Is Communism really that bad?

I have travelled my share of countries, among them also socialist and communist countries. I would say I neednt read up on communism but only look at the fruits of a certain philosophy. And I am totally APPALLED by its fruits. Run down infrastructure and houses, blandness, greyness, poverty, apathy, irresponsibility, corruption, totalitarianism, thought-policing, a brainwashed populace chanting marxist slogans...these are some of the fruits I have witnessed.

Disliking communism does not automatically mean embracing Capitalism though. Nevermind these stereotypes. I dislike Captalism, but given the choice I must choose the lesser evil.

Its hard to believe how people still try to sell Communism as something good, given all the failed attempts at it.


The shortcomings are not "only in practice" or "only because of the human factor" as many here claim. The shortcomings are in the whole theoretical framework, the whole philosophy, which is totally alien to human nature and a humans needs.


I am self-employed and have found out that my level of income and happiness are directly related to my own attitude and willingness to take responsibility for my behaviour, action and thinking. Its as simple as that.

Id like to see which of you Communists will actually gladly move to North Korea. You dont wanna move there? Why not? They advocate Communism.

Originally posted by Kacen
Its ether one by themselves that are bad (communism more so).

I couldnt disagree with you more on this point.

There is a large amount of suffering in the world because of Pure (unregulated) Capitalism. Capitalism without democracy is a horrible thing, just as Communism without democracy is.

Without the input of the civilians living under the system, the system will overrun the civilians. As is happenening in a large number of Thrid world "Pro-West" countries.

Also, can you expand on what a fascist economy looks like (how it functions) I am courious why you find it so appealing.

Not to offend anyone, but Hitler was a good leader... until the Night of the Long Knives and the War.

I mean, how many other leaders can you list that economically rebuilt a country that suffered from Hyperinflation and the Great Depression in less than 10 years. He also made some of the best roads since the Romans and reduced unemployment until almost everyone in Germany had a job. (Well I say he did it, he inspired his people to do it.)

Originally posted by Makkuri
and reduced unemployment until almost everyone in Germany had a job.

Well first, this is off topic, but your wrong about the above.

hitler mostly succeeded to reduce the unemployment figures, and not the acutal rates, by knocking Jews and women off the unemployment register and implementing mandatory concription.

Source

[edit on 12-10-2007 by InSpiteOf]

"Communism" is a fictitious theory that has never been put into practice, how can it be good or BAD

I can't get over how brainwashed people in this topic are!

It really surprises the hell out of me that people here... HERE OF ALL PLACES, a website whose slogan is "Deny Ignorance", the people here in this topic really fail to do so.

It cracks me up reading comments like this:

Communism sounds great but it is not realistic at all.
Communist society is undoubtedly a paradise on the earth, with everyone not in hunger or poverty. Folks lead a happy life in such a perfect world.
However, people in a relax and idle world are inclinable to laziness,which leads to a fall of productivity. There will be not enough food or entertainment for these lazybones and others are not reluctant to afford them for free because we humans are selfish

paradise on earth? No communist ever claims their system is free of problems. Posts like this make me think this site is more about embracing ignorance than denying it, it's just a good thing that not all the posters on this site are so easily brainwashed from what the media and the government tells them. Communism is a political and economic system almost exactly like anarcho-syndicalism which has its own problems (both communists and anarchists admit this), but is still far more efficient. Co-operatives in Argentina and Venezuela have proven this time and time again, as have those in Spain. Spain during it's civil war is a good example of a communist society, as was the Paris commune. Unfortunately both of these societies were completely annihilated by Nazis in one case (Spain), and the Paris commune destroyed by an entire nation (nation vs. city - of course the nation wins).

The Ghelco co-operative is a good example of worker-controlled production in action and it's effectiveness:
www.smh.com.au...

