Lies, Lies, all Lies!
Communism has existed, many times indeed. The Marxist form of communism has never existed though. Why? Because Marxist-communism was intended to work. Ha ha ha ha ha

By the way, it is bad. Wouldn't touch it with a ten foot Pole. I don't believe people should be subjected to economic slavery, economic freedom is the greatest freedom ever. Of coarse, these are all just opinions, but very true opinions they are.

[edit on 23-11-2004 by Frosty]

Communism as Marx put it was never in action...

There is Leninism, Maoism, Ho Chi Min ism, Castroism...

So which on of these "flavours" of Communism are we going to look at?

Originally posted by American Mad Man
In communism - at least in practice - there is also great restriction in freedoms. People could not travel freely, and censorship was the norm, not the exception as it is in free nations.
To put it bluntly, Communism is the worst form of government in the modern world.

Oh and Greg Palast is forced to do his reporting in England 'coz the press in the US is soooo open and free!!


Also read my post above illustrating the fact that Communism (Marxism) never existed. We saw Leninism turn into Stalinism in the UDSSR, Maoism in China etc. so please get the terminology right. I know thats hard in this modern world of journalistic spin...but still vital to proper communication.

Here we go again, it doesn't matter if it was a good theory; so was the idea of a CONFEDERATE STATES of AMERICA but that never had a chance either. The point is communism is 100% govt. And govt was the #1 killer of the 20th century (over 170 million, its called demoncide) Therefore gov't is BAD. So if gov't is bad and communism is 100% govt, that makes communism bad.

Wang, you talked about many interesting topics, a few of which I would like to reply to.
1) you mentioned that 99% of people are slaves in the capitalist system. Well you're close, it might not be 99%though. That is a perfect example of a JOB, it really doesn't matter how much one gets paid, they are indentured servants to a company until retirement. Personally that is why I am going with the entrepreneur route, so I can cut out that wage slave crap and enjoy my economic freedom. On the other hand in communism when major industries are nationalized, which people end up running them? The former owners of the business, they are the only ones skilled enough to do so. So who is the joke on now, nothing changed, except the poor got poorer and lost even more freedom. COMMUNISM=EVIL
2) you talked about how the tycoons of capitalism stash most of their money inetead of re-investing it in the economy. Well that does suck, but what can the people do about it? Simple, money is just an idea thats all it is. The common people can go out and create wealth by starting businesses and buying real estate. When they do that they also create jobs and then put even more into the economy. Capitalism depends more on the small businessman than the tycoon. Yet another reason why I am going along entrepreneurism (if that is a word), because jobs suck, all of them.
3) lastly you talk about homelessnessssssss and depression and all the negative plight of modern western society. That is all pretty much the result of COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM of which unfortunately many people on here seem to adhere to. When this country (USA) was free (before roughly 1960's) the levels of this activity were so low because it was easy to find a decent job, or start a business. But today with massive gov't (gov't also =bad) regulations, taxes and price controls it is difficult owning businesses in certain industries (ex steel, lumber) these two industries are pretty much dead in this country due to COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM and have taken many good jobs with them.
God knows why anybody would prefer collectivism over capitalism (not the socialist/capitalism of now, but real capitalism) is just beyond me.

What a fascinating topic!

When we judge communism, let's take a look at where it came from. Karl Marx looked at the German workers in the mid-19th century and believed that they were so oppressed and had so little to lose (remember, a lot of them worked endless hours in sweatshops) that it was inevitable that they would rise up against their bourgeois overlords, just as the bourgeoisie itself had risen against the aristocracy. So communism, in that early meaning, was really a way to right an injustice by giving the means of production to those who really used them - the workers.

Enter Vladimir Lenin. He wants to topple the czarist regime in Russia. He knows Marx said that a communist revolution has to WAIT for the proletariat (the workers) to be ready to rise up. However, a problem - Russia around the turn of the century had few workers or bourgeois. It was made up mainly of peasants and aristocrats. So he adapts Marx's theories to "fit" Russia: the communist party can now do the revolution on behalf of the proletariat and THEN organize the workers. This is marxism-leninism. And that's where things went wrong.

Basically, the Second Russian Revolution in October 1917 was the work of a minority. It could've easily been stopped, if Kerensky's liberal government hadn't been in disarray. But Lenin took over, and the masses of peasants went along with it. Far from organizing themselves, they received this as the latest replacement to the czar (remember, those people had lived under an autocratic regime for a thousand years, and servage had been abolished only fifty years earlier). So when Stalin came, he wasn't really the comrade put in power by the organized workers. He was czar Joseph the First. Most people gave him the name they'd given their old czars - "Little father". That sure wasn't communism as Marx intended.

