FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Communism ?





amirkpe
some people say that everywhere communism had established it brought all the bad things in the world for those countries,and they prove their words by countries like N.Korea , Cuba , Soviet Union.
do you think that if communism hasn't been working till now in these countries ,it's useless?
maclui
comunism is death finito. A system like that is against human nature and is mostly utopic and impossible to practice. Countries have tried really hard to make it work but is does not because is is not based in reality.
Gieter
Communists have a plan.

First, they take the power in a particular country. Then, they become dictators, in order to make the necessary changes, and then they are supposed to stop being dictators, and the government should disappear.

Unfortunately, all the communist countries stayed in the dictator-phase. So you can't really tell communism is bad because of those countries.

But I think communism won't ever work in real life, the ideals are beautiful, but, as maclui wrote, it is against human nature. Humans want to excell, they want to see reward for their hard work. And in a communist system, that is impossible.
gunnarr
Yeah, communism is a beautiful idealism that focuses on making humans equal. No one is better than anyone else. But it doesnt work. Still, there are many guidlines in communism that we can use to make things better. Semi-communism is good. Notice that in those so called communism countries is no real communism.
Gieter
gunnarr wrote:
Yeah, communism is a beautiful idealism that focuses on making humans equal. No one is better than anyone else. But it doesnt work. Still, there are many guidlines in communism that we can use to make things better. Semi-communism is good. Notice that in those so called communism countries is no real communism.


That's very true. But I prefer capitalism with a good system of social security, like here in Belgium. You have to pay a lot of taxes, but if you see what you get in return... it's awesome. Smile
elincinerador
communism failed because it puts everyone at the same level when actualy everyone is different. there are people who works more and some other who works less. it is not fair for those who work hard to have exactly the same as those who do not work. the matter of provate property is a necessity: i do have the right to own my things. i think that the best choice we got is capitalism but the system still has serious faults. i don't think is fair that some jobs worth unproportionaly more than others (thogh different values are fair). well, that's what i have to say.
rightclickscott
I think Communism could actually work if done right. The best system was one that involved something called the "Philosopher Kings," people who are very well learned and know what is best for all the people and their country. The idea is that people wouldn't elect these kings and that none of them would rise to power among any other, you know, people intent on making a utopia. People would be handpicked by previous kings, and the cycle would continue. When Dictators are given all the power and don't provide for their contry, making the entire government corrupt, only bad things can happen. That's why communism has failed in the past.
meet in rio
People are far too quick to champion democracy, in my opinion.

The thing about communism is that if it only works if everyone wants it to work - all it takes is one induvidual to abuse the system or doubt the ideal and everything goes to pot.

Therefore, I reject communism on the basis that it cannot govern a country in a peaceful way, but am accepting of the idea as an individual.

The best example of small-scale communism that I can think of is a kibbutz. I think that, for communism to truly work, people need to opt-in/opt-out rather than be forced into it, and for that you need a private island and a group of people who all adore each other.

Beautiful, but highly impractical.

As for dictatorship, I think it could be great with the right dictator, but there is no such human.
alkady
Communism actually worked (In the old days), It was about being equal. Communism still works, Its just who the communist is that the real question. North Korea, Most people run away from it because of food shortage and the harsh system. But the being equal part is the real party pooper. I'd personnally try to run away or kill myself if I lived under harsh communism.
AftershockVibe
The principle behind communism isn't quite just equality, that's a simplification. It's about doing what you're best at and letting others doing what they are best at for the good of society as a whole and then sharing the gained wealth between them.

Sadly, as people have said, this just doesn't work in practice because the vast majority of people have a tendency to be lazy and selfish and are rarely motivated by anything quite as much as personal gain.

Also, this might be better suited to the philosophy forum.
rightclickscott
meet in rio wrote:
As for dictatorship, I think it could be great with the right dictator, but there is no such human.


The Philosopher Kings were such people. The only reason it didn't last long was because it wasn't easy to pick out the best and the brightest of society in those days. In these modern times of standardized testing and the internet, it would be much easier to establish a Philosopher Kings system. The only problem is that even though we are smarter than the generations beforehand mentioned, there is still very little hope to find a Philosopher King, let alone a council of them, who can deal with the problems in society today.
Soulfire
In theory, Communism is the perfect system of government. Controlled prices, guaranteed jobs, and total equality. A previous poster hit it right on the nail. Communists are supposed to take over, make the changes, and then the people take control... and government disbands.

Most communist countries do not surrender the government to the people, and without that crucial turning point... communism fails. If we weren't the greedy, power-hungry people we are today... Communism might work.

Communism is more of a thought now, not an achievable form of government.
rightclickscott
I said I would leave this thread but...

People are naturally evil. Their natural instincts is the behavior that the public would consider "evil." With no form of government, there would be complete anarchy, and that was how Darwin came up with Natural Selection. Only the strong and the smart survive, and the uneducated would destroy us all. Government is our worst enemy, yet our most essential need.
Jack_Hammer
Socialism is the way forward, though comunism works theoretically but it doesn't because people are gready and selfish and basically inperfect, in a perfect world communism would be almost perfect.
alkady
Jack_Hammer wrote:
Socialism is the way forward, though comunism works theoretically but it doesn't because people are gready and selfish and basically inperfect, in a perfect world communism would be almost perfect.


That always make me wonder, How on earth can a person think he can create a perfect society?
the_mariska
No 'real' or 'perfect' (as you call it) communism ever existed and ever will exist, as the human nature is not perfect too. Some years ago I was quite interested in anarcho-communism, but nothing works as sobering as living in a post-communism country. If you still doubt whether communism is bad or not, please come to visit maybe not Poland, as it's too civilised, but White Russia, where the ex-communist dictator still governs or Northern Korea. Of course if they let you in - my friend's sister was arrested in White Russia a few days ago, because she went them to help preparing the revolution. If someone is still going to say that communism is good, I'll send him there personally :>

Sounds too pesimistic, so here comes a piece of good news: There used to be some comunes that worked, that everyone was really equal and they really had everything common - these were the early Christians communities, before Christianity became legal. Another good piece of news is that there still exist such communities that pattern them. Maybe not in living together and sharing everything, but in living the real love. For the last time I've been hanging out a bit with them, and I'm really amazed that it is possible to live that way Very Happy
Gieter
alkady wrote:
Communism actually worked (In the old days)


Erm, never heard of it. Smile Maybe I was sleeping in lessons history. The ideals and the meaning behind it were right (and are still right), but I don't think it ever was practiced right in real life.
Chris_Chaud
Communism is a failure. The government takes all the money and the people die of starvation, none of the citizens can live normaily. Half of your country would die of starvation, that's why the Soviet Union's communist government colapsed and they are now democratic!
alkady
Gieter wrote:
alkady wrote:
Communism actually worked (In the old days)


Erm, never heard of it. Smile Maybe I was sleeping in lessons history. The ideals and the meaning behind it were right (and are still right), but I don't think it ever was practiced right in real life.


What I was referring to is when Communist take power something had to go right? Peasants loved Communism because it was fair but then obviously started seeing the true colors of it.
Soulfire
There can never be anarchy. If one government falls, another rises to power, it's only a matter of time. Sure the period in between may be anarchy, but anarchy cannot fully exist and last for long periods of time.
alienjones
Dealing with society-matters I also read a book by Lenin. The communist idea really is a beautiful one. Not the ideology itself failed, regimes made it fail. Additionally I am quite convinced that communsim cannot exist in an isolated country, it could just work out globally.

Today the high-developed countries keep their standard by exploiting the poor. In opposite to communism, capitalism will destroy itself and our planet. In a globalising world we cannot go on like this forever. In the near future we will live to rue what we've done.

Both, communism and capitalism will fail at last.
Wyvern666
Communism is the impure form of marxism. If marxism was the ideal in russia the country would then improve it's commercial status. I believe Stalin was a great man and he was the greatest leader to ever bless this earth.

Long live Marxism, and Stalin!
Wyvern666
Nothing matters though as goverments will fall and anarchy will reign, a brave new world. After China attacks America WW3 will cause anarchy and then far in the futrure the whole world will be dictated until a time of peace erupts to create a golden age,
Gieter
Wyvern666 wrote:
Communism is the impure form of marxism. If marxism was the ideal in russia the country would then improve it's commercial status. I believe Stalin was a great man and he was the greatest leader to ever bless this earth.

Long live Marxism, and Stalin!


Do you know what you're saying? Have you learned in history about Stalin yet?

Stalin killed more people than Hitler. Stalin didn't followed Marx, he wasn't a marxist, but he had a doctrine called stalinism.

By example, Stalin was paranoid, and killed lots of his generals, because he was so paranoia. This of course was a problem in World War II.

He also invented the five-year-plans, and the politburo determined how much a certain company had to produce. This resulted in a lower quality of products. There was also famine under Stalin. In the years '30 of 19th century, he killed a lot of people. If you did something wrong, no matter how small, you were send to a goelag (a labour camp in Siberia.)

Was Staling the greatest leader to ever bless this earth? Don't think so.
munky1
Communism tears the economy apart because the people allow it to happen. If the people would resist they could fight through. Or die.
ExaminedLife
Socialism is a very strong and very coherent philosophy of government. Communism is a derivative of socialism, and unfortunately has developed into a twisted version thereof which, because of its failed attempts, becomes more and more doomed to failure with every attempt.

What quite a few people do not realize is that socialism and communism are NOT the same thing, and that socialists (I should say advocates of "pure" socialism) have received a great deal of flack in the United States, having "communist" and other supposedly derogatory terms attached to them because of the Cold War.

Perhaps socialism is a little idealistic. Perhaps it's a lot idealistic. But if we didn't have idealism, where would we be? Capitalism used to be an ideal that politicians and philosophers dreamed of, but never thought possible. It was not the norm, historically. And look where we are today. It was an ideal in its time, and now it is a reality (to an extent, anyway.) I think the same would be possible with socialism...given the right time, leaders, and people.
Gieter
I prefer a capitalistic system with social security, like here in Belgium. If you're sick, the government will pay back the costs of the treatment (most of it, but not for everything.) If you're unemployed, you'll get a minimum income. Pension, holidays money, accidents at work,.. the government also takes care for. The disadvantage of such a system: you have to pay more taxes. But I find it a better system than pure capitalism.
input
Well i dont think there is any ideal system as yet in place, every political thought has its advantages and dissadvantages. The west is the closest we have to a fair system, and even that is subject to opinion what with homelessnes and poverty still there. A micture is needed.
WIK123
Communism is a political alternative to democracy.
carlokes
Communist doutrines such as the one during and after the WWII, imo cannot be seen as appliable to our society nowadays...