To summarise: It is almost frightening that the majority of people posting in this topic are very pro-capitalist and not progressive in any way, shape or form. It is even more frightening that hardly any of you actually question the anti-communist doctrines that were fed to you for the length of the Cold War. Go do some actual research, talk to communists, find out for yourself. Totalitarian dictatorships and oligarchies are in no way representative of communism and it's really quite amusing that some of you refer to the "downfall of communism" - this "downfall of communism" you're referring to was far more beneficial for communists than it was for any capitalist out there.

It also surprises me how many of you call this current system "democracy" - how is it democratic? Why do you equate capitalism with democracy? They are not one and the same, they are entirely different although in theory they can co-exist.

The system we live in is really in no way democratic. The common illusion of our society is that it "really is democratic." Is it? DEFINITELY NOT. Do you really think that a truly leftist opposition would ever be allowed to gain power? Most certainly not.. You would not be permitted to win an election and even if you were, you would not be permitted to govern. The difficulties of Hugo Chavez (several coups organised by the United States) and Salvador Allende (a social democrat) in Chile during the 70s (assassinated by the US) are good examples of the difficulties you would actually face.

If you want to talk about people with a utopian view - you will find them when you look at those promoting the "altruistic values of our modern democracy." The genius of the modern system is that it gives off the appearance of popular power and the rule of law without ever actually yielding substance or results. The last time any ruling class pulled off such a brilliant display of fooling the masses.... well, it hasn't really happened since the despotisms of ancient asia and egypt where the rulers were literally "god."

I am saddened when I see topics like this - they really show that even in communities for "denying ignorance," ignorance can prevail.

(continued from last post due to lack of space)

When I saw this.... I just had to comment.

Id like to see which of you Communists will actually gladly move to North Korea. You dont wanna move there? Why not? They advocate Communism

This quote in itself shows that you know little of the subject matter you talk about. It actually made me laugh out loud the first time I read it. North Korea is certainly not communist in any way, shape or form and no matter how many red flags they fly and no matter what slogans are on their banners; A social order with a "great leader" is extremely far from even socialism.

I really have to question your understanding of Marxism if you claim North Korea to be a communist society. To put it simply - you seem to think that if the label says "socialist" or "communist", then that's what's in the package...and that is simply not true. There is today a political organisation that runs a country, and it calls itself the "Communist Party of China" - is it really "communist?" In what way, besides the name? What do their words and their deeds show that they are trying to do? China is rapidly heading towards capitalism regardless of how much Maoist rhetoric they may spew. Yet there are still people like you who will call it a communist country and claim it is a communist society. Deeds and actions clearly dictate that North Korea is certainly not a communist society nor does its government advocate moving in that direction, hence the existence of a governmental structure - a dictatorship no less!

Remember - the slogan of this website is "Deny Ignorance" - you are clearly failing to do so.

[edit on 12/10/07 by Yazman]

Originally posted by Yazman
To summarise: It is almost frightening that the majority of people posting in this topic are very pro-capitalist and not progressive in any way, shape or form.

I am saddened when I see topics like this - they really show that even in communities for "denying ignorance," ignorance can prevail.

Personal property rights are the antithesis of communism which is based on the premise of shared ownership. Shared ownership is inherently flawed and unfair.

Take this example. Suppose it's just two people, and the only thing they own is an apple tree. One person spends all day picking apples, while the other sleeps under the tree. The person picking the apples is forced to share his apples with the guy who slept under the tree all day.

How long do you think this arrangement is going to last?

There's nothing "progressive" about a system that is designed to take the fruits of one's labors and give them to somebody else without compensation.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
I couldnt disagree with you more on this point.

There is a large amount of suffering in the world because of Pure (unregulated) Capitalism. Capitalism without democracy is a horrible thing, just as Communism without democracy is.

Without the input of the civilians living under the system, the system will overrun the civilians. As is happenening in a large number of Thrid world "Pro-West" countries.

Are you confused or something?

You just helped support what you just quoted. You must have read it wrong.

Originally posted by Makkuri
Not to offend anyone, but Hitler was a good leader... until the Night of the Long Knives and the War.

