Does Communism Work After All?

Originally posted by FredT
In theory, Communism works. In theory.
------- Homer Simpson

 

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.

Uh... wrong. There are PLENTY of nations on Earth who have rock bottom labor rates and even LESS environmental restrictions than China, but NONE have reached remotely close to the economic growth of China's level.

Their economy is not planned as in the way of the Soviet Union, China has moved away and has started to liberalise certain aspects of their economy.

How can China be still called a Communist state when it now has a growing middle class? That what makes me all confuzzled

but forgetting that, you have to remember that China does not hold elections so the economy is not effected by democratic changes or political blues around election time. The economy does not have to worry about some of guys coming in and changing the place.

Thats the benefit of a one party state.

[edit on 1-3-2007 by infinite]

Does it work? No. It doesn't...

All China is doing is proving that Capitalism works. Now, can they have a powerful economy with out the democracy? That is yet to be seen, I do not see why democracy would propel the ability of capitalism, if anything I would think it would run smoother under the control of one person.

Chinas economic impact on us? .. Could be big, they lost on Tuesday a mere 148 billion in value while America lost some 600billion in value.

Any system can work if the people (particularly those in power) are moral, upstanding and tend to do the right thing. The more a culture moves away from this ideal, the more poverty, corruption and tyranny will result. Obviously, this is true of any system, which we are sadly learning here in the 'capitalist' USA.

The whole concept of a classless society flies in the face of human nature. People in power will always tend to use that power to benefit themselves (which is necessarily always to the detriment of others), and will seek to pass on this power and privilege to their children. Only when the common folk are moral and righteous will they be knowledgeable, brave and motivated enough to fight off this natural tendency toward tyranny.

Originally posted by k4rupt
[Uh... wrong. There are PLENTY of nations on Earth who have rock bottom labor rates and even LESS environmental restrictions than China,

Eh? none have the numbers of avalible workers either no? Africa has rock bottom labor rates as well, but none have the infrastructure or a stable totalitarian regime in place to enforce thier will over the populace.

Any social, economic, sexual or moral system will work but it required education, indoctrination and being born into it after generations of it developing. Capitalism is not a given or default system, nor is Christianity, or monogamy or any other system. The wonderful thing about the human species is that left to ourselves we will develop or adapt a just about infinite number of economic, political, sexual, moral or religious systems.

The original title asks does communism work? To me, that implies current and/or historical experience. From that perspective, I would have to emphatically say "No, it doesn't work!", since every country that has called themselves communist has either failed themselves or switched to another form of government. And also, every attempt to create something closer to the ideal of true communism has resulted in some monstrosity of a governmment that was horrible for it's own citizens and the rest of the world in general.

Originally posted by grover
Any social, economic, sexual or moral system will work but it required education, indoctrination and being born into it after generations of it developing. Capitalism is not a given or default system, nor is Christianity, or monogamy or any other system. The wonderful thing about the human species is that left to ourselves we will develop or adapt a just about infinite number of economic, political, sexual, moral or religious systems.

I think we agree here, but I wouldn't mind a clarification. If a system requires indoctrination, (beyond that natural to an upbringing) can it really be said to 'work'? I also find it problematic that people should be made to adapt to a system and not the other way around.

Would you agree with me that a culture/governmental system that respects the rights and needs of the individual will always be more successful than the more state-centric type?

China is NOT a Communist Nation.

China was up till 1978 a Maoist Nation (Marxist-Leninist) and then it changed with the reforms put forward by Deng Xiaoping. In 1978 they gave up the socialist command economy and the Maoist attempt at a Great Leap Forward as both had failed.

China never was a Communist Nation.

Let me make it simple: If I call Brazil a Communist Nation - it doesn't make it so. If I call the United States a Communist Nation - it doesn't make it so.

It is now a mixture of earlier Socialist Policy from people such as Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, etc. In fact it is nearer to what Plato wrote in the Republic and Thomas More in Utopia than it is to Communism and it is still far from Capitalism.

In fact, nobody in China calls it a Communist Government either. It's only something Western People tend to do - in their own words they are a Socialist economy now.

I heard that joke long time ago:

Capitalism is the exploitation of men by men. Communism is the other way around.

Now, I would like Communism to work (but it doesn't), Communism had to do with planned economy. In pure Capitalism, everything is left to the "market", but...

The Global Warming, pollution etc. clearly show that leaving everything to the "market" has it's flaw. And we will be forced to introduce some sort of laws, control (planned economy). I understand that you will say that forces of the market could solve that problem (carbon market, etc.) but I think that without stronger law, it will not happens.

Think about this for a second, on a scale of time of several hundred of years, does it matter if we (the west) move from telegraph, to phone, to internet to cellular phone, etc. in one person lifetime, while the rest of the world doesn't? Don't you think that it will be better if most of the world was reaching the thing as the same time/pace? Where is the rush to reach certain milestone, that quick? (the only explanation is greed/money money money).

As I said, communism doesn't work because people are "jealous" they don't want to see their neighbour have something they don't have and they don't like to see that everybody get something, even if they didn't strive for it.

