, its obvious a lot are needed.

and um, how FREE is FREE education?
sounds more Free to me.

I dislike it because it is anti-intellectual, anti-progress, and anti-human. What more do you need to know?

Fact is, it works good for ants, ants do not have conscious recognition of self, we are not ants.

I dislike it because it is anti-intellectual, anti-progress, and anti-human. What more do you need to know?

Fact is, it works good for ants, ants do not have conscious recognition of self, we are not ants.
You forget it is gay.

Have you ever read Walden By Henry David Thoreau? (an extremely intellectual/trancedentalist writer). He observes an Ant battle one day, and one picks up on how this ant battle is compared and contrasted to human society. Oh how we can be very much so ants.

Okay, Capitalists, do something for me.

Tell me that you honestly believe that because of the ammount of money you earn, people are not social equals. Please, admit that you think that someone in the lower class is less of a person because they do not earn as much money as you.

Harder than you think, isn't it?

Why should I admit to believing something that I do not believe at all? To make you happy? I am a capitalist and I in no way think that a rich man is socially superior to a poor man. I don't not believe someone making less money than me is less of a person.
Does it trouble you that I don't fit your nold or will you now say I am lying because I don't?

Have you ever read Walden By Henry David Thoreau? (an extremely intellectual/trancedentalist writer). He observes an Ant battle one day, and one picks up on how this ant battle is compared and contrasted to human society. Oh how we can be very much so ants.

Yes, and I've also read Civil Disobediance. I get alot of my own beliefs from Thoreau.

Freedom...
What is freedom?
Freedom is no government they say!
Freedom is money!
Freedom is capitalism!
Freedom is working 15 hours a day for $10 dollars!
Better fight and die for freedom than let the commie take that away.
Freedom is getting killed fighting the commies.
That is freedom my friends.

yes, and other things, not having the government control your life

yes, and other things, not having the government control your life
Like corporations is ok but government is evil.

Okay, Capitalists, do something for me.

Tell me that you honestly believe that because of the ammount of money you earn, people are not social equals. Please, admit that you think that someone in the lower class is less of a person because they do not earn as much money as you.

Harder than you think, isn't it?

Ever try to get a date, when you don't have an income, or a Job??? Honestly, now-outside of the High School... How many beautiful, wealthy women go down to the homeless shelter to pick up on men? How many Liberal women go down there looking for something warm to cuddle up to at night?
No. It does NOT HAPPEN. You could have looks like Johnny Depp or Antonio Banderas, and if you're an Urban Outdoorsman, that hot college babe with the BMW will drive right on by.
Chicks don't flirt with you when you're walking out of the Unemployment office (or walking in).

Not even the real Bleeding-Heart chicks will do that.

the one fundamental drive all mammals share, is the urge to mate. yes, that's right, sex, folks, people like to do it, people want to do it. If you want it, and you're a man, (and you don't want to commit rape), you'd better have some sign of being successful. (even if it's with another man, you don't see gays cruising the homeless shelters looking for a Companion either.)

Human behavior doesn't resemble Ants, or Bees-they all work for a single individual (the Queen), Humans resemble wolves. this goes from childhood on up-and it applies no matter where on this earth you go. There is always an Alpha male and Alpha Female, the rest of the pack, and the Scapegoat, or outcast.

Humans cooperate only when necessary or desirable to their interests, they compete more often than not, and occasionally, they do violence in the process.
Not like ants, not like bees.

Like corporations is ok but government is evil.

Government passes laws. Corporaations do not. You don't deal with them and youre fine. Government passes laws that directly affect your life.

Being a Communist myself; you people have no clue what Revolutionary Ideology is...at least what non-Stalinist/Maoist ones are.


1. Communists are utopianists. They're generally completely unrealistic about how things will actually work.

Karl Marx called it "Scientific Socialism" and blasted the Utopianist Socialists for wishful thinking in his writings. He made Socialism a viable goal for humanity; showing how it will develop by the moving forces of society; fueled by class struggle.


2. Communism is a nice idea, but since it goes against human nature, it is unworkable and instead leads to dictatorships, police states and totalitarianist regimes.

Human nature is conditioned by surrounding enviroment, and will change due to the welfare of the individual; or to the individual class. There is more than one Communist Ideology; Leninism, Maoism, Stalinism, Council Communism/ Luxemburgism, Anarchism, Syndaliclism, DeLeonism ect. ect.

Also countries like China and Russia were exactly the places that were the worst places to attempt Socialism; since both countries had not even developed modern capitalism, both were semi-feudalist countries still in a backwards era.

Communism is not a "nice idea"; it will ne inevitable result of the moving forces of society. Think the status quo of society will stay around forever? Nope!


3. Karl Marx was not realistic at all. He had a whole bunch of "what if" ideas that all contradict the way humans are hardwired to be making his dream completely unworkable. See point #2.

You've never read Karl Marx :rolleyes: Read the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital for starters.

4. Marx did not consider scarcity at all when costructing his ideas. Scarcity is what drives economy. People who have rare talents are harder to find then a janitor and thus their services are in greater demand. The high demand and low supply drives value up. Low demand and high supply drives value down. This is why doctors make LOTS of money and janitors don't.


But we all need the means of mass production to stay alive; this is the lifeblood of humankind; and it so happens; the most important factor of this society is operated by the labor of the most oppressed class.


It doesn't work and never will work, people like freedom.

Communism is "the emancipation of the working class", total freedom; no state, no ruling classes and the abolition of national divisions.

I dislike it because it is anti-intellectual, anti-progress, and anti-human. What more do you need to know?

You're mixed up with Stalinist state-capitalism; which ruled Russia and China for many, many years.

yes, and other things, not having the government control your life

There is no government is Communism; you've been brainwashed by American propaganda. :rolleyes:


READ THIS FOR A GENERAL IDEA OF COMMUNISM:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Government passes laws. Corporaations do not. You don't deal with them and youre fine. Government passes laws that directly affect your life.
oh ok corporations are good. They don't pass laws, they're not the government. Only the government is evil. Corporations are ok. They do nothing bad, it is just that the government passes laws and THAT IS EVIL!!! OMG!

Government passes laws. Corporaations do not. You don't deal with them and youre fine. Government passes laws that directly affect your life.

And who controls of the government? And who lobbys and pulls strings in the government? Who are the ones who make the biggest campaign contributions to political campaigns?

I just dont like the color red...

Humans cooperate only when necessary or desirable to their interests, they compete more often than not, and occasionally, they do violence in the process.


Bingo; but you're just not getting it; this is what Class Consciousness is about. When the working class realizes its posistion and revolts against capitalist rule.

Why?

For THEY can have control of the factories.

For THEY can have control of the state.

For THEY can be the ruling class.

Humans are greedy and "wolves"; you are totally correct about that, because it totally goes in line with Communism, the working class will not just revolt for the heck of it; but because they want something! As Mao said "Communism is not love, its the hammer we use to smash the enemy."

Communism is only responsible for the deaths of over 100,000,000 people.

Lets give it another shot!

oh ok corporations are good. They don't pass laws, they're not the government. Only the government is evil. Corporations are ok. They do nothing bad, it is just that the government passes laws and THAT IS EVIL!!! OMG!

You're making a serious mistake in your posts. You've constructed them in a way that makes it sound as if corporations, at base, are all evil.

I'm sure you're really meaning to say that some corporations are evil.

Being a Communist myself; you people have no clue what Revolutionary Ideology is...at least what non-Stalinist/Maoist ones are.




Karl Marx called it "Scientific Socialism" and blasted the Utopianist Socialists for wishful thinking in his writings. He made Socialism a viable goal for humanity; showing how it will develop by the moving forces of society; fueled by class struggle.




Human nature is conditioned by surrounding enviroment, and will change due to the welfare of the individual; or to the individual class. There is more than one Communist Ideology; Leninism, Maoism, Stalinism, Council Communism/ Luxemburgism, Anarchism, Syndaliclism, DeLeonism ect. ect.

Also countries like China and Russia were exactly the places that were the worst places to attempt Socialism; since both countries had not even developed modern capitalism, both were semi-feudalist countries still in a backwards era.

Communism is not a "nice idea"; it will ne inevitable result of the moving forces of society. Think the status quo of society will stay around forever? Nope!




You've never read Karl Marx :rolleyes: Read the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital for starters.



But we all need the means of mass production to stay alive; this is the lifeblood of humankind; and it so happens; the most important factor of this society is operated by the labor of the most oppressed class.



Communism is "the emancipation of the working class", total freedom; no state, no ruling classes and the abolition of national divisions.



You're mixed up with Stalinist state-capitalism; which ruled Russia and China for many, many years.



There is no government is Communism; you've been brainwashed by American propaganda. :rolleyes:


READ THIS FOR A GENERAL IDEA OF COMMUNISM:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm





Thank you for a greta post. I just read that before starting my simmilar rant. It annoys me that because of propoganda communism is portrayed as an athoritarian regime. People often confuse the economic system of socialism and the political systems of lennin, mao, stalin, ect. The current situation of communism reminds me of (to put it in perspective for all you brainwashed americans) the american revolution. A place rebeled against a political system to estblish a new one that created better conditions for the people. Peopll claimed that democray could only work on a small scale like athens. However, look at it now, sure the Us is corrupt, but no more so then the rest of the world. Throgh checks and balances democray is possible. The same is true of democratic socialism.