Just like the world suffered a huge evolution (good or bad), I think that all the doutrines must also evolve and adapt their ideals to the societies we are living in.
LinktheMaster
Communism is one of those things that would work... in theory. However, political corruption and incompetence tends to ruin things like Communism. A government where everyone is equal and the government controls everything going into and out of house could possibly work. It's just people tend to not work as well if they get paid the same as they would if they worked extremely hard. Also, many political leaders in the Soviet Union actually wouldn't be treated the same as others. The leaders would get extra wealth and food, where as the citizens would be left starving. Confused

However, I do believe if people actually sat down and thought about a communist government, things would be different. If measures are taken to make sure that everyone is treated equally, as well as making sure it doesn't become a dictatorship, then a stable, long running communist country could very well happen. Wink

Now, whether or not Communism would work better than a Democracy is hard to say.
The Philosopher Princess
amirkpe wrote:
some people say that everywhere communism had established it brought all the bad things in the world for those countries,and they prove their words by countries like N.Korea , Cuba , Soviet Union.
do you think that if communism hasn't been working till now in these countries ,it's useless?

No, it is not “useless” because of that. It is “useless” because its principles dictate that it is bound to fail.
~~~~~~~~~~
Gieter wrote:
the ideals are beautiful

Its ideals are not beautiful. Communism means that the means of production are owned in common. Therefore, a human being does “own” the fruits of their own labor; instead, other people “own” your labor, and thus other people “own” you. This is not some metaphor. In communism, you do not have any control over yourself, and thus you are literally owned by other people. It is equivalent to being a slave.
~~~~~~~~~~
gunnarr wrote:
Yeah, communism is a beautiful idealism that focuses on making humans equal.

Maybe equally downtrodden, but that’s far from ideal.

“When I work, I don’t work for myself, I work for everyone else, thus I lose my self-esteem and any reason to work anymore. And the same happens to you. Therefore, we equally are caused to lose any semblance of humanity. We’re all slaves to the mob.”

Who logically wants that kind of equality?
~~~~~~~~~~
rightclickscott wrote:
I think Communism could actually work if done right.

It will only work in the sense of bringing everyone down. But eventually, downtrodden people will rebel, thus overthrowing the system, itself.
~~~~~~~~~~
Soulfire wrote:
In theory, Communism is the perfect system of government.

No, it is in theory that we know how imperfect it is. To understand this better, one must study the science of economics. ”Economics is too boring!” some people might exclaim. Okay, fine, but don’t go around thinking you understand how Communism works if you aren’t willing to understand its fundamentals. Some people agree with me.

On Jun 21, 2006, economist and columnist Walter E. Williams wrote:
Karl Marx is the hero of some labor union leaders and civil rights organizations, including those who organized the recent protest against proposed immigration legislation. It's easy to be a Marxist if you haven't read his writings. Most people agree that Marx's predictions about capitalism turned out to be dead wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~
“What parts of Capitalism don’t work?”, you might ask. The parts that mimic Communism. When people champion Democracy, they are advocating the bad parts of Communism; they are supporting everyone giving up their humanity by letting other people control your life. When the Mob gets to Vote on how you live your life, you are owned by them -- not figuratively, but literally. You are no longer an upstanding human being, but a slave to the Mob.

No person with self-esteem would give up their humanity willingly. So, ask yourself, Do you have self-esteem? Do you want to be a human being, or just a shell of a human being, slave?
Bannik
Chris_Chaud wrote:
Communism is a failure. The government takes all the money and the people die of starvation, none of the citizens can live normaily. Half of your country would die of starvation, that's why the Soviet Union's communist government colapsed and they are now democratic!


yes thats right look how well ex soviet states are doing.....1 is high on crime and rape and drugs and another cant figure out who they want to lead them and the rest all flood into europe for jobs....... yes Democracy really help itself
...

oh and on the topic, communism can work, it has done so in cuba N.Korea and China.....its still a harsh system but its not because communism does it its because of the nation.....

an example

those who know the Iron Curtain answer me this - was it communism that introduced it or the Soviet Union?
Vrythramax
Gieter wrote:
Wyvern666 wrote:
Communism is the impure form of marxism. If marxism was the ideal in russia the country would then improve it's commercial status. I believe Stalin was a great man and he was the greatest leader to ever bless this earth.

Long live Marxism, and Stalin!


Do you know what you're saying? Have you learned in history about Stalin yet?

Stalin killed more people than Hitler. Stalin didn't followed Marx, he wasn't a marxist, but he had a doctrine called stalinism.

By example, Stalin was paranoid, and killed lots of his generals, because he was so paranoia. This of course was a problem in World War II.

He also invented the five-year-plans, and the politburo determined how much a certain company had to produce. This resulted in a lower quality of products. There was also famine under Stalin. In the years '30 of 19th century, he killed a lot of people. If you did something wrong, no matter how small, you were send to a goelag (a labour camp in Siberia.)

Was Staling the greatest leader to ever bless this earth? Don't think so.


To support this post, Stalin also had the "purges" where he had an entire third of his officers corps (military) killed, all out of paranoia. In sheer numbers he did, or was responsible for more deaths than Hitler.....but since it was in his own country and his own people he was killing....the world didn't care. Any leader in this day and age that acted as he did wouldn't be alive very long.

Stalin was more than likley the worst example for communism....correct me if I am wrong here (please), but didn't also plan the murder of his mentor (Lenin)?

Since the topic was bumped, I thought would throw my 2 cents worth in.
PatTheGreat42
There's no such thing as communism in the world. There's dictatorships with rhetoric that focuses on socialist values.

Alas, communism never seems to work out so well.
Drawingguy
First of all, I'd just like to say something about the criticism of the five-year plans by Stalin. Did they result in inferior goods? I agree with you, they did. You didn't mention that Russia desperately needed to industrialize, faced with the growing Western industrial threat. The five-year plans, while they had their disadvantages, were necessary for Russia to modernize, and survive (by which I mean retain power, and not be conquered).

Back to the communism debate. I disagree with the opinions which claim the idealogy to be 'perfect,' and only ruined by corrupt leaders and poor regimes. While communism does have its good points, such as the emphasis on the protection of the entire community, and with everyone working to their strengths, it lacks a strong worker initiative. Look at serfdom- a major problem was the lack of innovation. If we look at history, therefore, it's visible that when people do not directly get a reward, they cease to do something. Communism was like serfdom in that respect, in that motivation in the workers was strained later on. I know that the USSR did make huge advances in sciences, at the very least on par with the US at the time, but cultural attitudes and worker mindsets grew resentful in later years.
Nameless
Communism is the perfect system. It takes from everybody only what they can produce, and gives to everybody what they need. Everybody is equal in power and gains.

But, the problem isn't the system. It's the people using the system. Individuals may be intelligent, but humans as a whole are selfish, lazy and unwise. Individuals will exploit the system for their own gain, but because of the sheer number of people doing so everybody will end up with less gain, even the wise who do the right thing. This is the reason communism can not work. Not the concept of communism itself, but the people who would use it.
{name here}
WIK123 wrote:
Communism is a political alternative to democracy.

Democracy is a form of government. Communism is a form of economy. Both can coexist with eachother as demonstrated by Stalin's puppet governments. However, because they were puppet governments, they weren't really democracies.

Anarcho-Communism itself is a good system, but it's too idealistic. People are too twisted to be able to handle it - people will not work because the expect a reward in return for their work, and so the system can never work because people will never work due to the apparent lack of reward. Capitalism has its flaws, but I don't see any other economic system that works so well with human nature.
insolent1
Only communism or only capitalism causes losing of democracy,

There must be mixed system. And this system must also fall into step with alteration. Only communism refuses something which are important but it is related to capitalism, or only capitalism refuses something which are important but it is based on communism. Because of stable system, important steps couldnt be realized.
catscratches
The idea of communism is good, that everyone should be equal. But the problem is that this is impossible. It doesn't work. It's not realistic, just dreams. You need to keep it at a realistic level.

It doesn't work with the ideas they have. In Sweden we have a pretty popular party named "Vänsterpartiet" (the left party). They are communists (but not extreme communists) They want to not have grades or homework or anything like that. But would that really work? What would you learn? Cause at least I make my homework just for the grade's sake.

Folkpartiet FTW!
Agent ME
Communism couldn't work, at least not nicely for many people.

1.
The natural instinct of many is to work or find other ways to get above other people, get recognition, or become unique in some way.
In capitalism, someone could work harder at their job, get a promotion, get more money, and use the money to make a name for their self or on other things. Or they could build a new industry or business; they could build a restaurant or sell software, and get more money from that.
But in communism, if everyone is given the same despite what they put in, what's the point of working to get a promotion? You get more work, but you don't get more money, and you don't get elevated in society.

2.
Competition - if the government owns and controls everything and every business, then there's no industry competition except possibly to other countries, but in many cases they try to shut that out.
Imagine how the computer industry would be today without competition between Microsoft, Apple, and everyone else? We'd be lucky if we had mice and graphic interfaces.
skygaia
I'm from Korea. As you know, Korea has been divided two countries since World War 2. And there was a war between south and north korea in 1950. it had been for 3 years. and number of millions people died. And now over 10 million pople in south korea are missing theri family in north korea.
It's very very difficult to contact with each others. Actually it's almost impossible. Many of them just want to know wether their family in north korea are still alive or not. they just want to send and get a mail...
But those are still impossible.
As you know North Korea is in communism. I think North Korea is the most closed country in the world. it's very difficult to go there and contact someon there.
And many of south koreans have experience of the war and learning the war from their parents and teachers. So many of old people don't like communism. Exactly they hate it.
ReubenWilliams
alienjones wrote:
Dealing with society-matters I also read a book by Lenin. The communist idea really is a beautiful one. Not the ideology itself failed, regimes made it fail. Additionally I am quite convinced that communsim cannot exist in an isolated country, it could just work out globally.

Today the high-developed countries keep their standard by exploiting the poor. In opposite to communism, capitalism will destroy itself and our planet. In a globalising world we cannot go on like this forever. In the near future we will live to rue what we've done.

Both, communism and capitalism will fail at last.


I think this guy comes close to capturing how I feel on this subject. I think communism is closer to a system whereby we are social animnals interacting with eachother but where the resources belong to everybody not just some. And this is the real problem because its not that people are unequal its more like the rich people know that their wealth gives them advantages, and without their material objects they would not be so priveledged or powerfull instead being reduced to the level of ordinary humamn beings with only their natural resources which are probably atrphied from relying on the power of money.

To take Russia as an example is unfair because of how threatened the welathy USA government felt and how aggresively they worked to overthrow EVERY country who have tried to have a communist government. Read Chomsky for an insight into how totally the USa have opposed even democrativcally elected Communist leaders worldwide.

As for it not working it is only thanks to the communist inclined leaders in places like Argentina that the oppresive world bank loan repayments have been shaken and a new economy has been made possible. And what exactly made Ghandi's revolution work if not the "communal" ethos behind communism?>?
Vladalf
In Romania there was communism since 1944-1947 till 1989. Romania was a good country till the communist pary came. Communists and their allied parties claimed 90% of the vote, through a combination of vote manipulation, elimination and forced mergers of competing parties, establishing themselves as the dominant force.
Romania in the communist time was prosperous. There were many good things: the tourism was very developed, the athletes were very good, the economy was going well also. But people were not allowed to go to church often, they were not allowed to go in other countries. All who tried to escape Romania were shot.
The communism destroyed Romania and now Romania is a bad country because of corruption.
justnewbie
Soulfire wrote:
In theory, Communism is the perfect system of government. Controlled prices, guaranteed jobs, and total equality. A previous poster hit it right on the nail. Communists are supposed to take over, make the changes, and then the people take control... and government disbands.

