Can Communism work?

@DRgenius21,

No. It rests to much on people doing the right thing. If everyone were to support the communist thought it might work, but not in this world.

Capitalism only works because it rests far less on people. It's not better than communism but it works from time to time, just like democracy works from time to time.

Some ideas from communism are nice but many of them are just to unrealistic in this day and age.

Simple answer I know, but discussing the Communist Manifesto and the whole history of China, Russia, North Korea and Cuba will only show the failure that has already been pointed out.

0 Replies

@DRgenius21,

PERFECT!!! that answer is so, i dont know, just perfect it explains everything in great detail. But are you saying that changing some communist goals, making it more realistic, would make it work?

1 Reply

@DRgenius21,

Communism is the only form of economy that has be universally tried.. When life demands it we are all automatic communists... It is capitalism that has not been tried... It is a destroyer of peoples and worlds... It is a curse from hell..Have a nice day... Pray for night.

1 Reply

@Fido,

o....k....? umm i believe capitalism has been tried, but the destroying lives part i wont argue with.

1 Reply

@DRgenius21,

DRgenius21 wrote:

o....k....? umm i believe capitalism has been tried, but the destroying lives part i wont argue with.

Okay; tried and failed...But primitive communism brought all peoples into the modern world intact; and it was only when technology allowed for inequalities of wealth that societies ever began to self destruct... The loss of equality means the loss of democracy, and the loss of the democracy meant the brains of the people were disregarded in favor a few who played to their own perception of self interest...Yet; regardless of the form of society, it still has to work for all, or it weakens itself in the face of every enemy...What does it matter if you beat everyone on your block if the next week some one the next block over wipes up the dirt with you like a rag... Better to stand as an equal among equals than to beat your own people for the benefit of others... And that is where we are, being invaded, morally and financially bankrupt....We are ready to be chewed up and spit out, but the situation is that the whole world is alike shot and used up...Hoooray for Capitalism...

1 Reply

@Fido,

DRgenius21 wrote:

PERFECT!!! that answer is so, i dont know, just perfect it explains everything in great detail. But are you saying that changing some communist goals, making it more realistic, would make it work?

I did not say that; the whole idea of communism is nice if you believe in an Utopian world. Many of its ideas, if not all, are prone to misuse by people. Besides the Communist countries never were communists by the book, but more a dictatorship with communism thrown into the mix.

Fido wrote:

Okay; tried and failed...But primitive communism brought all peoples into the modern world intact; and it was only when technology allowed for inequalities of wealth that societies ever began to self destruct...

There was no "technology" around 1654 years ago or 1476 years for that matter, still we've got recorded history of inequalities in wealth. Societies change when they advance whether this is by a primitive form of technology or insight in things.

Fido wrote:

The loss of equality means the loss of democracy, and the loss of the democracy meant the brains of the people were disregarded in favor a few who played to their own perception of self interest...

Gheee, how naive can you be. Democracy is nothing else than the populair vote wins. Hitler won Germany back in 33 democraticly and guess what, it did not work so well.. Africa gets a lot of it's leaders voted democraticly and well we all know the situation there. Democracy is just an empty word that means nothing today, except for a majority of people that substited freedom for democracy.

Fido wrote:

Yet; regardless of the form of society, it still has to work for all, or it weakens itself in the face of every enemy...What does it matter if you beat everyone on your block if the next week some one the next block over wipes up the dirt with you like a rag...

Better to stand as an equal among equals than to beat your own people for the benefit of others... And that is where we are, being invaded, morally and financially bankrupt....

We are ready to be chewed up and spit out, but the situation is that the whole world is alike shot and used up...Hoooray for Capitalism...

I lost your train of thought here.

0 Replies

@DRgenius21,

DRgenius21 - I'm a little confused as to how you think Taoism is a type of communism? Can you elaborate a little?