I mean, how many other leaders can you list that economically rebuilt a country that suffered from Hyperinflation and the Great Depression in less than 10 years. He also made some of the best roads since the Romans and reduced unemployment until almost everyone in Germany had a job. (Well I say he did it, he inspired his people to do it.)

Hitler wasn't a very good leader actually; he was only good at speaking, and of course he had to be coached and took meth.

All of Hitler's economic policies were not original they were copied/stolen from Mussolini who invented the fascist economic system.

Originally posted by Kacen
Are you confused or something?

You just helped support what you just quoted. You must have read it wrong.

Your original point that i quoted was this:

Its ether one by themselves that are bad (communism more so).

Bolding mine.
My issue is with the bolded. I dont believe pure communism has caused more problems in the world than pure capitalism.

I think your the confused one.

Personal property rights are the antithesis of communism which is based on the premise of shared ownership. Shared ownership is inherently flawed and unfair.

Take this example. Suppose it's just two people, and the only thing they own is an apple tree. One person spends all day picking apples, while the other sleeps under the tree. The person picking the apples is forced to share his apples with the guy who slept under the tree all day.

How long do you think this arrangement is going to last?

There's nothing "progressive" about a system that is designed to take the fruits of one's labors and give them to somebody else without compensation.

You are confusing personal property with private property. They are two entirely different things.

Anyway, your post smacks of social darwinism. In your hypothetical "communist society of two people," it is not in itself a communist society if there is some overarching "government" "forcing" one to give apples to another. He is evidently choosing to do so, as the other person is asleep. However if they were in fact both communists then one would not be "sleeping under the tree all day" while the other works. If this was the case then clearly it would be a mutual arrangement; days on and days off for the both of them.

At the end of the day; your hypothetical scenario is fundamentally flawed. If it was a "communist society," this man would not be "forced" to share anything - if he had a problem he would stage a strike, thus bringing the entire society to its knees, economically speaking. Your scenario sounds much more like a capitalist society, though - one man doing little while the other does all the work with the one doing little reaping the rewards.

Did you read my posts earlier? You are working under the assumption that there is some sort of state forcing the working class (your hypothetical "one man doing all the work" in this 2-person society) to do something. There would be no "state" as such; the idea that the "state" will "exist" to "do things" in a communist society is a holdover from 20th century Cold War idiocy like Leninism (which itself is not a communist system, you would know this had you done research) and the propaganda Reagan told you to swallow that you so clearly have swallowed. If you're aware of the history of Linux and freeware, you know there's nothing "forced" at all about the practice...and no "state" need be involved at all. There are simply ordinary people, doing what they enjoy, proud of the quality of their efforts, and happy that people want to use what they've created.

They "program software all day while the others sleep and reap the benefits," and they enjoy doing it. It's a growing movement that continues to threaten what is a traditionally heavily commercialised market.

It "lasts".

[edit on 12/10/07 by Yazman]

reply to post by BlueRaja


wow that was an ignorant reply. well I guess then, because of democracy millions of people died in iraq, vietnam and 200's thousands people who were just supporting communism were massacred in indonesia with the help of CIa.

In theory communism is a perfect society. It is also fascist in nature - the people are subservient to a government which is, in theory subservient to the people.

However, as soon as include human beings it gets messed up.

Not every human being mess things up.

To be honest those most likely to 'mess things up' are the opportunistic type - but that's not to say that people cannot become opportunistic if given time.

all the more reason to hold monthly leadership elections - this whole '4 year term' malarky is just inviting problems, in my opinion.

[edit on 12-10-2007 by Throbber - reason; use of profanity.]

[edit on 12-10-2007 by Throbber]

Communism isn't "bad" or "evil"... But it is completely unrealistic.

The premise of communal ownership and no central authority simply doesn't work in human society. We are a hierarchal, territorial species. We have no trouble sharing things, but it has to be shared on our terms. I'll loan you my shovel, but don't just take my shovel, that sort of thing. A society naturally stratifies into classes. Some people are more skilled or charismatic than others, and therefore gain more esteem in a society, even a "classless" one.