Originally posted by Zurtania
As soon as people hear the word "communism," they renounce it as a dictatorship of evilness. That's not REAL communism. Real communism is a classless society where everyone gets equal shares and nothing is owned privately.
It has worked before, but not for an extended period of time.

That is also kinda bad. In the classless society part. Because if you kill someone, and some says,"You're under arrest against charges of murder!" You could just reply," You're not the boss of me!" That's not cool.
Exactly why true communism will not work. Greed and corruption are natural in humanity. This is one of my main arguments humanity being naturally good. If they were, communism would be a functional governmental system, as far as I can see.

MY communism is where some people are slightly above eachother, though elected, and still get the set amount, just as everyone else.
Dictators are not present in true communism, but they are often brought forth through communism. That is why, I think, so many people are scared of it.

If they become corrupt and issue themselves more rations, they can be immediatly ousted, if the person can give a good reason. Now that could work!xxx(In theory!)
Eh, sounds too much like democracy. ;)

Side note: Any Christian who is adamantly against communism should look at the early church (book of Acts in particular). That church was communist, and it worked, oddly enough.

Communism is only responsible for the deaths of over 100,000,000 people.

Lets give it another shot!

It was never Communism! Communism has NEVER EXISTED :headbang:


What DID happen was an attempted revolution that went against MANY of Marx's theory; such as trying to use the peasentry as a revolutionary class and leading a revolution with a small elite party or a dictator with a personality cult. Both countries (China and Russia) turned into state capitalist regimes controlled by a Fabianist government.


Marx WAS AGAINST Elitism, Personality Cults, Dictatorship, Authoritarianism, beaucracy. Just read his writings! Its there! He would be rolling in his grave if he saw his name being paraded by Stalinists.

Here's a friendly warning; you are not going to change any minds here. I sympathise with your point of view but most people (mainly americans) have it fused into their head that communism = Stalin, the USSR, Gulags, Leninism, and all that trash from the 20th century. That fact that Marx predicted the fall of the USSR, and that only the socialist road to classless society has been proven the wrong way, passes completely over their heads. McCarthyism is still a fresh corpse.

That is because Communism is directly and inevitably going to result in one of two outcomes; dictatorship or anarchy. Either a small group tells people how they may act, where they are to work, and what they have, or people just take it for themselves. If you can explain how it would work otherwise, please do. Bear in mind that arguments about people working for the common good will be disregarded, as that is not how people work and there is no way they will do so execpt at the barrel of a gun.

There's also a Commuinist delusion that workers have no power. Hello? It's called democracy?

Edit; Communism also places the state above the individual. Essentially it places a construction of mankind above mankind itself.

Communism punishes the able and rewards the undeserving. Also, the communist ideal is a dream; as long as there are people with more power than others, it's not communism.

You're making a serious mistake in your posts. You've constructed them in a way that makes it sound as if corporations, at base, are all evil.

I'm sure you're really meaning to say that some corporations are evil.
Oh you single out my post as it was something serious, when it is obviously sarcastic.
Did you mean that ALL governments are bad, but just SOME corporations are bad?

The current situation of communism reminds me of (to put it in perspective for all you brainwashed americans) the american revolution. A place rebeled against a political system to estblish a new one that created better conditions for the people. Peopll claimed that democray could only work on a small scale like athens. However, look at it now, sure the Us is corrupt, but no more so then the rest of the world. Throgh checks and balances democray is possible. The same is true of democratic socialism.

Remember the French Revolution? It failed and turned into despostic revolution! Burgeoisie democracy does not work! :D Its obvious!


On a side note; I, personally am a Council Communist, I usaully state my views before telling them what my label is, when I do that, most people confuse me for an anarchist.

Thats how anti-authoritarian Communist ideology can be! As a Communist, I owe my alliegance to the working class; and the working class can rule itself without capitalist tyranny, Socialism will bring democracy to all corners of life; democractic workplaces for one.

Communism punishes the able and rewards the undeserving. Also, the communist ideal is a dream; as long as there are people with more power than others, it's not communism.

Who's winning?

Remember the French Revolution? It failed and turned into despostic revolution! Burgeoisie democracy does not work! :D Its obvious!
It didn't fail, since it was a revolution of the bourgeois.
I believe it was a success. It actually was the first step to the liberation of the masses. It brought a new rational light on society and it raised new concerns which never existed before. The declaration of human rights was the first step away from the religion rule. The socialist revolution which followed was just the next step.

Communism is only responsible for the deaths of over 100,000,000 people.

Lets give it another shot!



LOL nice!!

It was never Communism! Communism has NEVER EXISTED

What a revelation (I knew that already); that Communism, every time it is attempted, fails miserably, and ends up killing millions.

Lets give it another shot!

That is because Communism is directly and inevitably going to result in one of two outcomes; dictatorship or anarchy. Either a small group tells people how they may act, where they are to work, and what they have, or people just take it for themselves. If you can explain how it would work otherwise, please do. Bear in mind that arguments about people working for the common good will be disregarded, as that is not how people work and there is no way they will do so execpt at the barrel of a gun.

There's also a Commuinist delusion that workers have no power. Hello? It's called democracy?

Edit; Communism also places the state above the individual. Essentially it places a construction of mankind above mankind itself.


Communism is Anarchism; there IS NO state in Communism.

People decide where they want to work theirselves, workplaces in Socialism will be democractic!; I do not believe in Leninist Socialism that tries to have a new ruling class guide the proletariat to Communism.

How will it work? It has worked! Take example of the Paris Commune in 1871 and the CNT-FAI Communes in the Spanish Revolution, industries were run by workers organized together in revolutionary labor unions, there all round democracy was held, no bosses, no masters, no gods.
Communism is not about the state; its about the working class.

Its a truth; the workers have no power; every time they have tried to organize they have been suppressed by the capitalist's government ("Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie"), take for example the IWW movement in America, union busting and the corruption of many labor unions. The capitalists do not want the working class to get organized; it would be their own doom. So Democracy is when you get to choose your own master every 4 years? Where you have a boss who orders you about? Where you have almost no voice compared to corporations? :rolleyes:

You also have a very deluded idea about what Communism is about.

What a revelation (I knew that already); that Communism, every time it is attempted, fails miserably, and ends up killing millions.


Okay, lets go with that;

When the Paris Commune began, which was when the workers of Paris rose in revolt and overthrew the government and set up a democractic workers' state, the French National Army marched in 2 months later and COMMITED MASS MURDER killing 40,000 working class men, women and children. Oh, the working class resisted and fought street by street for their freedom from capitalist tyranny, and they died for it when they manned the street barricades. Even when shoved up against the wall and faced their firing squad they were still free; because they refused to give in.

There have been many more examples of Capitalist brutality throughout history; El Salavador, Chile, Vietnam, Africa, anywhere you look; capitalism enforces its rule by violence whenever it needs to.

What you should really say is:

"What a revelation (I knew that already); that Leninism, every time it is attempted, fails miserably, and ends up killing millions. "

Originally posted by Revionia
Communism is Anarchism; there IS NO state in Communism.
You are, in fact, right. However, I am thinking that his statement would have been true if it was tweaked a little.

"Communism places a whole community over the individual." Now, that's better.

Originally posted by a few posters
Communism punishes the able and rewards the undeserving.
This is why it doesn't work. I won't even entirely disagree with this, though I think it borders on the Hasty Conclusion line.

Greed and corruption by those who are productive (better word than "able") and laziness by those who aren't is what keeps it working. Ironically, these characteristics are the reason capitalism works. If it was not for greed, capitalism would not be functioning. If it wasn't for corruption, monarchy would be the most efficient form of government.

Strange how we argue for the "rightness" of the least of all evils.

It didn't fail, since it was a revolution of the bourgeois.
I believe it was a success. It actually was the first step to the liberation of the masses. It brought a new rational light on society and it raised new concerns which never existed before. The declaration of human rights was the first step away from the religion rule. The socialist revolution which followed was just the next step.

Overlooking that Communism contravenes articles 3, 4, 12, makes a fairly entertaining mockery of article 17, doesn't sit with article 20 clause 2, wrecks up article 21, and in practise does not adhere to article 2, articles 5 through 11 almost always get destroyed through the mob rule that would ensue, article 13 gets torn down because nobody has the means, article 14 generally gets destroyed even more in communism than capitalism, article 16 gets pissed on as soon as the state/proles decide how many kids people can have (Which they inevitably will as resources are drained.), articles 18 and 19 tend to be broken due to the same mob rule, removes the 'economic' clause from article 22, article 24 falls apart of quotas aren't met or if people are going hungry. Article 26 fails the second the mob decides that clean chimneys >>>> educated 11 year olds, and clause 2 of article 27 doesn't exist in communism.

In fact, only two clauses seem to support a commuist idea. Article 25, which nonetheless places certain people above others, and clause 1 of article 29, whilst clause 2 is a mandate for communism not.

"Communism places a whole community over the individual." Now, that's better.
I don't get it. Many people constantly repeat this. What does it mean exactly? In which way is the individual above the community or the community above the individual? What is this ranking you talk about?

Damn it, Revionia, I was just going to say that.

[scratches head]

By the time I think of something else, someone will have said that, too, no doubt :)

Oh well, basically I wanted to say that every time communism has failed it has been because previously established authoritarian regimes have committed mass murder against the communists. That the opposite is almost universally thought to be the truth is -to say the least- very sad.