Most communist countries do not surrender the government to the people, and without that crucial turning point... communism fails. If we weren't the greedy, power-hungry people we are today... Communism might work.

Communism is more of a thought now, not an achievable form of government.


Hmm..it should be all communist countries did not surrender their government to the people. I ever doubt the difference of marxism and communism.
Futile
Several people have hit upon it in several different ways communism is an ideology. Communism, as Karl Marx wrote it in the Communist Manifesto is the perfect form of government. The Communism that we know today is based off Lenin’s modification of Marx’s original document. There are no true Communist governments in the real world today. China, North Korea, “White Russia” are really Totalitarian regimes. The Totalitarian and Communistic governments are often confused because they both seek a “classless” society. The difference is once the classless society is established in “true” communism; the government is actually run by the people and their elected councils. In a totalitarian government the state involves itself in all facets of society, including the daily life of its citizens. A totalitarian government seeks to control not only all economic and political matters but the attitudes, values, and beliefs of its population, erasing the distinction between state and society. As stated several times before this post communism in it original form is the “perfect” form of government. But since none of us live in a “perfect” world the ideology of communism is just that an idea. My two cents
XxeroxX
communism is hard topic to discuss. i mean, i agree with the person who said tha tcommunism is just a different form of government and that the government should ask what the people wan and then choose which type of governmetn to run. in the US, people are fine with democracy, so let them be. In Europe, people are fine with the Republic, so let them be. In Russia, people like communism. and thus, let them be as well. when you try to force change a type of government and cause a revolution, it wont work. Example: after WWI, germany set up a democratic gov: teh Weimar. it SUKED. lol i mean it fell appart in a few months. so...moral is: communism, democracy...all sorts of government types...just let them be waht the people watn them to be (still democracy Smile)

-XX
windrei
communism is the best way for a country i think, if it can work perfectly that everyone is not selfish, can give out all s/he has and share with the others..

but everyone is selfish, so it's not workable. S.U. was already a history, it proves that communism is not workable. What i mean is, the idea is perfect, but not practical. Even our country China, it's a communist country. But after the opening policy, capitalism is immersed in it.... that's why China can grow up now....
alexdude
communism is the best thing that could happen to a country. Sure, it sounds bad for us, and that is only because we know what communism compared to our society is like. If you were born into a communist country, you wouldn't know what any other place would be like because they block the outside world from you.
Wenlow
Most of the discussion seems to be talking about different things labled 'communism' - the old Soviet model, Marx's writings, modifed capitalism, etc. But until you define what you are talking about you are wasting your time.

One thought I would like to add though is the idea of 'socialisation'. By this I mean that any different system of society only evolves slowly or people cannot accept it. We accept capitalism now as the buying and selling of everything and anything for money. But think about people even 100 years ago, let alone 500 or 1,000. If you tried to put them into such a system what would happen? Again not so long ago people believed the owning of other human beings to be 'natural'.

The point is that if communism means people sharing and believing that no one should have too much compared to others - to take a very basic definition. Then this is something that human beings would need to gradually become 'socialised' into accepting. Modern people socialised with capitalist thinking will simply respond - 'But I want more!!'

Perhaps we need to grow up before communism is possible.
justnewbie
Well.. a classless society, seems like an utopia to me..not just me..to everybody I would say. What's that doesn't work is the dictatorship as the first step to communism, and it is also the first step that fails the whole communism ideology. Why the hell should be any differentation of nations? Communism, capitalism, republic, democracy or whatsoever. There should be this one thing that should make the whole mankind unite as one.. I guess.. an outer gigantic, massive threat I guess...

Hmm..only threats like armageddon, comets falling towards Earth or something like the end of the world that will make mankind unite, automatically shaping society into a classless one. It makes everyone has only one mission, one objective; to help humanity survive.. without taking care of the skin color or what language they speak..I know this idea would be crazy but..a worldwide virus pandemic would make this work I guess...

Hehe,kinda out of topic..it's just all about creating a classless society
jharsika
The only reason communism doesn't work is because of human error, stupidity, or greed. It can work, for example like in a commune, a convent, and other places where a group of religious followers like monks live together and support each other.

PS Cuba isn't communist...it's a dictatorship.
PPS Most North Americans and Europeans hate communism because it was given a bad name through propaganda. There's nothing really wrong with the system itself, only the people that used it.
Bannik
Hey everyone it’s an old topic but I want to add something to it.

A lot of people have been posting a lot of negative faux facts about communism that needs to be cleared up.

Firstly lets be clear communism like any other government is prone to errors of its leaders, if the soviet union committed dictatorship acts it does not mean that communism wants the mass murder of Ukrainians its simply the leaders fault, look at America right as an example.

Lets start by clearing some of F-facts in this topic.

LinktheMaster wrote:
Communism is one of those things that would work... in theory. However, political corruption and incompetence tends to ruin things like Communism. A government where everyone is equal and the government controls everything going into and out of house could possibly work. It's just people tend to not work as well if they get paid the same as they would if they worked extremely hard. Also, many political leaders in the Soviet Union actually wouldn't be treated the same as others. The leaders would get extra wealth and food, where as the citizens would be left starving. Confused

However, I do believe if people actually sat down and thought about a communist government, things would be different. If measures are taken to make sure that everyone is treated equally, as well as making sure it doesn't become a dictatorship, then a stable, long running communist country could very well happen. Wink

Now, whether or not Communism would work better than a Democracy is hard to say.


That is false communism never dictated that everyone is going to be equal but everyone will have an equal opportunity.
i.e whether you are poor or rich you can still be a neurosurgeon.

"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.” Karl marx

that may sound bad since it’s the government controlling the resources but if the government does it right doesn’t it sound great to have the ability to do and work anywhere you want???



Drawingguy wrote:


Back to the communism debate. I disagree with the opinions which claim the idealogy to be 'perfect,' and only ruined by corrupt leaders and poor regimes. While communism does have its good points, such as the emphasis on the protection of the entire community, and with everyone working to their strengths, it lacks a strong worker initiative. Look at serfdom- a major problem was the lack of innovation. If we look at history, therefore, it's visible that when people do not directly get a reward, they cease to do something. Communism was like serfdom in that respect, in that motivation in the workers was strained later on. I know that the USSR did make huge advances in sciences, at the very least on par with the US at the time, but cultural attitudes and worker mindsets grew resentful in later years.


I don’t see how they don’t have any rewards, its not like they wont say “well done and thank you” its not like they wont give them an amazing job position, its not like they wont have fame.
Remember equal opportunity not equal pay.

Agent ME wrote:
Communism couldn't work, at least not nicely for many people.

1.
The natural instinct of many is to work or find other ways to get above other people, get recognition, or become unique in some way.
In capitalism, someone could work harder at their job, get a promotion, get more money, and use the money to make a name for their self or on other things. Or they could build a new industry or business; they could build a restaurant or sell software, and get more money from that.
But in communism, if everyone is given the same despite what they put in, what's the point of working to get a promotion? You get more work, but you don't get more money, and you don't get elevated in society.

2.
Competition - if the government owns and controls everything and every business, then there's no industry competition except possibly to other countries, but in many cases they try to shut that out.
Imagine how the computer industry would be today without competition between Microsoft, Apple, and everyone else? We'd be lucky if we had mice and graphic interfaces.


1- like I said equal opportunity not equal pay, obviously if I have a better store I will prosper more, it’s a way of life but in capitalism only a few will ever be rich, only a few can go to Harvard or oxford only a few will ever drive a buggati veyron in communism you are giver an equal opportunity to be rich just like any other person.
2- So basically you enjoy the fact that every year a new pc game comes out with better amazing graphics and better operating system with all the amazing graphics but at the same time making your old pc obsolete and worthless? Yes I can see your point but competition only works so far, look at Microsoft, can you really say it has any competition whatsoever having most of the computer industry under its control. Ps communism is like Linux its free and made by the people for the people and look at Linux is it really that bad? Plus its made by people who don’t even get paid, heck bill gates said Linux is the future.

Do people think that communist did not see how a leader has more money or that a someone may drive a better car, its not like they don’t understand the concept of hypocrisy the thing is in communism if you did not have a better car it was not someone else’s fault but you own so you cant complain “oh he is richer then me, oh he has more contacts” etc.




That’s its for now
karysky
I think there is communism in other countries than the official communism ones.

Where I live, in Québec, it's near communism, we're extreme socialists.

The difference between us and the communism countries is that in those countries, people receive 50$ per day for their salary, when they should be earning 100$. The remaning half remains within the government, who decides what to do with it.

Here, we receive 100$ a day.... but we have to give back 50$ at the end of the year because of the imposition.

So, all in all... what's the difference ?
James_Hicks
I fully support the theory of Communism. I wish the world could effectively use the great ideals of Communism without the corruption that seems to follow it. Of course, corruption is in all types of government, especially capitalism. I could settle for Socialism. At least that is proven to work and the community has a say so in what is being dealt to them.
nilsmo
One funny thing... Some might say that a tenant of communism is that "all people are equal." However, this statements is not true and would cause problems if one considers it as being true. (Of course, I am probably misrepresenting communism here)
KronikSindrome
comunism is alive and kickin in the US...

three letters: D M V

they make you stand in a line that stretches longer
than Disney's line to ride splash mountain - they treat you like you
aren't worth the time they spend to wipe their butts - then they charge
you about as much as a parking ticket to get some piece of paper work/
and or/ a flimsy plastic card with yer picture on it -- which my state has
made suppperrr flimsy so it bends and breaks easily, ensuiring you will
return soon for a new one even when it won't expire for another year or
two ---- PPSSHHH! oh, wait - did I say the DMV is comunist? i meant to
say that the D.M.V is ran by NAZIS! Exclamation
Bannik
nilsmo wrote:
One funny thing... Some might say that a tenant of communism is that "all people are equal." However, this statements is not true and would cause problems if one considers it as being true. (Of course, I am probably misrepresenting communism here)


Firstly you need too define equal

humans are equal if you look at the bare bones of things as humans YOU are not better then ME

sure you can be richer, healthier, smarter etc and you could be considered better but as humans you are equal.

and another thing communism never preached EQUAL everything the proper communism i.e on paper preached EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES AND TREATMENT i.e me you and everyone else has the opportunity too study the same material, learn from the same schools and get the same career....
vineeth
Communism, as it is, is a great political view but it fails in its practice because it tried to bring equality by bringing down those who are on the high place rather raising those who are on the lower planes. This causes an overall degradation of the society. The result - A group of stupids with equal rights, equal thoughts and equal pockets!
Gonzalo
All forms of driving a country lead to the point where human imperfections pollute social concerning ideas & actions.
Libby
Communism is awesome. "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs", right? It just makes sense. And people follow that all the time, when taking care of kids or parents or helping people who are sick. You're friend has a cold, you take them some soup. It doesn't matter that they can't pay you back, you have the ability to give them some soup and they have a need for it. It's a part of human nature that we all need things and that giving makes us happy. What is sad and unnatural is capitalism, which produces a world where so many people don't have the resources to provide for themselves or others... It makes us selfish because we have to work so hard to scrape by, that we have no energy for anyone else... :'(

Yes, Russia and China failed. That's because they were tried to combine something very good -- communism -- with something very evil -- the state. Whereas most places stick with evil + evil (government + capitalism).

