I want more a discussion on theory on why Communism has failed horribly in nearly every attempt to institute it in the world. There are only a few Communist nations in the world. Cuba (Which is hardly staying alive) and China. I want to know you fine Citizens view on why The Soviet example of Communism failed so miserably.
Because Communism as a form of government is not communism, but rather an authoritarian dictatorship (or an STD, as my history teacher called them - socialist terrorist dictatorship). Dictatorship inevitably leads to abuse of power and corruption, and corruption precedes its downfall.
What >>2 said.
The failure of "Communism" (in the right-wing Newspeak sense) is the failure of authoritarian states with a planned economy.
"The Soviet example of Communism" failed so miserably because the Bolsheviks had control of the Red Army and thereby successfully supressed all actual communists. Around 1920 there were hardly any independent soviets (as in "worker's council") left.
The deeper problems were Marxism being the prevalent socialist doctrine, and Lenin's idea of a single party as "vanguard of the proletariat". So you ended up with an armed revolution and political and military power being concentrated in the hands of few party-leaders. The results were hardly surprising.
Furthermore, where your average capitalistic dictatorship has usually at least a semi-free market (the ensuing level of wealth alleviating the political oppression), the problems of the Marxist-Leninist dictatorships were magnified by the economic disaster of central planning.
"Communism refers to a theoretical system of social organization and a political movement based on common ownership of the means of production."
This was never achieved in history. In so-called Communist states a political elite (not "the people" or anything else that could be called common owners) had direct rulership over the means of production, therefore it is more correct to call these states "Socialist".
Communism will never work because it is a form of anarchy , and all anarchys will end in caos and war.
For a country to work we need law's and somone to make shure they are used.
Thank ou for you keen insight into the absolute objective truths about human society.
China isn't communist. Communist rhetoric justified the Boxer Rebellion and the original Maoist government, but modern China is moving steadily into a freer and freer market (mostly because of the wild success of Hong Kong, which is one of the freest markets in the world and one of the most successful economies), which is antithetical to communist theory.
In fact, the economic success and freedom that is developing in the new China, and generally authoritarian flavor of Confucian-influenced East Asian culture, has mitigated a lot of the popular discontent there. The people can be rebellious, or they can make money, and Chinese people are too practical to be rebellious when there's money to be made instead.
Communism failed because of corruption. I used to be a Marxist myself, until I got off my high horse (when I actually went and looked through Soviet history), and realized that every society's downfall is due to the basic human instincts we all have: greed, envy, fear and decadence. Because the majority of people have at least a little bit of these traits (myself included), it is only natural and people who get into "power" over others become drunk with their own success and proceed to screw over anyone they please, simply because they can.
The utopia versions of the two main political ideals, Communism and Capitalism, are often what people automatically think of when the associated word is spoken; when a capitalist hears the word "capitalism", one would often picture a bustling New York scene with lots of money being moved around, people going to work, business owners and a strong economy with the freedom to choose where you work and how you spend your money. When a communist thinks of the word "communism", they would often think of a society where technology and innovation is slow, but the economy is sustaining. People would receive their food, property and such as long as they did the work that was assigned to them. General good-will to others, and the idea that your work is helping less-fortunate individuals become apart of the system and lead a happy, honest life.
In reality, neither of these visions is correct. As seen with the present Western Capitalist regime, corruption and greed has morphed it into a massive imperialist conspiracy, with the business owners buying and selling slave-labour on wholesale, giving their workers $7.50 an hour for retail and $10 an hour for hard industrial labour, and making the governments bow before them and instate laws like the DMCA to ensure that they control the freedom of what makes capitalism, capitalism. The money goes up the food chain consistently until there is a handful of people in control of 97% of the world economy and resources. This is what Marxists actively refer to as "class strugle", where the worker has absolutely no chance against The Mighty Capitalist.
In a Soviet Communist perspective, the corruption was apparent. Instead of the government being this benevolent force in the universe, ensuring that everyone could make ends meat, the government was so easily twisted and killed by Stalin. If you failed to meet an unrealistic quota, you were shot. If you met the unrealistic quota, you were used as a propaganda figure, and then shot out of spite. The main problem with the Soviet Communism is that it took Capitalism and gave it a sadistic socialist spin, which would be like burning the constitution of America and giving the government total control over all assets in the country. Lenin, after the revolution, actually realized what a massive fuckup he had commited, and then tried to rectify it by opening up the markets and trying to fall back on a kinder, friendlier socialism. Of course, before he could do anything, Stalin took power (Lenin himself said Stalin would be the death of the Soviet empire), and it was all downhill from there.
The problem I see with both societies is the similar aspect of people believing one is better than the other simply because of the amount of money they have. Who is to say that any wealthy Capitalist business owner or any Communist government leader is better than anyone else?
