Is Communism really that bad?

I think the main problem here is that we, in general, call something which is'nt "communism" COMMUNISM.

It's like calling an egg and elephant, and then asking how many elephants it takes to make a good omellette.

Call what we know as "communism" STALINISM, and suddenly the question this thread is based on becomes clear.

STALINISM (what everyone seems to refer to as communism) IS bad, I sure as hell would'nt want to live in cold war STALINIST Russia.

Communism, however, is still just a theory, it may work, it might not.It might be good or it may not.WHO KNOWS?

these are all historical terms.

as said before, rhere have never been REAL working communist systems.
the GDR (german denocratic republic) for example, failed, because of inner,economic reasons.it went bankrupt. and look at the ecologic desasters, their oldfashioned industry destroyed the whole land, till now. not to speak from other former russian lands.
and of course the voilations of human rights .
no, its over.

the guys behind the (now called) NWO have always been part of the system that pulled the strings behind , regardless what political leaders ruled the nations.
so, the main points of communism ,the central bank, is a thing that will soon come.
so , you could say, ´communism´ is a thing of the future.(of course with a microchip in your arse)


[edit on 13-10-2007 by anti72]

Originally posted by jjohns
reply to post by 1111111111111

 

Come to think of it, marriage is a great example of communism in action. It works 50% of the time when only two people are involved.

That is so very true. I had never even considered marriage as a form of communism until you pointed it out.

Originally posted by Yazman
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!

Except I'm not making a pro-capitalist argument. That'd be a little bit silly, seeing as how I'm a socialist and a populist, and regard unfettered capitalism to be one of the most frightening things that could happen to a people.

"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.

Good, you know where I'm coming from - the "Stalk and pounce" instinct is a wonderful example. When I speak of human nature, I'm not talking about a philosophical construct such as "greed". I'm talking biology. We are a social primate, and we share pretty much every instinct other social primates have.

First among them, is territoriality. Why do people, through history, divide themselves into clans, tribes, kingdoms, and nations? Because we have that urge naturally, to hold a territory and its resources to sustain those we regard as "family." Other groups infringing on this claimed territory are chased off, through threat display or even outright violence. Different peoples have different concepts of what constitutes property, but every society has the concept, and laws against theft, and usually a long set of taboos with regards to borrowing things.

Second, is hierarchy. In a social unit, there is always going to be someone who is "dominant". Grab together a random group of ten people and have 'em work on a project together - By the end of the week there will be a clear "foreman" personality among them, maybe a subdirector, and there will also be the one guy nobody on the team likes. Just as we divide ourselves into "familial" groups of varying size, we also divide ourselves within these groups.

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.

Agreed. Greed in and of itself is a mental illness, I feel, and is clearly the root of suffering - you don't have to be a Buddhist to realize that. It is a thought process rooted in fear and envy, neither of which could possibly be described as healthy outlooks. Again, however, I am not suggesting greed is part of human nature. Possessiveness and hierarchal structures are, but are not the same as greed.

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.

That's saying it a little lightly. The two are mutually exclusive. Wealth translates into power. Capitalism is a ponzi scheme that concentrates wealth (and thus power) into the hands of a small few. This has the end result of turning democracy into a joke label.

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."

Yes, it can be applied to anything. But it fits better on some than others.

Communism espouses an egalitarian society with no class divisions and communal property. It has been attempted both on small and large scales, but these principles always drag it down, because of our instincts to possess and stratify.

Anarchism is voluntary communism - be egalitarian and classless if you want, man. The flaws of anarchism is the assumption that every person is a decent person who agrees with anarchism. Fact is, there's some real jerks in the world who make this philosophy unworkable.

And libertarianism... This is the belief that a society based off unregulated capitalism and lack of law will manage to be a good place to live. The belief is that the needy will be supported by charity, and all things will be fair and equal because of "the magic hand of the market". Say what you like about communism and anarchism, folks, neither of them rely on magically disembodied invisible appendages to get things done.

These three philosophies are failures because they hinge entirely on things that humans, at least modern humans, are incapable of - perfect egalitarianism and fairness. It just doesn't happen. Why? Because for all the talk of faith in human goodness, all these philosophical debates of right versus wrong... We're still just nomadic apes with a tribal mindset

What is the matter with all of you? Communism and Socialism are one in the same monstrous beast and are both inherently tyrannical, there is not one single thing good about them (unless you are the emperor of course). Democracy is the aid one country administers unto another country, Democracy is a terrible form of government because it leads you directly to door of the same monstrous beast.

