What is communism?

[Quiet Stranger]

Communism is something that looks good on paper.

 

[O maestre]

as a fellow dane, i dont think i need to tell that our governmental system has been very influenced by socialism and one could claim that our society was based on the best of communist ideals.

i agree with adam jensen's uploaded video, that star trek is probably the most idyllic vision of communism to date.

to me personally communism is what it says on the tin, humans working collectively to uplift the entirety of society as a whole, instead of only uplifting a few and leaving the rest to rot.
it is potentially the most compassionate form of meritocratic government ever conceived, sadly it has never been possible to put it into practice. the system relies on people being constantly interested in doing what they can for the greater good of all members of the species. something that we as a species seem incapable of.

 

[kingcom]

Australian:

It is a economic ideology which consists of the absense of financial motivation and distribution, every person give according to their ability and receives according to their need. An entirely classless society, where the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is no longer necessary and everyone can live in equality. Based on the works of Karl Marx

Its ultimately a idea developed by a man who never worked a day in his life and from a perspective of a class dominated society which ultimately ignore human nature.

 

[Sexy Devil]

I'm not posting this to find out what communism is but rather to find out how communism is percieved, especially by americans who generally seem to have a pretty skewed idea about it.

I'm doing some research on cultural perspectives for an assignment in a course on organization analysis, and for this I'd like to get a general idea about what people think about communism in general and if at all possible the ideals on which communism was founded.

My basis for the statement that americans seem to have a skewed idea about it is really years of listening to american popculture but can be examplified by the phase "accuse them of being communists" which has a premise that clashes with absolutely everything I know about the subject. I dont wish to elaborate on this because I'd rather not bias any responses.

Also before you ask I'm from Denmark, and to the best of my knowledge there has never been a hugely successful communist party in government here.

I'm not really looking for a debate on the pros and cons of communism (though i am open for that debate as well) which is the reason why I'm not posting this in the religion and politics board.

Edit: To clarify I'd like input from absolutely anyone willing to give it.

An idea corrupted by the fact that nobody except idealists want to do skilled work when there's not a whole lot of reward for it, which tends to result in a totalitarian police state rather than a true communist state (looking at you, Stalin). Doesn't help that there are very few people who aren't going to abuse all power being vested in the state.

Australian, if you wanted to know.

 

[dantoddd]

A Dane here - not sure if you want my opinion so feel free to disregard it:

In theory communism is a broad political ideology that emphasises collective ownership.

In practice it was an extension of Soviet authority around the world at first, and then later a broad anti-liberal movement encompassing many varieties. (Stalinism, Maoism, Titoism etc.)

I'd be happy to elaborate if there are questions.

That's completely wrong. One of the definitive characteristics of communism is that it completely abolishes ownership.

 

[NotSoLoneWanderer]

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?

Sure it's "possible" but i can't help but think of a group of someones saying they deserve more even then. Humans are humans after all.

 

[Patshiv]

It is a economic ideology which consists of the absense of financial motivation and distribution, every person give according to their ability and receives according to their need. An entirely classless society, where the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is no longer necessary and everyone can live in equality. Based on the works of Karl Marx

Its ultimately a idea developed by a man who never worked a day in his life and from a perspective of a class dominated society which ultimately ignore human nature.

When you qualify absence of motivation with financial it leads me to think that you believe there is some other sort of motivation at work, is this true? Or do you believe that there is nothing left to motivate people in a communist society?

On a side note i believe that is exactly what was wrong with most of the eastern european communist dictatorships, a lack of motivation in the labour force which therefore led to inevitable decay.

Also your last comment left me thinking that you believe communism is something concieved of by an upper class meant to benefit the poorer classes, is that right?

 

[kingcom]

It is a economic ideology which consists of the absense of financial motivation and distribution, every person give according to their ability and receives according to their need. An entirely classless society, where the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is no longer necessary and everyone can live in equality. Based on the works of Karl Marx

Its ultimately a idea developed by a man who never worked a day in his life and from a perspective of a class dominated society which ultimately ignore human nature.

When you qualify absence of motivation with financial it leads me to think that you believe there is some other sort of motivation at work, is this true? Or do you believe that there is nothing left to motivate people in a communist society?

