As a system for managing society and people in general can not be said to 'work in theory' if you have to qualify that statement by saying 'people will screw it up'. A "Good theory" would at least be workable under the right conditions, communism is not because those right conditions would be "as long as we dont get any people involved"reonhato said:
What is communism?
- Thread starter Patshiv
- Start date
In there you said that part of what would make communism work is that you are given, from an early age, the mindset that you work as part of the collective. While that might work (on average), it wouldn't always work. This might be a stretch of a comparison, but I think it bears similar grounds. I remember back in school how my mom would get really involved with school and school activities. I remember how my parents were pushing me to get involved in all the extra curricular things and so forth. They'd tell me stories of their involvement in their schools and on and on. Thing is, I didn't care. At a certain point, probably at the end of elementary school, I just stopped caring about being there or having any pride in it. To me, it was just a building I was stuck in for several hours of my day.SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
the point I'm trying to make with that long and seemingly pointless story is that you can try to teach people to follow the ways of society. But eventually people will question it or go against it. Why do you think people stopped monarchies? Why do you think dictators get overthrown? Not everyone will like the idea of working for the collective, even if they are taught to do so. Sorry to refute your argument, but this is an interesting debate and I've got loads of free time right now.
Common use: Totalitarian Socialism, used through history by the USSR, China, and Cuba.
Actual theory: The idea that a stateless classless society can only be achieved by the working classes taking power in a "dictatorship of the proletariat", a transitional state, which will wither away with time.
Actual theory: The idea that a stateless classless society can only be achieved by the working classes taking power in a "dictatorship of the proletariat", a transitional state, which will wither away with time.
Communism is an economic system where the ownership of private property has been abolished or at least severely limited. Property is owned collectively by everyone. I've never been sure how far this extends. I mean, if you go to the store and buy something in a Communist country with money or ration tickets or whatever, you do own it. If someone came in your house and took it, then it would still be theft. At least, that is how it has worked in practice. In a pure communist system, maybe this would not be the case. What Communism really seems to mean is government ownership or control over commerce and industry.
There's a lot of stuff that goes along with communism like theories about how it's going to come about, about the proletariat overthrowing the owning classes (I totally can't spell that bourg- word). This is part of it that I don't really know much about.
As I understand it, communism is just an economic system rather than a political system, but in practice a lot of Communist countries have been totalitarian. In theory, you could have a communist democracy with human rights and the whole 9 yards. Socialism, as far as I can tell, is similar but there's a higher degree of private property ownership permitted. A lot of countries have had heavily socialized economies, such as England for a while before Margaret Thatcher. Maybe the difference is that socialists don't believe in overthrowing the existing government, but communists do.
Anyway, that's my understanding. Don't know if it's right.
There's a lot of stuff that goes along with communism like theories about how it's going to come about, about the proletariat overthrowing the owning classes (I totally can't spell that bourg- word). This is part of it that I don't really know much about.
As I understand it, communism is just an economic system rather than a political system, but in practice a lot of Communist countries have been totalitarian. In theory, you could have a communist democracy with human rights and the whole 9 yards. Socialism, as far as I can tell, is similar but there's a higher degree of private property ownership permitted. A lot of countries have had heavily socialized economies, such as England for a while before Margaret Thatcher. Maybe the difference is that socialists don't believe in overthrowing the existing government, but communists do.
Anyway, that's my understanding. Don't know if it's right.
I believe that communism cannot and does not work. Humans are not equal beings, we aren't born equal, grow equal or die equal. We are driven to advance, our basic instinct tells us that the strong are in charge. In communist countries there is always a social elite that hold all the power, denying the people of freedom while telling them of the evils of capitalism and the imperial west. If anything, a communist government is more oppressive towards the people than a fascist one.
The phrase that comes to mind is that "Communism is the very definition of failure!"Patshiv said:
In all seriousness though if you're looking for perceptions I've got one. However Lenin and Trotsky thought their lovely system would work out it's implementations has inflicted more horrors on the human race than I care to think of. Genocide, inflicted famine, euthanasia, and murder.
I come from a Cuban family. My great grandfather had worked his way into a management position in one of the banks in Artemisa. My uncles worked their way through school and one of them became a fairly successful store owner. We managed to get a tip from outside of the country before the revolution but a few of us stayed behind. Those who stayed paid the price. Most got off with a few years of hard labor but there's a reason the Miami Cubans refer to Che Guevara as the Butcher of La Cabaña. I was born long after then but the scars run deep in my family.
Advocates of communism may have some admirable desires but the only fruit its born has been death and devastation. It doesn't even matter if you embrace it or reject it, everyone suffers in the end.
The perfect utopia that succeeds socialism? (Socialism is what follows laissez faire style capitalism)
Too bad I might not be around for it
Too bad I might not be around for it
In theory Communism is a great idea for government, however when put into practice fails horribly. When someone realizes that they can get away with doing nothing and still getting the amount as the guy next door.