The only truly good form of government is a Republican Constitutionalist government that believes wholeheartedly that every man was created equal. A government with no ties, no bonds, no debts, no secret bloodlines, no secret emperors, no secret kings; imagine a world without the likes of the Rothschilds and Rockefeller families, indeed that would be most excellent. Though sadly we are currently living in such a secret world and the monstrous beast is in the form of the U.N. and the are out for globalism served on a hot plate, even if it means the cost of both your blood and mine.

If one is going to decide if communism is "good" or "bad" should that person really be basing this decision on what one "marxists.org" has to say?

Come on, people. Don't be so dense.

First of all let me just say that the people in here who have noted that people are confusing Leninism & Stalinism with communism are entirely correct - this is why I wish people would think for themselves and study the actual literature before commenting. When people eat whatever the government dishes out to them they get brainwashed and Embrace Ignorance.We are here to Deny it, not Embrace it. Think for yourself.


reply to post by TheWalkingFox


TheWalkingFox, I again challenge you to provide evidence of the construct you refer to as "human nature" - evidence, not an argument. There is a reason the scientific establishment generally rejects this concept, yet so many in the world of politics embrace it - it's handy to simply blame anything you like on imaginary things in order to gain support.

The Nazis did this too with their "jewish conspiracy." Some people STILL believe it despite all evidence pointing in the other direction.

As regards your part about property, well you are making some pretty broad and sweeping arguments. What of the peasant class that made up the majority of humanity under the various systems of monarchy that owned, literally, nothing? This class existed for well over 1000 years without any concept of property - actual property was reserved for nobility.

Even Russia had a system of serfdom like this in the 19th century. Tibet had it in the 20th century, landless serfs who owned nothing!

Again, however, I am not suggesting greed is part of human nature. Possessiveness and hierarchal structures are, but are not the same as greed.

Prove it. Furthermore, if your argument was in fact true then such qualities would be both:

a)scientifically accepted, and
b)observable in all humans at all times.

These are not mutually exclusive conditions; neither a or b are true anyway. Please explain to me why such co-operatives as the Ghelco operate prosperously with a decentralised hierarchy? Find a good article here: www.guardian.co.uk...

The Ghelco co-operative is not the only one of its kind; such co-operative structures are used in other countries and they were widely used in the anarcho-communist society that existed in Spain before it was taken over by the nazi-backed fascist movement, ruled over by Francisco Franco. According to your argument such conditions could not possibly exist and even if they did, could not operate on their own merit for any significant period of time - but history, past AND present dictates that your argument is in fact, incorrect.

Your argument shows its incorrect nature even more when you consider the fallacy that only "special people" can run things. Define "most capable." Go ahead, define it. The way things operate now in terms of defining who is the "most capable" is thus: those who gain credentials in education institutions that "certify" their "capability" then go forth and choose others who are pretty much just like them. This is the way things currently run, and this is why so many people either do not vote or do informal & "donkey" votes. This is why it is widely considered that we "have no choice" and it is also the same reason why major parties in many countries are virtually identical.

When a system like this runs for any notable length of time, it leads to an elite class that is self perpetuating. A class which doesn't even "need" to be "capable" but can actually propagate its own authority by having an officia ldesignation of "capable," without any actual objective evidence of capability. Think about the careers of many of today's CEOs, jumping from organisation to organisation, #ing up everything they come close to and yet have booming salaries that increase each and every year, running more and more and larger and larger organisations. Then they go to jail. Enron for example.

CONTINUED FROM LAST POST:

Your argument reeks of the age old argument that every ruling class uses when it's authority is in danger - the myth that only "special, better people" can run things. The "justification" of class society is that there must be a ruling class, otherwise civilization "can't exist."

Communism espouses an egalitarian society with no class divisions and communal property. It has been attempted both on small and large scales, but these principles always drag it down, because of our instincts to possess and stratify.

Communists promote a society without class divisions, communal property is not really part of it though. Democratic control of the work place and elimination of "private" property - this is what they aim for, and eliminating private property does not mean collectivization as you seem to be asserting. It has been attempted on both small and large scales and has succeeded with flying colours when, you know, attempted.

The mistake you are making here is confusing Leninism & Stalinism with communism. The Soviet Union for example was run by "Marxist-Leninists" who agreed with you. Unlike the communists and anarchists (who aim for the same society but differ when it comes to class analysis), they believed that decentralisation is a very bad thing and is "dragged down due to out instincts to possess and stratify." Lenin himself talks about the inability of the people to govern themselves (which we know is utter tripe from actual modern history in Spanish, French, and Latin American societies). It is this belief that the people must have a government and a hierarchy that led to the Soviet Union and the atrocities committed therein.