In summary, the Soviet Empire fell due to the fact that the style of government was a direct rip of a modern Capitalist government, with a dash of police state tactics. Capitalism will eventually fall due to the current sustainability problems inherent in 95% of all businesses operating tactics.
> and realized that every society's downfall is due to the basic human instincts we all have: greed, envy, fear and decadence.
Man, I hate dumbasses like you. Just because you fail to criticize a system, you fall back to the "human nature prevents it" stereotype. Man is both evil and good, that is his nature; man errs, that is his nature; man is shaped like G'd, that is his nature; man is a dumbass, that is his nature, the list goes on and on and you can describe every fucking phenomenon on earth and yet you still won't be able to properly explain them.
Fucking pseudo-intellectual half-assed humanist.
And then of course you go on and basically equal two systems, probably because you don't like either. But do you fucking know anything about them, except for the symptoms of basic incidents of injustice?
You have no idea how capitalism works. You have no idea how communism is supposed to work. All you have is the ramblings of a jaded Canadian who just started getting less pimples than usually and who happened to read one or two paragraphs of Marx (as evidenced by your laughable example for "class struggle" - the quotation marks really fit there!).
... So do you even understand that capitalism and communism are economic systems, not political? Or that there's a difference between them?
There has never been a proper communist economy; the closest was the Soviet Union, before it became evident that communism just wasn't working. It didn't produce universal prosperity, or even universal adequacy, as was the intent; it just produced universal, lockstep, egalitarian poverty.
Communism failed, and will always fail, because it has no incentive for personal achievement; someone living in a communist economy, no matter how well-planned, will never experience the direct reward for hard work, ingenuity, or just plain dumb luck that capitalism provides. Free market, unplanned, capitalist economies generate wealth, prosperity, and opportunity; yes, there's some problems, but no system is perfect. Just that letting the market take care of itself works far better than anything else we've come up with.
Just ask Singapore.
>There has never been a proper communist economy; the closest was the Soviet Union, before it became evident that communism just wasn't working
Lenin's "War Communism" wasn't working. Marxist Communism is unlikely to work ever. But their failure was and is central planning.
On the other hand the Ukraine and Catalonia did prove that that communism (as in common ownership of the means of production) not only works but can best the capitalist model.
>Communism failed, and will always fail...
>Free market, unplanned, capitalist economies...
You are equating communism with central planning and capitalism with a free market. That is not necessarily true.
>Just ask Singapore.
Just take a look at the first and second Five Year Plan ;)
And Singapore has quite a bit of government interference in its economy.
Where does one draw the line between a political system and an economic system? When enough rules and regulations do into an economic system, doesn't it become political?
Before people point out the failures of Capitalism, it's never been tried.
Capitalism as a government has never existed. And even the "leader of the free world" is a democratic republic, with a mixed economy. Far from Captialism politically and economically.
Many of the failings attributed to the free market economy are actually caused by government trying to regulate it.
>>11 is right. Communism wont work unless everyone allows themselves to be a slave to everyone else. The only way that will happen is with force. It's basic idea is stealing wealth from those who produced it and giving to those who didn't.
Capitalism allows everyone to succeed or fail by their own hands. It does not allow you to succeed by force on others. You can't steal, enslave or defraud. Niether can those who do not succeed. They have no right to the wealth of others. Capitalism is the only moral political system becuse it does not violate individual rights.
> Capitalism is the only moral political system becuse it does not violate individual rights.
Capitalism is an economic system. Did you read this thread?
Capitalism as government. Righto~
>Where does one draw the line between a political system and an economic system?
Political systems determine how the rules that make up the economic system are created. Wether to leave production and allocation of goods to the market or to a comittee can be determined by democratic means, by a dictator, by free consent, etc...
>When enough rules and regulations do into an economic system, doesn't it become political?
Only insofar as creation and enforcement of rules reflect the political system (e.g. a political system that wants a heavily regulated economic system is more likely to drift towards despotism in order to maintain this kind of regulation)
> Capitalism is the only moral political system becuse it does not violate individual rights.
If you think "moral" means "doesn't violate individual rights", you have a very strange view of the world.
I'll start: What are "individual rights"?
Capitalism is supposed to be amoral. The actions that the people practicing capitalism can be said to be moral or not.
>Laissez-faire Capitalism is a political system.
No. It's the idea that a political system shouldn't intervene in the market.
And just as a reminder, the name of the laissez-faire poster child was Pinochet. You might want to reconsider your statement about capitalism being inherently "moral".
>>21, No, it's a policical system. Pinochet was hardly a Laissez-faire Capitalist. Free markets isn't all there is to it.