I hope and work for a stateless communism -- anarchy! Very Happy
Hogwarts
Bannik wrote:
that may sound bad since it’s the government controlling the resources but if the government does it right doesn’t it sound great to have the ability to do and work anywhere you want???


That's like saying if the temperature is right in Hell then we can all kip down there and have a joyful ice-skating party.

Sounds wonderfully fun, and then you get down there and spend the rest of eternity suffering.

(disclaimer: No, I am not religious. I am merely using the concept of hell as an example)
supernova1987a
perfect society is not communist. perfect society is democratic. enjoying all the rights and all the freedom given by god at birth. communis-m is just a lie, a great lie. Shocked
supernova1987a
jharsika wrote:
The only reason communism doesn't work is because of human error, stupidity, or greed. It can work, for example like in a commune, a convent, and other places where a group of religious followers like monks live together and support each other.

PS Cuba isn't communist...it's a dictatorship.
PPS Most North Americans and Europeans hate communism because it was given a bad name through propaganda. There's nothing really wrong with the system itself, only the people that used it.



lets name communists 'communists', and religious people 'religious'. communism, is just a great lie told to the naive people. we gotta do a little more research.

these atheists are destroying all religions too. so dont get stuck to this lie. there's only one way to be more humane, follow god. seek the truth.
orellanco
well, if it has been working all this time it must not be useless
since it makes other countries seek for better technologies and better ways to protect their citizens agains attacts like the one in new york, i think it works i a way that makes other contries become rivals in develpment of new sources in order to keep peace within there own people Sad
mikakiev
amirkpe wrote:
some people say that everywhere communism had established it brought all the bad things in the world for those countries,and they prove their words by countries like N.Korea , Cuba , Soviet Union.
do you think that if communism hasn't been working till now in these countries ,it's useless?

Communism sucks.How can everyone has a lot everything they want and pay nothing for this.What a stupid idea.Everyone can be equal only in prison and have food and cloth for free. Smile
LostOverThere
WIK123 wrote:
Communism is a political alternative to democracy.


No it isn't, and your complete lack of evidence suggests otherwise as well.

Unfortunately, in today's times when people think of Communism they think of North Korea, China, and the Soviet Union. This is not Pure Communism. The thing China, North Korea and people like Stalin had in common was Authoritarianism. Pure Communism provides a left winged economic view combined with very left winged social view (libertarianism). Countries such as North Korea, China, etc. get the economic part right but run under an Authoritarian social perspective.

Authoritarianism can be defined as:
Wikipedia wrote:
• No guarantee of civil liberties or tolerance for meaningful opposition;[1]
• Weakening of civil society: "No freedom to create a broad range of groups, organizations, and political parties to compete for power or question the decisions of rulers," with instead an "attempt to impose controls on virtually all elements of society";[1] and
• Political stability maintained by "control over and support of the military to provide security to the system and control of society; 2) a pervasive bureaucracy staffed by the regime; 3) control of internal opposition and dissent; 4) creation of allegiance through various means of socialization."


Personally, I feel that Authoritarianism has ruined people's perception of Communism. A perception which I don't feel will change for a long time.
LostOverThere
WIK123 wrote:
Communism is a political alternative to democracy.


No it isn't, and your complete lack of evidence suggests otherwise as well.

Unfortunately, in today's times when people think of Communism they think of North Korea, China, and the Soviet Union. This is not Pure Communism. The thing China, North Korea and people like Stalin had in common was Authoritarianism. Pure Communism provides a left winged economic view combined with very left winged social view (libertarianism). Countries such as North Korea, China, etc. get the economic part right but run under an Authoritarian social perspective.

Authoritarianism can be defined as:
Wikipedia wrote:
• No guarantee of civil liberties or tolerance for meaningful opposition;[1]
• Weakening of civil society: "No freedom to create a broad range of groups, organizations, and political parties to compete for power or question the decisions of rulers," with instead an "attempt to impose controls on virtually all elements of society";[1] and
• Political stability maintained by "control over and support of the military to provide security to the system and control of society; 2) a pervasive bureaucracy staffed by the regime; 3) control of internal opposition and dissent; 4) creation of allegiance through various means of socialization."


Personally, I feel that Authoritarianism has ruined people's perception of Communism. A perception which I don't feel will change for a long time.
friuser
Noone really cares except for the brainwashed or worst ignorant. Every political system is flawed in that it will always be ruled by the few. No matter what philosophical or implementation it is, once the ruling majority is corrupt or it just takes a few violent ones to cause a problem. The society is in trouble. Just look at america. Communism is no worst or better than democracy.
gerimter
cominizm bad ideoloji.
snowynight
WIK123 wrote:
Communism is a political alternative to democracy.


Well first, I don't think you know much about communism, but HEARD about something or some one who CALLED itself communist.

Second, the slogan of communism is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need ". The phrase summarizes the principles that, under a communist system, every person should contribute to society to the best of their ability and consume from society in proportion to their needs, regardless of how much they have contributed. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist society will produce; the idea is that there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.

This slogan itself pictured a beautiful panorama in which no one is evil in morality and no one should have to suffer. This itself is good.

third, this goal is hard to achieve. Since many people in this world is evil, selfish, and sometimes aggressive. In thousands or tens of thousands of years, I think this will be realised.

fourth, the realization of communism will be carried out first in an economically best developed capitalist country, or socialist country. Socialism doesnot necessarily lead to communism.

Last, a world without wars, conflicts, hatred and suffering will be ideal.
deanhills
Libby wrote:
Communism is awesome. "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs", right? It just makes sense. And people follow that all the time, when taking care of kids or parents or helping people who are sick. You're friend has a cold, you take them some soup. It doesn't matter that they can't pay you back, you have the ability to give them some soup and they have a need for it. It's a part of human nature that we all need things and that giving makes us happy. What is sad and unnatural is capitalism, which produces a world where so many people don't have the resources to provide for themselves or others... It makes us selfish because we have to work so hard to scrape by, that we have no energy for anyone else... :'(

Yes, Russia and China failed. That's because they were tried to combine something very good -- communism -- with something very evil -- the state. Whereas most places stick with evil + evil (government + capitalism).

I hope and work for a stateless communism -- anarchy! Very Happy


Stateless communism! Anarchy! Awesome. I loved the posting.

At the same time something went through my mind last night. If the Government is going to get into the business of buying banks, or controlling them, do you think this could be the beginning of socialism? Ownership by the state of private enterprise?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:


Stateless communism! Anarchy! Awesome. I loved the posting.

But how can anarchy be self-perpetuating? It seems that it would break down as soon as either a powerful citizen or a foreign nation realized that they could control at least part of the population by force.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
But how can anarchy be self-perpetuating? It seems that it would break down as soon as either a powerful citizen or a foreign nation realized that they could control at least part of the population by force.


Agreed. There is a rise and fall of everything, moving in cycles all the time. Like the economy, the weather, the world. Libby is right however. Interference by state trips up the natural rhythms of the cycles. Like Russia and China Governments did. I wonder however whether theirs during the Mao Tse Tung and Stalin years was really communism? Felt like dictatorship with communism as some sort of religion or creed to control the masses. Communism in its own as originally set out in its Manifest by Karl Marx was attractive for intellectual leaders and a safe haven for suffering people who were persecuted or badly treated by their Governments or the Nazis during World War II. And then somehow dictators took over. Perhaps for Russia and China dictators are natural for the environments as that seems to have been some sort of template of history for centuries, given Ivan the Terrible, and more. Tough, charismatic leaders. Same in China. Sort of survival of the fittest.
Libby
ocalhoun wrote:

But how can anarchy be self-perpetuating? It seems that it would break down as soon as either a powerful citizen or a foreign nation realized that they could control at least part of the population by force.


Hoo boy. I'm going to get kinda long-winded here. Sorry.

Anarchy is inherently anti-hierarchical, so everyone is equally powerful. There will always be naturally charismatic or physically strong individuals of course, but part of any anarchist culture is a resistance towards anybody who would seek power or control over others. Disruption from within probably wouldn't really be a big deal and it would get nipped in the bud right away.

Now, foreign nations are another problem all together. Most anarchists hope that one day all the people in the world live in anarchy and all are equally free of government. In that case there's no worries of foreign nations invading because there are none. Everyone is a "citizen of the world". Smile

But then there is the practical, tactical problem of how you get from here to there, one that anarchists are always arguing about... Some anarchists are pacifists, and would use a Gandhi-like approach of civil disobedience. (Using violence would infringe on the other person's freedom.) Others believe it's necessary for people to arm themselves to defend their own freedom. But most anarchists believe in a "diversity of tactics", basically each person deciding which methods will work best, uniting with others who agree with that tactic, and then informing the rest of the people what method they'll be using (if necessary). This is how the riots in Greece were organized and as well as most big anarchist actions in the US. A diversity of tactics has worked pretty well against domestic targets, so why not someday against an invading force?

Who knows. Any anarchist revolution is a long, long way off. It's not like big-C Communism, a small minority can't make an anarchist revolution happen. The permanent abolition of the state has to be something most people want or it won't happen, and right now people grumble a lot about the government but most still think it's necessary. So anarchists will fight for a better world, and protest, and propagandize, but we're not overthrowing the government. (Yet. Smile)
Nick2008
Anarchy in my opinion is not a good idea when we have billions of people in the world. If we were to abolish all governments and countries, who would regulate our freedoms? Who would keep the jails running and going after the criminals? Vigilante justice is an option, but will be unfair to many. We also must consider religion, if we were to live as one, "The World", people are more likely to kill each other over religion because there is no government controlling them.

Now to communism, I will say it's a great idea and system, but it simply will not work out with large populations. The bigger the population, the harder it will be to setup and enforce "pure communism." It would nice to see a communist country that also regulates "lazy workers" as in they must work at considerable rates and times to be eligible for their regular paycheck. The USSR and China weren't good examples of communism, they put a bad image on it. Like stated before, they got the economical part right, but not the political part of communism. Evil dictators and limitations of freedoms was never meant to be attached to communism.

With the way people are acting right now, we are naturally selfish, evil, and many times jealous, I do not see a "pure" communist country being successful in the near future.
ciureanuc
I am 30 years old, I am from Romania, from a city 80km far of Russian border.
If you don't know, we, Romanians, were the second place of BAD communism after North Korea.
I saw many "western" people here talking about the communism.
What do you know about it. Did you LIVE it??
Communism is the worst thing ever happen to a country.