The Bolsheviks, even, killed to prevent communism, not to protect or create it. The people of Kronstadt realised that they could run their own affairs and not be babied by some government, so the Red Army slaughtered them. For some reason, people now equate the USSR -even after 1921- with communism. People are unwittingly right when they claim that Russian militarisation killed communism... it's just that it did it by murder not by financial collapse, and that it did it seventy years earlier than credited.

Communism can work, and the only people who hate it are the masses who don't know what it is and generally in fact hate some of its most brutal enemies, and the upper levels of established hierarchies who have something to lose, be they US Republicans or Democrats, or be they named Putin or even Lenin or Trotsky.

Has world war three reached the forum?

Just a load of people claiming that communism is stupid. Communism is the collective name of a number of ideologies including: Marxism(true communism), Leninism(Lenin's theories), Marxism-Leninism(adopted by Stalin and until the collapse the official ideology of the USSR) Maoism(Mao's theories), Trotskyism(Trotsky's theories), and several other. Some have adapted greatly since the world has changed since Marx.

In short the reason why communism is hated is because it is so foreign(especially to Americans) and like with much foreign you have prejudices. American education doesn't improve the image of communism.

Let's talk about the SOCIALIST AUTHORITARIAN USSR.

Before the fall of the Soviet Union the country's workers had very good health, the retired got help from the government, people had to work(we might need this one). The problem was that Soviet citizens believed that if they did away with the Union they would overnight reach the American standard of living.

Now Russians have poor health, social benefits receive more and more cuts, etc. In fact many Russians regret the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many citizens of the former German Democratic Republic prefered life before 1989.

In the last Soviet constitution(can't remember which article) this phrase was put:"From each according to his ability, to each according to their work."

At another article it clearly stated that a person should have a job they had the ability to perform, the State needed them, and they had an interest in it. Salaries were in no way equal. Depending on what job you had you would have different salaries, just like in a capitalist society.

Private property(capital, also known as means of production) was legally abolished while personnal property still existed, this is your car, money, anything you own yourself.

A communist nation has yet to be created and will most likely never be. Of course you should never say never.

Just a side note:
I firmly believe government is necessary since humans are naturally greedy and need leadership. A government less country would fall to an invasion or fascist revolution.

Overlooking that Communism contravenes articles 3, 4, 12, makes a fairly entertaining mockery of article 17, doesn't sit with article 20 clause 2, wrecks up article 21, and in practise does not adhere to article 2, articles 5 through 11 almost always get destroyed through the mob rule that would ensue, article 13 gets torn down because nobody has the means, article 14 generally gets destroyed even more in communism than capitalism, article 16 gets pissed on as soon as the state/proles decide how many kids people can have (Which they inevitably will as resources are drained.), articles 18 and 19 tend to be broken due to the same mob rule, removes the 'economic' clause from article 22, article 24 falls apart of quotas aren't met or if people are going hungry. Article 26 fails the second the mob decides that clean chimneys >>>> educated 11 year olds, and clause 2 of article 27 doesn't exist in communism.

In fact, only two clauses seem to support a commuist idea. Article 25, which nonetheless places certain people above others, and clause 1 of article 29, whilst clause 2 is a mandate for communism not.You forgot to mention it is in direct violation with article 14 alinea 7 of the book under your bed that you bought before a long train trip because you were bored 10 years ago and that you paid it $4.99 and it was not worth it.

People decide where they want to work theirselves, workplaces in Socialism will be democractic!; I do not believe in Leninist Socialism that tries to have a new ruling class guide the proletariat to Communism.

Well, too bad, because everyone who's ever put the system into practise has. Moreover, I can choose where to work. I can work in Virgin megastore! Or maybe I'd prefer to work in the police force! Or perhaps the local corner shop! And I can bring up ideas to better things with my employers, but the thing is they are the boss and I am not. If they like my idea w00t, if they don't, get on with it. I can make the rules when I'm running m own store (Never gonna happen in Communism.).

How will it work? It has worked! Take example of the Paris Commune in 1871 and the CNT-FAI Communes in the Spanish Revolution, industries were run by workers organized together in revolutionary labor unions, there all round democracy was held, no bosses, no masters, no gods. Communism is not about the state; its about the working

And those lasted for how long, again? Ah yes, the legendary two months of rule under the Paris Commune! Communism has valuable ideas. It is not a valid system however. The ideas ought to be taken and implemented if we have the means. Or maybe the killing of a mayor by - yes - a mob in Spain during CNT's activities. Or maybe FAI's bank robbings. Yes, that sounds like Communism to me - rob from the deserving and give to whoever sings the right song.

Its a truth; the workers have no power; every time they have tried to organize they have been suppressed by the capitalist's government ("Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie"), take for example the IWW movement in America, union busting and the corruption of many labor unions. The capitalists do not want the working class to get organized; it would be their own doom. So Democracy is when you get to choose your own master every 4 years? Where you have a boss who orders you about? Where you have almost no voice compared to corporations? :rolleyes:

I'm thinking someone who is a 'boss' gets to order his workers about BECAUSE HE'S THE BOSS. You know, knows the system, knows how things work, knows how things get done, kind of thing? 'You get to choose your own master'... ahh, yes, well, I agree with Communism on the social side of things, actually. It's just the economic where we split, but the two are inextricably linked.

You also have a very deluded idea about what Communism is about.

No, it's a good idea. And a very unrealistic one.

Why don't we have successful small-scale communism?

ok, try this out, just for a moment.
I run a large, successful company (I don't, wish I did, capitalist that I am). I'm paying my workers to work here, probably paying them as little as I can get away with. Now, I want to encourage communism (social idealist that I am). So...I'm already paying each worker enough to afford a car, if they want it. And buy toothpaste. And live somewhere.

What stops me setting up my own mini-communism? I stop paying my workers (other than minimum wage laws), and instead give them fringe benefits. Give them each a car to drive, and a house to stay in. Pay for their toothpaste. Since I'm buying so much toothpaste, I'll get bulk discounts, and as a whole the company and workers should spend less money. I could even give some money out, so the workers can go to the movies or stuff.

As long as people work, they can get these benefits. Why can't my friend who also runs a large company do that. And I can let his workers get stuff from my (free) store, and he lets my workers get his. So we have more choices, if we each chose to stock different types of toothpaste.

Of course, people who give more value to the company get their goods first. People who work harder get their goods first. But everyone gets their minimum.

It's not total socialism, but it's a good first step. And, best of all, it's much more workable because the total population is made up entirely of people who already contribute something valuable to the company.

And yet...it doesn't happen. It just doesn't. Why? People want to choose their own houses, and do their own shopping. Otherwise this would be common, since it is cheaper for everyone involved.

...and that is why I don't think communism would work on a large scale. If we can't change human attitudes on a small scale, we really won't be able to do it on a large scale.

"Just a side note:
I firmly believe government is necessary since humans are naturally greedy and need leadership. A government less country would fall to an invasion or fascist revolution."


Ah! That's pretty much what Trotsky said as the Red Army charged into Kronstadt and killed eveybody. Which is what happened in Paris fifty years earlier, something that evidently inspired certain of the Russian majority party. "We need strong government or some foreigners will come get us! It happened to the Communards, and since the last goose to pass by was grey, so shall be the next one! Quick! Somebody invent the Cheka!"

Well, communism is firstly an economic system, which will only work AFTER capitalism - worldwide - reached its highest potential. (and from that we are far away). The collaps of the "Communist Block" just showed, that you can't implement socialism or communism in one country alone.

The basic for an economic system - according to Marx - is ownership of production means; not just ownership.

So, let's see. Who owns the church? Is it rather a Limited company, a private company or a public company with shares issued? Since it is owned by nobody (or everybody) it doesn't work, since nobody feels really responsible for it, right?

It becomes a bit more complicated with water and air. Some people say it belongs to nobody that's why is there so much water and air pollution, and privatising breathing air would probably increase its quality. Or maybe not.

There are some non-profit organisations that are also not owned by anyone and they still exist and thrive - e.g. IEC, ISO, and numerous others.

Just as capitalist structures existed long before capitalism, communist structures exist within capitalism, even in the US.


On the other hand, communism is also a political system - pure democracy, without the need of a state (and with that borders, separate currencies, separate laws, armies, etc.). Now we have some democratic structures in some states. Companies are largely non-democratic. The owners of the company (shareholders) don't do anything to increase the value of the company and they don't always act in the best interest of the company, they are mostly interested in short-term gains, like dividends.

Risk Management and strategic thinking is a long learning process. That's why it will take some time until everybody has learned certain lessons, like education is an investment, not a cost; environmental protection is economically sound and cost saving; and others.


And we have the development towards a communist system - WTO, GATS, ISO work for harmonised rules between countries. Using a mobile phone in one country is as easy as using it on the other side of the Earth. Travelling is much easier than 100 years ago, there are still some borders, but mostly there is no need to apply for a special permission (visa) to enter a country.



So, the general evolution is towards communism. As Marx put it: The capitalist has to go this path, whether he wants to or not. If he doesn't develop he goes down.

Revionia, if you can't name one successful attempt at Communism, why do you want to try again?

Thank you.

Why don't we have successful small-scale communism?

ok, try this out, just for a moment.
I run a large, successful company [..]

And yet...it doesn't happen. It just doesn't. Why?


It happens, and right in the US.

Try SAS, one of the largest software developer. They have more social stuff going on there than any "communist state" and due to motivation of their employees they have the highest net profit rate of any software company.

