user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
It was never alive. It never worked like it was supposed to in the first place.
Communism isn't practiced anywhere on earth, and it hasn't been practiced on a national level.
What we have called communism has actually been totalitarianism.
At this point in the evolution of the consciousness of man, we seem not to be able to achieve the autonomy of individual morality necessary to practice communism on a large scale.
According to Marx, communism requires a sequential, natural progression for it to be achieved. So far, all nations which have tried to make it their form of government have done it artificially.
Communism is an almost perfect form of government, recognizing as it does, the equality of all members of the human race.
Unfortunately, it seems to require a better man than is currently available.
We've never seen the type of Communism that Karl Marx dreamed of. We've seen this new form of "Communism" where the government is no different than a regular tyrannical dictatorship.
Communism has been tried and it has worked out exactly as it must work out. It is a doctrine that contradicts human nature in every way, and when applied to humans has had the predictable result.
Unfortunately it is not dead, because people refuse to learn from past mistakes and because others have no problem exploiting their ignorance (all the top people in communist nations live better than any aristocrats they may have railed against at one point).
Actually the people who put communism in power, with the exception of the leadership class, get exactly what they deserve for promoting such a horrid doctrine: poverty, oppression, and in many cases, death.
In that case why do we stick with Capital ism when it causes exactly the same results?
This is a weak argument, proper communism beats capital ism every time if implemented correctly.
Unfortun ately the world has been fairly well indoct rinated to believe the opposite, by those who seek to keep things as they are.
The few at the top, the rest of us as a peasant class.
Russia proved - technically in theory and practice - the nullity of communist doctrine. Petre Tutea, romanian mathematician and philosopher (1902 - 1991)
Dead and burried!
BTW: in Korea and Cuba comunsim might be stil on, but is not functional, while in China what sustains the communist system is... capitalism.
I disagree, for all the reasons I have stated a hundred times before.
Communism has worked very well in small communities in several countries around the world (rural parts of Brazil, Alaska, etc...) but it has failed everytime it was implemented on a national level, like griffon007 pointed out.
Nowadays, there are new attempts to implement communism regimes (cases of Brazil, Venezuela and Bolivia); problem is that if in the old days communism was mistaken for totalitarianism now it's mistaken for populism and demagogy...
Please don't confuse totalitarianism with Communism.
If you understood what true theoretical communism was,
you'd run to it, with open arms, embracing it.
But have you ever seen anything like that kinda attraction? ever?
No you haven't, of course not. neither have I.
NO nation in this world has got to the Communist stage of social development, nor is it ever likely to.
Socialism is the best we can hope for,
and even so,only in states like Sweden, where people are somewhat civilized.
"In that case why do we stick with Capitalism when it causes exactly the same results?
you ask?
We 'stick with' Capitalism
because it's entrenched!
And Capitalism's MONEY serves to entrench it further!
These various stages of social development are NOT going to whiz along past us,
in the space of our lifetimes, each stage taking just 10-20 years!
It has taken THOUSANDS of years to get us from Feudalism to mere ugly Capitalism, which serves to provide the infrastructural base for Socialism(which only a very few white northern countries have has a half-decent stab at)
so we are only now=2006,
in the BEGINNING OF the crux between Capitalism(at an autumnic stage) and emerging socialism.
You in the white NATO world will not live to see full-blown Socialism,
so don't stand on one leg,waiting!
Your great great great grandchildren MIGHT see the glimmers of it, maybe.MAYbe.
In a thousand years from now, the civilized world(loosely!)
will be somewhat-Socialist
(not lil mickey-mouse cuntries like my Carib.island, who fool themselves they're socialist, when in fact they can't even afford to be capitalist).
It's not dead, but, as Steel has said repeatedly, most of what has been claimed to be Communism ... wasn't. It was centralized government, sure, but it was usually weird hybrids of multiple systems ... basically geared towards power to some ruling elite.
While Communism is not dead, it sure doesn't seem to have successfully taken root.
No, it's alive and well on the Pacifica Radio network.
Maybe, it's dead. But fascism is alive and well, what with the Bush Gang in charge.
Yeah but the whole point of revolution is to destroy class systems (and those who perpetuate them). When these totalitarian regimes take power, people are supposed to revolt again. Until no regimes take power.
Being a pacifist I can't support the process but I support the goal.
There are still supporters but no nation currently is or has ever been communist. The economic system of communism has been tried and has proved to be a huge failure. Elements of it are still around in semi-fascist governments.
^^Babbling, the ultimate state of man, according to Marx and others, is "the withering away of the state." This can only occur when men no longer prey on one another.
Steel, no offence but you never listed any arguments. Your speach is dictated by an emotional attitude, not by reasoning. I know you look upon me with benevolence thinking "this guy lived in under a totalitarian selfproclaimed communist regime, therefore he hates that what he identifies with communism. But if he would know what communism really is...!"
But actually when I say "I don't like communism!", "Communism is flalwed!", or "Communism is just another utopia!", I have to tell you, I am not thinking about Ceausescu. I AM THINKING OF MARX!
I have a friend from Poland who would say that the system she lived under although flawed was much better than the capitalism that prevails there now.
So it isn't a case of 'living under communism' if you had lived under true communism, you would have nothing but praise for it.
The capitalist system we live under now, creates huge gaps between rich and poor.
And well as causing death, war and pestilence.
Steelhamster- living standards are rising in Poland. Poland is doing much better now.
