What is communism?

[Soviet Steve]

snip

I'm a leftist myself and I don't have strong emotions on this subject. In my view communism is the inevitable outcome of capitalism, but it occurs through technological development. Capitalism works to increase efficiency and decrease cost, once this process has been completed it renders the motivating factors of survival and greed completely irrelevant as we will have infinite food, goods and services while requiring no effort to produce them.

At that point communism, that everyone is equal, is the natural result of our development. So while I don't put faith in its application today, I envy the people who will actually get to experience it.

 

[NotSoLoneWanderer]

There hasn't been true communism (which I believe is called Marxism) in society to this day, because for it to work people need to not be... well, people.

For communism to work you need french revolution style fear and discipline to stop people from getting more than everyone else and you know how that ended. Humanity isn't really designed for communism because someone will always want more then someone else. Also, there will always be over privileged people in any society and someone will most likely ask hey why does he/she have that and I don't?

 

[Patshiv]

Sounds great, but in practice it is a system far to easy to corrupt. The government has to own everything, so in turn a hopefully "classless" system becomes a struggle between a working class and a "government" class. That's why it was outlasted (on the large scale) by American capitalism.

The use of past tens is interresting . But why would the existence of a government nessecarily lead to the existence of a ruling class? Is true altruism a myth? Is government without people inconcievable?

Even if the government class has to exist, why would there have to be struggle?

Not trying to defend communism here, just looking for elaboration

 

[LITE992]

How does equality necessitate the restriction of individuals? You say its a true form of equality, honestly to me it sounds like you mean an absolute form of equality.

In order to be equal, people in a communist society are paid the same no matter what job they do, and all land is owned by the government (no private owning).

Basically, people are equal in a communist society by being on the same level as everyone else. This includes taking freedoms away.

However, in a capitalist society, their idea of equality is the same freedoms for all people.

 

[AperioContra]

Communism, as I understand it, is an on paper great idea. The working class is the only class, as who does not contribute to the society as a whole does not get contribution from society. Communism is the idea of ultimate equality set forth by Marx's Utopia. Unfortunately due to the human ambition, the need to attain physical goods and a sense of superiority it falls short on the human equation. Perhaps we are not to the place in which communism is possible.

If you want a good intellectual view of communism, I refer you to Animal Farm. This 20th century satire kind of spells out how communism is, and where the road can easily turn bad, great read.

 

[Sparcrypt]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - thats how I've always thought of it.

Though I'm of the opinion that no form of government that we've every tried works all that well in practice, I see communism to be even less practical than most.

I'm from Australia by the way, not the US.

 

[Patshiv]

For communism to work you need french revolution style fear and discipline to stop people from getting more than everyone else and you know how that ended. Humanity isn't really designed for communism because someone will always want more then someone else. Also, there will always be over privileged people in any society and someone will most likely ask hey why does he/she have that and I don't?

If you have french revolution style fear and dicipline, you end up with something more resembling Stalin's stomping grounds than anything that has ever been close to the ideal of communism.
The crux of your argument seems to be that people want stuff, but the basic tenant of communism is that people will get whatever they want. Alright so I might showing it in a favourable light to suit my argument but still, why would people have to want stuff? Granted this would require more wealth than the world has right this instant but isn't it possible?

 

[Stilkon]

I perceive Communism as a system where no-one is better that the other, where we're all paid the same for the same amount of work. See, that's Communism in theory. Communism in practice, however...

And yes, I iz teh 'Mericans.

 

[Snoozer]

Communism evolved of Marx's idea that every body should be equal, so they should be paid equally. It didn't seem fair to him that a owner of fabric earns all the money just because he happens to own it. The people do all the work and recieve nothing.
The basic idea would be that all workers own the fabric equally and recieve a fair payment that way.

Many communist movements support the idea of councils. This means that cities organize themselves with votet councils, of which some members form bigger councils and so on.
This is about as far as the basic understanding goes.