At the end of Stalin's long reign, what passed as "communism" was perverted beyond repair. The people in power were now used to it and didn't want to let go, and a culture of secrecy had developed. That wasn't communism either.

So basically, the reasons Marx drew up his Communist Party Manifesto were sound - to right what he saw as a terrible injustice and to demonstrate that history inevitably led to one group overtaking another. However, the end result he wanted - the end of social classes and the end of history - were utopic. The two biggest manifestations of communism (Russia and China) failed badly not only because of this, but because they had been imposed by a minority on a nation of peasants who had barely emerged from feudality - something Marx wouldn't have endorsed.

And nowadays... well, communism is really ancient now. Marx envisioned the rise of communism in a production society, where most people were factory workers. But that's not our world anymore. Ours is a consumption society - we're all consumers now - and we need a new theory to break our chains. Communism can't apply to our situation.

Just to say i dont believe communism is the perfect government system, in my opinion it is jsut better than capitalism. Yesin capatalism people can gain amounts of wealth through owning a small business and buying property and this can lead to a wealthy life, but as i stated befor this only happens to a minority of people. Most people live their life, work 9 till 5, get a medicore house and appliances, then pass on what little they have to their children. As stated befor capitalism is based apon human greed, as communism is based apon equality. So i would say capitalism is evil over communism, greed=evil.....equality=goodness. Real Marxism has never been in place in a government, if it was inplace and failed i would strongly agree with your view. I just think modern societies really need to give communism a chance.

To the other post, you are right our societ has outgrown capitalism, socialism, and communism. We are in a need for a new system to come into play. To come up with one is very hard though.....but i think we need a political system that is not based around economy. A system where there is no greed, no corruption, and no abosolute power. A system that has all these attributes would be probably impossible to come up with, but i think it is strongly needed in our societies. Any such suggestions would be great! You never know we could come up with a revolutioniary system that leads to utopia. If we can get together a capatalist, a socialist, a communist, and maybe even a dictatorshipist. ( if even a word) Take all the positive aspects of each type, maybe we could make a system called Utopaism. I am open to hear the positives about any system of government, i am not just a commie lol
Come on lets get this started, so we can bring apon a better furute for all of mankind. :
I know this may sound far fetched, but aint all great ideas?

One flaw I could see in true communism is the lack of motivation for human ingenuity it would foster. What motivation is there to make "a better mouse trap" if you are going to get the same stuff even if you produce the same old mouse trap over and over again.

In a Capitalistic system there is great motivation for making" a better mouse trap". There you are rewarded for you ingenuity in big ways as you can become rich.

I often think of Mikhail Kalashnikov and Eugene Stoner both fathers of famous guns the AK-47 and the M-16 but each lived in a different system. Eugene got patents for his design and became a millionaire. They didnt give out patents for designs in the USSR they gave out medals.

Years later when the two finally meet Eugene flew in his private jet Mikhail flew coach. People made millions of Kalashnikov's design Russia,China,ect.. but he didnt see a dime.

Granted the USSR was not true communism but what kind of motivation does that type of system create.



[edit on 26-11-2004 by ShadowXIX]

Simply put, it is the motivation of betterment of society. We have been bought up with these mind set that reward can only come with reward of money. If all people contributed to the society then all would benefit, not just the singular person. As to say with the AK-47, the maker of it would know himself that he has made the most realiable weapn every made, and that it defended his mother land and other countries for a very long period of time, this should be the true reward not a fat pay check.

wang - actually, what we're saying about the need for a new system corresponds to what I was told during my sociology studies - since roughly 1975 (generally seen as the time marxism as a theory died), there's been an ideological vacuum. People raised in the 70's and 80's don't believe in "isms" anymore. Rather, people today - and objectively, I find I'm one of them - believe in the relativity of everything.

The example with the AK and M-16 are probably perfect examples of communism vs capitalism. One thing people has to remember is just like true communism was never tried anywhere, true capitalism was never tried anywhere. Since capitalism has brought us a much better life than any form of economic system to date, isn't it natural that we should try to perfect it instead of communize it?
I have said this before, in the US, almost every problem can be traced back to some sort of collectivism. There is a lot of socialism in this country, and it is really killing us. It is the sole reason that our standard of living went down 10% since 1979.
I am open to opinions and suggestions on economic ideas, but I would die than live in communist slavery!!!!!!!!!!!