Look up Ayn Rand.
>Look up Ayn Rand.
I should have seen that coming :)
I also took a second look at your capitalisation. You are thinking of liberal capitalism. This kind of use of "Laissez-faire Capitalism" implies an inherent connection between capitalism and social freedom, derived from mythical natural law, but nonexisting in reality.
So, no, Pinochet wasn't a Laissez-faire Capitalist, but he was a laissez-faire capitalist.
What "mythical natural law" would that be?
>What "mythical natural law" would that be?
Assuming you're not being sarcastic:
Natural law theory is the idea that there are moral standards/laws that can be objectivly derived from nature. Natural law isn't made up by humans but "discovered" (Rand's "absolute morality" is an example of this). Then, one can "scientifically" derive natural rights from this. So (capitalistic) property rights come from the same infallible source as freedom of speech etc.
>Then, one can "scientifically" derive natural rights from this. So (capitalistic) property rights come from the same infallible source as freedom of speech etc.
This brings to mind some guy's "article" in Reader's Digest maybe ten years ago, which "explained" why the ten commandments ban communism. ; )
>(Rand's "absolute morality" is an example of this)
That isn't quite accurate since morality, ethics, and rights are human traits. They aren't discovered by humans, they exist because of humans. They are objectively based on the nature of man as a rational being.
Please don't fag up this discussion with Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand has as much to do with political science as an oekaki has to do with fine art.
A political system is simply a definition of the structure of government and its philosophy -- direct/pure democracy, representative democracy, monarchy, fascism, etc. Or, in the case of anarchy as a political system, the lack of government.
An economic system would be the definition and philosophy of structure and system of the economy. Communist economies, Keynesian or post-Keynesian managed economies, free market economies. I must note that a proper free market would be the economic equivalent of an anarchy; ironically, the closest we've got to a proper free market are under rather authoritarian governments -- Hong Kong and Singapore. In both cases, the government still steps into the economy; I confess to not knowing a great deal about how the post-British Hong Kong government meddles in the market, but I do know that the Singaporean government's efforts focus mostly on providing strict accountability for abuses of the free market, and on keeping the trade of one of the world's busiest ports on the up and up (i.e., draconian drug laws to keep the city from turning into a narcotics clearinghouse, since there's so many drug producers in the nearby regions). Compare and contrast this to the American government's brutally hamfisted approach to a "mixed" economy.
>The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man - and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man.
Does that ring a bell?
I asked, what are individual rights?
I don't know why I'm bothering, though, since you're now bringing up Ayn Rand. I was thinking this was a serious discussion, but apparently I was mistaken.
>Which is why Native Americans were so possessive and had such strict property ownership laws. ;)
That only proves that they were unnatural. Just like dem pinko commie bastids.
It's stuff like this which makes me glad I'm a conscientious hedonist. I'm not so much concerned with the fact that it's right or wrong than the fact that it feels unduly restrictive to me, and I'm nice enough to extend that consideration to others.
That and some things are just impractical. :P
Communism faild in russia because it was never really communism. It went from War Communism to Leninism to the New Economic Plan (which Lenin actually intended to be a temporary measure to restore russia's post war economy after pure Leninism wasn't working, too bad he was only in charge for 2 years before he died) to a power strugle to Stalin taking control and realy fuking things up.
BTW, isn't Vietnam still Communist?
>>15 Capitalism as a government has never existed
Capitalism, as in "do what is best for yourself, fuck everyone else" has always existed, but it is only recently (relative to the history of civilization) that the idea has arisen that this is in fact what is best for everyone, which is clearly contradicted by history.
Because the people who have attempted to institute "communist" governments in the world have all been shortsighted, petty dictators with no thoughts for anyone but themselves.
Communism was supposed to be democratic, not autocratic.
I the discussion up to now has taken too much of a capitalist view. >>36 mentions that
>>the people who have attempted to institute "communist" governments in the world have all been shortsighted, petty dictators with no thoughts for anyone but themselves.
There I have to disagree, because it has always been the people who gave rise to the arrival of a petty dictator. These people really did believe in communist ideas, and tried to live like communists, sharing everything. You can't see them now because they have become cynical due to their governments...
>>1 I believe the best way to see why the communist system won't work (if that is true, let's keep that option open) is by watching the Chinese government. It was them that decided to introduce a little capitalism, and right now they are fighting amongst themselves (the young and the old from 'the days') about how the state should be called and operated.
I'm a self-richeous humanist. I mean, it's not the fact that I've looked through the last five thousand years of recorded history and have seen nothing but corruption through and through, perhaps falling short of the "barbarians" or "uncivilized" societies, but those don't really count.