So maybe, when people will be at an higher state of consiousness, then perhaps Communism could/will work.

In the meantime, I will keep doing money, hoping to retire soon with plenty of cash.

Originally posted by resistor

Originally posted by grover
Any social, economic, sexual or moral system will work but it required education, indoctrination and being born into it after generations of it developing. Capitalism is not a given or default system, nor is Christianity, or monogamy or any other system. The wonderful thing about the human species is that left to ourselves we will develop or adapt a just about infinite number of economic, political, sexual, moral or religious systems.

I think we agree here, but I wouldn't mind a clarification. If a system requires indoctrination, (beyond that natural to an upbringing) can it really be said to 'work'? I also find it problematic that people should be made to adapt to a system and not the other way around.

Would you agree with me that a culture/governmental system that respects the rights and needs of the individual will always be more successful than the more state-centric type?

We are both indoctrinated by the nature of our society, and its educational system to accept that our system is the best form for a society to take. Also we are brought up in and nurtured in it from the ladle to the crave (I know what I wrote before some damn fool tries to correct me) so how is that any different? many ancient societies that thrived and lasted thousands of years put little imphsis on the individual... Egypt, Sumer and Akkad, Indian and China all put little importance in the individual except as how it fit into society from family to empire. So no our focus on the individual, while soothing for the ego, is not the only, or possibly the best way to go. To answer questions like that you really have to take a very long view and as cultures go the book is still out on us. 500 years is a fairly short time culturally speaking... for context the citizen of say, Alexandria at 1AD had 3,000 years of Egyptian history behind him, which is half again the distance between us and him.

Mind you I am not advocating communism, because how it has been practiced over the last 100 years is obviously a failure; but then again soviet style communism was hardly socialism, much less communism.

At the same time to ask if an economic (or any other system) works requires the vision of centuries to make any sort of valid determination. That and the understanding that we humans can and have functioned for long periods of time under a variety of systems, some radically different from our own, and for them and for that duration, they worked.

Quite a few years ago I wrote out what I still consider the most the most concise description of the functioning of government. I wrote in an essay on politics for college that "The sole purpose of a government is to provide a safe environment for the raising of crops and families... everything else is icing on the cake." Given that as a context, just about any system that provides that environment will work for its citizens. When it stops, or cannot do that any longer, it fails.

on a side note..

I like to point out that this is probably one of the most interesting articles ever posted on ATS. I've read it twice now.

In fact, nobody in China calls it a Communist Government either. It's only something Western People tend to do - in their own words they are a Socialist economy now.

The Chinese is more Socialist now than anything.

If you read the modern theory of socialist economics, you will see that China is used as the example.

Originally posted by Togetic
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.

There is actually a way to overcome that hurdle. We'd have to adopt parts of a couple different political/economic systems to make it work, but I can see it working nicely.

I'm currently working on an outline for a research project that I'm doing on it. I've gotta dig more resources up though.

TheBorg

Originally posted by FredT
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.

Absolutely correct. Don't forget to include the lack of human rights as a method of control of the working class.

Communism should be treated like a religion and must not use money or be forced upon. People should be given the choice to be part of or leave the communist way of life, just like a religion. I respect alot of religious teachings but I would not want them forced upon me.
One of the most important things that keeps political structures working are skilled workers. Skilled workers might get paid more in capitalists societies, but the one thing communism has to offer of what you can't buy are strong relationships to people you deal directly with and more time to your self. No one is making money out of you so you work to what is nessecery.
In a money driven society are relationships are indirect. The money you make is your focus not how the customer is feeling towards your contribution. When you spend your money you focus on your goods from your supplyer and they focus on the money. Your time is taken up from earning and spending and less time to your self.
The more time we get the easier it is for self development and empowerment. So we can spend more time tapping into the greatst resource in the known universe which is the HUMAN MIND.
The problem is not capitalism or communism, its people not understanding them selves. Misdirection by leaders selling lies and no guides there to help us see the real good in the world.

Originally posted by 11Bravo
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.

USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist REPUBLICS.

Nuff said.

communism is great! on a small scale...like a tribe

Why can't we have something betwen comunism and capitalism. I think that would work great.It would server as a balance. Comunism and Capitalism can cause damage when taken to the extreme.Comunism can lead to dictatorship and capitalism can also cause hunger, unimployment and domination, it can kill the economy of a whole city.
I think it would be a great idea to mix social values with the open market policy and have something decent for everyone.That would give birth to limits and resticitions for big corporations but it would still let them operate the way they do.It would also give a choise. Let's say for those who want insurance they can have insurance, for those who prefere to pay a tax as a colective to get social benefit from the state should be able to so.There
should be two sistems running at the same time and people should be able to chose, that would also be democratic .It would give the posibility to chose the way you want to go, or change away from something back to the previos choise.And by the way, socialism is comunism.Anything that implies a colective hive where cash get's colected from all and get's distributed to some in need that are part of the "all" in the form of medicine, public service, and other forms is called comunism.Do not mistake that, socialism is comunism.

I think China can be described as enlightened totalitarianism + market economy