Facts: when I was 10 years old, my parents woke me in the night to go to buy milk. Because the line-up were sooo big that we had to be first. So I woke up at 4AM, every day, sometimes in a freezing winter to buy JUST TWO/THREE LITERS of milk.
In my fourth grade (11 years old) I almost were killed in a line-up/fight for TWO BREADS.
There were time in my town when ALL the food markets were empty. If you didn't have relatives in the countryside you almost die of hunger.
My girlfriend have big problem with teeth because she didn't get the calcium (from milk, cheese and other rich-calcium products) when she was little.

please let me say just one time on this forum the F. word.
I think I will use this one chance on this area. I will not find any better chance to use.
So, let me say:
F.U.K.C COMMUNISM.

People from America, Western Europe, Australia and other non-communism environments: SPARE ME with this philosophical ideas about "people are equal" and other... sorry, I think I am not allowed to use bad language twice...
deanhills
ciureanuc wrote:
Communism is the worst thing ever happen to a country...
Was it communism that did it, or bad Government? Think about it a little. Think Libby did a good job of trying to explain what communism really is. If it had really been communism, then perhaps the situation in your experience would have been completely different? What happened with communism in Russia and its satellite states (including yours) was done in the name of communism, but it was not communism. Clearly there was a dictatorship in force in Russia. Total control and very bad and ruthless governing of the people in the name of communism.
ciureanuc
If you are American, greet your leaders who fought communism.
I don't like Americans because of Bush, oil, pollution, the fact that they think they are "l'ombelico del mondo" and other MANY things.
But I have to greet the presidents who said and sustained the idea of non-communism and NOT-communism.

On the other hand, "western countries" were fighting with Germany because they invaded other countries BUT they didn't say anything when Russia almost suffocated the Eastern Block.
SHAME ON YOU!
SHAME ON YOU because YOU KNEW what happen in this part of Europe!

Now, WE ALL have to fight that this HORRIBLE thing to avoiding coming back.
Two years ago I was in a trip to Prague. I met two dutch young people (my age)... they were fascinated about the idea that "all people are equal", "medical services are free", "education is free" and other ideas.
People, you don't have any idea what other things are happening on the sides... all the rotten society are encouraged to do nothing, to get all the services for free.
If the wages are equal (this is communism, isn't?), you are not stimulated to do performance, you will not do even because your colleague is drunk all the time and he gets the same salary...
"People are equal" is not true and you can see what happened with all the communism countries.
deanhills
ciureanuc wrote:
BUT they didn't say anything when Russia almost suffocated the Eastern Block.
SHAME ON YOU!
SHAME ON YOU because YOU KNEW what happen in this part of Europe!


I am sorry that you suffered so much. Since your focus is mostly on your own country and environment it will probably take some time to realize that the world is much more than just the Eastern Block. So whatever decisions had to be taken during the period that you feel the world had abandoned your country, had to take that into consideration. Remember, Russia was a very powerful country at that time from an armaments point of view. There was a great risk of atomic bombs annihilating the whole of the world. Any attempt to save your country would have been seen as an act of aggression against the Soviet Republic of that time.
ciureanuc
Was it communism that did it, or bad Government? Think about it a little. Think Libby did a good job of trying to explain what communism really is. If it had really been communism, then perhaps the situation in your experience would have been completely different? What happened with communism in Russia and its satellite states (including yours) was done in the name of communism, but it was not communism. Clearly there was a dictatorship in force in Russia. Total control and very bad and ruthless governing of the people in the name of communism.

Man, people, if you like the Communism and the idea of it, go to China and North Korea. They will accept you, believe me.
Or, come here in Romania and try to deal to the last communists: people over 50 years old who are in charge with something... Go to a 50 years old doctor and ask for a small intervention; go to a 55 years old car repairmen and ask for a service.
You all talk philosophy here but you don't want TO SEE.

Facts: did anyone know that Lenin (one of the fathers of Communism) had a Mercedes car custom made for Russian environment/soil? Why? If people are equal, why this?
Why our president had A BIG house and the people struggle to live in 3x4 sqm rooms?

You know the story about the french guy (I forgot his name) who went to Russia, because, he thought, there were a perfect communism. he surrounded his passport and wanted to be a true communist in a true communist country. And when he realised how stupid/blind he was, he didn't get back the passport to return to France?

I hope you all know that the idea of communism started in France.
Why France NEVER was communist?
Please, think about that.

P.S.: In France is socialism. In fact, now is social-democracy. Why? Why they "customized" the raw idea of communism in socialism?
deanhills
ciureanuc wrote:
Man, people, if you like the Communism and the idea of it, go to China and North Korea. They will accept you, believe me.
Or, come here in Romania and try to deal to the last communism: people over 50 years old who are in charge with something... Go to a 50 years old doctor and ask for a small intervention. Go to a 55 years old car repairmen and ask for a service.
You all talk philosophy here but you don't want TO SEE.


Perhaps you have not really read our postings?
ciureanuc
deanhills wrote:
Perhaps you have not really read our postings?

Quote:
I fully support the theory of Communism.

I'm sorry, I was talking for these guys...
I think I am crazy when it's come to support an idea who... I don't want to talk anymore about the fighting for cocoa puffs, for toilet paper, gas or vegetable oil. Confused
Did you know the Romanians were very well known in the Eastern block because when we traveled to Czech Republic (for example) we always bought a lot of food (I mean here 15 kilos of cheese - to bring it to relatives)?

I laugh now, but I personally am attacked of this "disease": I always buy a lot of food.
When I was in London (for one year, I just got back) I remember that a cashier lady asked me why I buy a lot of apples (6 kilos): "Are you on some kind of diet?", she asked.
I said: "No, I just like apples." but now, I'm thinking that a better answer would have been: "I'm sorry I lived in a communist country and I have a message in my genes: buy NOW because you don't know what will happen tomorrow."
Funny? Rolling Eyes


edit: Communism exclude the idea of "human factor". The fact that people are selfish, lazy, stupid, they don't want to learn, they think that all their ideas are the best, and so on...
I want to see how many of us are NOT like this.
I AM lazy, sometimes stupid, sometimes I think that my ideas are the best.
Well, I am not a good candidate for the perfect communist state.
Sorry! Rolling Eyes
ptfrances
I think comunism has demonstrated his failure throughout the history and that it's impossible to make people equal.
The solution can't consist in a communist revolution but in a new way and in my mind in a capitalism really regulated by States and with an high rate of re-distribution of the resources.
Arrow
eday2010
amirkpe wrote:
some people say that everywhere communism had established it brought all the bad things in the world for those countries,and they prove their words by countries like N.Korea , Cuba , Soviet Union.
do you think that if communism hasn't been working till now in these countries ,it's useless?


It didn't work in Russia, and it's not really working anywhere else. People are held back for the "common good" which translates to sharing the wealth to the point where everyone has nothing. The only ones communism works for are the people that are in charge. They have all the wealth and power while they force the rest of the people to live less than they should and with no power to change things. Everyone has to share the wealth except the wealthy leaders and their friends.

Not only is it useless, it's unfair. At least in a democracy, you are given every chance to better yourself and your life. Communism can't be that great is so many people are risking their lives on rickety rafts trying to cross the Gulf of Mexico from Cuba to get to Florida.
achowles
Communism has never worked for the simple reason it has never been used. The countries you mentioned were never communist. A communist country would have no central leadership. The countries you mentioned have/had totalitarian dictatorships. Which is about as far removed from communism as you can get.

Does that mean that communism could work? No. I highly doubt it. It is too idealistic and ignores mankind's more fundamental failings. Also, no country would abandon government entirely as it would have a severe impact on defence and would no doubt be a bureaucratic nightmare.
LostOverThere
achowles wrote:
Communism has never worked for the simple reason it has never been used. The countries you mentioned were never communist. A communist country would have no central leadership. The countries you mentioned have/had totalitarian dictatorships. Which is about as far removed from communism as you can get.


I completely agree with you for the first part. North Korea, Russia and China are all Totalitarianism/Authoritarianism Dictatorships.

Calling a country like North Korea a Communist society is like calling Hitler the perfect Socialist. Its simply not true.

achowles wrote:
Does that mean that communism could work? No. I highly doubt it. It is too idealistic and ignores mankind's more fundamental failings. Also, no country would abandon government entirely as it would have a severe impact on defence and would no doubt be a bureaucratic nightmare.


Whether Communism works or doesn't is anyone's guess. Libertarian Marxism has been proven to work on a small scale, but nothing bigger then that. I don't think anyone will ever be game enough to try it on a large scale. If it works, then hurry, we know Communism can work. But if they do it wrong, and people suffer, well, that just means suffering.

One thing I do know is that although no one has proof if large scale communism can or can't work, we do know that its ideals can work. Many countries hold the ideals of communism by providing their citizens with free healthcare and free education, among other things.
PatTheGreat42
Communism. I feel like I shouldn't like that. Being American and all.
LostOverThere
PatTheGreat42 wrote:
Communism. I feel like I shouldn't like that. Being American and all.


Uhm, you know what Communism is, right?
achowles
LostOverThere wrote:
One thing I do know is that although no one has proof if large scale communism can or can't work, we do know that its ideals can work.


Given that communism would be inherently leaderless, how would a communist state ever occur?

LostOverThere wrote:
Many countries hold the ideals of communism by providing their citizens with free healthcare and free education, among other things.


That's socialism. Socialism I completely agree with and wholeheartedly endorse in suitable moderation. Personally I feel that everyone should be entitled to healthcare and education. I don't see the point to capitalism if it doesn't have a suitable degree of socialism to it. You'd wind up like the US and throw money into a massive war machine instead.
LostOverThere
Communism is an extreme form of Socialism. But yes, you're right.
supernova1987a
Communism is just another hoax created by Satan, or Koli the demon ruler of this age.
Xanatos
supernova1987a wrote:
Communism is just another hoax created by Satan, or Koli the demon ruler of this age.


You are just everywhere with this crap aren't you?
lagoon
Communism can never work, but socialism is the closest thing to it that can. Socialism is the fairest type of government, so it should in my opinion be the type of government everywhere.
ptfrances
I think there is no more communism on the globe...
Communist regime of Cuba and North Corea are nonsense in nowadays world and are just persecuting their own people who just dream of one thing: to flee in the USA or in South Corea.
Arrow
deanhills
ptfrances wrote:
I think there is no more communism on the globe...
Communist regime of Cuba and North Corea are nonsense in nowadays world and are just persecuting their own people who just dream of one thing: to flee in the USA or in South Corea.
Arrow


I wonder whether we ever had pure communism in the world? Think those countries that have been referred to as communist, all had their own specific brands, i.e. Leninism, Maoism, etc. Real communism is for people who are a bit more intellectual, perhaps started pure, but then had to be adapted for the masses by trial and error, error being at the cost of millions of lives, i.e. the civil wars in Russia.
Futile
There will never be “pure communism" in the world on a large scale. It can only exist in its true form on a small scale such as in a commune or an isolated community where everyone shares the same mindset. Communism, as Karl Marx wrote it is the best form of government but it is an ideology, a Utopia, as several people have already posted. And as long as there is greed, selfishness, pride and the human nature to better ones self at any costs a “pure communistic” government on a large scale will never exist it will just be another “ism” to add to a never ending list.
muffinman187
it's very interesting that in those communist country there's still the very rich and the very poor.
Stubru Freak
muffinman187 wrote:
it's very interesting that in those communist country there's still the very rich and the very poor.


