communism, misunderstood or just a mistake?

[Jimmy Jazz]

now i'm a communist, or at least a radical socialist and i'm wondering what people think about communism, i'm all for it obviously as long as it's not mismanaged as it was in russia (although i think initially communism in russia went well it was just the later corrupt government that messed things up). so, do you think communism is/was a good or bad idea.

p.s. i'm hoping this might be an actual debate rather than a flame war but we'll see

[Garrett]

I wish I could get in on this debate but I don't know as much about communism as I would like to.

[HempMonkeyJwk]

in my opinon Hard Left is just as flawed as Hard Right. Except in obviously different ways. Neither of them will ever bear the fruit of long-term success

[squealpiggy]

So would you say you were "communist" as in a left wing Authoritarian, with all economic control left to the state along with all political and police control, or are you more of a left wing anarchist who believes in the voluntary redistribution of wealth? I myself am a moderate-left centrist, more into the idea of liberalism and permissiveness but with a strong welfare state but also low restrictions on business. On the political compass I fall roundabout where Canadian PM Jean Chretien lies. Check it out:

http://www.politicalcompass.org

[felixdahousecat]

Communism, in principal, is a lovely idea, with everyone being equal n everyone getting the same yadda yadda yadda, in practice, however, it is poop. They should rename it "How To Destroy a Countries Economy" It ruined Russia, Cuba and lots of other countries that I can't be bothered to think of right now. It also ruined China until they decided not to be so fiercly communist and now their economy is starting to recover.

Communism is just another way to keep the powerful rich and everyone else poor

[squealpiggy]

Originally posted by felixdahousecat
Communism, in principal, is a lovely idea, with everyone being equal n everyone getting the same yadda yadda yadda, in practice, however, it is poop. They should rename it "How To Destroy a Countries Economy" It ruined Russia, Cuba and lots of other countries that I can't be bothered to think of right now. It also ruined China until they decided not to be so fiercly communist and now their economy is starting to recover.

Communism is just another way to keep the powerful rich and everyone else poor

So it's a bit like Capitalism then? China has a slightly recovering economy based on the opening of sweatshop contractors for major American companies who make money of the labours of desperate people. Companies like Nike, Reebok, Walmart etc all make huge amounts of moolah taking advantage of repressive regimes and workers with no rights and no legal voice. Read NoLogo by Naomi Klein, she's a bit of a hippy but it's interesting enough.

[felixdahousecat]

I didn't say that capitalism is good, what i said was that communism destroys countries. also i do not buy clothes made by companies that i know to use sweat shop labour. I would have thought than one of the major reasons that China is recovering is due to them getting Hong Kong back in 1997

[[murray]]

Originally posted by felixdahousecat
Communism, in principal, is a lovely idea, with everyone being equal n everyone getting the same yadda yadda yadda, in practice, however, it is poop. They should rename it "How To Destroy a Countries Economy" It ruined Russia, Cuba and lots of other countries that I can't be bothered to think of right now. It also ruined China until they decided not to be so fiercly communist and now their economy is starting to recover.

Communism is just another way to keep the powerful rich and everyone else poor

Leninism is just another way to keep the powerful rich.

Leninism and communism are vastly different things. For a start communism is equality for all, whereas Lenin didnt care about the peasant and worker proletariats at all, he was only interested in the middle class.

Communism = win
Lenin/Stalin/Mao/Castroism = lose.

[felixdahousecat]

it's no good saying that everyone is equal when everyone clearly is not. Should a man whos job is to bend paperclips into shape get paid as much as a surgeon who saves peoples lives on a daily basis?
If everyone is equal who would run the country? everyone?

[squealpiggy]

Originally posted by felixdahousecat
it's no good saying that everyone is equal when everyone clearly is not. Should a man whos job is to bend paperclips into shape get paid as much as a surgeon who saves peoples lives on a daily basis?
If everyone is equal who would run the country? everyone?

It's a very capitalist attitude to believe that values put on people's work should affect pay. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. People are not being surgeons because they want glory and reward, they are being surgeons for the good of the whole nation. If all a man can do is bend paperclips let him bend paperclips, he is doing his bit.

Also you shoudln't forget that the main reason for the colapse of Communist Russia was the Arms Race. Trying to keep up with the Americans is what led to the collapse of the economy.

[felixdahousecat]

But isn't the surgeon more valuable than the man who bends paper clips?

[Cainam]

Originally posted by felixdahousecat
But isn't the surgeon more valuable than the man who bends paper clips?

To who? I would bet that to themselves, the paperclip bender and the surgeon find themselves very valuable. To society, if you need both surgeons and paperclip benders, but you kill anyone unable to be a surgeon to try to raise the standards, all you get is some people who could be surgeons having to bend paperclips instead, plus a growing need for morticians to bury the dead paperclip benders.