Revionia, if you can't name one successful attempt at Communism, why do you want to try again?

Thank you.


The same goes for anything.

Didn't the US just lose another Space Shuttle? Why try again? It just doesn't work. :D

Revionia, if you can't name one successful attempt at Communism, why do you want to try again?

Thank you.

I don't understand your logic here. Just because an idea hasn't been successfully implemented doesn't mean we should stop trying.

If we can't name one successful attempt at cold fusion, why do we keep trying?

How many times did benjamin franklin need to try before he got the lightbulb to work properly?

I do know what you're saying, and I'm not sure you're wrong. But your logic doesn't make sense. It may be possible to implement communism successfully. It may not be possible. Either way, the fact that it hasn't been done yet does NOT mean that it can't be done.

Humans are not fit to rule humans. No human government works.

If humans aren't fit to rule humans, who is?

We definately need ruling, if not by a government, then by some form of enforcable social pressure.

Just you try

Some people hate communism because they are dunces, some people have good reasons (like say... it results in savage oppression).

Originally posted by Psylos
In which way is the individual above the community or the community above the individual? What is this ranking you talk about?
Sorry, I didn't realize this was not an understood.

What I mean by this is that the community virtually owns everything, meaning the individual owns nothing of his own (save the obvious, like a living quarters). As everyone has true need, the community supplies to fulfill their needs. It is almost a system itself that is the "authority." Everyone shares as anyone else has need. The reasons that this does not work is it is not a system made for anyone to be rich, thus greed won't allow it.

Sorry for the lack of clarification.

Revionia, if you can't name one successful attempt at Communism, why do you want to try again?

Thank you.


I will repeat it;

Paris Commune (Brutally crushed by capitalists)

Shangai Commune (Brutally crushed by Mao)

CNT-FAI (Betrayed PNC Stalinists)

Russia 1917-1921ish (Back when the actual Soviets had power)


Communism will come when Capitalism is rendered obselete and when the moving forces of society pushes for social change; if you read Marx, you know what I mean.
People will not just revolt for the heck of it; it must be when the conditions of the working class are intolerable enough and Capitalism has run into so many internal contradictions it breaks down by its own pressure. Its a process; in reality, as Marxist, we are not idealists; we view history as a social progress and evolution, from Oriental Despotism to Feudalism, from Feudalism to Capitalism, as the same conclusion Marx came to, Socialism is the next stage of human development since the proletariat are the moving force within the Capitalist stage.

Again, the status quo will not be around forever; capitalism hasen't been here very long compared to Feudalism.

Examples like China, Russia, Vietnam, North Korea are unworthy of comparing Communist ideology; simply since they were not capitalist at all when the revolutions broke out there; a country must be developed enough before Socialism can be put into work. none of these countries had such industrial capability; plus none had strong democractic traditions instilled into them. And as Marx said "Democracy is the road to Socialism."

Thirdly; not all Communist ideologies have had fair play; Leninism has been the dominant of them, true, but many are radically different; such as the one I follow; Council Communism.

I will repeat it;

Paris Commune (Brutally crushed by capitalists)

Shangai Commune (Brutally crushed by Mao)

CNT-FAI (Betrayed PNC Stalinists)

Russia 1917-1921ish (Back when the actual Soviets had power)


Communism will come when Capitalism is rendered obselete and when the moving forces of society pushes for social change; if you read Marx, you know what I mean.
People will not just revolt for the heck of it; it must be when the conditions of the working class are intolerable enough and Capitalism has run into so many internal contradictions it breaks down by its own pressure. Its a process; in reality, as Marxist, we are not idealists; we view history as a social progress and evolution, from Oriental Despotism to Feudalism, from Feudalism to Capitalism, as the same conclusion Marx came to, Socialism is the next stage of human development since the proletariat are the moving force within the Capitalist stage.

Again, the status quo will not be around forever; capitalism hasen't been here very long compared to Feudalism.

Examples like China, Russia, Vietnam, North Korea are unworthy of comparing Communist ideology; simply since they were not capitalist at all when the revolutions broke out there; a country must be developed enough before Socialism can be put into work. none of these countries had such industrial capability; plus none had strong democractic traditions instilled into them. And as Marx said "Democracy is the road to Socialism."

Thirdly; not all Communist ideologies have had fair play; Leninism has been the dominant of them, true, but many are radically different; such as the one I follow; Council Communism.


Are any of those around today?

No because they failed.

An other side note; to many of you, not being working class most likely, are not in the posistion of a proletarian. To many of you "armchair intellectuals" Communism might seem to be a mere intellectual debate. But to a person like me, who grew up as a proletarian; Communism is a struggle for liberation. Much like the slaves of the South, the working man's struggle against Alienation and Exploitation is the same. As what Marx called "wage slavery".

I'm a politizied worker; man, am I a threat to the ruling class. :cool:

Are any of those around today?

No because they failed.


By MILITARY DEFEAT. The Paris Commune fell to the French Republican Army. It , as a economical and political system did not fail.

This makes about as much sense as "Well since France fell to Nazi invasion, this means democracy cannot work." :rolleyes:

By MILITARY DEFEAT. The Paris Commune fell to the French Republican Army. It , as a economical and political system did not fail.

This makes about as much sense as "Well since France fell to Nazi invasion, this means democracy cannot work." :rolleyes:


Those places do not and can not exist in a vacuum.

You have to rate success or failure in the real world.


Also, history shows us that it takes time for a system to mature, so long-term projections can be made from these experiments.

Those places do not and can not exist in a vacuum.

You have to rate success or failure in the real world.


Also, history shows us that it takes time for a system to mature, so long-term projections can be made from these experiments.


Okay, I'll keep you informed about what the EZLN (Zapatista Army for National Liberation) is doing in Mexico and the Venezeulan Socialist Boliviarian Revolution is going; which has been going on for a full 6 years now.

We shall see then, so far so good in Venezeula.

Anyways, I'm headed for bed.

Okay, I'll keep you informed about what the EZLN (Zapatista Army for National Liberation) is doing in Mexico and the Venezeulan Socialist Boliviarian Revolution is going; which has been going on for a full 6 years now.

We shall see then, so far so good in Venezeula.

Anyways, I'm headed for bed.


Dont confuse communism with socialism.

Just curious:

What choices do people think they get to make for themselves under communism?

What comes AFTER communism?

Hm, I used to say that falsely-called communist states such as the USSR and DPRK have failed totally or failed to achieve proper communist progress because their revolutions happened in under-developed societies. But I don't know that I like that argument, any longer.

It was even held-up by some Bolsheviks as the reason for the Paris Commune's failure: because Paris was not an industrial city on the scale of, for example, Manchester, it was unable to match the metal of the reactionaries arrayed against it (that, and in Trotsky's opinion, I think, because it lacked decisive military leadership, or in my interpretation of his position, because the communards chose to behave like decent human beings and did not slaughter everyone at Versailles when they had the chance).

But the commune did prove that great industrial-age development is not required for a communistic society to be productive and progressive. Yes, it was crushed by military force, but leftist movements in Europe and the wider world have softened governments so that most are frankly unlikely to be so brutal as was Thiers' lot. If the commune had risen today, even if Paris were to have outsourced all of its industrial muscle abroad, the communards would arguably not face the immediate prospect of being killed by the thousand by the French army or, for obvious reasons, by the Prussians.

Communist revolutions have just failed to achieve their aims thus far because they're usually going to be the under-dog in a fight with an established regime that probably has pre-arranged external alliances that a new revolution is likely to lack.

I suppose that's where the argument for global revolution comes in, but I'm just not sure how practical that will ever be.

I'm still optimistic about the long-term future of revolution somewhere on earth, though. Somebody give me a nudge if the barricades go up, again.

Just curious:

What choices do people think they get to make for themselves under communism?

What comes AFTER communism?


Damn near all of them, and I have no idea, but I doubt that communism is the end point. Probably something yet impossible to get one's head around, and probably not due for centuries, by which time radical technology will likely open-up new ideas. I say this without very much deep thought, mind.

Nearly all of them?

Do you get to decide where you live?

How many hours you want to work?

How much vacation time you have?

How big of a house you want?

Where you live?

How big your family is?

How much education you want?

What job you get?

What you spend your earnings on?

Whether or not to start a new business?

Whether to live by hunting in the woods and selling the meat?

When you retire?

Here's a friendly warning; you are not going to change any minds here. I sympathise with your point of view but most people (mainly americans) have it fused into their head that communism = Stalin, the USSR, Gulags, Leninism, and all that trash from the 20th century. That fact that Marx predicted the fall of the USSR, and that only the socialist road to classless society has been proven the wrong way, passes completely over their heads. McCarthyism is still a fresh corpse.

Marxism has proven to be a failed ideology... like some of the best political philosphers, Marx made up a brillient theory of social economic/political structure... and with it, made preditcions on what would occur.. most unfortunatly to the demise of the crediblity of his theory.. none of his predictions actually materialized(the destructive nature of Capitalism, the rise of massive Low class workers, the world wide rebellion .etc), and the idea of communism has largely subsided.. even the idea of social welfare is beginning to dwindle as economic pressure begins to squeeze the contrantive nature it has on a compeditive enviornment (essentially stunting economic growth).

Many Europeans on this forum critize the US for its lack of social policy and its capitalistic tendencies.. but they fail to realize, it is not the US's method who is on the way out.. but their social welfare states... Its clearly seen as France and Germany (as well as other European states) are now being pressured to privitize many of their social programs for their lack of efficency.