An implementation of "pure" communism would call for a complete restructuring of human nature - which has been attempted in many nations that have gone communist. With bloody and ineffective results. You just can't force that sort of thing.

Ironically, communism is right up there with other utopian philosophies such as anarchism and libertarianism. The three philosophies are, at the root, indistinguishable, and they're all equally realistic.

reply to post by 1111111111111


YES IT IS!!!
Just ask any ex communist.

reply to post by Marid Audran


Fascism is actually the reverse of communism - it's private ownership of the mechanisms of the state, and thus the people ruled by the state.

I think communism could only succeed in an individual "nomadic" setting of a small population. Take Russia or China or the U.S. as so called communist countries. Vast regions with solid infrastructure and large populations. Under communism or socialism when a dilema hits a particular region it must suck the resources from another region. Economic, mother nature, human dispute etc. Which would be a continous cycle of redistribution.

However, a nomadic tribe and mindset could shift itself or move to acomodate the situation while maintain the rules of governance.

Ive put in too many sleepless nights, worked too many 20 hours days to now even consider a system that would take away everything I have gained over these years.

Instead of complaining and whining, why dont you adapt to the system and succeed with the cards taht youve been dealt. We still live in a country where you can move up the classes. So get off your lazy behind and make something of yourself.

The Walking Fox:

Please define "human nature" and, you know, provide the evidence that there even is such a thing because it's highly disputed (and still unproven) in the world of science.

Posts like yours continue to show the embracing of ignorance here when it comes to politics. I have the impression more and more that all pro-capitalist arguments reduce to this assertion in one form or another.

The fact that there's very little scientific knowledge of "human nature" or that such a thing even exists suggests the following reply:

There's no such thing as human nature!

"Human nature" in the sense that you're using the word must mean something common to all humans at all times...as, for example, the "stalk & pounce" impulse is common to all felines at all times. The insatiable greed that you claim is at the heart of "human nature" is obviously and evidently not common to all humans at all times, and even when present, takes many forms (different ones), by no means all of them materialistic.
Once you have all that you can use, "greed", if still present, becomes pathological. In capitalist society - a society where uncertainty about the future is always present, you must accumulate more and more because of the risk of losing what you have. It makes "rational sense" to be greedy in a capitalist society.

In an egalitarian society where you are always secure against sudden destitution, greed for more than you can use would literally be crazy. Almost like those "conspiracy nuts" who keep a year's supply of food on hand at all times in case of sudden apocalypse. Deny ignorance, huh? Certainly not in this thread.

Also, the guy equating communism with authoritarianism and fascism really makes me laugh... as I keep saying, read my posts and actually, you know, DENY IGNORANCE - this means to do your research and not simply believe what the government tells you to believe. You will find that communists are not aiming to build this. Communists are not Leninists. Equating the two just because the latter flies red flags and claims "socialism" (note the claim of a "socialist" society and not a communist one) is like equating what North Korea has, with democracy - Well, North Korea calls itself democratic doesn't it?

This must mean they are a democracy, right? Let us also not forget, ONCE MORE, that capitalism is not equal to democracy. They are not the same thing, nor is it accurate to equate the two.

Finally, I must express the hilarity of your "communism, anarchism, and libertarianism are utopian" claim. The label of "utopian" and "unrealistic" can be applied to any political theory - be it nazi theory, capitalist theory, communist theory, feudalist theory, anarcho-primitivist theory, anarcho-capitalist theory, and the list goes on. Instead of throwing around statements like "this is utopian" perhaps you should, you know, form an actual argument rather than slinging the one that is thousands of years old (and by now is redundant and hilarious). Remember that before capitalism there were those feudalist nobles who claimed capitalism could never work as it was "too utopian and unrealistic" and that "the people will always need nobles to rule by divine right."

We know what happened to those people, don't we? They were hung, they were guillotined, and they were lynched by angry revolutionaries.

[edit on 13/10/07 by Yazman]