[HempMonkeyJwk]

instead of twirling around and around with that argument i think it would be better ifyou summed it up like this

Some people 'are' better than others. Esp when it comes to specialist jobs. But the only way you can advance and find out which ones are worse or better is to have a level-as-possiable playing field.

If you really want to get a country going IMO. High Tax (esp for the RIDICULAS sums of money some IMO parasistic disgusting people get|) and high spend (on the 'organs' of the country...transport, health, etc etc)

oh, and regulate private industry to with in an inch of its life

id say im an aggressive smack-bang-in-the-middler

[freddiestarfish]

the main thing is that true communism is impossible to have in a country in this world.
people always want more, and they feel that if they work harder, they should get more.
and having a leader and government that isnt corrupt is the other, you cant get one.

[squealpiggy]

Originally posted by freddiestarfish
the main thing is that true communism is impossible to have in a country in this world.
people always want more, and they feel that if they work harder, they should get more.
and having a leader and government that isnt corrupt is the other, you cant get one.

Plus if you declared yourself a communist country the States would declare war onyou forcing you to increase military spending to a level which would cripple your economy.

[HempMonkeyJwk]

Basically...carl marx, like jesus, was a cock-eyed optimist

[squealpiggy]

But Jesus never got thrown out of the library because the librarians thought that he was just a smelly old tramp who was pretending to read the paper upside down just to stay out of the rain.

http://personales.ciudad.com.ar/M_Heidegger/karl+marx.jpg

[Jimmy Jazz]

just to go back to the actual subject here for a second, a paperclip bender and a surgeon would get paid the same, but according to the theory's of karl marx if one produced more goods or produced higher quality work than the average for the job he would be paid more, its a common misconception that whatever you do in a communist country you are aid the same, the job you do doesn't matter but how well you do it and how much work you produce does.
So would you say you were "communist" as in a left wing Authoritarian, with all economic control left to the state along with all political and police control
and yes actually i would say i was that type of communist, but the "all police control" part is totally unneccesary, who do you think controls the police now, us?
however i also think true commuism could never be acheived in real life and so thats why i mostly support radical socialists and leftwing partys because even though their chance for election is slim i believe they could do a lot good for britain right now.
anyway felixdahousecat communim was only a factor in destroying russia and china's economys but look what it did to for them! if nothing else it was a great stepping stone on the way to capitalism, both russia and china where monarchys when they became communist and look at them now, both happy happy capitalist countrys, well not so happy but you get the point. alos neither country had had the industrial revolution when they became communist but especially in russia the governments five year plans may have fcked up the economy slightly but they als made russia into an industrialised nation in a periodof about 15 years when it took at least 50 for industrialiation to take hld in other country's around the world.
end of rant

[squealpiggy]

That's fair enough. I don't think that commmunism is the way forward. Some kind of benevolent state controlled free market could work though.

[Ferret Pie]

communism would be very good but i have a perfect solution to some great problems in capitolism: kill all the rich, feed them to nthe poor and give the people in the middle all of their things. keep doing this until everyone is equal.

[Ferret Pie]

people ought to be paid differently but people with boring, stressful or hard tasks ought to be paid more or just to get the same money and do less work.

[sjaak]

Originally posted by squealpiggy
That's fair enough. I don't think that commmunism is the way forward. Some kind of benevolent state controlled free market could work though.


state controlled free market?? make up your mind!

[squealpiggy]

Originally posted by Ferret Pie
communism would be very good but i have a perfect solution to some great problems in capitolism: kill all the rich, feed them to nthe poor and give the people in the middle all of their things. keep doing this until everyone is equal.

Every revolution aims to replace the upper class with the middle class at the expense of the lower class.

[squealpiggy]

Originally posted by sjaak
state controlled free market?? make up your mind!

Free market with laws. For example you can't aggressively market to children, you can't market cigarettes though you can sell them, you can sell what you want but there are restrictions.

Trade is not forbidden but profit is not the be all and end all.

[GorillaBearBear]

If you ask me it has nothing to do with the philosophy of it. It's a perfectly good idea. I think it's a great idea as it could lead to the abolition of money, which would be great for everyone. The problem occurs with people like Lenin and Stalin who used it to exploit and rape their country until it's economy collapsed. I think Gorbachov (sp?) realised this when he reintroduced Capitolism to Russia, knowing that in the long run it would be best.

