Why COMMUNISM will never work

I was reading a post that questioned the atrocities committed by communist regimes over time and whether Communism is truly bad or a made-up evil.

Lets dive.

I guess the easiest argument would be "look at the past Communist leaders". Sure, but that takes a fairly simple argument. Lets dive deeper... What empowers these people? What makes free America a better government model?

The problem when it comes to Communism is power lies in the state without the consent of its constituents. The state and the head of state makes the rules, they collect and spend government funds without the consent of their constituents. They fund programs that are good for the mob but not good for the individual. The problem is not everyone has the same needs. Some are fine never working a day again and collecting welfare, some don't mind an honest hard days work. Everyone becomes dependent on the system and essentially spoiled. There is a saying, "Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime". It helps absolutely no one by temporarily alleviating someones hardship, it actually only makes matters worse for the individual. What happens when the state falls apart and all the people depending on welfare can't get their services? See Russian Federation.

Lets get to the main problem here.

You're giving too much control to the state in a communist government. Which brings me to another quote, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". As you give up one right after another in these communist regimes, you'll find yourself on the other end of a barrel or a whip, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.

This is the MAIN reason we cherish the 2nd amendment in the United States. For any liberal that doesn't understand why we need an Armalite-15 to "defend" ourselves, it's because of tyrannical government more than it is about the pedophile next door. You think if we allowed the US Government to take our guns, our freedom of speech won't be next? Guess who took guns away from his people BEFORE he became an internationally known criminal... Yeah, Adolf Hitler. So did Stalin and Mao by the way. They revoked their peoples right to defend themselves telling them the state is better prepared to protect the people, took away all guns and went on to commit genocide.

a reply to: JoeGee

In a true communist regime, you have no difference between the Will of the People and the Will of the Government, as both are one. Yes, that sounds strange.

But you did not experience the precursors (socialistic countries like the GDR) nor read about true communism.

Try to take a hint of "1984", but with less "our country exists only to fight the other country, we were always at peace with the third country anyway". And more of "you lazy city-bums, go out and build the communistic agronomical fundament for a Great Big Future!!!"

a reply to: JoeGee

After WWII Russia went from a destroyed nation to the World's second most power super power in a very short time.

And under Mao life expectancy went from 35 to 65.

You can't ignore the successes while concentrated on the negatives because you prefer laissez faire capitalism. The problem with laissez faire capitalism is alienation or entfremdung. Marx main focus was not promoting communism. Marx main focus was a critique on the problems of laissez faire capitalism:



Laissez faire capitalism has problems contrary the endless barrage of propaganda. Marx should not be ignored because of failed communist governments with corrupt and evil leaders. There are bad leaders and atrocities in all forms of government. I'm pretty sure Adolf was not a communist. And since 2001, by some estimates over 4,000,000 Arabs have died from US bombings in the Middle East. The US has more military actions around the World than any other government.

Regardless of what type of government is in place we know one thing for sure. It's Lord Acton's famous quote power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And then there are anarchists. Some people in power are anarchists and just want to see the World burn because it makes them happy.

a reply to: dfnj2015


Give us an altruistic leader and I will jump on board...

You and I know that no Human Being is capable of that so no matter how many ideals you have, they are redundant.

True communism is impossible. That's why every communist leader has had to resort to genocide to TRY to achieve THEIR goals.

Communism just leads to fascism where no one heard this before, that it the merger of corporate and government power and everything under one brand or logo. Very much like when Churches were in charge of states, and that they would decide things.

It isvery much a war like ideology that culls the supposed weak an useless, make babies, and let alone getting rid of any opposing ideas with fashion an thought policing.

It great for machines, or space aliens but not for flesh an bone that have a choice. Capitalism great for stupid people.


It would litterally be like a church, that has technology in the coming days if that nefarious, multifaceted situation ever rose it heads again...which it is.

On a side note, there is an entity that can be the "altruistic" leader and his name begins with the letter L.

Be careful what you wish for...

❤

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: JoeGee

And under Mao life expectancy went from 35 to 65.

When Mao took power the life expectancy in 175 year old capitalist USA was already nearly double what China had managed in their 2,000 plus year history.