And its simple why communism is frowned upon... Because every example of communism has taken form in real life has lead to authoritarian rule and dictatorship (USSR, China, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam) The fundamentals behind Communism while intially enticing are evidently subserviant putting society above the individual to the point at which some times it is better to have individuals become expendable for the betterment of society.

...putting society above the individual to the point at which some times it is better to have individuals become expendable for the betterment of society.


Stop saying that! It's akin to walking around talking about how capitalism requires everybody to choose between wearing pink shoes and dead badgers on their feet. It doesn't make any sense or apply to what's being discussed.

"Boy, I wish that Christianity didn't ultimately require the sacrifice of babies to zombi Jesus, but that's the way it goes, sometimes!" There.

Well, there's the trick that invidiual FREEDOMs can readily be assumed to be at risk of falling in the presence of communism...

But that's why I asked those questions.

I want to know how the heck you can have freedom of choice with the 'everyone according to their need' approach. I want -more- than I need, and then, once I've made that, I want to only work as a hobby.

Stop saying that! It's akin to walking around talking about how capitalism requires everybody to choose between wearing pink shoes and dead badgers on their feet. It doesn't make any sense or apply to what's being discussed.


To be fair, a lot of so-called communists do sound like that.

badger badger badger badger badger badger pink shoe pink shoe?

Well, there's the trick that invidiual FREEDOMs can readily be assumed to be at risk of falling in the presence of communism...

But that's why I asked those questions.

I want to know how the heck you can have freedom of choice with the 'everyone according to their need' approach. I want -more- than I need, and then, once I've made that, I want to only work as a hobby.


Hm, what do you mean, "once I've made that"?

Once you've made your entire lifetime supply of food and discovered how to keep it fresh? Or are you just assuming that your comrades will keep coming around to your house to give you food? If you aren't providing according to your means, you're ignoring the first part of that famous maxim, and people are going to notice that you haven't done anything in six years.

I want to do extra work now, so I can do no work later.

You know, the whole 'ant' method.

Are you saying I won't be allowed to do that under communism?

Oh, I don't know about that. I'm sure it'll depend a lot upon the community you're in. Perhaps if it is sufficiently prosperous , and otherwise you may be expected to work on. I don't know, it's at once a little too vague and potentially a bit too specific for me to answer right now. Hopefully somebody else will have been paying more attention to the course of your conversation and will be more help...

I am off to answer another age old question.

Easy, relatively healthy, moderately tasty Weetabix; or less immediate, less healthy, more delicious bacon and egg fry-up...

So, there's no guarantee that I can choose when to retire based on my efforts?

Mmnkay. Strike one.

Will I get to choose my job based on my own merits?

Considering I want to be an editor/writer and all.

Also with that, will I be able to write about the joys of capitalism and how we should go back to that system so I can retire early?

Wait up, don't get carried away here. They're talking about raising retirement ages in many countries in the world right now, and I was just trying to convey my feeling that communism won't automatically and immediatelly wipe out all modern problems over night.

Of course you'll be able to write about whatever you want... who the heck is going to stop you? The Cheka/KGB? They were formed in no small part to crush communism, not at the behest of communists. You're more likely to be censored, arrested, or marked for death today because of controversial writings than you would be in a communist society. Of course, for writing that we should go back to the way things used to be some people might read in in light of other people who've had those ideas. Saloth Sar, for example.

I don't believe that day to day life would always appear dramatically reformed under communism, in a few fundamental senses. People would still be producing and consuming, after all. That's always the way... until we get to Star Trek or some such state of advancement.

(Oh, and I found crumpets. All the better!)

Stop saying that! It's akin to walking around talking about how capitalism requires everybody to choose between wearing pink shoes and dead badgers on their feet. It doesn't make any sense or apply to what's being discussed.

"Boy, I wish that Christianity didn't ultimately require the sacrifice of babies to zombi Jesus, but that's the way it goes, sometimes!" There.

In every real life situation in which Communism has taken root as the accepted political structure.. it has refocused soceity so that the society is above the individual.. this is simply indisputable with endless evidence from .. again the USSR, China, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam.. etc.... Im not talking about theory, becuase communist theory is almost moot... Most people still think of Marx though his ideas were disproven, and the subsiquent revisions have no basis in the real world

Modern problems?

In the US, I could retire very early in life, after starting out as a hobo, if I managed to work THAT hard.

It's not a problem -now-.

I'm trying to make sure that my questions, all of which are "Yes" in capitalism, aren't "No" in communism.

I had that nice list a page back...

In every real life situation in which Communism has taken root as the accepted political structure.. it has refocused soceity so that the society is above the individual.. this is simply indisputable with endless evidence from .. again the USSR, China, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam.. etc.... Im not talking about theory, becuase communist theory is almost moot... Most people still think of Marx though his ideas were disproven, and the subsiquent revisions have no basis in the real world

That's just not true, though. That's blatantly anti-communistic. People should hate that sort of thing. That's why people become communists. This is making my head itch.

That's just not true, though. That's blatantly anti-communistic. People should hate that sort of thing. That's why people become communists. This is making my head itch.

is it blatently anti-communist ? look at every communist state today and tell me the state has not been put above the individual.. no they are not marxist communists.. but then marx version of communism has been disproven as all of his predictions failed to materalize.

If the only communism is marxist communsim.. then communism as an idea is truely dead.. because marxist communism relyies on things which will never occur (as capitalism has proven to be far more flexible and adaptive then Marx ever imagined)

is it blatently anti-communist ? look at every communist state today and tell me the state has not been put above the individual.. no they are not marxist communists.. but then marx version of communism has been disproven as all of his predictions failed to materalize.

If the only communism is marxist communsim.. then communism as an idea is truely dead.. because marxist communism relyies on things which will never occur (as capitalism has proven to be far more flexible and adaptive then Marx ever imagined)

That's the reason why communism fails. It doesn't work with humans. It's a great theoretical idea, but can't be used IRL, thanks to... humans.

That's the reason why communism fails. It doesn't work with humans. It's a great theoretical idea, but can't be used IRL, thanks to... humans.

not true.. communism simply dosn't work because of the existance of Captialism.. communism was never suppose to exist in the presnece of another socio-economic system (as marx so predicated).. The fact that Capitalism is so flexible and adaptible.. is the reason that communism can't work. Communism might be very possible if the situation marx so described revealed itself.. beacue it would be a new world order, with no military, no governmental leaders persay..etc Communism was not meant to be a political or even governmental system.. it was adapted into one because a forced revolution was seen to be nessesary

So...

Communism requires colonizing Mars and starting fresh, with no trade with Earth, basically?

In answer to the threads original question, people hate communism because it's fun to make other people beat their heads against walls and desks and things, apparently.

I can only wonder what they'll say if they live long enough to see another communist society rise. Probably, "They nationalised Church property, so it's okay that we/somebody bombed them" I suppose.
I will say, "Hurrah!" and then I'll probably go back to being bored with my life and wondering at the point of it all, because that rather than greed or stupidity is the most acute human condition.

*just wants his questions answered already*

Why is communism hated?

The same reason anything else is hated.

It's different from what someone wants.

I, for instance, hate coconut.

I'm unaware of a single well-known thing in all of existance that isn't hated by SOMEONE.

There are a few points which people find hard to understand;

1. In Communism there is no state.
2. There have been sucessful Communist/Socialist societies, and would have suceeded if they weren't destroyed by CAPITALISTS who were AFRAID of them.
3. There are MANY ways of getting Communism, most have never been used, and therefore YOU CANNOT JUDGE OF EFFECTIVE THEY ARE.
4. If all attempts have it have failed, we shouldn't bother to try it again? Well, I'm trying to make an invention to get rid of all pollution, but my prototype didn't work, by that logic I should just give up! (I'm not really doing this, but you get the idea.)
5. The Individual is part of the community. Therefore, if Communism "puts the community above the individual," and the community's standard of living rises -- so does the individuals.
6. Socialism can only come from Capitalism. Russia before 1917 was not Capitalist. China and vietnam, and North Korea were not Capitalist. All of these states were qausi-feudalist, aristocratic, and had tiny Working Classes. Cuba was being run by American corporations when it had it's revolution. It's the only failure at Socialism, and it uses a form of Socialism which more resembles Capitalism than anything else.
7. Conditions Determine Counciousness. Saying that Human Nature is fixed is completely idiotic, less you never be able to do anything but your daily rutine.
8. "Human Nature" is not to exploit everyone for your own gain. It is not to be individualistic to the max. If it is, then why do we have friends, or get married, or put other people before ourselves?

I don't agree with point 2. Communism is an internationnal society. If there are still borders it is not communism, but local socialism.
Some people have talked here about corporations using communist concepts to please their employees and stuff. This is not communism. Even if the employees have a secure existance and don't have to sell them hourly and daily, they still have to sell themselves for life to their employer in order to have a secure existance. In a sense, they are slaves. But it will be communism when the workers have an existance secured at birth.

Anyway, I believe people hate communism because of national pride. Recognizing their country could fall to communism would be equal to loosing the cold war. National pride is something which is forced into the mind of children since birth. I believe it will become less and less relevant as communication is facilitated by technoligy development.

