Printable View
Honestly... does anyone here think it could work. To not cause any problems, I'm gonna refrain from voting until a few more people vote, and then post my response, just so I don't influence any decision.
State what would make it work/not work, and why (if needed).
No, Communism could not work, because it contradicts human nature. The desire to own things, the desire to grow stronger, the desire to be unique... communism denies all that.
I voted "yes". And I am probably going to be the only one to vote that. In fact, my response is "I don't know, but you have to have faith in something".
Then again, I don't think there's much discussion here, most people don't even know what communism or anarchism mean, not could they define it. For example, for many people, the ultimate objective of communism is economical equity. Well, no, it is not. It is in vulgar communism.
Thing is, most people create opinions on something without having much information. First read Marx, Fromm, Marcuse or any book written by a communist, and decide if you agree or not based on that. Hell, sometimes I even give an opinion without enough information, but I feel thats rather narcissitic, I have to learn to refrain myself when I am in ignorance in front of the proposal. Don't ask me much about economy, for example, or about if this or that political movement to improve economy is correct: I'll probably won't be able to give a decent awnser.
*points* See, thats what I mean. I think Marx already refered to those many issues, and I don't think he denied them.Quote:
The desire to own things, the desire to grow stronger, the desire to be unique... communism denies all that.
Edit: Oh, yes, I happen to find this book the most intelligent analysis on marxism.
In fact, 5 people have voted yes, and only 1, no. Most people's reasons are just to muck about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus
Mine was, in any case.
The problem people seem to have with communism is that they think that China and Russia are the epitomy of Communism, and that all communist states must be like them. There cannot be a truly communist society because communism has very little economics figured into it, it's more of a moral guidline and command structure.
Socialist Communism on the other hand, would be a fine choice for government, seeing as how in socialism, the money never really belongs to the people, it's all government controlled, and every year, the government takes what it needs to run, and then splits it amongst the working populace.
The idea behind Communism is that everything is shared, and by everything I mean the basic things you need; housing, food, clothes, and a job. Sure, luxuries aren't shared, but they aren't unattainable as you still get paid for your job, in the form of food, a place to stay, and clothes to keep you warm. You want something extra, you do extra work for it. I'm not seeing a problem with this logic, people, however, being the lazy, greedy, self-obsessed morons that we are, do see a problem with this.
Another common misconcpetion about communism is that "You can't vote in a Communist society." Uh, bull----? Russia, the entire time it was communist held elections, sure, they may have been rigged, but they still had them. Hell, even Castro holds elections (which are also rigged, but not as bad, seeing as how in Cuba, it's not as bad as we Americans would like to think *coughcoughpropagandacough*).
But look at every other form of government, Democracy for example. Hitler took over Germany, because his party had won a majority in the Reichstag, was appointed to Chancellorship, and further abused the democratic process to appoint himself dictator.
Hell, Bush even being in office is an example of the corruption rampant in democracy, and the "Homeland Security Act" is a Hitler-esque law stripping citizens of even their most basic rights protected under the constitution (before you even complain to me about my statements, you might want to read the Homeland Security Act and then you'll see what I mean). Sneak-And-Peak searches are a fine example of something that Hitler would've instituted had there been necessity for it.
Every government has it's pitfalls, and every government has it's good points. Communism, in my opinion, is the only basis for goverment that could actually lead to a Utopian society.
Then again, I think the middle east should be cleared out, turned into an Autonomous Military State, and anyone who wants to fight a war, should have to buy the soldiers, guns, tanks, jets, and whathaveyou from said Autonomous Military State. Then again, I also firmly believe that California needs to be nuked off the face of the planet, so take what I say however you want...
Thank you, but I think there are some errors to correct there, and I insist a lot on that: Communism is the supression of the State, socialism is the period of dictatorship of the proletariat.
Not rigged, not exactly. As far as I know, the results do match with the votes, the problem does not reside there, the problem is on how the people voting are manipulated by the censhorip on the media. Yeah, in the long run you can say they are manipulated, but in a much more sutile style.Quote:
Hell, even Castro holds elections (which are also rigged, but not as bad, seeing as how in Cuba, it's not as bad as we Americans would like to think *coughcoughpropagandacough*).