Every society has fallen because it has failed to take into account the difficulties surrounding human nature. Capitalism has rampant greed and corruption. Communism fell just the same. Communism COULD HAVE WORKED had the government been benevolent and perfect, but humans by nature are not benevolent and perfect.
Can humans overcome corruption, or so-called 'human nature'? Sure. Thats what the Enlightenment and Renaissance were about. But more often than not they become idealists and refuse to take into account that they are very much alone in their own right. It's difficult to shake a paradigm which has been indoctrined since the dawn of recorded history.
Humans can change. It's just hard with this homogenous meritocracy we have around us in every day life. From day one we're told to respect others and share, but as soon as we get through elementary school we're taught by the media that its "every man/woman for themself." Some people become afraid, some people adapt, some people corrupt and become
True. The overall feel of communism is For The People By The People, but the problem of that is where do you start? People are going to feel a bit miffed when they are told that "for the betterment of their comrades" they can't have something or have only a certain amount of something so other people can have it. Ask any person in New York if they'd give a single mother on the streets that spare $20 they have in their wallet, and they'll say no. Ask any person if they'd consider getting a lower-end car instead of that new hotrod so more money can go to charity, and they'll say no. A few people might say yes, but the overwhelming majority would say no.
It should be mentioned now that I make no differentiation between Communism and Capitalism being economic or political ideals because Capitalism in itself defines a "free" or "democratic" society, while Communism defines a "socialist" or "authoritarian" society.
Capitalism: Freedom to work where you want, get what you want, when you want with nobody breathing down your neck.
Communism: Lack of freedom to do said things above, but assurance that if hard times hit you will be looked after.
Capitalism is (supposed to be) very much free. Communism not so much, but at least you have the knowledge that nobody in your country is suffering because of somebodies decadence. Thats how it's SUPPOSED to work, anyhow.
Because the people who had the power were all devoted to themselves, not to the people.
Marx's idea of communism was supposed to be a pure democracy where decisions were all made by majority vote, and where everyone got what they needed to survive.
This is precisely opposite of what has happened with the Soviet system and with other psuedo-communist regimes around the world.
They're ultimately just modern variations on Russia's institution of serfdom.
IIRC, Marx actually preached a large government which slowly became "unnecessary" in the long run as people became more socialist. E.g: It'd go from what we saw in Russia in the beginning of the Soviet Empire, to an ultra-libertarian socialist system.
Some thoughts on this.
People would say it would stifle innovation and progress in humanity. To be honest, the advances of technology have been made off the backs of slave labour, so yes, it would stifle innovation. Also, the environment hasn't caught up to our progression, e.g: with the melting of permafrost and the knowledge that a hundred years from now we'll all be dead, etc. Slower progression is fine, by my standards, if it means people aren't suffering, or there's less of it.
Idealistic. Big governments like staying big. In an idealistic situation, power isn't needed. But that isn't so. Governments retain power, as with the Soviet Empire, to the bitter end.
The large central government is more of a Leninist idea. Marx himself was rather vague about what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" would look like, but later instanced the Commune of Paris. (Ironically, the Commune can also serve as a counterexample to the Marxist idea of the necessity of a transitional period between capitalism and communism)
>People would say it would stifle innovation and progress in humanity. To be honest, the advances of technology have been made off the backs of slave labour, so yes, it would stifle innovation.
Historically, a freer society always was more advanced than a more oppressed one in the long run. Progress is not hindered by freeing slaves, but by creating them.
The postrevolutionary government, however, is merely a change of masters.
> Slower progression is fine, by my standards, if it means people aren't suffering, or there's less of it.
Imagine what the environment would be like if we were still in the industrial revolution today. Hoo haa...
I also can't see how slave labour creates innovation. If anything, wouldn't it have the opposite effect? What's the point of efficiency when you can just throw more slaves at the problem? And think of all that wasted potential.
The arab world made extensive use of slaves, and they were certainly more advanced than europe for several centuries. Its not a species arguement that a slave in arabia was treated better than a serf in europe, but europe couldn't import serfs to solve their problems the way arabia could with slaves, and still they faild to inovate. I don't think slavery directly hinders innovation, I think its just that nations that have it also tend to have other regressive policies that do (although as I stated above, not always.)
I fail to see why the continued existence of crime in societies which value liberty means that liberty is defunct. Anyone who has given politics some thought deems liberty as good everyone, unless the person in question has the sole purpose of doing good only for his despotic leaders.
