It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does Communism Work After All?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Does Communism Work After All?


Source Link: www.spiegel.de

China is securing an ever-bigger share of the world market with the methods of a planned economy. Competitors and economists alike are astounded by the country's seemingly unstoppable march to becoming a global economic superpower. The development has left many wondering: Does communism work after all?
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 07:51 AM
link   
I'd rather call China capitalist and dictatorial/totalitarian than Communist. They're only communist on paper if you judge the country by it's actions.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   
It all depends... many of the early civilizations were communistic in nature...in early Sumer and Akkad for example everything was owned by the local deity which the priests collected and then redistributed according to need. Many of the smaller cultures were/are too, but for large scale civilizations such as ours, it may be an ideal, but the actuality, or at least the actuality as it has been implemented misses the mark. At the same time socialism, at least the socialism as developed by groups like the Fabian society (which included the likes of Bernard Shaw, and evolved into the labor Party) late 19th and early 20th century England (and Europe) still work quite well all things considered. The Scandinavian countries are a prime example of that.

If you actually sit down and read Marx and Engels and others such as Kropotkin and Bakunin (who were more anarchist than socialist but influenced both movements) you soon realize that the ideology is totally different than what is popularly imagined. The western and specifically the American image of both socialism and communism is profoundly colored by both the monolithic style of the Bolsheviks and later the Stalinist and Maoist versions, as well as western propaganda against the whole idea.

In the long run however, the ideology, which is deeply rooted in concern for community and moral outrage at the inequalities of 19th century society, and how it was interpreted by followers (such as Lenin) are poles apart and really should not be equated as one and the same. They are not.

[edit on 1-3-2007 by grover]



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Yes, communism works, for Honey bees and Fire ants, but not for people.
PBS just had a series on about China, and it was very interesting.
Oh yeah, why do they call it the "People REPUBLIC of China" if it is communism?
Im not saying it IS a republic, but neither do I think it is a pure communist system.
I will look for that PBS series if you want. It is very informative.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   
The main problem is that for every 5, 10, 50 people who embrace Communism, there will always be one person who will reject the notion, and want to work for himself. That breeds an inherent instability that I haven't seen any system able to overcome.

A corollary to this is that that contingent of people who reject the system must be forced to conform. This requires the creation of a large meta-structure, often the state, that forces these people--against their natural will--to conform.

Scary stuff.

Wish it did work in some sense, but it's just how things are.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   
No, communism does not work. Communism just creates 2 classes, the poor, and the ruling class. It doesnt work and it never will. It didnt work for the soviets and by some miracle it is working with china.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
One must take a good look to every existing communist nation in the world today. There are lot of differencres.

Let's see if I can remember well:

1. China
2. Vietnam
3. Cuba
4. North Korea
5. Laos

I think there are some more countries. Anyone can remember?

I have stayed in China for a year. In Vietnam I stayed for 15 years. Basically I have some good insights.

Bottomline, if we generalize as communism, it could mislead us. Each communist country has its own style. Even in one country for example, Vietnam, each time there are new leaders, like Prime minister, president, general secretary and other member of politburo, there have different ways of management & policies. There are just too may parameters to generalize.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Communism that exists today is more of a dictatorship than true communism. In true communism there would be no difference in social class between the leaders and the poor working class. This is clearly not the case, and communism is a false attempt at making the working class feel as if they are on the same level of importance as the government.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by steve22
Communism that exists today is more of a dictatorship than true communism. In true communism there would be no difference in social class between the leaders and the poor working class. This is clearly not the case, and communism is a false attempt at making the working class feel as if they are on the same level of importance as the government.

I agree with you. My contention is that Communism requires an equilibrium that is necessarily totalitarian.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic

Originally posted by steve22
Communism that exists today is more of a dictatorship than true communism. In true communism there would be no difference in social class between the leaders and the poor working class. This is clearly not the case, and communism is a false attempt at making the working class feel as if they are on the same level of importance as the government.




That was the points I was trying to make from the historical context. In some contexts it does work, generally speaking small tribes and the like.

[edit on 1-3-2007 by grover]

[edit on 1-3-2007 by grover]



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   


No, communism does not work. Communism just creates 2 classes, the poor, and the ruling class. It doesnt work and it never will. It didnt work for the soviets and by some miracle it is working with china.

What do you think capitalism is? The thing you just described. And what you described isn't at all communism, it's stalinism, showing again your lack of knowledge about it.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Yes, communism works, for Honey bees and Fire ants, but not for people.



Like I always say, Communism is a great idea that will never work. The human mind just does not function in a manner that will allow it to work.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
It all depends... many of the early civilizations were communistic in nature...in early Sumer and Akkad for example everything was owned by the local deity which the priests collected and then redistributed according to need.