And 'true communism'?
No such thing. A subjective idea. Marx never detailed any explanation of Communism. That is the one thing he was most ambiguous about. He spent most of his work criticising capitalism, and spent little time describing what communism in its supposed 'true' or 'pure' form would be. He left a blank, for people to decide on their own.
Marxism is a critique of capitalism. Communism is a reaction to Marxism. Communism does not have a 'true' form, but rather many different forms.
What Socrates said! I know you have read The communist manifesto. Is that a programatic document, or a declaration of hate against burgeoise and capitalism?
Marxism is flawed because of its absurd (but quite acceptable at the time) ideas of 1. a exhaustive understanding of social and historical realities, 2. the existence of the laws of history and 3. historical determinism. All this have been proved inexistent (2 and 3) or as imposibilities (1). It's very bases are flawed! All those things upon which Marx based his social ingineering existed only in his imagination. As a result what does logic tells us about his conclusions?
I am sorry, but I am not going to write too much about this, because I've posted a few articles at lo.com a long time ago, pointing out some of Marx's mistakes and I am not in the mood for doing that again (plus that would take me too much!).
And about your polish friend: that does not tell us anything. Thay say Hitler, Mussolini, even Stalin were regreted for decades after their death. It has nothing to do with capitalism, fascism or communsim. It is called nostalgy for the paternalist state and insuccesful adaptaion! If capitalism has flaws (and it has) that doesn't mean communism is good. It just means some things must be changed.
And in order to make this a constructive talk please answer me to this: what does it take for true communism to become a reality?
There seems to be alot of people protecting the failed hypothesis.
Communism was tried early on in the American colonies and didn't work then either. Communism has been tried numerous times, and not just the Marxist/Leninist/Maoist type either. Communism preempts those people.
I am realistic to know that Marxist Communism or Leninist Communism is not really feasible given human nature.
However, I do support a socialist society, which basically means that we have some method of distributing the wealth.
It means affordable at worst or free health care for all.
It means shelter for all.
It means the end to hunger and poverty both at home and abroad.
These to me seem like reaistic and achievable goals.
Im not really interested in what label is given to it, one could argue that they are Christian values.
The who bogging down in the capitalism verus communism debate is not really forwarding the argument about the massive chasm between the rich and poor.
That would be the main difference between you and me. You think that solutions are possible, I think that it is beyond human capabilities to solve those things you mention.
Again it is a matter of scope.
Is it a zero-sum game? In which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?
And what about the fact that Marx, Shaw, Orwell et al had such a low opinion of the masses?
Given the belligerence and ignorance of people to see that they are being exploited, are they wholly wrong?
Marx's rhetoric of the masses being ignorant is probably a key as to why so many leaders inspired by Marxism were quick to see themselves as guides for the masses who would make decisions for them whether they liked it or not, supposedly for their own good. Like a parental figure. Quite nasty.
THIS IS NOT CAPITALISM!
When will people get that through their thick skulls? Capitalism = free markets. We do not have free markets.
thc2883 - That is true. We don't have completely free markets, thankfully. There are all kinds of worker's rights, thankfully. There were freer markets during the preWW1 era in France and Britain- and there were discriminate hiring practices, hazardous and unhealthy working conditions, lack of worker's rights, unreasonable labour demands on workers and child labour. Thankfully, we do not have that extent of free marketeering anymore. Moderation and caution to anything seems to be useful, so as to avoid the detriments that arise from the extremes.
^Wrong. The markets before WWI were even more restricted than they are now. You think politicians pass laws in favor of their big business buddies now, you should research the level of cronyism in the first half of the 20th century. Free markets maximize the rights of workers. They have less rights now than they would in a liberal society.
Steel, if that's all that you want, it means you are not much more of a communist than I am.
It's just that I think a better way of achieving social equity (not equality!) is by keeping the capitalist system (because in order to redistribut wealth you need a system that generates wealth; and we all know capitalism does) and just introduce some socialist measures (swedish style, not french style; we don't need the kind of socialism that ecourages parasitism).
thc- How would increased govt "cronyism" with big business indicate more restricted markets?
Communism will never die. Marx was voted as the most influential thinker in 1,000 years, I'm not quite sure of that but generally he has definitely been one of the most influential because social democracy reigns in Europe and the threat of socialism and trade unionism has led to the emancipation of the working classes in Europe and a lot of the world and it is still growing. It is inevitable, not in our time but world communism will happen just as world capitalism has from world fuedalism so to will capitalism when it no longer has any new markets to exploit and it reaches it's capacity of growth. Likewise those who believe in a cause that strongest as research indicates socialists and communists are as the most politically active group of all normally wins out. Witness the struggle for black civil rights, there was organised resistance both at grassroots, in the courts and in Washington but it mattered not, those who believed in their cause the strongest won. Also there seems to be a long-term trend to equality especially in Europe, end of plural voting, all have rights to an equal public education, equal rights in the court, in law, to healthcare. OK it's nowhere near perfect equality but long-term it has certainly become more so and so to will it continue. Essentially people accept equality of opportunity, eventually so to will people accept equality of outcome even if it takes 200, 500 or 1,000 years socialism and then communism will come. We socialists will win, we alive now may not see the results of our actions and of our struggle but we will win in the end. I have faith. Fuckyamama (fukuyama) can fuck off, the victory is coming, the victory of the proletariat.
|
|