There are a few points which people find hard to understand;

1. In Communism there is no state.
2. There have been sucessful Communist/Socialist societies, and would have suceeded if they weren't destroyed by CAPITALISTS who were AFRAID of them.
3. There are MANY ways of getting Communism, most have never been used, and therefore YOU CANNOT JUDGE OF EFFECTIVE THEY ARE.
4. If all attempts have it have failed, we shouldn't bother to try it again? Well, I'm trying to make an invention to get rid of all pollution, but my prototype didn't work, by that logic I should just give up! (I'm not really doing this, but you get the idea.)
5. The Individual is part of the community. Therefore, if Communism "puts the community above the individual," and the community's standard of living rises -- so does the individuals.
6. Socialism can only come from Capitalism. Russia before 1917 was not Capitalist. China and vietnam, and North Korea were not Capitalist. All of these states were qausi-feudalist, aristocratic, and had tiny Working Classes. Cuba was being run by American corporations when it had it's revolution. It's the only failure at Socialism, and it uses a form of Socialism which more resembles Capitalism than anything else.
7. Conditions Determine Counciousness. Saying that Human Nature is fixed is completely idiotic, less you never be able to do anything but your daily rutine.
8. "Human Nature" is not to exploit everyone for your own gain. It is not to be individualistic to the max. If it is, then why do we have friends, or get married, or put other people before ourselves?
9. on the point of human nature: in communism, human nature is malleable. there is not 'one' nature to which we all conform from birth, or to which the species inherently must be. it can be argued that communism cannot work now because the 'human nature' of our current society is to be greedy, self-serving and possesive. either in time (through education - original socialist theories like Owen's) or through revolution (Marx) we can change this nature to one of altruism (Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism)). once people behave in this way, communism is a logical choice.

edit: ah sorry, i just expanded your #7. i should read things more carefully :p

plus, i agree with Psylos' last post :)

the revolution is not only unnstopabl, but its gong to hapn soon to. the clas wor wil soon defeet the opreshin of the kapitalist exploytashun.

Karl MArx was banned in the west for too long. Most people have read the bible 1000 times but have not read a single book about communism. They make assumptions based on what they have seen on TV.

Which is why I've had to read the Communist Manifesto no less than three times in high school/college? Not to mention about 50% of Das Kapital in college, also required reading. But not once had Adam Smith assigned. Yeah, Marx is totaly banned here in the US. lol

There are a few points which people find hard to understand;

1. In Communism there is no state. There may not be a "state" but simple logistics demand there be some sort of organization to arrange the distribution of goods and services, if only to prevent mass starvation in the cities (I've worked in logistics, it's terribly complex) and this would of neccesity be some manner of leadership group.

2. There have been sucessful Communist/Socialist societies, and would have suceeded if they weren't destroyed by CAPITALISTS who were AFRAID of them.

Can you please list them? Considering that most supporters of Communism only stop yelling "Communism has never been tried!" long enough to take another breath.

3. There are MANY ways of getting Communism, most have never been used, and therefore YOU CANNOT JUDGE OF EFFECTIVE THEY ARE.


Perhaps, but if Communism can make sweepign assumptions about the malleability of human nature and the structure of prehistoric society, can't we make reasoned predictions back? Or is that unfair?

4. If all attempts have it have failed, we shouldn't bother to try it again? Well, I'm trying to make an invention to get rid of all pollution, but my prototype didn't work, by that logic I should just give up! (I'm not really doing this, but you get the idea.)

That's not really a valid analogy. For example, I doubt your hypothetical prototype unleashes nightmarish human suffering every time it fails. One of the more chilliung posts I've seen in this thread was when someone dismissed the charge of 100 million deaths from "Communism" as being not that bad, merely one point something percent of the world population.

But more to your point, there is persistance and there is butting your head into a wall. Communism isn't possible with our current technology base.

5. The Individual is part of the community. Therefore, if Communism "puts the community above the individual," and the community's standard of living rises -- so does the individuals.

In theory. Communism works well in theory in Perfect Physics Land. The trouble starts when you encounter that pesky detail of reality.

6. Socialism can only come from Capitalism. Russia before 1917 was not Capitalist. China and vietnam, and North Korea were not Capitalist. All of these states were qausi-feudalist, aristocratic, and had tiny Working Classes. Cuba was being run by American corporations when it had it's revolution. It's the only failure at Socialism, and it uses a form of Socialism which more resembles Capitalism than anything else.

Is your "it" in the last sentence refering to Cuba? If you think it resembles Capitalism more than anything else you need to learn more than two types of economic or governmental system.

7. Conditions Determine Counciousness. Saying that Human Nature is fixed is completely idiotic, less you never be able to do anything but your daily rutine.

Human Nature is not the same as daily routine. Read history and look at how people behave over the years. Read Thucydides, his Greeks of 2,500 years ago behave in ways recognizable today. Sophocles still resonates with readers today. Heck, the Epic of Gilgamesh resonates once you learn a bit about the culture which produced it to aid your understanding. All this suggests that human nature is fixed, in the sense that people will behave within a certain range of actions. There are "good" people and "bad" people in every large population, and that isn't going to change. The conditions prevailing in 5th century BC Sparta were VERY different from those prevailing in early 21st century North America, yet I can identify with the Ephors, recognize personality traits I encounter today.

8. "Human Nature" is not to exploit everyone for your own gain. It is not to be individualistic to the max. If it is, then why do we have friends, or get married, or put other people before ourselves?

It is more nuanced than you suggest. People seek to maximize their own wellbeing. This is not, however, strictly economic, it also includes emotional and spiritual wellbeing. Thus, people form friendships. Man is a social animal, as Plato said (it's often mistranslated as "political animal" but the Greek polis refers to the society of a city-state, not "politics" as we understand the term). People have a drive to form human relationships, experiance love, have children. Not all people, but most. This is part of maximizing their own wellbeing.

There may not be a "state" but simple logistics demand there be some sort of organization to arrange the distribution of goods and services, if only to prevent mass starvation in the cities (I've worked in logistics, it's terribly complex) and this would of neccesity be some manner of leadership group.
Yes, it's called direct democracy.


Can you please list them? Considering that most supporters of Communism only stop yelling "Communism has never been tried!" long enough to take another breath.I suppose that depends on your definition of communism. Some people equate it with anarchism, and if so, then the list that was provided a while back in this thread applies (the Paris Commune, Spain in the '30s, Russia '17-'21, etc.)


That's not really a valid analogy. For example, I doubt your hypothetical prototype unleashes nightmarish human suffering every time it fails. One of the more chilliung posts I've seen in this thread was when someone dismissed the charge of 100 million deaths from "Communism" as being not that bad, merely one point something percent of the world population. Of course, you would have to believe that Communism was what was actually being intended, instead of people realizing that they could gain power by implementing a pseudo-communism.

Human Nature is not the same as daily routine. Read history and look at how people behave over the years. Read Thucydides, his Greeks of 2,500 years ago behave in ways recognizable today. Sophocles still resonates with readers today. Heck, the Epic of Gilgamesh resonates once you learn a bit about the culture which produced it to aid your understanding. All this suggests that human nature is fixed, in the sense that people will behave within a certain range of actions. There are "good" people and "bad" people in every large population, and that isn't going to change. The conditions prevailing in 5th century BC Sparta were VERY different from those prevailing in early 21st century North America, yet I can identify with the Ephors, recognize personality traits I encounter today.But the fact that there were rulers, and there were the ruled in all of those instances indicates that certain characteristics of human behavior would remain the same.

It is more nuanced than you suggest. People seek to maximize their own wellbeing. This is not, however, strictly economic, it also includes emotional and spiritual wellbeing. Thus, people form friendships. Man is a social animal, as Plato said (it's often mistranslated as "political animal" but the Greek polis refers to the society of a city-state, not "politics" as we understand the term). People have a drive to form human relationships, experiance love, have children. Not all people, but most. This is part of maximizing their own wellbeing.And, under communism a person's wellbeing would be maximized.

Is there direct democracy or is there no state? The post I was replying to said under communism there was no state.

Spain and Russia would seem poor examples, as both countries were involved in an active civil war during the time specified, whilst Paris was under siege by a foreign power.

The idea that certain characteristics of human behavior remain the same was my point. I was refuting the rather silly notion that there isn't such a thing as human nature.

You are entitled to beleive that communism would maximize wellbeing, but as it cannot be implemented due to a variety of fatal flaws, we'll never know will we?

Is there direct democracy or is there no state? The post I was replying to said under communism there was no state.

Spain and Russia would seem poor examples, as both countries were involved in an active civil war during the time specified, whilst Paris was under siege by a foreign power.

The idea that certain characteristics of human behavior remain the same was my point. I was refuting the rather silly notion that there isn't such a thing as human nature.

You are entitled to beleive that communism would maximize wellbeing, but as it cannot be implemented due to a variety of fatal flaws, we'll never know will we?
In direct democracy, there is no state.

Yes, which is why the true communism failed in those instances, they were crushed by outside forces.

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood your point. If you go back further in human history, you will come to a point during the hunter/gatherer period where humans lived collectively and shared resources. Yes, there were people of higher status, like a medicine man, but that makes sense. There's nothing in communism that says people can't have specialized knowledge.

But it has been implemented, and will be again.

In direct democracy there IS a state, just a very broad-based state.

I'm saying you can't really argue that there WAS true communism in those cases, as they didn't exist long enough to try it, or for the inherrant flaws to come to the fore. Besides, the communists WON the Russian civil war, so it was hardly crushed by the capitalists, unless you mean the same way the Nazi's crushed the Red Army in 1945.