Practical communism:
All communistic countries happend to be dictatorships. I think this is probably because every revolution has it's leaders and once they get power they want to keep it.
This is also the main reason why communism is seen as a bad thing. For many people it is equal to dictatorship.
Also does communism not work with Millions of people.
5 year plans for Economy are way to slow they can't react and nobody can forsee what will happen to the economy in 5 years.

Also does the communist system require intelligent people. Stalin for example kept his people stupid. They were taught to read, so they can read the propaganda, but he had no interest in forming an intelectual elite that could threaten his position.
The communist movements arund 1900 predicted education would form a new kind of man, smart and caring. It simply did not.

The communistic system in it's basic understanding works, but for a maximum of around 50-100 people (this was tested) You see your every day example in your family, that comes very close to the idea of overall sharing and equal rights.


Anyone who uses communism as a swear word hasn't understood a thing about what it actually means and that there wasn't an example of a real communist nation and that there never will be one, because it's not possible.

 

[Patshiv]

If you want a good intellectual view of communism, I refer you to Animal Farm. This 20th century satire kind of spells out how communism is, and where the road can easily turn bad, great read.

In Animal Farm Orwell shows what was wrong with the russian revolution rather than what is wrong with communism in my opinion.

Unfortunately due to the human ambition, the need to attain physical goods and a sense of superiority it falls short on the human equation. Perhaps we are not to the place in which communism is possible.

Do you really believe there actually is a need to attain physical goods? Or is this sociological conditioning? Couln't human ambition and sense of superiority be directed in a non-materialist direction?

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Sharing is caring! Unless your american, then its evil communism.

 

[Dethenger]

I read a collection of works by Karl Marx last year; let's see how much of it I actually absorbed.

Philosophically, as I saw it, Marxism was mostly about achieving happiness. Marx applauded true democracy, and condemned any system wherein people would have to stifle their own self, their own humanity, in order to survive; in this case, capitalism. He wrote a great deal about a worker devaluing himself by creating things, by investing himself in making things, which were not his, nor were they for him. He loses himself, as he only feels free to act on his animal needs--eating, drinking, procreating; in acting as a human, he is forced to subdue himself and work for another. The worker them becomes subservient to the products of his labour which allow him to exist, as they provide him with means for living.
In brief, he was upset at the thought that people would have to return to a job they hated day after day just to survive; in that regard, Communism would be a system which would provide for the people so that they could survive as humans, so that they could affirm themselves and not deny themselves. In practice, the government would have to own everything in order to distribute it, and most people seem to take issue with that. I'm not particularly politically savvy, so I won't get into the merits of communism beyond its base philosophy, but I will argue that in its base philosophy, it's beautiful.

EDIT: I'm American.

 

[Det.Mittens]

Basically it is something that is supposed to create ultimate equality between people, get rid of the divide between the upper, middle and lower classes. On paper it is amazing, in practise it can never work.

Due to things like failed modernisation, clash of civilisations etc. it will never work. Unless the human race can fundamentally change then the usual greed, jealousy and envy will kick in and ruin everything.

Take China for example, when the Communists took over from the nationalists it started off well and everyone was happy with the new way everything worked. Then after a few years it stopped working because people started being people and all that really happened was it turned the vast majority of the middle class into the lower class to the point where there was no real middle class and just a huge lower class (something like 90% of the population was lower class) ruled by a mega rich, mega powerful upper-class.

I would also like to take the opportunity to point out that Americans don't know what Communism actually is and probably think that the current war in Afghanistan is about Communism.

^Big comment is big.

 

[XDravond]

Communism, as I understand it, is an on paper great idea. The working class is the only class, as who does not contribute to the society as a whole does not get contribution from society. Communism is the idea of ultimate equality set forth by Marx's Utopia. Unfortunately due to the human ambition, the need to attain physical goods and a sense of superiority it falls short on the human equation. Perhaps we are not to the place in which communism is possible.

If you want a good intellectual view of communism, I refer you to Animal Farm. This 20th century satire kind of spells out how communism is, and where the road can easily turn bad, great read.