Most native americans were assimilated into the settler's economy when they arrived, first through trade and then through actually cultivating tracts of land with white settlers aswell as marrying them and this continued long after 1775. It was those that were further away from the east coast were attacked by criminals, not by the government, they then retaliated against peaceful settlers who complained to the government who then set about subjugating them prompting further attacks. The government was more occupied with development and many of the revolutionaries who kicked the British out had an obsession with native americans and saw their culture as part of the grounding for a new American culture. The killings were instigated by whites, but by white criminals. If europe was populated by native americans and america was populated by hunter gatherer whites the same thing would have happenned, the determinning factor here is whether the person who saw native americans approaching his hut was a criminal or not. I doubt this person was a libertarian idealist or shot them because he was white or an american. He shot them because he was an idiot. Much like gang killings in Detroit are not perpetrated by people because they are black, but because they are idiots and liberals.
However Stalin starved and executed 20 million people intentionally because he believed in socialism and the same thing will happen if we let them get into power.
Looks like the the Internet Marine found out he can post with out a name.
> Anyone who has given politics some thought deems liberty as good [for] everyone
I fail to see what liberty has to do with an economic idea. It's not that they're unrelated, but the lack of one does not imply the presence of the other.
> he believed in socialism
I don't think he believed much beyond his own power.
>Much like gang killings in Detroit are not perpetrated by people because they are black, but because they are idiots and liberals.
pardon me, what are you trying to imply with that line. "liberal" != "idiot" you neocon troll.
#50's got a point. Most liberals wouldn't know what end of the gun to put the bullets.
youre not familiar with programming are you? ok i'll make it clearer because it wasn't a typo. "!=" -> Not equal.
btw, i'm a centerist liberal and an excellent shot on the range.
Hello statistical minority!
In that case do the rest of us a favor and tell your Reps that Handgun control INC and all the other whacko insitutions they aren't welcome on your side of the isle.
>>53 because im worried about handgun control when both sides of the aisle are working to help hollywood gain full regulatory control over our economy and personal lives via DRM.
>>54 because im worried about flood detection when Shii and Moot are working to help 4chan gain full control over our lives by DQN.
I fixed your post for you.
It boils down to this - you take away the ability to directly advance yourself through your own labor, and you take away the incentive to work hard or innovate.
Whole principle of communism is that people can't be lazy.
If in communism everyone is to be treated equal, everyone must be equals. This means equal input/output to each citizen. If people are lazy, they are effectively not fitting that mold. I posit that the only way to attain a perfectionist's view of communism would be if we were to replace all people with souless robots.
Have you ever tried to actually find out what communism means outside of your head?
so, all that's necessary is to strap them to a chair and force them to watch more than 5 minutes of the VMA's on mtv. easy, a large number of americans do it willingly.
because we are so diffent from each other. how can we be: boy vs girl, rich vs poor, lazy vs active, smart vs dumb, black vs white, tall vs short, fat vs skinny, etc.. simply that how much you put in is how much you get out. There is also the problem with the absolute government authority involvement in everything you do! Also, what's better Freedom or Control?
The problem now specificly in Vietnam is that the government refuses the citizen the right to bear Arms and the right to travel outside the country! Addition to those right, the government controls the education system too. That's all you need to have a stable communist!
Have you ever tried to actually find out what communism means outside of your head?
My opinion on why Communism doesn't 'work' is that it's essentially a closed system. Unlike in capitalist societies, innovation is not rewarded organically (i.e. by an almost Darwinian selection of technology) and thus Communist societies continually lag behind unless pushed forward artificially, such as in the Soviet Union during the Space Race and the Cold War when government research was the only research. This planned innovation is a drain on resources, expending when it could be generating revenue. Venture capitalism was responsible for the assembly line, lightbulb, alternating current, Windows, etc. In nature, any closed system tends towards entropy; from this entropy a more stable -- perhaps 'fit' -- system emerges: capitalism.
Innovation is awarded in capitalism?
Are you dumb?
Second, capitalism = free market = competition = patents bad = innovation not rewarded, because someone else can just steal it
Russia has ALWAYS been behind the rest of the world. That was true even when they were not communist.
Communism Fails because of the lack of incentive to do more than the required, which is responsible fore all the inovations of man. Do you think we realy NEEDED to go beyond living in a cave and hunting with sticks and stones?
There are other incentives than money, you know...
It's noteworthy that people who are intrinsically motivated tend to be better performers in their area of interest than those whose motivations are extrinsic.
Having said that, there are jobs which nobody wants.
Yes, there are jobs which nobody wants, which is why we need a system in place to force those less well off to do them for us!
You don't need to force anyone. I failed highschool and I'm now in a fulltime job earning $45k AUD/pa. What do I do, you ask? I'm a cleaner. I average about $20AUD/hr, since it's loaded with penalty rates, and also because nobody wants to mop floors or clean windows that they pay so well.
That's what he meant. If you'd receive an impressive $0.00/hr for cleaning, would you do it?
No doubt. That also raises the question of what money is in the first place.