Now you're getting into Marxist theory re: prehistoric societies. All that Rousseuian "noble savage" stuff. I simply don't buy it, based on what I've read.

In direct democracy there IS a state, just a very broad-based state.

I'm saying you can't really argue that there WAS true communism in those cases, as they didn't exist long enough to try it, or for the inherrant flaws to come to the fore. Besides, the communists WON the Russian civil war, so it was hardly crushed by the capitalists, unless you mean the same way the Nazi's crushed the Red Army in 1945.

Now you're getting into Marxist theory re: prehistoric societies. All that Rousseuian "noble savage" stuff. I simply don't buy it, based on what I've read.
I suppose you could look at it that way if you wish. It is my understanding that this would not be so, but I haven't seen a broad definition of what a state is in quite a while.

No, the Communists didn't win the Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks did. I can't say that the Bolsheviks were especially Capitalist, but they were essentially the same. (see "Animal Farm" by George Orwell.)

Do you have a source on prehistoric societies? I'm not necessarily asking for a web source, but a book perhaps that I could read that gives the conclusion you have?

Now you're getting into Marxist theory re: prehistoric societies. All that Rousseuian "noble savage" stuff. I simply don't buy it, based on what I've read.

I agree you can say that in prehistoric times there was no ownership of land and everyone was equal but taking a view of social Darwinism society "evolved" out of it. Take the Native Americans, there way of life certainly worked but it could not compete with the European methods and one day new methods will out compete them. It is easy to assume this is communism but to me any this seems like a step backwards. Communism could work but it could never out compete captialism because fundmentally capitalism is more preductive. I can see Marx's point of view tha capitalist society's will eventually fail but I can't see the and become communist link

I agree you can say that in prehistoric times there was no ownership of land and everyone was equal but taking a view of social Darwinism society "evolved" out of it. Take the Native Americans, there way of life certainly worked but it could not compete with the European methods and one day a new mwthods will out compete them. It is easy to assume this is communism but to me any this seems like a step backwards. Communism could work but it could never out compete captialism because fundmentally capitalism is more preductive. I can see Marx's point of view tha capitalist society's will eventually fail but I can't see the and become communist link
So drop the social Darwinist view. It couldn't compete with the European methods because the Europeans were far more savage and bloodthirsty. It's the equivalent of the Huns invading Eastern Europe, or the Vikings, etc. Were the Huns better because they won?

There are a few points which people find hard to understand;

1. In Communism there is no state.



All the world or nothing, right? What if there's a colony on Mars?



2. There have been sucessful Communist/Socialist societies, and would have suceeded if they weren't destroyed by CAPITALISTS who were AFRAID of them.


Capitalist states you mean?

And would you want capitalists starting a revolution in your communist state?



3. There are MANY ways of getting Communism, most have never been used, and therefore YOU CANNOT JUDGE OF EFFECTIVE THEY ARE.



So as far as you know, they all cause human extinction?



4. If all attempts have it have failed, we shouldn't bother to try it again? Well, I'm trying to make an invention to get rid of all pollution, but my prototype didn't work, by that logic I should just give up! (I'm not really doing this, but you get the idea.)



Yeah, but don't you have to kill or force everyone who disagrees with you to get your nice stateless situation?



5. The Individual is part of the community. Therefore, if Communism "puts the community above the individual," and the community's standard of living rises -- so does the individuals.


But what if someone doesn't want to be a communist?


6. Socialism can only come from Capitalism. Russia before 1917 was not Capitalist. China and vietnam, and North Korea were not Capitalist. All of these states were qausi-feudalist, aristocratic, and had tiny Working Classes. Cuba was being run by American corporations when it had it's revolution. It's the only failure at Socialism, and it uses a form of Socialism which more resembles Capitalism than anything else.


Actually the US has been socialist for quite awhile now... Socio-capitalist, at least.


7. Conditions Determine Counciousness. Saying that Human Nature is fixed is completely idiotic, less you never be able to do anything but your daily rutine.


Human nature is how people start off. Nurture molds it. You do know what nature is, yes?


8. "Human Nature" is not to exploit everyone for your own gain. It is not to be individualistic to the max. If it is, then why do we have friends, or get married, or put other people before ourselves?

Wow.

You've never taken a human evolution class, have you?

Take one.

Learn.

Friendship IS exploitation. It's just the good kind.

I suppose you could look at it that way if you wish. It is my understanding that this would not be so, but I haven't seen a broad definition of what a state is in quite a while.

No, the Communists didn't win the Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks did. I can't say that the Bolsheviks were especially Capitalist, but they were essentially the same. (see "Animal Farm" by George Orwell.)

Do you have a source on prehistoric societies? I'm not necessarily asking for a web source, but a book perhaps that I could read that gives the conclusion you have?

I wish I could help you, but it's been a year or two since I read any of them, and titles escape me. A lot of magazine articles and such too, like about the various tribes they find who are still at stone age tech and the like. I'll try to find some on my shelves for you. but in general the "noble savage" thesis which is the basis of the Marxian "proto-communist" stuff is generaly seen as at least mildly racist now.

Must disgree with your statement that Bolshies were "essentialy the same" as Capitalists. Certainly they would have disagreed violently with any such assertion.

Originally posted by Incenjucarania
Nearly all of them?

Do you get to decide where you live?

How many hours you want to work?

How much vacation time you have?

How big of a house you want?

Where you live?

How big your family is?

How much education you want?

What job you get?

What you spend your earnings on?

Whether or not to start a new business?

Whether to live by hunting in the woods and selling the meat?

When you retire?
Ideally, the individual actually gets to make those decisions himself/herself. The difference is, if the decision is based on what is best for the individual, then it is no longer communism. The individual makes what he/she thinks is the best decision for the community as a whole, because it is a philosophy that each individual has to selflessly buy into. That is actually a good example of why human greed prevents it from working. How often would you find any significant number of people that are willing to sacrifice what is best for them for what is best for the community. In all honesty, the very fact that you are worried about being able to answer those questions for yourself means that, whether you would or not, you would not be able to function within communism (which is not a rip at all, since I admit I wouldn't either) because it implies that you value your own right to do so. Those who truly buy into the idea of communism do not consider their own rights something to be gripped, but rather, something to be laid aside for the betterment of the whole community.

But what if someone doesn't want to be a communist?
In true communism, they would just coexist with them. They would not have to contribute to the community and the community would not contribute to them.

Also, why do we have friends or get married? Well, we have friends because we don't want to be alone. We get married because we want the love we give returned to us.

In the Christian community, it's also because they want sex. ;)

Why do we put others before ourselves? That rarely happens, and when it does, it often has another selfish ambition behind it.

Sound cynical? I am cynical of human nature and I sometimes think nurture makes it worse in many cases.

Too much effort to read through the whole thread... so all I have to say is...

GO COMMUNISM!

Ideally, the individual actually gets to make those decisions himself/herself. The difference is, if the decision is based on what is best for the individual, then it is no longer communism. The individual makes what he/she thinks is the best decision for the community as a whole, because it is a philosophy that each individual has to selflessly buy into. That is actually a good example of why human greed prevents it from working. How often would you find any significant number of people that are willing to sacrifice what is best for them for what is best for the community. In all honesty, the very fact that you are worried about being able to answer those questions for yourself means that, whether you would or not, you would not be able to function within communism (which is not a rip at all, since I admit I wouldn't either) because it implies that you value your own right to do so. Those who truly buy into the idea of communism do not consider their own rights something to be gripped, but rather, something to be laid aside for the betterment of the whole community.

Hope that helps.

Ah. So to be a communist you have to be absolutely selfless and have no personal desires.

So. Why exist again? For sex and hobbies?

I'm prompted to misquote James Madison:

"If men were angels, communism would be the only form of government on earth."

I.e. it doesn't work practically, or to cut down on unnecessary words, communism is not practical. Nor is socialism. Nor is capitalism. If we can achieve a sensible mix of the three, we'll have the ideal form of government.

I can hear you already: "in two words: im-possible!"

It's possible. For example, one could have a system by which people can make their own money and are allowed to rise and fall by their own merits, but at the same time are allowed to keep the money from the products they make instead of having to sign it over to the managers. In fact it could be split 50-50 between the workers and the manager. The only problem with this is that government tax rates will have to be very high.

Ah. So to be a communist you have to be absolutely selfless and have no personal desires.

i've always used the "oxygen mask" philosophy of life; when you're on an airplane and they explain the safety procedures, they always tell you that you should put on your own oxygen mask before trying to help anybody else. i believe that the best way i become a useful and beneficial presence in the world is to deal with myself and my needs before i try to fix anybody else's problems. some people say that's selfish, but those people tend to be less educated, less well employed, and less able to donate time and money to charity than i am :).


So. Why exist again? For sex and hobbies?
and videogames. don't forget the videogames. they're not a hobby, they're a way of life.

Ideally, the individual actually gets to make those decisions himself/herself. The difference is, if the decision is based on what is best for the individual, then it is no longer communism. The individual makes what he/she thinks is the best decision for the community as a whole, because it is a philosophy that each individual has to selflessly buy into. That is actually a good example of why human greed prevents it from working. How often would you find any significant number of people that are willing to sacrifice what is best for them for what is best for the community. In all honesty, the very fact that you are worried about being able to answer those questions for yourself means that, whether you would or not, you would not be able to function within communism (which is not a rip at all, since I admit I wouldn't either) because it implies that you value your own right to do so. Those who truly buy into the idea of communism do not consider their own rights something to be gripped, but rather, something to be laid aside for the betterment of the whole community.