0 Replies

@DRgenius21,

Vasska; I am not confusing majority rule with democracy and you should not either... If you want to keep society together, and strong, everyone has to be brought along... You must seek consensus... You must look for one hundred percent agreement.... Everyone has to benefit... Look at the disaster of war this country is in now... The president did not seek consensus, and did not think he needed it, but it is not armies or presidents who go to war, but peoples, or countries, and the mind of the whole people given the time to consider, and know the facts, and communicate is better than any number of representatives...Mr. Bush would never gotten consensus for his far flung invasion on the other side of the Globe... Think of this... There is nothing fast about democracy...It is good because it is sure, that what people commit to they can be held to... It is a defensive form of social organization as it defends the rights of the powerless from the powerful, and it defends the whole people from the enemy outside...Mr. Bush was absolutly correct: Democracies do not attack their neighbors... And we attack our neighbors... What does that tell you???

2 Replies

@DRgenius21,

One of the problems with communism since the industrial revolution is that an economy to be productive and at the same time further the goals of equality, must be highly controlled and directed. Inevitably, the only modern structure available is the political one, and thus power becomes concentrated in the hands of a rather small group of decision-makers.To enforce its directives, rules, and laws an army of major and minor bureaucrats is enlisted, and this army is sustained by siphoning economic activity and rewards from the total.

Under ideal circumstances, this bureaucracy might be supportable while the economy functions at its most productive. But the opposite happens because the directors are not, strictly speaking, trained in economics or continually subsume sound economic policies under political doctrines. Thus Mao decided that China needed more steel to improve its ability to manufacture goods; by decree hundreds of thousands of small kilns were created and maintained by people who might have been more productive elsewhere, and the result was shoddy ingots that were unusable. Most economists and certainly people with actual knowledge of steel production knew that good steel could only be produced economically in large mills where quality could be controlled.

So we end up with a large bureaucracy, whose job is to enforce laws and rules, and to suggest additional ones when these are found inadequate to meet different or unique occasions; this enforcement more often than not, interferes with the ability of those immediately concerned with production or services to make sound economic choices in their immediate areas, leading to a high amount of inefficiency and paperwork.

It does not take long for an economy, attempt to work under these conditions, to stagnate or decline. And at the same time, what is produced must be shared with a growing bureaucracy busying themselves with pushing papers, making huge spreadsheets, accumulating all sorts of statistics, and enforcing by visitations (while carefully filling out their expense accounts) the latest tome of statutes written at the top.

Recently, say the last twenty years or so, we have seen one sound company buy out another sound company, but in an entirely different line of business. It soon imposes its own "proven" corporate way of life on the other, and the other company generally suffers so much that it is eventually broken up and sold for whatever remaining value it has. Much the same happens when a political structure is imposed on an economic one.

0 Replies

@DRgenius21,

Dave Allen; i meant to say "maoism"
when i was posting this question, i was looking for opinions, mostly, and well i have learned more about communism.

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Vasska; I am not confusing majority rule with democracy and you should not either... If you want to keep society together, and strong, everyone has to be brought along... You must seek consensus... You must look for one hundred percent agreement.... Everyone has to benefit... Look at the disaster of war this country is in now... The president did not seek consensus, and did not think he needed it, but it is not armies or presidents who go to war, but peoples, or countries, and the mind of the whole people given the time to consider, and know the facts, and communicate is better than any number of representatives...Mr. Bush would never gotten consensus for his far flung invasion on the other side of the Globe... Think of this... There is nothing fast about democracy...It is good because it is sure, that what people commit to they can be held to... It is a defensive form of social organization as it defends the rights of the powerless from the powerful, and it defends the whole people from the enemy outside...Mr. Bush was absolutly correct: Democracies do not attack their neighbors... And we attack our neighbors... What does that tell you???

Look at a simple village in let's say the 14th century; the strongest and/or smartest male was chosen as leader. He only needed the popular vote. 4 against 3; 4 wins. True; leaders need a consensus and Bush had it. He lost it afterward but he had it. Democracy is getting the most people behind you. A wrestler can take on 10 average people, but if it are a hundred he'll lose.

Democracy is based upon the minds of people at the time. In 2008 they voted bush, in 2008 they vote Obama. People change their minds constantly.

Governments should be formed by well educated and controllable people; not the people who vote for whoever is the cutest, a political party for animals (yes we've got that in The Netherlands) or someone who keeps saying the Quran is equal to Mein Kampf... Democracy is bullshit that kept us from having able and qualified leaders.