In an idealistic system with bunny rabbits and rainbows, I wouldn't feel too bad if I didn't get paid for my job. But lets say everything else is covered. House, transportation, food, toys, etc. So I don't get paid, but I get what I need, and sometimes what I want. It ensures that everyone is allowed the same quality of living. As for those who do "more", they'd be given more of what they wanted. But as far as what is "necessary" goes, everyone would have what they need.
It would also make those dead-end jobs like McDicks be less of a drag. Instead of knowing that those nine hours you worked today will pay for your basic-package phone service, you'll go home to a house, car, and a fridge with food. On top of that businesses wouldn't have such devistating power over the world, and profit would be marginalized in retrospect to worker and customer needs/wants.
The above is idealistic tripe.
In the "real world" I'd prefer the social libertarian system. Certain services are guaranteed by law. Healthcare and education are required services to effectively life in the "First World." Those two systems should never be run at a profit, as there is way too much potential for corruption and abuse. (Medical malpractice to ensure the patients keep coming back, schools who fail students to meet a quota of renewable profit.) I'd also like a system where corporations can't strongarm a country into going to War. The main reason America is in Iraq right now is to appease the neocons and their "Day Zero" conspiracy. And it's not as though it's the first time they've done it, either. Google for "I was a Gangster for Capitalism."
The current system is quite honestly what Marx was describing as the "bourgeois." Marx of course said he had nothing against business owners and true capitalists in general - the types who don't fuck over employees for a few bucks. But what we're seeing these days, and in the last 200 years is the strong pushing of propaganda to make people believe, from birth, that money is the only acceptable payment for a service you perform. And it isn't. They just want you to think that way, as you make you fearful of any viable alternatives
Communism, as an ideological umbrella, hasn't failed. Soviet Centralism (later known as Stalinism even though Stalin wasn't much of a theoretician) did collapse, miserably even, due to an insufficient quantity of ideal revolution at its start, which led to widespread corruption, lots of bad shit and about 50 to 60 million (estimates vary) people dead due to either de facto murder or gross mismanagement. That is to say, the so-called revolution was merely a "kill the royal family, take over the government" kind of deal instead of a "true" popular uprising. (the "true" uprising being rather bloody hard to arrange.) Same with the PRC though the actors were different. The same will likely happen in every country where an armed coup by a minority is dressed up in red and yellow.
Still, the USSR did cause the literacy rate in their populace to skyrocket right after the so-called revolution and brought a previously agrarian country to the industrial age at a near-breakneck speed compared to the time the west took. All the while crapping all over mother nature, which of course looks worse in the ex-Soviet Russia because one cannot simply dump decades' worth of nasty shit out there and expect it to disappear like it did in the US over a longer period. Same for the PRC, though their literacy campaign was "aided" by a relentless re-doing (some would say mutilation) of the writing system.
The USSR is long gone these days, first to space or not. The PRC's communist past is just a memory now, the country having reverted to a quasi-communist corporate fascism. They still have a nominally communist party and a governmental power structure that resembles the early days of a soviet-inspired communist state, but you'd have to look far and wide to see anything more than the least necessary lip service to old ideals in those who have actual power.
Me, I'm surprised that Cuba is still in a pretty good shape considering that the US has had a near total embargo on it, including medical supplies and the like, for the past sixty years. Probably has to do with Ernesto having been educated as a doctor. Still, that the nation hasn't totally collapsed gives hope that cooperation with the likes of Venezuela, Brazil and the other soon-to-be leftist states in latin america would give the Cuban populace those liberties back which they still lack.
In short, yeah, 1930s communism (what yanks usually mean with the word, generally for lack of knowledge) is pretty much gone except in the case of some very old stalinists. Then again, 1930s capitalism doesn't exist very much either, though its methods of exploitation are still as prevalent today as they were a hundred years ago.
The world has changed, generations have gone by and communism has changed with the times. Look, for example, to the anarchist movement (no, not the "anarcho-capitalists", they're just a bunch of wankers) and the modern vaguely European left for examples of what communism means today. Most of its proponents will shrink before the appellation, but it is inescapable that the modern left is the current incarnation of Marx & Engels' ideals.
What has become of capitalism and the so-called "liberal democracy" is a subject for a thread on communism's polar opposite, fascism.
Actually, to tell the truth, that wasn't exactly what I meant. I was making some sort of sarcastic allusion to the fact that capitalist societies tend to have an under-priviledged and poor working class which can easily be made to take shitty job at low wages just to get by.
Because only coreans have the purity of spirit to practice it successfully.
Communism failed because it is lame.
If something fails, it is because it is lame.
Give it up hippies.
It is only lame because they didn't just drop nerve gas on them. That's what I would have done. You piss on us, we shit on you.