On a side note i believe that is exactly what was wrong with most of the eastern european communist dictatorships, a lack of motivation in the labour force which therefore led to inevitable decay.

Also your last comment left me thinking that you believe communism is something concieved of by an upper class meant to benefit the poorer classes, is that right?

Yep, I know for a fact that if I got nothing out of working, I wouldn't work. Ever. Communism does not offer a motivated goal to many, how does "improving oneself or society" actually make me feel good? See people are goal driven by nature, they want to afford that new car or get a house. Without it, people have a tendency to not want to struggle. People who are safe and comfortable all their lives find it difficult to work because they have no developed motivation.

Communism was not conceived by someone of the upper class. Following a little bit of Marx's history, he was the kind of person who spent much of his time mooching off other people, staying at their house and eating their food. Not rich people, blue collar. Marx observed the world and mixed in a rationalisation of his own behavior to his thoughts on social improvement.

 

[Plazmatic]

Everyone works for the state, which own and run all industrial concerns.

And/or, anything I don't personally like.

Oh, Australian, BTW.

This is not true, that is state communisim, not true communism. There would be no "state" in true communism.

 

[MortarTeam]

"Communism is Soviet government plus electrification of the whole country."
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin actually said that.

 

[Rainforce]

I study sociology which basically means i dont care about right and wrong, i just care what people think.

get some ideals, man D:!

So one of the requirements for communism to work is the ability to meet everyones requirements (whatever they may be)? Or is it fundamentally impossible for communism to exist because the requrements of human interrest will always exceed societys ability to meety them?

well, technically yes, because people will never think of themselves as one community, but as single individuals. individual first, community later. needs to be vice versa to make communism work.

 

[Patshiv]

This is not true, that is state communisim, not true communism. There would be no "state" in true communism.

Interrestingly, noone has yet to raise the idea of communism as a contrast to democracy as well as capitalism. Do you mean that communism would essentially have anarchy or perhaps some sort of hyperdemocracy where everybody is a politician?

 

[Soviet Steve]

That's completely wrong. One of the definitive characteristics of communism is that it completely abolishes ownership.

"Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and sometimes a stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate"

From Wikipedia, but also practiced by every communist state that has ever existed. No ownership and no state and no laws etc. is anarchism.

 

[Crazy Zaul]

Communism is a method of grilling and eating babies and a way of life involving burning down candy stores and shooting kittens.

 

[Zorg Machine]

To me, it is an idealistic, utopian ideology doomed to always be plauged by corruption and failure due to human error.

 

[Patshiv]

That's completely wrong. One of the definitive characteristics of communism is that it completely abolishes ownership.

"Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and sometimes a stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate"

From Wikipedia, but also practiced by every communist state that has ever existed. No ownership and no state and no laws etc. is anarchism.

The usual way people think of and use the concept of ownership tens to include the idea that it is something that is applied to an individual, even in the case of shared ownership people tend to think of that state of ownership being multiple individuals.

This concept of individual ownership is exactly what communism abolishes in that ownership in communism becomes impossible unless it is communal. Therefore in this context abolition of ownership is pretty much synonymous to common ownership.

At least thats what i think

 

[magicmonkeybars]

Communism is the perfect government, for robots.

 

[LordOmnit]

Spoiler: Just because I have it

And in all seriousness, Communism is a theory that will never be put into practice as it was written because it doesn't work on the scale it was intended for. Everyone won't/can't be held accountable for their actions in a large enough society where there is a real working class to overthrow the owners of the means of manufacture. That's another point as to why it won't ever work- by the time the owners of the means of manufacture have called in the workers they have already laid traps to stop their workers from rebelling: legal traps, propaganda, distractions, etc.

 

[go-10]

I'm not an expert on the subject but if you ask me the difference between communism and dictatorship are non-existent. I know that by definition they are different but when in practice its hard to tell them apart

 

[Zhukov]

Communism is a social ideology and political theory.

Its central tenants, at least as I understand it, are that the majority working class should (a) work for their own benefit and (b) be in control of forming public and legal policy.

Sounds good in theory but tends to go a bit funny in practice, mostly because whoever ends up in power will generally seek to maintain that power and use it for their own benefit. Also, it failed to account for the rise of the middle class.

(I'm from Australia, if it matters.)