[Ferret Pie]

Squelpiggy does not understand my theory.
The middle left after the first time may become rich and the intelligent poor will hoard and sell the mass amounts of food they receive. The rich will be killed again and again until nobody wants to be rich and so gives all their money to charity. A more human thing would be to give rich people the option of giving all their money away or being eaten i suppose but then we would have a bunch of very poor snobs who would probably die without their butler to cook their meals and wipe their bums and suchlike anyway . This would stink up the place and not yeild as much food.

[Reddig]

I mostly answered most of theese things in the "capitalism suks" thread, but i have a few things to respond here too.

Again, let's start with some quotes and answeres to them, shall we?

(...)although i think initially communism in russia went well it was just the later corrupt government that messed things up(...)

Well... no. First of all, if you look at it in the categories of corruption and such later russian communist government was pretty liberal and peacefull in comparison to it's early years. Since IX 1917 untill 1953-56 it was a country ruled by bloodlusting terror, so horrible, that you can't imagine (I know I can't). If you want I can send you a PM with facts and numbers.


Communism, in principal, is a lovely idea, with everyone being equal n everyone getting the same yadda yadda yadda

As I already mentioned a few times - theese are not the main doctrines of communism.


Leninism is just another way to keep the powerful rich.

Not quite. The powerfull were overthrown (and substituted for others), the rich got robbed of their possesions (what couldn't have been robbed was demolished), most of them got killed.


China has a slightly recovering economy based on the opening of sweatshop contractors for major American companies who make money of the labours of desperate people. Companies like Nike, Reebok, Walmart etc all make huge amounts of moolah taking advantage of repressive regimes and workers with no rights and no legal voice.


That's only part of the truth. China's economy has just got liberalised, PRCh is just turning away form centraly planned economy and thowards capitalism. And it's not a "slight recovery" - China is today one of the fastes evolving countries in the world.

It's a very capitalist attitude to believe that values put on people's work should affect pay. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. People are not being surgeons because they want glory and reward, they are being surgeons for the good of the whole nation. If all a man can do is bend paperclips let him bend paperclips, he is doing his bit.

Also you shoudln't forget that the main reason for the colapse of Communist Russia was the Arms Race. Trying to keep up with the Americans is what led to the collapse of the economy.


Now this is a good one. First of all - the part about surgeons and paperclippers - i'm sorry to say that, but that's bullshit. It doesn't work like that. First of all, to be a surgeon you need education, hard work, and skill. To be a hairdresser you need less education and skill. To be a paperclipper you don't need either. Now why should the surgeons be paid as much as the paperclippers? If they were, most of the people would say: "to hell with this, i don't care, i'd rather be a paperclipper".


Now as far as the part about paperclippers was only bullshit, the part about the reasons of collapsing of the Soviet Union is more. It's blasphemy. It only shows, that all you know about USSR is what you overheard or overread in some hippie books.

The main reason of the collapsing of the Soviet Union was it's system. It didn't work. Central planning came out to be an eceonomical catastrophy. The "great achievements" like the "powerfull industry" only drained money, the people sufferd from extreme indigence, the quality of russian products would be funny if it wasn't tragic. The Arms Race only finished this country off.

If you really want to get a country going IMO. High Tax (esp for the RIDICULAS sums of money some IMO parasistic disgusting people get|) and high spend (on the 'organs' of the country...transport, health, etc etc)

oh, and regulate private industry to with in an inch of its life


High tax, high spend... Hit the rich, give the poor. Intence control over private industry.

High taxes kill the economy. They tie up the the private owners (capitalists), who can't evolve, bah, more - they regress (having less money and lots of social burdens they can't make money - thus they can't exist). This leads to bankruption of the employers, raises unemployment, slows downs or stops countries development, etc. Catastrophy. Central economy is far less eficient than private one, the management is worse, so the quality of national products (that also means hospitals, schools, and all that) falls. And we don't want that, now do we?


anyway felixdahousecat communim was only a factor in destroying russia and china's economys but look what it did to for them! if nothing else it was a great stepping stone on the way to capitalism, both russia and china where monarchys when they became communist and look at them now, both happy happy capitalist countrys, well not so happy but you get the point. alos neither country had had the industrial revolution when they became communist but especially in russia the governments five year plans may have fcked up the economy slightly but they als made russia into an industrialised nation in a periodof about 15 years when it took at least 50 for industrialiation to take hld in other country's around the world.
end of rant



Argh, dude! Communism was no stepping stone! All western today capitalisic countries were monarchys once, and they quite naturally evolved into capitalism and democracy. Neither of the countries had a indutrial revolution, because they both had revolutions, which didn't care about such details as industry. Unlike western Europe their revolutions were bloddy and set on terror. The five (ten, twelve and so on) year plans not only pushed USSR into extreme poverty, but created industry which did more bad than good - it sucked all finance and chanes like a black hole. Besides the countries arround the world started out with the industry over 70 years before the russians did, do you can't compare the two situations.