I agree with this post ;-P

Communism - great idea but horrible implementations so far. And I read Animal Farm, decent read and not gone overboard in silliness..

And a small thought to all of you "capitalists" out there (especially the USA ones). If capitalism is so great how come many agree that its right to save the banks and car industry by giving them money? And how well is the capitalist system working considering the humongous national debt the US has?...

I'm not a communist but I'm certainly not a capitalist either.

 

[DracoSuave]

Communism is two things:

1) Communal ownership of all things inherent to the people of the commune. An example is a farmer's co-op. Most families are communist; children don't pay to use the communal home.

2) What propagandists call sovietism, maoism, and other totalitarian-socialist regimes that formed on the socialist tenets of Marxism, but did not continue forward into communism. Note this is not a prejorative; American AND Soviet propagandists used this term incorrectly. It is a misnomer.

 

[Vuavu]

The main reason that communism has been given such a bad stigma in modern culture is because almost all true communist leaders ended up ruthlessly controlling/killing THEIR OWN people. Communism could work very well in a society, but only as long as said society (as a whole) has a shared goal or something bonding them together like a common religion or a need to industrialize/modernize/advance. Communism is simply meant to be an economic model but usually ended up being a way for dictators to gain their own ends. The idea is perfect in theory: all are equal and all contribute. Trouble is, the rulers have usually ended up siphoning most of the money for themselves and taking advantage of the people. I don't agree with the hate that communism used to get (such as sparking the Cold War, to state the most obvious example.) That animosity should have been pointed directly at the corruption in the leaders, not towards the idea itself or its supporters. There are plenty of communes and communist villages/settlements in the United States that do very well for themselves today.

 

[jane.doe]

I would also like to take the opportunity to point out that Americans don't know what Communism actually is and probably think that the current war in Afghanistan is about Communism.

I'm pretty sure it's because they hate America's freedoms.

Funnily enough, the war in Afghanistan from 1978 - 1992 was about Communism. People forget that they had like 4 concurrent wars prior to 2001.

 

[n00beffect]

Indeed, it is quite an skewed view of how things stand. I think most Americans confuse Communism, and the idea of Communism percivied by Marx and Engels of true equality with the distortion of Lenin, who imposed at as a real-time functioning political system, by adding to it (and, thus, completely contradicting it) mandatory dictatorship and absolute power to the government. Now, why he did that is arguable, but it's mostly believed that since the idea of Communism is so radical, and the fact that it requires a great deal of sacrifices to be made by everyone under it, and due to our inherent selfish nature, it's beyond us, and thus it requires some sort of authoritive figure to make the sacrifice for them. Russia's 'Communism' has nothing to do with the original concept of it. And the original concept of it, if you've read The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx (and Friedrich Engels), you would know that it has nothing to do with the 'hating of freedom' or any other non-democratic *khumamericankhum* ideals, like most ignorant people believe it to be so. Unfortunately, to achieve the real goal of Communism is impossible, like I already explained. There's a saying, and I am going to paraphrase it: There are two types of Communists: The ones who support the idea, without having read Marx and Engels; and the ones who disregard it, because they have.

 

[AperioContra]

Do you really believe there actually is a need to attain physical goods? Or is this sociological conditioning? Couln't human ambition and sense of superiority be directed in a non-materialist direction?

That's a very complex question. The need for possession and power have long been part of humanity, dating back to the first conquerors in Sumeria and Egypt. There's an old adage I'm fond of: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." In any state there has to be a ruling party and he head of that party has absolute control.

But to the question of whether we can evolve passed that. A tentative "maybe" is in order. I don't see any signs of communism working in our society now. But I like to think that maybe one day (perhaps when we've perfected the matter replicator) that it's possible we may learn how.

 

[Soviet Steve]

snip

Well one point of consolation for missing out on the greater hours of humanity: At least you don't have to dick around being exterminated by Nazis or enduring a 30 year lifespan of backbreaking labour as a feudal peasant. Of all the ages to exist thus far, this seems to be the least unpleasant one.