I don't think you can define these civilizations as being communist. It would more technically correct to call them "religious oligarchies" - governments by a selected few based on religion.

Come to think of it. That also describes the governments of many countries in that same region today - like iran and saudi arabia. They just switched the gods!



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I also think that the only way true communism could ever work would be in a utopian society of the far future. One where all "work" was done by machines leaving the people free to indulge in whatever made them happiest.

Call it the Paris Hilton lifestyle, if you will.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Yes, communism works, for Honey bees and Fire ants, but not for people.



Like I always say, Communism is a great idea that will never work. The human mind just does not function in a manner that will allow it to work.


That is simply incorrect... human cultures have exhibited all sorts social, sexual, economic and political behaviors. Like I mentioned earlier, the earliest civilizations, Sumer and Akkad were for all intent and purpose, communistic in their economic structure supported by a religious framework. And those were fair sized city states. Most hunter gatherer and small scale planter societies are communistic as well... in each and every case mentioned, the individual is considered secondary to the needs of community, and in each and every case, if they were not set up that way, the societies in question would fail.

I would suggest that communism per say (not state supported political ideologies calling themselves communist) is about the only way small societies can survive, especially in times of severe hardship. Everyone has to work for the good of everyone else. If they adopted the individualism of western society, they would tear themselves apart. Even the proudly individualistic plains Indians were socially communistic.

Capitalism works within a specific context, so does communism and socialism and just about any other economic ism you want to put out there, and none is functionally any better than the other. Soviet style "communism" fell because it was too top heavy and had abandoned flexibility for dogmatism, and any society will fall when that happens.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by grover
It all depends... many of the early civilizations were communistic in nature...in early Sumer and Akkad for example everything was owned by the local deity which the priests collected and then redistributed according to need.


I don't think you can define these civilizations as being communist. It would more technically correct to call them "religious oligarchies" - governments by a selected few based on religion.



You are technically correct Centurian but I am using the term communistic very loosely here. They WERE religious theocracies but how they were ordered economically is more closely akin to communisms dictate "From each according to his ability to each according to his need" than anything else. All goods that were grown (and I would assume made) were collected by the priests and then redistributed as needed. It is out of the need to keep accurate records writing was invented and the first known written records aren't even religious, they are ledgers.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Being Communism is too broad of a statement... as said before, each "communist" country now is so different in it's way of governance and in it's economy, that it is really uncomparable. But one thing is for certain - REAL, TRUE, "Marxist Communism" does NOT work.

China is a different situation - they are a capitalist, "socialist" nation. In a recent speech, the Premier stated that China was on a 100 year goal in which Socialism and economic growth would eventually lead to Democracy and he foresaw that as the future for China; but not YET. He stated that China still needed to expand and grow before FULL-FLEDGED democracy were to be allowed.

Chinese leaders, since Deng, realized that the proposed "Markist Communism" was a failure and they adapted to capitalism and even eventually democracy. It's not whether one system works or not, it's whether the system would work for THAT certain group of people. What might work for Europeans, for example, might not work for East Asians... what might work for a predominately Christian nation, might not for a predominately Muslim nation. It all DEPENDS.



[edit on 1-3-2007 by k4rupt]



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Don't confuse Marxism and Communism. The only connection they have is that Communists claim they are based on Marx's ideas.

I believe that the idea of Communism is amazing. Communism could end class differences, could improve the overall wellbeing of a society, and remove any type of ascribed status people are born with. Everyone is equal - comrades if you will. Don't think I'm trying to bring Russian Communism (which failed) up, but the use of the title 'Comrade' removed any type of class or sexual differences from society. All were equal, all were comrades.

Now, Communism is an amazing thing in theory, however in practise it somehow seems to end up being run by a dictator, or otherwise falling short. If the ideology behind Communism could be improved, perhaps by looking further into the work and research of Karl Marx, it would become the most beneficial type of society we have seen.
As someone said, communal living has been around for millenia, and some of the earliest practitioners were societies that lasted for ages. There's obviously something to it.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   
In theory, Communism works. In theory.
------- Homer Simpson

 


China has moved pretty far away from the traditional Communist model and is far more a hybrid Capitaism Totaltarian Regime (albiet a bit less extreem than say North Korea) Any system will become a huge economic powerhouse if you combine rock bottom labor rates with lack of environmental restrictions and markets to export your good to.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   
No. I hope we Americans don't get a chance to learn first hand with certain political candidates that are running for President in 2008.

[edit on 1-3-2007 by TheAvenger]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join