I don't know how you could possibly equate the 'modern left' with Marxism. Modern liberalism is based on the thinkers of the 18th century, who believed that all men have innate rights and are generally good beings. Marxism is based in economic principles such as that products have an inherent labor value instead of an artificial market value, something which all but hardline Marxists in this day and age reject as false.
Communism isn't an ideological 'umbrella'. If anything that term would apply to socialism, especially democratic socialism. DS is the ideology of the modern left throughout much of the world, not Marxism.
Moreover, your idea that the Soviet Union collapsed due to Stalin's crimes against humanity is completely false; the USSR lived on for several decades after Stalin's fall. It was the economic policies that doomed the nation.
I equate what communists in western countries advocate now with the modern left because I regard the social democrats of Europe as being nothing more than an old shell of antiquated ideology that bows down to the demands of right-wing capital in order to exist, and thus not worthy of being considered in the "left" except in the sense that they'd perhaps rather not entirely eliminate things like public health care and working-conditions laws. The real Left of today is in what the old farts of the soc-dem parties would call dangerous radicals, and what they advocate includes (surprise, surprise) planned economy and extreme everyday involvement in the political system for everybody. Also known as democracy to the ancient greeks.
As for liberalism? It can go blow my hairy white cock. Society is not best run by letting the omnipotent market roll some fucking dice, especially when in the real world those dice are most certainly loaded. You can see this for real in places like Bolivia where the previous government had given up control of critical infrastructure, such as water delivery, to private, foreign capital. Those yanks on this board who are in california can reminisce about the times when they didn't know the term "rolling blackout".
(I didn't imply that the collapse of the USSR was due to the bad shit that Stalin instigated personally. You're reading too far into my original comment. I was merely pointing out that the russian revolution wasn't the revolution that proper communism would've required. "I see your broken eggs, but where is the omelet?")
As it's been said already, Communism is Idealistic. I think that the only reason a Capitalist Democracy works, is because its not perfect and its pretty much built around greed and corruption. We may not like some of the aspects but its much more realistic than Communism.
I would like to thank >>88 for his useless comments on every thread.
It's a good thing he used a name, so that we will know in the future that he is an inane imbecile.
Your welcome Citizen, and I appreciate your insightful comments.
>>97 is an "individual" and a "rebel" and is "sticking it to the man".
No, not rly. That stupid ascii shit just irritates me.
End thread. From this point on only trolls and trollees will reply:
communist is give great explain about how to rule the nation or organisation (for little)..
but in the communist there were a selfish emotion that destroy the chain betwen them.. Oh well that's why communist is fail.. but the real comunist is good..
the result as not as a book says right!!
The ideas of communism if I understood enough of it boils down to everyone is equal. Sameness does not work in a society where one of the biggest things that people crave is power. Others want to keep their power its a basic human goal. Communist would work in a perfect society but the sad truth is neither we nor the system or even the world we inhabit is perfect making communism absolutly worthless.
China has become extremely capitalistic. Health care and other social services have become privatized or requiring bribes to be paid. Also, many factory owners are profiteering off of workers working under unsafe conditions and extremely long hours.
As a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade and a supporter of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, I have a lot of thoughts about why the first wave of communist countries were defeated:
For one thing, I only consider the short-lived Paris Commune of 1871, the USSR under Lenin & Stalin, and China under Mao to have been the only genuinely socialist nations that have every existed; the rest were/are state-capitalist: socialist in name, but more or less just highly-centralized capitalism (the main difference between a capitalist economy and a socialist economy is that, in a capitalist economy, profit is what drives society, and in a socialist economy it is what best serves the people and brings society closer to a classless society).
The main reasons that the first revolutions were defeated were because of a few things:
1)Imperialist encirclement: There was a great deal of pressure from the outside capitalist powers that exerted a great amount of pressure that caused enormous strain militarily and economically on the socialist states, and in turn strengthened the support base of many revisionist (phony-communists) trends within the ruling Communist parties.
2)The weight of tradition: these societies were an extremely new thing; no one had ever done such a thing before! People were still figuring out how to genuinely direct this society, and at times the weaknesses and errors of the revolutionaries allowed the phony communists in the government to seize initiative. That's why there is a need for a constant revolutionizing of society in culture and in politics for a country to keep on the socialist road.
3)The nature of history: History moves in wave-like and spiral-like motions. Sometimes there a setbacks and crises in the march of history, and in fact during the transition from feudalism to modern capitalism, capitalism actually failed a few times itself! Take a look at the French Revolution: the French Republic was a very progressive thing that was overturned when Napoleon betrayed the Revolution and restored the monarchy. However, eventually, after a few more failed revolutions, the French nation was solidified as a capitalist republic in 1848. In a sense, in the BIG PICTURE of things (I'm saying this as a History major- I like to look at the big picture)... socialism hasn't ended, it's just getting started!