. . .Come again?

You can justify communism perfectly well on either altruist or egoist grounds. Altruistly, you can justify it by saying that it's the one system where exploitation of the worker is impossible, and as exploitation is by definition unjust, communism is the most just system. Egoistically, you can justify it by saying that in communism, no one has the lawful right to unjustly take the product of my labor, thus it avoids a dichotomy between what is lawful and what is just, which benefits me.


In true communism, they would just coexist with them. They would not have to contribute to the community and the community would not contribute to them.

Basically true, although it depends on the kind of communism. Marx himself never exactly specified how such a system would work primarily because he didn't think there would be any hard and fast rule by which communist societies would organize themselves. What you are describing, anarcho-syndicalism, is one possibility that was developed later on.

]
Also, why do we have friends or get married? Well, we have friends because we don't want to be alone. We get married because we want the love we give returned to us.

In the Christian community, it's also because they want sex. ;)

Why do we put others before ourselves? That rarely happens, and when it does, it often has another selfish ambition behind it.

Sound cynical? I am cynical of human nature and I sometimes think nurture makes it worse in many cases.

Well, I definately don't share your pessimism about humanity, but again, it doesn't really matter. Egoists or altruists could live equally well under true communism.

Looking over this thread, I am flabbergasted by the number of people who wouldn't know real communism for a hole in the wall. 99% of the "critiques" on communism have been arguments against the Soviet Union. . .but I don't suppose it occurred to anyone that the Soviet Union might *gasp* not have been communist? Because that is what any scholar in communism, including Marx and Lenin and Trotsky would have told you and did tell you were you all paying attention. The Soviet Union, at least after Lenin's death and Trotsky's exile, was nothing more and nothing less than a feudalist kingdom that used communist lingo to keep the peasantry in line. Stalin was not a scholar, nor would he have known or cared to know anything about communism as a theory (Lenin's writing cite Stalin just once, and that was to say that he was a good stenographer. . .the man was just an f-ing secretary who took control), and he seized control of the means of production in Russia to do two things: first to build an industrial base capable of supporting an army to defend him (not Russia, him), and second to build a group of flunkies who were personally loyal to him (again, not Russia, him). So all your critiques on "communism" are nothing more and nothing less than a critique of feudalism and absolute monarchy. . .way to go, guys. You could have gotten the same point across by simply citing Locke's First Treatise on Government and being done with it.

Communism is a good thing IMO, it's just not my ideal form of government. If everyone shares everything, then in theory, there would be feuds over who gets to use what, and wars would break out. Also, life would get boring if everyone used the same items. Nah, I'm not quite sure but I would label myself an utopian socialist.

Communism is a good thing IMO, it's just not my ideal form of government. If everyone shares everything, then in theory, there would be feuds over who gets to use what, and wars would break out. Also, life would get boring if everyone used the same items. Nah, I'm not quite sure but I would label myself an utopian socialist.

That is a fairly common misconception. Marx never said that everyone would have everything equally. He said that everyone would have equal control over the means of production, and that the product of those means would be distributed on the basis of need. So no, not everyone in a communist society would have an electric wheelchair, but everyone would have equal control over the factory that produces electric wheelchairs, and everyone who needs an electric wheelchair would have one.

Egoistically, you can justify it by saying that in communism, no one has the lawful right to unjustly take the product of my labor, thus it avoids a dichotomy between what is lawful and what is just, which benefits me.


I can denounce communism by saying that no one has the lawful right to unjustly take the product of my labor.

Because under a capitalist system, nobody can unjustly take the product of your labor. You can voluntarily sell the product of your labor or you can keep it. Communists would rather it be taken and redistributed forcefully.

Communism says all people are equal and no matter what they do should be paid equally.

A wondeful sentiment excpt the human race is competative. Why be a shop clerk if you can be a writer? Why even try to be a writer if it wont get you anywhere better than being a shop clerk will?

Why strive for good grades in school? All your classmated getting D, E and F grades will end up earning the same as you.

Why do anything? The state will pay if you cant work.

Why live at all. Just curl up and die in some corner because if you show any tallent (as in the USSR) the state will take you away fron your family and friends (your only comfort), possibly feed you hormones and definatly make your life missery.

I believe you are pretty young. Keep educating yourself and try to have an keep open mind and one day you'll understand. For the moment you seem a little close minded but that will change. You understand communism as a simple concept but you don't really get it.
It is not as simple as you think it is. Communism is not the philosophy which says "everybody is equal, let's take the big cake and make equal shares and give one to everybody". It is much more sophisticated than that. Read some history. I advise you start by the communist manifesto.
It is a good thing that you involve yourself in politics anyway.

Comparing communism to capitalism is like comparing english students with astrophysicists. Capitalism "works" by benefitting a small minority at the expense of billions of others (ie the populations of 3rd world companies). Communism was never tried out in the first place. Anarcho syndicalism is the way foward. Its conditions are most favourable to technological development and a society in Israel, the Kibbutz I think it was called, was framed around this model and worked well for centuries. Capitalism should therefore be discarded and anarcho syndicalism should be introduced gradually on a worldwide basis as it is a superior system. Though this is unlikely to happen as the world is ruled by capitalists, the system itself is self perpetuating and exnominates itself to seem like natural law when it is not. Since when were genes selfish? I dont hate communism. Anarcho syndicalism is communism in its purest form.

Keep educating yourself and try to have an keep open mind and one day you'll understand. For the moment you seem a little close minded but that will change.


Your "high and mighty" attitude is really rather obnoxious. The idea that communism is some kind of ultimate, sophisticated truth and that not being a communist somehow makes you stupid is never going to win communism any support.

Comparing communism to capitalism is like comparing english students with astrophysicists. Capitalism "works" by benefitting a small minority at the expense of billions of others (ie the populations of 3rd world companies). Communism was never tried out in the first place. Anarcho syndicalism is the way foward. Its conditions are most favourable to technological development and a society in Israel, the Kibbutz I think it was called, was framed around this model and worked well for centuries. Capitalism should therefore be discarded and anarcho syndicalism should be introduced gradually on a worldwide basis as it is a superior system. Though this is unlikely to happen as the world is ruled by capitalists, the system itself is self perpetuating and exnominates itself to seem like natural law when it is not. Since when were genes selfish? I dont hate communism. Anarcho syndicalism is communism in its purest form.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0192860925/qid=1113051107/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-0702551-3460143 *coughcough*



That is a fairly common misconception. Marx never said that everyone would have everything equally. He said that everyone would have equal control over the means of production, and that the product of those means would be distributed on the basis of need. So no, not everyone in a communist society would have an electric wheelchair, but everyone would have equal control over the factory that produces electric wheelchairs, and everyone who needs an electric wheelchair would have one.

Which is exactly where one of the most glaring flaws comes in. What happens if 'everyone' decides people don't need electric wheelchairs, and so stop producing them? What if the components are in short supply, and the motivational units are more needed in robots to fight the Capitalist armies?

Your "high and mighty" attitude is really rather obnoxious. The idea that communism is some kind of ultimate, sophisticated truth and that not being a communist somehow makes you stupid is never going to win communism any support.
I can't educate everybody. They have to do their homework as well. Also I find it irritating to constantly read such things as "people are not equal therefore communism can't work because communism want to make everybody equal" and stuff like "communism killed billions" or "communists want to steal my car". Frankly the first time you explain, the second time you explain again, the third time you explain, but when it is like the hundredth time, you tell them to read the manifesto which contains a list of specific answers to all those questions.
Seriously I constantly read things which are literally and very explicitelly dismissed in the manifesto. The manifesto clearly explains how it is not utopian and how communists differenciate themselves from the utopian socialists and the manifesto even explicitelly make a critic of utopian socialists. Just read it for the sake of not looking uneducated and you will avoid obnoxious "high and mighty" attitudes.

[QUOTE=Unistate]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0192860925/qid=1113051107/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-0702551-3460143 *coughcough*[QUOTE]

Perhaps I need to elaborate on that. Im not disagreeing with the fact that genes behave in a "selfish" way. One thing I do know is that using one word to describe a process tends usually to oversimplify it in a reductionist manner so that particular groups in society latch onto this and use scientific theory to promote their ideological beliefs. This is what Im taking issue with, the way science is adopted into a framework of ideology. The Nazis did the exact same thing. They invoked eugenics to justify the slaughter of millions in the aim of preserving genetic purity.

but in general the "noble savage" thesis which is the basis of the Marxian "proto-communist" stuff is generaly seen as at least mildly racist now.

the term is actually 'primitive communism'. and the idea is far from dead, and is not based on the old noble savage. more like the ethnographic work among egalitarian foraging societies by people such as richard b. lee, nirut bird-david, and james woodburn, etc. lee in particular has favored the term as an accurate descriptor for many/most foraging societies. even in the introduction to the cambridge encyclopedia of hunters and gatherers, lee and richard daly mention that these societies are largely united by their egalitarianism, their system of generalized reciprocity, and their lack of private property in favor of some form of common or communal property. do you have a better word for that than 'primitive communism'?

So drop the social Darwinist view. It couldn't compete with the European methods because the Europeans were far more savage and bloodthirsty. It's the equivalent of the Huns invading Eastern Europe, or the Vikings, etc. Were the Huns better because they won?

YES