Lol obviously there isn't, that's the point of communism. Real communism has never existed.
deanhills
Stubru Freak wrote:
muffinman187 wrote:
it's very interesting that in those communist country there's still the very rich and the very poor.


Lol obviously there isn't, that's the point of communism. Real communism has never existed.


Absolutely agreed. Goes totally against human nature. Was thinking about the blackmarket smuggling of special goods such as caviar, wine, etc. to the senior Government officials in the Kremlin. Think it would take a special kind of almost selfless person to make "real" communism work. Human beings are too selfish for that. It is in our nature to want more.
Bannik
Futile wrote:
There will never be “pure communism" in the world on a large scale. It can only exist in its true form on a small scale such as in a commune or an isolated community where everyone shares the same mindset. Communism, as Karl Marx wrote it is the best form of government but it is an ideology, a Utopia, as several people have already posted. And as long as there is greed, selfishness, pride and the human nature to better ones self at any costs a “pure communistic” government on a large scale will never exist it will just be another “ism” to add to a never ending list.



I have always had a problem with this

why do humans only have a negative human nature i.e greed, selfishness, pride

don't humans have any positive qualities? or are humans just evil

if its not the case then communism can work as long as people will it too work.....look at democracy and all other forms of government look at the laws that ALL the people agreed too like tax and paying tax too help those who cant help themselves, with the belief that all humans are naturally greedy then we wouldn't have welfare or tax support...or we should take care of old people or give too charity....

people can be good and people can adapt too a certain ideal of sorts...

example OLD people - most if not all countries respect and try too take care of elders - is that greed or selfishness?


if communism is too ever work it would have too be world wide where everyone would have too help everyone, the main problem with communism was that it needs gradual growth so that the whole population benefited but when 1 country is making better quality products obviously the population will ask themselves "why can i have those pair of jeans" (jeans were really big in communist UKRAINE"


its funny how the people who are greedy and selfish always complained about communism but people who aren't loved it, my family for example loved communism it worked for them it helped them, they lived a fulfilling live everyone educated, food always on the table, always taking care of when ill.

what more could you ask for.

1 thing communism did right was abolish religion, at least that worked for a bit.


if i haven't made any sense and you see a lot of spelling mistakes blah blah balh ....... I DON'T CARE.
deanhills
Bannik wrote:
I have always had a problem with this

why do humans only have a negative human nature i.e greed, selfishness, pride

don't humans have any positive qualities? or are humans just evil.

I believe human beings can be perceived as evil, as they are by nature very selfish. Probably something to do with the blueprint of survival of the human species. They are always competitive, greedy, have tremendous egos. That is a fact of life. So communism in its pure form would never work. The Russian example is a good test case against communism.

Human beings do have some good qualities though, looking after one's elders would fall under that. But all of the good qualities are more than balanced out by the negative qualities.
Stubru Freak
Bannik wrote:
Futile wrote:
There will never be “pure communism" in the world on a large scale. It can only exist in its true form on a small scale such as in a commune or an isolated community where everyone shares the same mindset. Communism, as Karl Marx wrote it is the best form of government but it is an ideology, a Utopia, as several people have already posted. And as long as there is greed, selfishness, pride and the human nature to better ones self at any costs a “pure communistic” government on a large scale will never exist it will just be another “ism” to add to a never ending list.



I have always had a problem with this

why do humans only have a negative human nature i.e greed, selfishness, pride

don't humans have any positive qualities? or are humans just evil

if its not the case then communism can work as long as people will it too work.....look at democracy and all other forms of government look at the laws that ALL the people agreed too like tax and paying tax too help those who cant help themselves, with the belief that all humans are naturally greedy then we wouldn't have welfare or tax support...or we should take care of old people or give too charity....

people can be good and people can adapt too a certain ideal of sorts...

example OLD people - most if not all countries respect and try too take care of elders - is that greed or selfishness?


if communism is too ever work it would have too be world wide where everyone would have too help everyone, the main problem with communism was that it needs gradual growth so that the whole population benefited but when 1 country is making better quality products obviously the population will ask themselves "why can i have those pair of jeans" (jeans were really big in communist UKRAINE"


its funny how the people who are greedy and selfish always complained about communism but people who aren't loved it, my family for example loved communism it worked for them it helped them, they lived a fulfilling live everyone educated, food always on the table, always taking care of when ill.

what more could you ask for.

1 thing communism did right was abolish religion, at least that worked for a bit.


if i haven't made any sense and you see a lot of spelling mistakes blah blah balh ....... I DON'T CARE.


I agree to most of what you're saying. The only problem I see is that it's almost impossible to start a communist society. You have to take away people's property, and the majority of people won't like that. They have only yet managed to enforce communism in dictatorships, where personal liberties are severely limited. The only possibility to have world-wide communism is when something really bad happens - a big nuclear war, or a huge natural disaster.
Solon_Poledourus
Communism actually can work.
First, you have to take money out of the equation. That's where people are slipping up. If the economy is based upon monetary gain, it's called Capitalism, and nothing else(every money-based society is a form of Capitalism). When you base the economics on resources, rather than money, then it's possible to have other types of social structure. If all the worlds resources, such as food and energy and land, were shared and used to their full potential, every persons' standard of living would rise to the same and highest level. This would cause menial jobs to be automated, raising production, and freeing people to do what they are best at, and what they want.
The only solution to governmental corruption is to eliminate the temptation of monetary gain. Through money, governments have power to control the people. Without money, people would only enter into government work because they want to help serve the people.
Unfortunately, money has become God-like in it's status, and even the mention of eliminating it is tantamount to going into Rome and trying to disband the Catholic Church. People just laugh and say "that's unrealistic". Yet, look what money has done to this world. It has created an environment where peoples' motivations are fueled by greed, and technology is substandard because people want it faster and cheaper. Corporations want to continue making money, so they don't make a product to it's full potential, so they can sell replacements and repair services. This is the foundation of a money-based system: Build it fast and cheap, and constantly repair and replace it.
If you want to live the full potential of Communism or Socialism, you must first abandon money. Otherwise you are a Capitalist, or a watered down version thereof.
Klaw 2
Well I gotta say that real communism never worked since always there came one man into power who kept the population under his rule by fear. And basically it went back to a kind feudal system where everyone and everything belonged to one man.
Always with the revolutions that created a communistic country there is a period where there is no real kind of government wich keeps the people safe and a lot of people try to gain power or make a lot of money. In short there is a lot of unrest. Where there is no real police or army.

In this unrest it's easy for a dicator to come into power and keep it. Like getting armed men to take key buildings throughout the most important city's. Like police stations, powerstations, shops that sell food, and to get all communication under your control (telefone lines, post offices)(In these days it's harder to accomplish this by modern media and the internet.)

If there will rise a real communistic power it has to be like that because the people want it and it has to goe slowly from kapitalism to communism and has to be without political power struggles

elincinerador wrote:
communism failed because it puts everyone at the same level when actualy everyone is different. there are people who works more and some other who works less. it is not fair for those who work hard to have exactly the same as those who do not work. the matter of provate property is a necessity: I do have the right to own my things. i think that the best choice we got is capitalism but the system still has serious faults. I don't think is fair that some jobs worth unproportionaly more than others (thogh different values are fair). well, that's what i have to say.

Marx made a system that awarded people who had jobs that are more dangerous or hard.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
If all the worlds resources, such as food and energy and land, were shared and used to their full potential, every persons' standard of living would rise to the same and highest level. This would cause menial jobs to be automated, raising production, and freeing people to do what they are best at, and what they want.
I can't see this ever happening in real practical life. It's inherent in the survival of the human species to compete with one another. This sometimes mean that they have to fight with one another and take things away from one another. I can't see this drive to compete and to win stopping overnight, as that would go against the nature of the human species. So let's say all the resources were to be shared on Day X. Who would be in charge of sharing the resources out for example, and this is probably where corruption would start. Black markets, etc.
Futile
Bannik wrote:



I have always had a problem with this

why do humans only have a negative human nature i.e greed, selfishness, pride

don't humans have any positive qualities? or are humans just evil

if its not the case then communism can work as long as people will it too work.....look at democracy and all other forms of government look at the laws that ALL the people agreed too like tax and paying tax too help those who cant help themselves, with the belief that all humans are naturally greedy then we wouldn't have welfare or tax support...or we should take care of old people or give too charity....

people can be good and people can adapt too a certain ideal of sorts...

example OLD people - most if not all countries respect and try too take care of elders - is that greed or selfishness?


You misinterpret my friend. No one is saying that all humans are bad and only have negative qualities. These are the qualities in the human nature that we all have and it is because of these qualities that true communism will never not work. Are they on a grand evil mastermind, take over the world scale? No, of course not, but they exist in each of us whether we like it or not, or realize it or not. When you are in a crowded parking lot and see a parking space close to the door, how many times have you seen people rush and cut others off just to save a few extra steps? How many times have you been at a buffet restaurant and seen a person farther up in line take way more than they could possibly eat just because they don’t want to come back or possibly have to wait for more to be prepared? How many times have you seen people at your job looking for a better position or interviewing on the side to get a better job? Are any of these situations evil? No, but they are examples of people being selfish, greedy and competitive in the most innocent and really harmless way. As deanhills so eloquently put it:
deanhills wrote:
I believe human beings can be perceived as evil, as they are by nature very selfish. Probably something to do with the blueprint of survival of the human species. They are always competitive, greedy, have tremendous egos. That is a fact of life. So communism in its pure form would never work. The Russian example is a good test case against communism.

Human beings do have some good qualities though, looking after one's elders would fall under that. But all of the good qualities are more than balanced out by the negative qualities.

Well said.
Bottom line is the human nature to better ourselves whether by “good” means or “evil” will always factor in or raise its head when it come to “true communism”.

Bannik wrote:
look at democracy and all other forms of government look at the laws that ALL the people agreed too like tax and paying tax too help those who cant help themselves, with the belief that all humans are naturally greedy then we wouldn't have welfare or tax support...or we should take care of old people or give too charity....


All people do not agree in a democracy because if they did all agree it would not be a democracy. The definition of democracy according dictionary.com is: Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic. Simplistic translation of this is that issues and representation are voted on meaning that the majority will rule (well in most cases, electoral college is a different thread Laughing ). Meaning that it is a yes or no, him or her, or they or them issue, there is always sides. Someone has to lose. Which means everyone will not agree on the final outcome.