Otts says:

"And nowadays... well, communism is really ancient now. Marx envisioned the rise of communism in a production society, where most people were factory workers. But that's not our world anymore. Ours is a consumption society - we're all consumers now - and we need a new theory to break our chains. Communism can't apply to our situation."

I agree, Otts. Communism or any other system which penalizes the producers and rewards the parasites cannot apply to our situation. Capitalism can and does.

Any doubts? Ask the Chinese.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street




I agree, Otts. Communism or any other system which penalizes the producers and rewards the parasites cannot apply to our situation. Capitalism can and does.

Any doubts? Ask the Chinese.

umm how does it punish the producer?
capatalism brings poverty and destruction.
the chinese are socialist, ok they are both on the same polictical side but they are quite diffrent.

The problem with capitalism is that it cannot ever be completely let loose, because then it becomes savage... one needs only to look at the excesses of the 1870's and 1880's, the exploitation of children, the low salaries... and it's still that way in a good number of Third World countries, where people work at low rates to feed us Westerners... Capitalism unchecked encourages the rule of the law of the jungle, and in a supposedly "civilized" world, that's unacceptable.

About a month ago, I was chatting with a cashier at a local store. Besides the usual small talk, I asked about the working environment there -- which is where things became interesting. From what I remember of the conversation:

"So how long have you worked here?" I asked.
"I've worked here for about 3 years." he replied.

"Do you ever want to work your way up to a higher position for this company?"
"Actually, no. I have been offered promotions, but I have declined them."

"Why would you decline a promotion?"
"Well, if I were promoted I would have a lot more responsibility put onto my back, yet I will only get a $.25 raise for the position. It is not worth the hassle."

RED FLAG!

This man had a really good point disguised as a reply, and that is this: it is hard to find motivation to take positions of responsibility if your reward is nothing. Communism is a system wherein those who had responsibility didn't want it, and those who did not have responsibility didn't want it. Stalin, in the first few years of his power ran into this problem head first; he actually had to reward people for being scientists, factory managers, etc! Stalin rewarded people with more vacation time -- finally a motivation for responsibility. Marx, in theory, has no reward for responsibility, and not only that, people are coerced into their occupations via their ability. That is, some people may be required to take responsibility without any benefit.
-- Radardog

Otts says:

"The problem with capitalism is that it cannot ever be completely let loose, because then it becomes savage... one needs only to look at the excesses of the 1870's and 1880's, the exploitation of children, the low salaries... and it's still that way in a good number of Third World countries, where people work at low rates to feed us Westerners... Capitalism unchecked encourages the rule of the law of the jungle, and in a supposedly "civilized" world, that's unacceptable. "

Whereas Mao's Cultural Revolution, Great Leap Forward, and the extermination of millions of Ukranian Kulaks was perfectly acceptable in a supposedly "civilized" world?

Rubbish!

No economic system is inherently good or evil when it comes to damaging people; all have their excesses, because all are imlemented by people who -- Marx to the contrary -- are not perfect and never will be.

The biggest difference between capitalism and socialism is that socialism mandates taking from some and giving from others, and the instrumentality of that coercion is always the State. Perhaps that's why Workers' Paradises like Cuba, Vietnam, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, and the eastern European satellites of the 1950's and 1960's always had such a plethora of secret police.

People will always exploit people, because that is our nature. Capitalism, at least, veneers exploitation with the idea that, theoretically, anyone can get ahead; with socialism, the master is the State.

Karl Marx talked about how "...the State will wither away."

He lied.

Orwell had it right with his vision of the State, when he has O'Brien say:

"If you want a vision of the future, Winston, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever."

One common misconception is that communism equalizes wages... equal pay for all regardless of occupation.

This was never in any way a part of what Karl Marx had written.

I perfer modern socialism, in countries that practice socialism you see a more educated population and a higher standard of living. "Price" becomes something you don't always need to worry about....

The whole idea behind the system is the concept that your basic needs would not be denied because you lack a certain amount of paper currency. Of course, non-life essential items are not guaranteed.

The reasons taxes rise is often due to the fact of poor money management... we could overhaul the entire social security/welfare systems and do it for half the cost... only if the government is ready to do the job properly.

With money comes power, the elitists would never want to see a more public ownership of wealth.. because once the majority of people hold wealth and the minority (elitists) do not... they loose power. Small businesses would remain just that... small private businesses. same with private property.

communism is a good idea but no matter what a facist leader comes out of it and wants to control everything and gets more than the little people