Anarchism is voluntary communism - be egalitarian and classless if you want, man. The flaws of anarchism is the assumption that every person is a decent person who agrees with anarchism. Fact is, there's some real jerks in the world who make this philosophy unworkable.

This is where you actually prove that you seem to think communists advocate government, in which you say "anarchism is voluntary communism." Had you actually done your research you would know that communists and anarchists advocate the exact same society. The difference between the two is that anarchists generally reject a class analysis of society as well as a rejection of much of communist analysis of capitalism.

And libertarianism... This is the belief that a society based off unregulated capitalism and lack of law will manage to be a good place to live. The belief is that the needy will be supported by charity, and all things will be fair and equal because of "the magic hand of the market".

What you're describing here is inaccurate and is closer to anarcho-capitalism or laissez faire capitalism, and neither of these philosophies advocate "lack of law." They advocate minimal centralised government (or no centralised government in the case of anarcho-capitalism) and removing the government's role in the market. The government is still to government but it simply does not interfere in the market. Now, Libertarianism is really just a form of current neo-liberalism that advocates a much smaller role for the government and abolition of certain taxation laws, etc. The policies of Thomas Jefferson and Ron Paul (I am not comparing the two) are great examples of Libertarian policy.

These three philosophies are failures because they hinge entirely on things that humans, at least modern humans, are incapable of - perfect egalitarianism and fairness. It just doesn't happen. Why? Because for all the talk of faith in human goodness, all these philosophical debates of right versus wrong... We're still just nomadic apes with a tribal mindset

Philosophical debates, yes. This is essentially what your argument is - a philosophical one with an unsubstantial claim to science.

[edit on 14/10/07 by Yazman]

In the day, utopian fantasies were the fad amongst intellectuals who had too much time on their hands and no real skills in the Sciences. Marx wrote of his "Communism" in that environment. It was just another kind of sci-fi/fantasy exercise. My personal favorite is still "The Abolition of work" by the anarchist Bob Black. Anyway, Lenin actually thoight he could put a fantasy into real effect, as have others such as the Shakers, etc (well, sci-fi has helped us technologically) but all obviously failed. Why? Because men always want more more more money, power, etc and are instinctively ambitious. If they are not allowed to excel and prosper by their own endeavor then they give up and become pettulant and lazy (laziness is an emotional "disease" resulting from not having to "work" to survive). Stalin proved the first and the Russian people proved the second. Guarenteed comfort is deadly to our (any) species.

reply to post by Yazman


Ever heard of evolutionary psychology? Why do we find babies cute, even not of our species? Why do we get aroused by steamy scenes in movies? Why do we behave as we do? A surprising amount of it is instincts. It shouldn't be surprising, but after centuries of theologians and self-professed "philosophers" declaring that humanity is unique and utterly and completely self-determined, it still astounds.

Let's start with the family, shall we? At the basic levels, all families in all societies work the same way. Parents use their experience to educate their kids about the world around them, and use the best of their abilities to protect the resources those children will need to remain healthy and eventually have kids of their own - and they will do the same with their own children. Hierarchy and territory, right there at the base level of society. This is proven instinct - nurturing one's young. Granted it's stronger in some people than others, but it's there.

Take your factory for example (great story, by the way). Do the more experienced workers take the position of mentor to the newcomers? Certainly, wouldn't want to have an episode of "I Love Lucy", right? Do you think these people would roll over if a bunch of outsiders tried to take the factory from them? Of course not, it's theirs, and with it they get the resources they need. Hierarchy and territory.

The two concepts do not necessarily translate into capitalism. Or communism. They are evident in all these varied constructs, because all these constructs rely on one common element - humanity. The trouble is, these constructs fail to take a lot of human features into consideration.

Take communism. Communism expects its followers to extend familial altruism to those outside the family group. Noble goal, perhaps, but it falls short by the fact that people will always favor their families over a stranger. We're an instinctively altruistic species - very few people would refuse water to a man dying of thirst. But it has limits - if a stranger is dying of thirst, and a family member is dying of thirst, who gets the first sip?

Capitalism goes the exact opposite route. it wants us to carve our families down into the nuclear. Mom, Dad, kids. Kick the kids out, lock the parents in a home, ASAP. The notion of clan is derided as "primitive" in a capitalist society. Your extended family is competition, a threat to your resources. Clearly this is unhealthy as hell. Unfortunately it takes root easier. We are better-able to accept the effective "loss" of family members than we are to accept strangers as family members.