1 Reply

@Vasska,

Vasska wrote:

Look at a simple village in let's say the 14th century; the strongest and/or smartest male was chosen as leader. He only needed the popular vote. 4 against 3; 4 wins. True; leaders need a consensus and Bush had it. He lost it afterward but he had it. Democracy is getting the most people behind you. A wrestler can take on 10 average people, but if it are a hundred he'll lose.

Democracy is based upon the minds of people at the time. In 2008 they voted bush, in 2008 they vote Obama. People change their minds constantly.

Governments should be formed by well educated and controllable people; not the people who vote for whoever is the cutest, a political party for animals (yes we've got that in The Netherlands) or someone who keeps saying the Quran is equal to Mein Kampf... Democracy is bullshit that kept us from having able and qualified leaders.

Democracy was dead in the 14th century... I can see you don't get it; but let me give you an example... Marriage... If you want to go some where with your wife, it does not matter if you are talking bed or bread store, you both have to get something out of it... If one can call all the shots it is a sure thing that the other will sooner than later not get anything out of it... And societies weaken themselves and eventually destroy themselves because some want to be kings in their castles... They are turned into slaves just like the poor people, so what is the point??? Look at the Anglo Saxons... They set themselves up as lords over their own, were nearly wiped out by the vikings, and were eventually taken over completely by the Normans... If they had not robbed themselves of their own vitality they might have withstood anything...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Democracy was dead in the 14th century... I can see you don't get it; but let me give you an example... Marriage... If you want to go some where with your wife, it does not matter if you are talking bed or bread store, you both have to get something out of it... If one can call all the shots it is a sure thing that the other will sooner than later not get anything out of it... And societies weaken themselves and eventually destroy themselves because some want to be kings in their castles... They are turned into slaves just like the poor people, so what is the point... Look at the Anglo Saxons... They set themselves up as lords over their own, were nearly wiped out by the vikings, and were eventually taken over completely by the normans... If they had not robbed themselves of their own vitality they might have withstood anything...

14th century democracy was just a random example. I get your point, but you are merely talking about socialism being the only system that work; we help you, you help us; what goes around goes around. We're all working together for a better world!

I get your point and it is valid, but i find it having no real value if we are talking about communism. Communism is great, only downside it doesn't work so well. Neither do others, but they at least to it better or worse.

All systems of governing are flawed.

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Vasska; I am not confusing majority rule with democracy and you should not either... If you want to keep society together, and strong, everyone has to be brought along... You must seek consensus... You must look for one hundred percent agreement....

Not one hundred. You'll never get one hundred no matter the system. But yes, consensus must be sought. Majority must be made.

Fido wrote:

Everyone has to benefit... Look at the disaster of war this country is in now... The president did not seek consensus, and did not think he needed it,

See, after terrorists flew a pair of planes into two buildings in the heart of New York, killing quite a few thousand people, the mood within the country did back President Bush. You could even say that Bush reacted to both these attacks and the national reaction in America when he decided to declare war.

Fido wrote:

but it is not armies or presidents who go to war, but peoples, or countries, and the mind of the whole people given the time to consider, and know the facts, and communicate is better than any number of representatives...Mr. Bush would never gotten consensus for his far flung invasion on the other side of the Globe...

Bush is not a dictator. He is a citizen of America who was democratically elected to his position. From the people, for the people. It's half the idea of democracy. It sounds like you're saying he blew a whistle and ordered 10 million men to jump out of trenches to die pointlessly.

Fido wrote:

Think of this... There is nothing fast about democracy...It is good because it is sure, that what people commit to they can be held to... It is a defensive form of social organization as it defends the rights of the powerless from the powerful, and it defends the whole people from the enemy outside...Mr. Bush was absolutly correct: Democracies do not attack their neighbors... And we attack our neighbors... What does that tell you???

He means democracies do not attack other democracies. So far democracy has earnt its right to stand on the centre stage and boast that it is the best system, which it is! Perhaps it won't last forever, perhaps a better system might come along and men will use that instead, but in our context and our history, democracy is a hell load better than any other system you care to mention. Besides that, democracy isn't the main focus of this conversation. Democracy is a form of centralised government by which our society exists. Capitalism is actually a philosophy. It's an idea that's embeded within the Constitution of our democratic government, which the democratic government promotes. This is much the same as Communism is an idea, a philosophy, not a form of government. It just so happens that the authority necessary for the idea to function includes authoritarian style governments. This is its main problem. It's function contradicts the most basic underlying principle of the whole idea. Equality.