There were indeed serious errors that were made in the early USSR and early China that we must never repeat, and we must investigate on why they were wrong, but at the same time we must proudly uphold the good things of these past projects as powerful achievements of the international working class: the class that will free all of humanity. And indeed, there are still Communist revolutions happening in Nepal, India, the Philippines, and to smaller extents Peru and Turkey. And it is people like Bob Avakian, the Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, that are bringing forward a new synthesis of Communism that sums up the good things and bad things of the past, as well as showing how communist revolution is still a very valid and possible thing in the U.S. and across the world.
For more info, check out:
Revolution newspaper: http://revcom.us/
Bob Avakian Online: http://bobavakian.net/
This Is Communism: http://www.thisiscommunism.org/
Marxists Internet Archive: http://www.marxists.org/
meh. I think if we talk about this, we have to make an important distinction between two very different things that have the same label.
There is communism definition 1, a sort of utopian agrarian anarchism that Marx talked about. Basically his idea seems to have been that one day in the far future, when society matured enough, was wealthy enough, was advanced enough, people would stop being such money-grubbing bastards and share with one another. The people have to choose it of their own free will. It can't be imposed from outside and it can't be imposed by force.
And there is communism definition 2. During the 20th Century it was fashionable for brutal, murderous totalitarian states to use Marxist rhetoric in their propaganda and claim to be "Marxist" or "socialist" or "communist." These societies were universally thugocracies straight out of the Dark Ages: peasants ruled by brigands, and when you look past the propaganda, were just the sort of brutal, unjust, unequal societies that Marx railed against.
Communism definition 1 has never been tried. Being a cynical and evil-minded old bastard, I suspect that human nature makes it utterly impossible on any scale larger than a single farming village, and won't work there either unless everybody there believes and works hard to benefit his neighbors. In other words, there has to be no dissent, because when the only guy in town who can fix tractors starts to resent the fact that he gets the same exact same bread ration as the lazy drunks and 'tards who are only good for pick and shovel work and only do that much when they know they're being watched, well--if he doesn't keep his mouth shut and keep on working, you're hosed and your agrarian utopia goes straight back to the Iron Age in a hell of a hurry.
Civic-spiritedness only goes so far. Even chimpanzees are able to sense the inherent unfairness. In recent experiments, it has been demonstrated that when you teach one chimp to do a trick and give him a banana, and then you get him to do the trick and give him a banana and let him see you give a banana to another chimp who hasn't done anything but sit there scratching his ass, the first chimp will go BERSERK. Communism definition 1 requires everyone to be dedicated to the idea and to hard work, or else it runs right smack into our old primate instincts: "that lazy bastard contributes less than I do, so FUCK him! Why should I bust my balls to feed both of us?"
In any event, communism definition 2 has caused people pretty much everywhere on Earth outside of Berkeley and perhaps North Korea to instantly associate the term with mass murder, torture, and secret police. This has pretty much ruined the respectability of the idea among just about everybody except neurotic self-hating upper-class white kids (from time to time one hears the claim that these beliefs are especially fashionable among Jewish kids, but I really don't know) who want to get back at Daddy for not buying them a pony for their ninth birthday, and maybe some of the more thoroughly brainwashed illiterate peasants who are forced to live in some of the more backward and benighted portions of the Third World.
My recommendation to those who have an interest in the definition-1 flavor is to change the name. Call it "communitarianism" or something like that, because otherwise people will instantly think of Pol Pot before you've been able to say five words. And if you're going to try it, keep us posted. I wish you well, even if I think human nature makes it unlikely that the definition-1 flavor can ever work for groups larger than a family.
I've always thought that the best answer was somewhere in the middle. Capitalism is good at bringing new ideas to market, but sucks at things like providing for the poor in any society. Communism 1 doesn't leave the poor behind, but it kills all incentive for innovation. Why invent a better mousetrap -- it won't make your life any better? But somewhere in the middle, about where Sweden is on the Left/Right economic scale, you get the best of both worlds. Inventing a new product does net you wealth, yet the safety net is big enough that poor folks don't need to worry about affording health care, food and shelter.
Of course there are trade offs. Sweden isn't a superpower, it doesn't get to throw its weight around and get its way in international meetings. The standard of living is less than that of the middle-class USA. But you do get a nice standard of living.
>>111, you say that the standard of living in Sweden is lower than it is in the US, at least for the middle class?
I'm intrigued by this. Leftists in the US traditionally hold up Sweden as a model and claim that the standard of living is higher there than in the US, not lower.
May I ask what your source is for that information? Thanks.