Both systems fail because they want to re-write the way things work in our head. We are a tribal species, Yazman, and we are at our healthiest in such an environment. Extended families caring for one another is the ultimate expression of human society.

I'm not getting your point about the peasants. Do you think the Russian serfs or the Tibetan peasants had nothing by virtue of choice? Hell no. The Tsars, the Lamas, engaged in violence and theft to achieve this goal. Feudalism is as artificial and deranged a system as the other two we're talking about.

The mistake you are making here is confusing Leninism & Stalinism with communism. The Soviet Union for example was run by "Marxist-Leninists" who agreed with you.

You seriously need to understand that not everyone who disagrees with communism does so with the images of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao as the example they base the criticism on. I certainly don't. I further don't agree with the thought that people are incapable of governing themselves - as I mentioned earlier, I'm a populist, for crying out loud. Recognizing that in any given group, someone is bound to "take charge" is a hugely different thing from what you're railing about

[edit on 14-10-2007 by TheWalkingFox]

Communism is not for us. Social democracy may be, if the politicians can keep a sense of public service.

to yazman,

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.

my my how agitated we can become when people say what they feel and think.
would this be an example of your communism.

When people eat whatever the government dishes out to them they get brainwashed and Embrace Ignorance.We are here to Deny it, not Embrace it. Think for yourself.

how can you make a statement like this, and turn around and say peoples thought and feeling about a subject is any less valuable than yours. you tell people to think for them selves. but, if it is not in line with how you think, then they embrace ignorance? are you of a "higher" intellect as others? surly your not placing yourself above the importance of others, are you?

There's no such thing as human nature!

you have got to be kidding me right? people have been studying human nature for as long as humans were able to hold coherent thought.

TheWalkingFox, I again challenge you to provide evidence of the construct you refer to as "human nature" - evidence, not an argument. There is a reason the scientific establishment generally rejects this concept, yet so many in the world of politics embrace it - it's handy to simply blame anything you like on imaginary things in order to gain support.

what form of evidence would be acceptable to you? it seems by the use of the "construct", no evidence would suffice.

and finally, my favorite quote:

Think about the careers of many of today's CEOs, jumping from organization to organisation, #ing up everything they come close to and yet have booming salaries that increase each and every year, running more and more and larger and larger organisations. Then they go to jail. Enron for example.

that would be an example yes. but a bad example of the capitalistic economics.
there are hundreds of thousands of good examples to chose from. but, that would not support your argument, would it?


here is my point.
it is ridiculous to argue if communism is either bad, or works. its neither bad, or unpractical.

to say it is good, would beg the question...compared to what? communism is not bad as it stands alone. to measure its efficiency, there has to be goals set before the measurement takes place. if your goals are to create surplus and large profits, then communism is not the route for you. you see where im going with this?

I know there is noting im going to say that will change your mode of thought. that's ok. its a free exchange of ideas here. I don't wish to get stuck in a circular argument here. but, you wouldn't be the best example of the communistic attitude.....in my opinion

Originally posted by majestikc
STALINISM (what everyone seems to refer to as communism) IS bad, I sure as hell would'nt want to live in cold war STALINIST Russia.

Yes, interesting isn't it.

Stalinism can never be refered as communism and Stalin was far from being a communist. He was more anti-communist. After all, he killed (or ordered it) more communists than the Nazis or others did.

I do not agree that communism is a failure. It was a bloody but successfull social experiment. The main goal of communism as a political system was to see, if in a society where every person is equal on every level, there could exist a ruling elite.

reply to post by 1111111111111


Take some college level economics courses and then get back to me (take macro + micro economics). Communism violates several market proven laws of economics and that's why it doesn't work. It can't work because it destroys market efficiency and removes the invisible hand.

[edit on 10/15/07 by RedDragon]

Communism is actually a great idea , the problem is PEOPLE. As with any system PEOPLE are the ones that ruin and corrupt and their lust for power screw it up. 'Nuff said.

reply to post by Kaiju666

I could not agree more!

Considering that I did live once upon a time in a galaxy far, far away in a socialist country, I would say that the overall feeling of being EQUAL to everybody (by calling them COMRADE) was great! But of course, that was just an illusion of that, since we too did have a ruling elite, which kind of ruled out the idea of everybody being equal. Which means, that people do corrupt even the purest ideas with their greed and hunger for power. Happened before and it will happen again.