Consider the Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party. After the Night of the Long Knives, Hitler was freely able to ignore the "socialist" aspect of his revolution, because he knew that to wage a war, to make Germany strong again, he would need the help and progress that the Capitalists and the Junkies could offer him in the years of rebuilding. He embraced the capitalists and fed them by removing rights from the workers of Germany and instead offering them free holidays. And in turn, the capitalists made him rich. So even though it was a dictatorship, the functioning of capitalism was happily left alone and even encouraged. Capitalism and communism are just philosophies, ideas by which people integrate in their laws. You can have a democratic communist state such as China! Yes, you may turn around and say, hey wake up incubusman8 there's no way that it's not rigged over there. Fine, it may well be, I won't deny that, but the point is it's not a dictatorship.

If you ask me, there are problems with both capitalism and communism. One is all about progress and very effectively ignores the values to mens lives and negates their individualism in favour of mass markets. The other completely negates progress and assumes that equality and justice through equality are all that are neccessary for men's happiness. Besides that, as I mentioned earlier the way it functions is very hard to organise, in consideration of it's philosophy.

Considering the rights and freedoms I celebrate today and previous and other existing systems, I would say democracy is the best to be had these days. As for capitalism and communism, I believe that one of the two, too easily allows corruption and evil to grip it, whilst the other is just plain born evil. Neither are good enough.

1 Reply

@incubusman8,

incubusman8 wrote:

Bush is not a dictator. He is a citizen of America who was democratically elected to his position. From the people, for the people. It's half the idea of democracy. It sounds like you're saying he blew a whistle and ordered 10 million men to jump out of trenches to die pointlessly.

Bush is not a dictator, nor is he a democratically elected official. Remember, he lost the popular vote.

And basically, yeah, he blew a whistle and hundreds of thousands Americans were flown half way around the world to die in a futile war.

incubusman8 wrote:

So far democracy has earnt its right to stand on the centre stage and boast that it is the best system, which it is! Perhaps it won't last forever, perhaps a better system might come along and men will use that instead, but in our context and our history, democracy is a hell load better than any other system you care to mention.

And which democracy is that? I can't think of a single one. The US is certainly not a democracy, we only use a few democratic notions. To say that the US is democratic is reinforcing a national mythology that has no basis in fact. It's a nationalistic cheer, nothing more.

incubusman8 wrote:

Capitalism is actually a philosophy. It's an idea that's embeded within the Constitution of our democratic government, which the democratic government promotes. This is much the same as Communism is an idea, a philosophy, not a form of government. It just so happens that the authority necessary for the idea to function includes authoritarian style governments. This is its main problem. It's function contradicts the most basic underlying principle of the whole idea. Equality.

Democracy is also a philosophy. Again, the US is not a democratic nation. We are an amalgamation of various systems, socialism included. In order for the US system to function, a great deal of authority must be placed in the hands of very few people, not all of whom are elected or even appointed by elected officials. This contradicts the basic idea of equality just as much as the need for authority in communism contradicts the basic idea of equality.

incubusman8 wrote:

Consider the Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party. After the Night of the Long Knives, Hitler was freely able to ignore the "socialist" aspect of his revolution, because he knew that to wage a war, to make Germany strong again, he would need the help and progress that the Capitalists and the Junkies could offer him in the years of rebuilding. He embraced the capitalists and fed them by removing rights from the workers of Germany and instead offering them free holidays. And in turn, the capitalists made him rich. So even though it was a dictatorship, the functioning of capitalism was happily left alone and even encouraged. Capitalism and communism are just philosophies, ideas by which people integrate in their laws. You can have a democratic communist state such as China! Yes, you may turn around and say, hey wake up incubusman8 there's no way that it's not rigged over there. Fine, it may well be, I won't deny that, but the point is it's not a dictatorship.