I believe in my heart of hearts that humans are inheritably good but we all have the potential to embrace our “dark side” whether purposely or not or whether fully or not.
Futile
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
Communism actually can work.
First, you have to take money out of the equation. That's where people are slipping up. If the economy is based upon monetary gain, it's called Capitalism, and nothing else(every money-based society is a form of Capitalism). When you base the economics on resources, rather than money, then it's possible to have other types of social structure. If all the worlds resources, such as food and energy and land, were shared and used to their full potential, every persons' standard of living would rise to the same and highest level. This would cause menial jobs to be automated, raising production, and freeing people to do what they are best at, and what they want.
The only solution to governmental corruption is to eliminate the temptation of monetary gain. Through money, governments have power to control the people. Without money, people would only enter into government work because they want to help serve the people.
Unfortunately, money has become God-like in it's status, and even the mention of eliminating it is tantamount to going into Rome and trying to disband the Catholic Church. People just laugh and say "that's unrealistic". Yet, look what money has done to this world. It has created an environment where peoples' motivations are fueled by greed, and technology is substandard because people want it faster and cheaper. Corporations want to continue making money, so they don't make a product to it's full potential, so they can sell replacements and repair services. This is the foundation of a money-based system: Build it fast and cheap, and constantly repair and replace it.
If you want to live the full potential of Communism or Socialism, you must first abandon money. Otherwise you are a Capitalist, or a watered down version thereof.


I see your point but I believe that all you have done is substitute money with resources. Now the resources will be used as the main revenue and power instead of money . You have not eliminated government just changed the source of control. Communism as Marx wrote it is a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where the decisions on what to produce and what laws are followed are made democratically, allowing everyone in the society to be involved in the decision making process in all aspects of life whether politics or economics. As deanhills asked “Who regulates the resources?” If it is any type of governmental type body that is acting as it deems best and not from a total society decision then it is not true communism. It is a form of capitalism If I have misunderstood, I apologize and would welcome further explanation.
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
I can't see this ever happening in real practical life. It's inherent in the survival of the human species to compete with one another. This sometimes mean that they have to fight with one another and take things away from one another.

Competition is a learned human behavior, the same as sharing. Greed and corruption are taught. Sadly, they are taught to everyone, and so completely, that we just accept it as human nature.
Futile wrote:
I see your point but I believe that all you have done is substitute money with resources. Now the resources will be used as the main revenue and power instead of money . You have not eliminated government just changed the source of control.

To clarify: resources shouldn't be separated and given out, they should simply be put to the use of their full potential for everyones benefit. An individual or group would not be "in charge" of this, every person would have this opportunity and right. This eliminates an individuals need to hoard resources, as they have no menetary value. As far as government goes, it would not be perfect, but the temptation of corruption would be far less without any sort of material gain. And much like competition and greed, "control" is a learned human behavior. This would need to be eliminated through education and a complete reconstruction of social behavior. To simply accept that competition, greed, and control are natural states of the human mechanism is folly. We are unique in that we can change our behavior when we are no longer willing to be adversely affected by it.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
Competition is a learned human behavior, the same as sharing. Greed and corruption are taught. Sadly, they are taught to everyone, and so completely, that we just accept it as human nature.
Let's take the chicks of an eagle. Killing one another as they are competing for food. This is not a learned behaviour, it is inherent in the survival of a species. Same with human beings.

http://www.livescience.com/animals/060628_eagle_cam.html
Quote:
It is not uncommon for bald eagle chicks to peck their weakest sibling to death in a gruesome display of "survival of the fittest." U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials have not said conclusively what happened, but all signs point to murder. Based on their notes, the likely suspect is the biggest and most aggressive of the eaglets, although there are no plans at this time to press charges.

Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
Let's take the chicks of an eagle. Killing one another as they are competing for food. This is not a learned behaviour, it is inherent in the survival of a species. Same with human beings.

So by your logic, we humans are no more enleightened than a bird. That's very pessemistic. Because we are self aware, and can change our behavior, all behavior becomes taught. We have a choice of how we can act in any given situation, rather than just react like an animal. To deny that is to accept that we are nothing more than wild animals, incapable of anything beyond our "kill/eat/f*ck/die" instincts.
To liken the human race to the "chicks of an eagle" is really offensive. We are the most advanced species on the planet, for better or worse. Because of our highly developed brains, we can make choices based on something other than animalistic instinct. Unfortunately, most people just accept that "this is the way it is", which hinders us from evolving our behavior beyond that of an eagles chick.
The problem here, is that most people don't make decisions. They let situations decide for them how they should react. It's a primitive way to live ones life. Choosing to modify ones behavior is essential to growing and expanding ones potential. When humans choose to cooperate, rather than compete, the results are always better. This is why ancient humans were capable of hunting big game, building the first cities and nations, predicting seasons and weather and planting crops to feed thousands, etc. If humans simply obeyed the internal command to compete with one another, as you suggest, then we would never have made it out of the stone age.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
So by your logic, we humans are no more enleightened than a bird. That's very pessemistic. Because we are self aware, and can change our behavior, all behavior becomes taught. We have a choice of how we can act in any given situation, rather than just react like an animal. To deny that is to accept that we are nothing more than wild animals, incapable of anything beyond our "kill/eat/f*ck/die" instincts.
To liken the human race to the "chicks of an eagle" is really offensive. We are the most advanced species on the planet, for better or worse. Because of our highly developed brains, we can make choices based on something other than animalistic instinct. Unfortunately, most people just accept that "this is the way it is", which hinders us from evolving our behavior beyond that of an eagles chick.
The problem here, is that most people don't make decisions. They let situations decide for them how they should react. It's a primitive way to live ones life. Choosing to modify ones behavior is essential to growing and expanding ones potential. When humans choose to cooperate, rather than compete, the results are always better. This is why ancient humans were capable of hunting big game, building the first cities and nations, predicting seasons and weather and planting crops to feed thousands, etc. If humans simply obeyed the internal command to compete with one another, as you suggest, then we would never have made it out of the stone age.

Come off it Solon, this was an analogy. And we are part of nature whether we would like to be or not. Most of us are animals in the first place. It is in our nature to be competitive with one another. We were born that way. And progress does come from competition, and from fighting with one another. Think Mao Tse Tung said, "No struggle, no progress" and I believe in that. World War II for example made radical progress in all forms of technology. Winning at races makes the human species stronger. Even during ancient times the majority of the people did not really think for themselves. The intelligent forward moving people were always in a minority, and still are to this day.
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
Come off it Solon, this was an analogy. And we are part of nature whether we would like to be or not. Most of us are animals in the first place. It is in our nature to be competitive with one another. We were born that way. And progress does come from competition, and from fighting with one another.

I never said we weren't part of nature, I simply pointed out that we are capable of change unlike any other life form on this planet because we can create change through choice.
deanhills wrote:
Think Mao Tse Tung said, "No struggle, no progress" and I believe in that. World War II for example made radical progress in all forms of technology.

My point was not that progress never occurs through competition, my point was that competition is not necessary to make progress, nor is it the healthiest way to do so. Cooperation is always the best ingredient for success. That's a fundamental principal of life. To use your nature examples; a wolf pack hunts in cooperation, and the symbiotic relationship between a shark and a remora is even an unwitting cooperation.
deanhills wrote:
Winning at races makes the human species stronger.

If you mean physically stronger, then that comes from running or swimming, etc. The competitive part of it is not necessary for health purposes. And I don't have a problem with friendly competition, that's not my point at all. I'm talking about the "cut-the-other-guys-throat-to-get-ahead" type of competition. It's unhealthy and it hinders progress by forcing the market to create substandard products. Corporate competition forces smaller companies with good ideas into the ground in order for the larger ones to make profit. That's why vehicles have so many recalls on parts, and drug companies have to make pills to counteract side effects of other pills taken to counteract side effects of yet other pills. The rush to get products on the shelves in order to compete with others in the market results in faulty products, wasted resources, and a slower technological growth rate.
deanhills wrote:
Even during ancient times the majority of the people did not really think for themselves. The intelligent forward moving people were always in a minority, and still are to this day.

I agree. While the majority firmly believe that competition is necessary for advancement, I will happily stay in the minority of those who know that cooperation is the better choice.

"We think too small, like the frog at the bottom of the well. He thinks the sky is only as big as the top of the well. If he surfaced, he would have an entirely different view." - Mao Tse-Tung

If we cooperate, we can get out of the well.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
I agree. While the majority firmly believe that competition is necessary for advancement, I will happily stay in the minority of those who know that cooperation is the better choice.

Surely one can still cooperate when you compete? That is sort of understood. Taking the analogy again of survival of the species, they would have to cooperate with one another to survive as well. But competition is inbred, I can't see how one could ever get away from it. Sort of written into survival of the fittest.
Nick2008
I do agree that cooperation can advance technology without competition. Imagine everyone coming together to all work on one part of a spaceship, with no competition. We would probably finish it in record time.

The reason why we made a lot of developments in World War II was because there was a lot of cooperation and competition. Hundreds or even thousands of scientists came together in one large complex to cooperate on development... while competing with an enemy nation. The teamwork helped us develop many inventions.

But today... teamwork is ineffective. Instead of competing in a team, we compete individually. At work, you try to finish quickly and well so you can beat your co-worker's paycheck and try to impress your boss. Even though everyone is supposed to work as a team you try to better yourself rather than the company. Exactly one of the reasons that started our economic problems.

Even at labs, if scientists compete against each other, instead of cooperating as a team, they can oversee a potential breakthrough.

Cooperation & Competition on a larger scale can make many quick developments but not to their fullest potential, Cooperation with no competition will make slow developments, but to their fullest potential.

Remember, if we weren't lazy by nature, we wouldn't need competition. The only reason why competition is needed is to remove our laziness. If we simply removed our laziness, greed and all worked together (and removed our beat-that-guy so I can get more money mentality) we might as well be living on another planet by now.
mikakiev
As a political ideology, communism is usually considered to be a branch of socialism; a broad group of economic and political philosophies that draw on the various political and intellectual movements with origins in the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution.[4] Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems with the capitalist market economy and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism. Marx states that the only way to solve these problems is for the working class (proletariat), who according to Marx are the main producers of wealth in society and are exploited by the Capitalist-class (bourgeoisie), to replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class in order to establish a free society, without class or racial divisions.[2] The dominant forms of communism, such as Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and Trotskyism are based on Marxism, but non-Marxist versions of communism (such as Christian communism and anarcho-communism) also exist.
deanhills
Nick2008 wrote:
I do agree that cooperation can advance technology without competition. Imagine everyone coming together to all work on one part of a spaceship, with no competition. We would probably finish it in record time.
Given that you can only have so many people help with the design of the spaceship. Who are you going to select? Obviously the people who are the most qualified to assist with the design. And so how do you decide that? Even if there was no money involved, and people are selected in a peaceful way, they would still have to compete with one another. If they did not, and were randomly selected on a completely non-competitive list, obviously you would also find lesser quality, as that spirit of competition is obviously going to motivate engineers to come forward with better designs, whereas non-competitive may even mean inadquate designs.
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
Given that you can only have so many people help with the design of the spaceship. Who are you going to select? Obviously the people who are the most qualified to assist with the design. And so how do you decide that? Even if there was no money involved, and people are selected in a peaceful way, they would still have to compete with one another.