Also, I happen to find the cuban electoral system very interesting. If there wasn't this manipulation in the media, prosecution of the people against the goverment and death penalty (This one rarely applied, but still there) I may support the goverment of Cuba. But as long as this violations against human rights persist...well...screw them. Well, there are other things about that system that bother me, but those are the main things, basiucally the ones denounced by Amnesty International, wich I believe to be a rather reliable source (Much more than the Cuban goverment or those NGOs in Miami curiously directed by the mafia families that got rich while Batista ruled *cough*).
I was talking about a socialist economy, not a socialist form of government, the differece being in that a socialist economy strictly deals with the monetary aspects of the running of government. Like, a socialist democracy means that the legal system and social structure and leadership selection runs off of democratic principals, but the economy runs off of socialist principals. I may not have made that clear enough...
By rigged, I did not mean they were changing the votes, I meant they were manipulating it in some fashion that is unethical. This is true of all systems that rely on a person's opinion.
Alright, I guess it's safe to speak. And to avoid confrontation, I'll keep my thought in a nut-shell.
As long as there isn't a corruptive leader, Communism works. As seen with Stalin, the people loved him, he was a great ruler in terms of how he ruled, but what he did (the Great Purge), didn't leave him with the best image. He killed millions, many for no reason at all; and he was also considered by many to be mentally unstable.
Personally, I thought Lenin was a much better ruler, and always will be. Even though Socialism didn't work, Lenin still did a lot for Russia during the revolution. I think the main problem is that people overlook Communism and judge it by what happened in Cuba, China, and Russia (from Stalin forward).
So if there is a completely stable ruler, Communism is possibly one of the better systems of government. IMHO, Democracy is also one of the most corruptive forms of government. But then again I was also raised in some bad conditions, and communism appeals to me more. Everyone is equal in front of the state, there are rich or poor people, everyone is guaranteed a job. It seems more logical. Granted I'm in a higher class now than I was when I grew up, but I still find Communism more appealing.
The most important thing, however, is the fact alienated work dissapears.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune 1287
However, as for Lenin, I don't like him. I think he is really overrated. My reasons for this were explained on the post modernism post, in this board.
True. I'm actually quite impressed on how this thread is going, so far there hasn't been any quarreling yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus
Interesting. I guess I see from where you're coming at. Recently I've seen a lot of posers and emo kids (no offense to anyone, but its generally true) wearing clothes with Ché, Mao, Lenin, and Ho Chi Mihn. I guess I see where you're coming from; if you wanna give me a link to your post on Modernization, I'll read it as well.Quote:
However, as for Lenin, I don't like him. I think he is really overrated. My reasons for this were explained on the post modernism post, in this board.
No, Communism cannot work. For a start the way the system works dictates that all earnings are property of the government, and everyone earns the same. So lets say that you and your friend are both building cars. You build a really good car that takes hours to design and construct. Your friend designs and builds an awful car in 5 minutes and gets paid the same. The next car you build will not be very good if you are just going to be paid the same as before. So in a system such as this, the whole economic system does not work. So it does not matter how merciful or corrupt the leader is as everything will go to hell anyway. That is why I voted no.
Exactly...Quote:
and everyone earns the same
If I was the Communist Leader... Yes...
If I was the communist worker.... No...
I think it applies to everyone...
Don't believe me?
Look at a work camp...
and Look at the Kermlin...
I'm not gonna argue... but I'm not gonna agree with you either. Keep that in mind. I was raised as a Commie, both of my parents are, and my grandfather was in the CPUSA, so it runs in the family.
Hey, if you're CommieAmerican more power to you!!!...Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune 1287
You practice freedom of speech, and it's you given right...
I fully support you :D You got the right to do as you please... how you please...
Hey, if I lived without expressing how I felt...
it isn't really freedom...
now is it?