I think you've oversimplified Hitler's relation to the capitalists. You do recall that he also nationalized most industry in his country. Hitler never embraced the capitalists, he just allowed them to operate when such operations benefited his regime.

incubusman8 wrote:

Considering the rights and freedoms I celebrate today and previous and other existing systems, I would say democracy is the best to be had these days. As for capitalism and communism, I believe that one of the two, too easily allows corruption and evil to grip it, whilst the other is just plain born evil. Neither are good enough.

You do not have any rights, and any freedoms you enjoy today exist at the pleasure of a very few number of individuals who are constantly trimming down those freedoms.

As for Communism - take note; the US has spent the past 60 years doing everything in it's power to insure that communist states fail. The US invades them, assassinates democratically elected leaders in communist nations, and employs economic policy designed to run communist states into the ground. Can communism work? None of us can say because communism has never been given a chance. Every time communism does pop up, the US calls upon a host of nationalist mythologies to justify brutality toward communist regimes.

2 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

so what do you think would happen if the U.S gave a new communist country a chance?

1 Reply

@DRgenius21,

DRgenius21 wrote:

so what do you think would happen if the U.S gave a new communist country a chance?

No idea. Depends on the country, who emerges in leadership and a host of other factors which none of us can predict.

But consider - Cuba has not failed despite US interference. I'm not sure that communism there has worked, but it has not failed either. Then again, I do not think that democracy and freedom have worked in the US, either.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Bush is not a dictator, nor is he a democratically elected official. Remember, he lost the popular vote.

And basically, yeah, he blew a whistle and hundreds of thousands Americans were flown half way around the world to die in a futile war.

And which democracy is that? I can't think of a single one. The US is certainly not a democracy, we only use a few democratic notions. To say that the US is democratic is reinforcing a national mythology that has no basis in fact. It's a nationalistic cheer, nothing more.

Democracy is also a philosophy. Again, the US is not a democratic nation. We are an amalgamation of various systems, socialism included. In order for the US system to function, a great deal of authority must be placed in the hands of very few people, not all of whom are elected or even appointed by elected officials. This contradicts the basic idea of equality just as much as the need for authority in communism contradicts the basic idea of equality.

I think you've oversimplified Hitler's relation to the capitalists. You do recall that he also nationalized most industry in his country. Hitler never embraced the capitalists, he just allowed them to operate when such operations benefited his regime.

You do not have any rights, and any freedoms you enjoy today exist at the pleasure of a very few number of individuals who are constantly trimming down those freedoms.

As for Communism - take note; the US has spent the past 60 years doing everything in it's power to insure that communist states fail. The US invades them, assassinates democratically elected leaders in communist nations, and employs economic policy designed to run communist states into the ground. Can communism work? None of us can say because communism has never been given a chance. Every time communism does pop up, the US calls upon a host of nationalist mythologies to justify brutality toward communist regimes.

I don't want to get personal here mate, but I think there is a little too much of your own pessimistic beliefs in this post. I mean, I can sympathise with what you're saying in terms of democracy certainly isn't plain cut - but it sounds like you've just kind of replaced fair judgement with bitterness.

The point with Hitler is that he understood their importance. He used them. Doesn't really matter if he nationalised them in relevance to the point I'm making.

In the Cold War, the Russians tried just as hard, if not harder than the US to undermine capitalism. After all, in the Communist theory, it's all about the workers of the world uniting and toppling capitalism all over the world.

As I said, Bush reacted to one of the worst terrorist attacks in human history and a heart breaking chapter of the 21st century. The mood in America wasn't apathy dude, it was not god damned apathy. I agree that it is a futile war, which should never have been declared, but I don't see this; entire US military flies to Iraq strongly against their will for utterly no purpose whatsoever.

Perhaps the US demorcary isn't the best example of democracy in the world. How about Australia then?

Democracy is better than any other form of government out there. Aristocrats, dictators, emperors, whatever - they're all megalomaniacs or idiots. You think it's good to hand complete power to these sorts of men? Rest the fate of a country upon them?

The movement for human rights and freedoms is strong. Never heard of Ghandi, King, Mandella? See in the democratic country, when these rights are challenged and taken away, we have the power to remove the government that is doing such to us. See how it works?