Originally posted by Kaiju666
Communism is actually a great idea , the problem is PEOPLE. As with any system PEOPLE are the ones that ruin and corrupt and their lust for power screw it up. 'Nuff said.

Not just that, it's that the market can't be regulated by people as well as it can by natural forces (it's not a human imperfection thing, it's that demand and whatnot can't be artificially regulated by people well).

From personal experience I would say that communism (applied communism) is #, but im not exactly sure of this, because lived in the USSR during the Yeltsin presidency and at that point USSR was no more. However, I think in a place like the former USSR, democracy would not fare very well ether. But don't take my word for it, check the news. So I think we need a method of comparison. You might think of Russian as a good example of communism and it is, but its not the communism that Marx and Engels envisioned. If we are to compare the two types of government, communism and democracy, I think it is only fair to compare them as concepts rather then forms of manifestation. Having said that, I doubt there is a single person here who is qualified to make such a comparison. And so the only thing left is, let's not be fare and put the two concepts through fire and see how they faired in the real world, and yes I'm talking about USA and USSR. How is USA better then former USSR, were people actually happier in the USA then in USSR? Who can say? During Kruschev's presidency, those were the better years, USSR enjoyed wealth and power and a strong economy. People in the USSR enjoyed imported goods like wine and caviar. The education system was free and much better then it was in the USA and everyone enjoyed a wealth of free social programs, from free medical care to (peoneri) boy scouts. But I could not say if they were happier then people in the USA, but what I could tell you is that it has nothing to do with material gain. To often is happiness measured through material gain and that is simply not true.

tell me we are both equal but i live crammed in 800 unit houseing complex while you get a ocean front mansion,i wait 10 years to get some junker of car that the "people" built , while you are driven around in a top of the line m/b. tell we are the same but yet all that is equal is that at some point we both die(myself more likly to die way before you, becuse we dont have equal medical care). i will take my chances on what i can achive in this unequal form of goverment that understands that some people just dont have what it takes to make it and never where and never will be equal to everyone else. survival of the fittest

This is not what the perfect idea of communism had in mind but it is what has happened the times any state has tried it, and always will becuse you and I are not equal i'm not better than you and you are not better than me but in some things i am and in others you are.you may try harder than i am willing in some things,and in others you would drag me down.

Thats just my off hand thoughts about the"utopia of communism". havent really thought to much on it.

Originally posted by ukrainianhooligan
From personal experience I would say that communism (applied communism) is #, but im not exactly sure of this, because lived in the USSR during the Yeltsin presidency and at that point USSR was no more.

Communism fails in not only application, but also theory.

Originally posted by ukrainianhooligan
However, I think in a place like the former USSR, democracy would not fare very well ether.

Democracy is a system of government, while communism is sort of a system of economy. Capitalism is the antithesis of communism, and authoritarianism the antithesis of libertarianism. Or anarchism if you extend the scale.

And the United States is not a democracy, it is a republic. Furthermore, thanks to socialist influence, it isn't completely capitalist, either. It subsidizes everything now, and that intervention in the economy is hurting us.

Originally posted by ukrainianhooligan
But don't take my word for it, check the news. So I think we need a method of comparison. You might think of Russian as a good example of communism and it is, but its not the communism that Marx and Engels envisioned. If we are to compare the two types of government, communism and democracy, I think it is only fair to compare them as concepts rather then forms of manifestation.

You have to really look at how they work and what they do.

Originally posted by ukrainianhooligan
How is USA better then former USSR, were people actually happier in the USA then in USSR? Who can say?

Anyone with a brain and slight knowledge of economics.

Originally posted by ukrainianhooligan
During Kruschev's presidency, those were the better years, USSR enjoyed wealth and power and a strong economy.

Only if you define "strong" as "barely able to sustain itself."

Originally posted by ukrainianhooligan
People in the USSR enjoyed imported goods like wine and caviar.

So does everyone else.

Originally posted by ukrainianhooligan
The education system was free and much better then it was in the USA and everyone enjoyed a wealth of free social programs,

Bull#. This is either a lie or pure propaganda.

Originally posted by ukrainianhooligan
from free medical care to (peoneri) boy scouts.

Yeah, wonder how well that worked.

Originally posted by ukrainianhooligan
But I could not say if they were happier then people in the USA, but what I could tell you is that it has nothing to do with material gain.

Liberty and a good economy (by not doing much) are the two things a government can provide for happiness.

[edit on 21-11-2007 by Johnmike]

[edit on 21-11-2007 by Johnmike]