Meh, if it worked as good as it did on paper maybe everyone would be communist. But, it doesn't oh well. Democracy FTW
-Asian-American FYI
Meh, if it worked as good as it did on paper maybe everyone would be communist. But, it doesn't oh well. Democracy FTW
-Asian-American FYI
I'm not saying that altruism doesn't exist. But neither can anyone say that avarice doesn't exist either. Both will rise to the level of power they deem necessary to achieve their ends. The problem is that with the altruistic, once they achieve their goal it's "mission accomplished." Avarice... lust for power, money, acceptance, whatever it is... it's never enough. That's why that sort of ruling class rises to power and tends to stay there. It's better (if cynical) to accept that and try and make a system like that work for as many people as possible. "Government without people" "Rules of law, not men" yeah that would be good, for a while. The reason it can't happen is it fosters a social stagnation. People change and evolve, government has to as well. Look at it from a standpoint of gun control laws. (here in the US) "Open carry" "concealed carry" restrictions and gun control... those things weren't as important when our Constitution was written. In those days you had one shot, which was only accurate at point blank range, before having to remain stationary for about a minute to reload the weapon. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was enough back then. Today... it would mean that my neighbor could have a pair of micro-Uzis, it's not enough anymore. And who knows what we would need in the future?Patshiv said:The use of past tens is interrestingKyrian007 said:
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
It's just one example. Government without people... couldn't last long.
When I think of communism, I think also of anarchy. They are not diametrically opposed views either. They would in fact, be one in the same.
It's not going to happen though, at least not with people. Maybe if we were all Geth.
America.
It's not going to happen though, at least not with people. Maybe if we were all Geth.
America.
Yeah I hear about Cuba often as an example of working communism, but as I haven't done any research for myself (not even wikipedia), I don't use it as an example myself. Basically, I don't know how much I would agree Cuba "works", but it's one of the reasons I'm not 100% sold on the idea that Communism is only a good theory and can't work in practice (but then again I'm not 100% sold on the idea that Communism is perfect either, I don't know all the intricate details, so I don't know if I would agree with all points).alrekr said:
As far as I'm concerned most attempts get distracted by the in-between stage of government power, and decide to never allow siad powerful government to naturally dissolve, as it's supposed to. It's not that communism can't work in practice, it's that it has yet to (with Cuba being an exception).
Communism is a broad term. There are many forms, but generally it means... Well for example.
You have a country, it has 100 people. And between those people, they all have £10. Note that they ALL have £10. Yes, they have relative equal wealth. Communism is the idea that people should be as equal as possible to better the chances of the poor, to the rich.
Obviously keeping the wealth levels stable is one hell of a problem, and it almost never works.
For example, in Russia I think around 95% of the wealth in the country was owned by 5% of the population.
Now the next awesome thing about communism, is that you know that £10 you own? Forget it, you now have a fraction of that. Because you have to give most of it to the government.
Don't think for a second that this is a bad thing. the idea is that you love your government, and they are cool enough not to go crazy with all the money you're giving them. You give your money to the government in confidence that they will use it to better the society you're so equal to. Basically, it's a nationwide investment plan. Everyone gives 50-60-70% of their income to the government, to help make the said country a better place.
Of course, communism rarely works, because a select few are dicks and like to troll people. When you describe communism, it doesn't sound too bad actually. But in practice, it's quite bad...
You have a country, it has 100 people. And between those people, they all have £10. Note that they ALL have £10. Yes, they have relative equal wealth. Communism is the idea that people should be as equal as possible to better the chances of the poor, to the rich.
Obviously keeping the wealth levels stable is one hell of a problem, and it almost never works.
For example, in Russia I think around 95% of the wealth in the country was owned by 5% of the population.
Now the next awesome thing about communism, is that you know that £10 you own? Forget it, you now have a fraction of that. Because you have to give most of it to the government.
Don't think for a second that this is a bad thing. the idea is that you love your government, and they are cool enough not to go crazy with all the money you're giving them. You give your money to the government in confidence that they will use it to better the society you're so equal to. Basically, it's a nationwide investment plan. Everyone gives 50-60-70% of their income to the government, to help make the said country a better place.
Of course, communism rarely works, because a select few are dicks and like to troll people. When you describe communism, it doesn't sound too bad actually. But in practice, it's quite bad...
Communism, by its strictest definition, COMMUNism, as in community, refers to broad political views about state-owned means of production, abolishment of wage labor and a classless society. Of course it splintered into so many different sub-categories such as Leninism, Marxism and Stalinism, which you'll have to browse Wikipedia for.
It's not inherently incompatible with democracy, as many stupid people think. Communism is actually the opposite of Capitalism, which seeks to privatize means of production and promote wage labor and taxes. Of course this creates classes so derp.
Wikipedia and TV Tropes can tell you more.
It's not inherently incompatible with democracy, as many stupid people think. Communism is actually the opposite of Capitalism, which seeks to privatize means of production and promote wage labor and taxes. Of course this creates classes so derp.
Wikipedia and TV Tropes can tell you more.