I wonder if that life expectancy number includes the 20-40 million famine deaths he managed to oversee in less than 5 years.

a reply to: dfnj2015

And under Mao life expectancy went from 35 to 65.

You are a fan of Mao, huh? Life expectancy was cut really short when millions of civilians were murdered under Mao's regime.

Remembering the biggest mass murder in the history of the world

Who was the biggest mass murderer in the history of the world?

Most people probably assume that the answer is Adolf Hitler, architect of the Holocaust. Others might guess Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, who may indeed have managed to kill even more innocent people than Hitler did, many of them as part of a terror famine that likely took more lives than the Holocaust.

But both Hitler and Stalin were outdone by Mao Zedong. From 1958 to 1962, his Great Leap Forward policy led to the deaths of up to 45 million people – easily making it the biggest episode of mass murder ever recorded.

As one of the biggest supporters of socialism/communism on this website, it's funny that you fail to recognize these facts of history.

a reply to: JoeGee

I can’t think of any candidate or anyone who wants a communist government. There are a few who want socialist policies, but that isn’t the same thing as communism at all. If you think so you need to educate yourself on what those words actually mean, and not take what Republican pundits tell you as gospel.

This is the MAIN reason we cherish the 2nd amendment in the United States. For any liberal that doesn't understand why we need an Armalite-15 to "defend" ourselves, it's because of tyrannical government more than it is about the pedophile next door. You think if we allowed the US Government to take our guns, our freedom of speech won't be next?

This has to be the dumbest excuse for the right to keep and bear arms I’ve heard. Your AR-15s aren’t going to protect you from a modern army in 2019. Especially the US Army. You can be taken out by a missile from a drone before you even hear it. What good is a AR in that situation?

With modern technology there wouldn’t even be a ground war if some type of war broke out between citizens and the government. You’d be better off learning how to hack and commandeer the advanced technology that will be used against you instead of relying on a gun to save you.

Government doesn’t want to take your guns. Because you aren’t a threat to them. Guns are only a threat to other Americans. And they know this.

a reply to: FamCore

Yes he intentionally murdered those people. Dont you find it interesting how he tried to eradicate disease and famine? For what? Fun?

China was a massive crap hole that needed change it was growing too fast and the life styles everyone was living was unsustainable, couple that with years of constant warring, the japanese trying to take them over. Sounds like western propaganda has rotted your brain again.

I used to think the same way you did until you look at it really hard. Most people base their decisions off one guys experience in the gulags of lenin's stolen USSR by the incompetent stalin.
But mao had a huge under taking and a massive population with nearly 90% living in literal poverty, couple that with him fighting off imperialism and ousting old colonial powers people were bound to die, and stories were bound to surface.

Communism doesnt work, and most likely never will work. It's a fantastic utopia where class divide doesnt exist and money is useless.

Socialism on the other hand. That's a different story.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Except that little bump between February 1917 and October of 1917 when the Bolsheviks defeated Tsar Nicholas II and then overthrew the provisional government and went full Commie under Lenin until his death in 1924. Now of course there was a civil war that started in 1922 between the Reds and Whites because things were not so hot under Lenin. And Stalin from 1924-1953 was so bad that the first part of Khrushchev (1953-1964) taking the reigns was called De-Stalinization. Coincidentally Khrushchev was the first leader to speak about actually doing things towards improving the lives of the common man by fixing the economy. But that whole first part of the Cold War was kinda in the way of spending. Brezhnev helmed from 1964-1982, economic stagnation as more money went to military applications. Andropov and Chernenko ruled for 15 months and 13 months respectively.

Then Gorbachev from 1985 until dissolution December 1991. So 74 years and 7 leaders for the USSR. The people were hungry when they rioted over Tzar Nicholas over commission of materials to WWI and were still hungry in 1991 and tired of the social experiment the entire time.

Not much of a success story, but people still believe the hype.

If I was monster, I'd use the excuse an point my finger, that it was a mercy calling, and that the real monster was letting them live with the hope of tomorrow, mean while knowing tomorrow will never come.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: dfnj2015

Give us an altruistic leader and I will jump on board...

It doesn't matter what type of government we have. We should always assume leadership is corrupt as corrupt can be. No spending should ever be secret. Nothing should ever be done without checks and balances. Casinos have a system of government that works.