Choosing people for a job based on their qualifications is not the type of competition we have been talking about. In fact, it's not even really competition at all. "X" ammount of people apply for the job, but only "Y" ammount get it because they are qualified. How is that competition?
deanhills wrote:
If they did not, and were randomly selected on a completely non-competitive list, obviously you would also find lesser quality, as that spirit of competition is obviously going to motivate engineers to come forward with better designs, whereas non-competitive may even mean inadquate designs.

Why do you assume that the only choices in hiring people are either "make them compete with one another" or "complete random selection"? That is such a narrow view. You simply choose the best qualified candidates to do the job. And as I stated above, that's not the kind of competition we have been talking about.
Obviously you believe that the human race must constantly fight with itself to get anything done, and are not willing to accept another possible way of existence. Since we only seem to be arguing in circles, I choose not to continue, as there is no point.
Nick2008
Well more goes into the spaceship then just designing, a lot of people will qualify. You'd need people to cut down trees (you don't need much qualification), you'd need people to help with transport (you only need a driver's license), and others to gather other materials. The whole world... if the whole world was able to come together and give one quantity of a resource, it could save months of resource work.

Obviously it won't work, but I'm just mentioning the possibilities of what we could do in a pure communist, greed-less, caring, none evil world.
deanhills
Nick2008 wrote:
Well more goes into the spaceship then just designing, a lot of people will qualify. You'd need people to cut down trees (you don't need much qualification), you'd need people to help with transport (you only need a driver's license), and others to gather other materials. The whole world... if the whole world was able to come together and give one quantity of a resource, it could save months of resource work.

Obviously it won't work, but I'm just mentioning the possibilities of what we could do in a pure communist, greed-less, caring, none evil world.
Of course many people will qualify and they would all be totally gung-ho to help with the result that some may be chosen over others. Who will be making that choice? Who will be the Chief Engineer? Will he be from China, the United States, England? And who will be making that decision?

You will always have to have competition. Just built into everything. Like in the middle of Ethiopia, there is much less food than people for it. They would just about kill one another for food as their survival depends on it.
Futile
Let me preface this by stating that in no way am I trying to be patronizing or condescending. Salon I really respect and admire you ideas, but you are speaking of a utopianistic world that I myself would love to see come to pass, but the cold harsh reality of the fact is that it will never happen within the life time of anyone who is presently on this forum.
It is an over analysis on everyone’s part to even try to quantify the innate traits in all of us. It is simple. It is basic. Whether it’s selfishness, jealously, love, or survival, whatever, it doesn’t matter what level of severity you use as an example. You strip away the accessories and it is still that trait or emotion and it will drive that individual to do what they think is right for them. There is no way to remove the human factor that is involved in this. It only takes one person to have a different thought or idea other than that of the whole to derail this train. The French Mathematician and Philosopher Blaise Pascal once said “The present is never our goal; the past and present are our means: The future alone is our goal. Thus, we never live but we hope to live; and always hoping to be happy. It is inevitable that we will never be so.”
Communism as Marx wrote it is an ideology. It is a Uptopia. It will not, cannot exists because of the human factor.
deanhills
Futile wrote:
Philosopher Blaise Pascal once said “The present is never our goal; the past and present are our means: The future alone is our goal. Thus, we never live but we hope to live; and always hoping to be happy. It is inevitable that we will never be so.”
Communism as Marx wrote it is an ideology. It is a Uptopia. It will not, cannot exists because of the human factor.
Nice quote, and agreed with your point of view. I actually also like the Buddhist take on life that life is misery. So if one can make you peace with that, happiness is something marvelous when it visits you.
Libby
Futile wrote:
Capitalism as Smith wrote it is an ideology. It is a Uptopia. It will not, cannot exists because of the human factor.


Wow, I totally agree!
Bannik
Quote:
Futile
Let me preface this by stating that in no way am I trying to be patronizing or condescending. Salon I really respect and admire you ideas, but you are speaking of a utopianistic world that I myself would love to see come to pass, but the cold harsh reality of the fact is that it will never happen within the life time of anyone who is presently on this forum.
It is an over analysis on everyone’s part to even try to quantify the innate traits in all of us. It is simple. It is basic. Whether it’s selfishness, jealously, love, or survival, whatever, it doesn’t matter what level of severity you use as an example. You strip away the accessories and it is still that trait or emotion and it will drive that individual to do what they think is right for them. There is no way to remove the human factor that is involved in this. It only takes one person to have a different thought or idea other than that of the whole to derail this train. The French Mathematician and Philosopher Blaise Pascal once said “The present is never our goal; the past and present are our means: The future alone is our goal. Thus, we never live but we hope to live; and always hoping to be happy. It is inevitable that we will never be so.”
Communism as Marx wrote it is an ideology. It is a Uptopia. It will not, cannot exists because of the human factor.


why cant we achive a utopia and hope for an even better utopia? if you know what i mean.
Nick2008
Bannik wrote:

why cant we achive a utopia and hope for an even better utopia? if you know what i mean.


Because of the human factor.
LostOverThere
Quote:
Communism as Marx wrote it is an ideology. It is a Uptopia. It will not, cannot exists because of the human factor.

In my eyes, the way I see Communism is just that, a beautiful ideology. Although I doubt we'll ever be able to know whether communism could exist or not. There are, however, ideals that we can implement, such as equal liability of all to labor, free education of all children in public schools, and graduated income tax are just Marxist ideals many societies have already implemented.

Communism as a whole may not work, but many of its ideals certainly do.
lagoon
Socialist Democracy is the closest we will ever come as a successful ideology.
deanhills
lagoon wrote:
Socialist Democracy is the closest we will ever come as a successful ideology.
Yes, and regrettably the same reason that makes communism impossible is also the one that exploits socialist democracy for a few people as well. In this case it is definitely Government officials who have more money available to enrich themselves and to get friends appointed to programmes. One just can't get away from human nature. Twisted Evil
LostOverThere
deanhills wrote:
One just can't get away from human nature. Twisted Evil

Exactly, which is why I feel Capitalism can never work well, or be fair whatsoever.

As for socialism, some have worked better then average. Feudal Socialism in my opinion is the worst, merely because it displaces the current bourgeoisies, but as the system progresses a different group of bourgeois will come to power.
yagnyavalkya
Communism is a useless thing in the present days
gandalfthegrey
Have you ever heard of the expression "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" - well that's what communism is. It is a very dangerous social theory that legitimizes dictatorships and absolute power, in the same of the greater good and an eventually transition away from power and towards equality.

The end goal: anarchism (which really has nothing to do with 'anarchy', but rather is a form of a state-less society.
The end goal is highly admirable, and we will eventually end up there in a few hundred years after we finish depleting our finite resources.

It is true that Capitalism is destroying our planet and cannot survive - but communism is not the answer.
deanhills
gandalfthegrey wrote:
Have you ever heard of the expression "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" - well that's what communism is.
Not sure whether the intentions were really that good. If you take Lenin and Stalin, they were just hungering for power, and once they had it they used it so very badly. Perceived "good intentions" sold well to their supporters who were oppressed by a different ideology before. In the end they just went from one yoke to another. And were almost throttled by it in the process. Capitalism is good, but what we are having right now is socialism trying to "rectify" capitalism, I doubt we have real capitalism right now, more a case of "badly managed" capitalism. The 1.2-trillion package sort of sorts us out on that one I think.
caa-noise
I think, there is not perfect politics systems. Every system has privations.
But I am not agree with that communism is dangerous theory. The communism is oriented to the social.
deanhills
caa-noise wrote:
But I am not agree with that communism is dangerous theory. The communism is oriented to the social.
Depends in whose hands it is. In Stalin's it led to killing of millions of people. Evil or Very Mad
Futile
deanhills wrote:
caa-noise wrote:
But I am not agree with that communism is dangerous theory. The communism is oriented to the social.
Depends in whose hands it is. In Stalin's it led to killing of millions of people. Evil or Very Mad


Communism in it true form is social. But Stalin practiced what is known as Stalinism which was a perverted form of Marxism-Leninism which Lenin introduced after WWII. It is not true communism. Trotskyism, Maoism, Titoism, all of these “isms” are founded and based off communism. Everyone seems to put their own twist on communism. It’s got something to do with that human factor issue. Go figure.
deanhills
Futile wrote:
Communism in it true form is social. But Stalin practiced what is known as Stalinism which was a perverted form of Marxism-Leninism which Lenin introduced after WWII. It is not true communism. Trotskyism, Maoism, Titoism, all of these “isms” are founded and based off communism. Everyone seems to put their own twist on communism. It’s got something to do with that human factor issue. Go figure.
Exactly. The human factor would never allow it to exist as it is intended to be. Our natures are incompatible with the noble aspirations of communism. Smile
rodrigochoinski
i m not comunist but i think that our society, i say the capitalist society, is not democratic.

we realy dont decide the things, the process is dirty, the politicians be care only about your business...
rodrigochoinski
*their business
deanhills
rodrigochoinski wrote:
i m not comunist but i think that our society, i say the capitalist society, is not democratic.

we realy dont decide the things, the process is dirty, the politicians be care only about your business...
Maybe if people can take more responsibility and consider the Government theirs, instead someone elses, this could be a step in the right direction. I also think there is too much Government and with too much Government it is difficult to get real democracy. I even wonder how capitalistic the society really is these days. If Government can allow BIG investment banks in the first place, so much so that when they fail they can pose as great a threat to the economy as the Government would want you to believe, that is already not capitalistic to start with. Then to bail those BIG banks who failed out, is another indication that capitalism is not that real any longer. And by all indications of the new Government this seems to be getting worse.
samjog
I just think... why did Marx had to born and create such a mess in our already miserable world...
Hogwarts
samjog wrote:
I just think... why did Marx had to born and create such a mess in our already miserable world...


Ideas have power; and, possibly, his have changed our world for the better. As long as the idealogy is there, it opens up another possibility to us, or in some way may influence our decisions as we move along the continuum.
deanhills
samjog wrote:
I just think... why did Marx had to born and create such a mess in our already miserable world...
I doubt it was Marx who made the mess. It was people who applied his ideology in a messy way.
Related topics
Taiwan- China or U.S.
FOR WAR OR NOT
why should we pay stupid people to rebuild their homes?
Democrats at it again: Caught in another lie
Kafka
P.O.V on the world
China Against the Internet
war never solves anything.. except
The justification for war
Chinese to return missle technology given to them by Clinton
afterlife?
In No Uncertain Terms
Capitalism - Communism Scale
Communism
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.