1 Reply

@incubusman8,

incubusman8 wrote:

I don't want to get personal here mate, but I think there is a little too much of your own pessimistic beliefs in this post. I mean, I can sympathise with what you're saying in terms of democracy certainly isn't plain cut - but it sounds like you've just kind of replaced fair judgement with bitterness.

Far from personal. And I'm not being pessimistic, I'm being realistic.

incubusman8 wrote:

The point with Hitler is that he understood their importance. He used them. Doesn't really matter if he nationalised them in relevance to the point I'm making.

You said that once Hitler came to power he could ignore the socialists and that he embraced the capitalists so that the capitalists could make him rich. But by nationalizing industry in Germany he angered the capitalists, and that's not embracing them. The capitalists who helped make Hitler's Germany wealthy were typically not German capitalists, but foreign capitalists who continued to do business with Nazi Germany through the course of the war.

incubusman8 wrote:

In the Cold War, the Russians tried just as hard, if not harder than the US to undermine capitalism. After all, in the Communist theory, it's all about the workers of the world uniting and toppling capitalism all over the world.

Right, and Russia had far less economic strength than the US: the Cold War was primarily an international economic conflict that the Russians lost because their economy was not as developed as the US economy.

The point remains - communist states have typically failed, not because of the actions of said state, but because of US intervention. This is especially true in South America.

incubusman8 wrote:

As I said, Bush reacted to one of the worst terrorist attacks in human history and a heart breaking chapter of the 21st century. The mood in America wasn't apathy dude, it was not god damned apathy. I agree that it is a futile war, which should never have been declared, but I don't see this; entire US military flies to Iraq strongly against their will for utterly no purpose whatsoever.

Not to marginalize the September 11th attacks, but said attack was not one of the worst terrorist attacks in human history, not even close. Instead, it was the attack which was reported on in the most emotionally loaded way. You want to check out a more devastating terrorist attack: how about the US bombing of Laos or in Cambodia, or in Vietnam. How about the fire bombing of Dresden during the Second World War, a city with no military value, a cultural hub of Europe, not a military site. More people were killed in those terrorist attacks. How about the various incidents caused by the Mongols as they conquered Asia and the Middle East? The list goes on and on. 9/11 just happened to be one of the worst terrorist attacks against the US. Because 9/11 was one of, if not the worst terrorist attack against the US we incorporate the attack in our national mythology as if 9/11 was one of the worst terrorist attacks in history.

incubusman8 wrote:

Perhaps the US demorcary isn't the best example of democracy in the world. How about Australia then?

Perhaps a bit better of an example, but Australia is still not a democracy; like the US, Australia's government utilizes some democratic notions as well as socialist notions and republican ideas to build their system of government.

incubusman8 wrote:

Democracy is better than any other form of government out there. Aristocrats, dictators, emperors, whatever - they're all megalomaniacs or idiots. You think it's good to hand complete power to these sorts of men? Rest the fate of a country upon them?

First, you make assertions about the psychology of tyrants (in the ancient Greek sense) which you simply cannot prove. In the process, you create a false dilemma: no, I do not think it is good to hand over power to megalomaniacs and idiots, but my only choice is not limited to megalomaniacs and democracy. Take note of something: in the US "democracy" we typically hand over power to megalomaniacs and idiots. The same is true in every "democracy".

What makes democracy inherently better than all other forms of government? Tyranny of the majority?

incubusman8 wrote:

The movement for human rights and freedoms is strong. Never heard of Ghandi, King, Mandella? See in the democratic country, when these rights are challenged and taken away, we have the power to remove the government that is doing such to us. See how it works?

First, Gandhi struggled for freedom and human rights, not in a democracy, but against a foreign, imperial power. Mandela was not fighting for rights in a democracy, but in an race-based aristocratic nation. And King, well part of his platform was to further democracy in the US - a nation which arbitrarily disenfranchised people based on race, not unlike Aparthied South Africa. Oh, and while this sort of arbitrary, race based disenfranchisement is not as acute as it was in King's time, that sort of discrimination still exists in our political system.

The three men you name were working in the name of human rights and freedoms, and none of them were working in a democratic nation. So, no, I do not see how it works. What I do see is that the people can rise up against oppression, and that the people can rise up against oppression against imperial powers and supposedly democratic powers.

0 Replies

Can Communism work?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know