Designing a system of government taking into account every possible form of corruption seems theoretical possible in my mind. It just has to be thought out well and mechanisms need to be in place that are too difficult to circumvent even when they are known to exist.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Regardless, please explain to me how a post WWII Soviet Union could possibly become a super power so quickly with what consensus claims is the most ineffective type of government.

a reply to: strongfp

I was in Beijing in 2004. It was an amazing place!

Communism only works well in a small community based application. It will not work well at a country level. In essence true communism is good, but I have never seen a good communist government, it does not work right.

I have seen quite a few communities or subdivisions operate on a communist like structure but usually the income of the people in those communities is about equal. It only works if everyone agrees to work together and that will never happen in this country as a whole, in fact most communities do not work symbiotic enough to form a real community. Comunity and commune are related basically. Farmers form farm communities sometimes, the ahmish and Mesonites do too.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Nukes and the well earned reputation that they would use them. Considering no one really knows how many were killed. Lenin and Stalin were by far the worst of the seven leaders, but they were also in control the longest.

1949 also saw the change of China to Communism along with USSR getting the bomb. And Communism was spreading across Asia unchecked as the US centered its focus on Russia instead of China.

Mistakes were made, but the US was also working on the premise of becoming a super power as well, just one with a heart.

a reply to: Ahabstar

You forgot the part where the USSR and the US created proxy wars instead of fighting each other.

That's more of how they became to power. The space race was a byproduct of that as well.

why does it not surprise me that leftovers are here to stick up for communism.

Try not to let this upset you.

originally posted by: JoeGee
I was reading a post that questioned the atrocities committed by communist regimes over time and whether Communism is truly bad or a made-up evil.

Lets dive.

I guess the easiest argument would be "look at the past Communist leaders". Sure, but that takes a fairly simple argument. Lets dive deeper... What empowers these people? What makes free America a better government model?

The problem when it comes to Communism is power lies in the state without the consent of its constituents. The state and the head of state makes the rules, they collect and spend government funds without the consent of their constituents. They fund programs that are good for the mob but not good for the individual. The problem is not everyone has the same needs. Some are fine never working a day again and collecting welfare, some don't mind an honest hard days work. Everyone becomes dependent on the system and essentially spoiled. There is a saying, "Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime". It helps absolutely no one by temporarily alleviating someones hardship, it actually only makes matters worse for the individual. What happens when the state falls apart and all the people depending on welfare can't get their services? See Russian Federation.

Lets get to the main problem here.

You're giving too much control to the state in a communist government. Which brings me to another quote, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". As you give up one right after another in these communist regimes, you'll find yourself on the other end of a barrel or a whip, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.

This is the MAIN reason we cherish the 2nd amendment in the United States. For any liberal that doesn't understand why we need an Armalite-15 to "defend" ourselves, it's because of tyrannical government more than it is about the pedophile next door. You think if we allowed the US Government to take our guns, our freedom of speech won't be next? Guess who took guns away from his people BEFORE he became an internationally known criminal... Yeah, Adolf Hitler. So did Stalin and Mao by the way. They revoked their peoples right to defend themselves telling them the state is better prepared to protect the people, took away all guns and went on to commit genocide.

I have a question for you....

Have you ever talked to a communist or even a socialist?

What did you talk about? Did you ask questions? Did you say you were concerned about atrocities?

I doubt you have ever talked to a Marxist, or read a Marxist Book or seen a Marxist Film.

Everything below - just ignore.





I have to reply and will keep it brief.

1) No ideal is ever without flaws, Communism/Democrary are ideals, archetypes. Application in the real world require compromise.

2) If you are speaking of the atrocities of Communist Regimes, it is disingenuous to do so without putting those specific atrocities in the context of the atrocities committed by other forms of regimes.

3) You state that the power lies in the State without the consent of the governed. Not initially, as no revolution will happen without the consent of the people. I would posit that the power held by government in the US, a so-called, democratic/representative doesn't have the consent of the people either just the autocratic backing of the Wealthy.

4) If you want freedom you'd better decide what you mean by freedom and whether or not others agree with your concept.

5) All collective life is about good will towards others and acting less selfishly.