There, that's enough. I didn't answer to everything I wanted, because I'm tired, and writing long tekst in a foreign language is difficult. Again - sorry for the gramatical and spelling mistakes.


Let me just give it all an ending word - communism is wrong in it's theory, and it's catastrophical in practicer. There isn't a single one communistic country and there hasn't been any, which would benefit from being a communistic country. USSR, China, North Korea, Poland, Chechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Kuba, Panama, all the African commy countries - not a single one of them.

[Cainam]

If someone knows better, please correct me, but I thought that the U.S.S.R. never made it's way to true communism. The way it was supposed to work, to get to 'communism', you need to have a temporary government set up, to lead and teach the people how to run things in a communist society. The temporary leadership period was the 'dictatorship of the prolitariet' (ignore bad spelling, please). Once this temporary government was set up, and the people learned how to live in the society, the power is supposed to be turned over to the people. This never happend. The people in charge were in charge because they liked power, not because they wanted to do the best thing for their countrymen. People like Stalin don't just wake up one morning and say "Well, my job is done. Can I have a job as a pig farmer, now that you don't need me in charge any more?" What you got was a society that, except for the leaders, WAS equal, just equally poor.

When you get down to it, the U.S. is actually closer to communism than the U.S.S.R. was. The taxes are rather high. In the capitol, Washington, D.C., the total ammount that a working resident of the city pays in taxes is over 50% of their income. Sales tax, income tax, property tax, gas tax, etc, etc. This from a country that rebelled against Britan for a tax rate of about 3% or so. And where does the money go? Local government is a huge expense, even if you dont have the usual bribes and corruption. Welfare and public services to the poor eats up most of it, though. If you are well off, and work in Washington, you LIVE outside the city in a suburb, for the most part. Like in communism, the well off are made to give up a part of their share to provide for the people who can't make it on their own. Also, like in communism, there is not much reason for someone to try to make it better for themselves. You get a good education, you get a good job, and the government starts taking money from you, instead of giving it to you. Woo, sign me up!

I really don't know what can really be done about these things. I don't know if anything can be done. Any soultion for one problem just causes another one, either for the same people, or another group. What it comes down to is this: PEOPLE ARE A PROBLEM.

And by the way, as far as anarchists go, we had that system beginning from when we climbed down out of the trees and started banging rocks together, and this is where we went. I seriously doubt that if we started over humans would do it right the second time. Or the third. Individuals can be quite smart, but as a group, we are pretty stupid.

[squealpiggy]

This from a country that rebelled against Britan for a tax rate of about 3% or so.

There was a little bit more to the Revolutionary War than the taxes though. Not much more, but a little bit.

I find it hard to believe that the States has a 50% tax rate. From what I can tell the States has managed to perfect the redistribution of wealth if by "redistribute" you actually mean "keep". It has a terrible attempt at a welfare state, the worst disparity between the average and lowest income of any country in the world and has chronic health issues among the poor due to their mercenary health system.

Taxes are higher in Britain and in Canada, both left-centrist countries, whereas America is more Authoritarian Right,

[Cainam]

Well, yes, there was more to the American rebellion than just a small ammount of tax. I can understand this from both sides, really. England needed the tax money, and America, as British citizens, had no say in the government that it was a part of. As for the huge differance in income between the middle class and the poor, I don't think that the govenment is really the problem - not that it really HELPS, but it is not the cause. In the U.S.S.R., and in other countries where there is a repressive government, you can point the finger right at those in charge. The poor are kept in their place to keep the people in power in their place. in the U.S., it is possible for anyone to break out of poverty. It has been done, if you are determined enough. The problem is the attitude of the people themselves. It isn't 'cool' to try hard in school. Knowledge and intelligence makes you a nerd, and therefore someone to be picked on. A gangster is someone to look up to, and being a pimp or a drug dealer is a good career. This is supposed to be good? I'm not impressed.

The thing that most Europeans and Americans have against communism stems ( for the most part ) from World War II, and Stalin. He was a rightous bastard, and he was in charge of Russia. We ended up becoming allies out of necessity near the end of the war, but there was no love between the leaders. Russia was seen as an enemy, but we couldn't attack because we were allies on paper. American industry came out of the war untouched by the fighting, and Russia's was moved and in full swing outside of the area where Nazi Germany had invaded. America was flexing it's muscles, and Russia was embarrassed over the way the war had turned out. The anomosity was inevitible.

It still comes down to what I said earlier - PEOPLE ARE A PROBLEM.

Eh, such serious topics for a forum on a comedy website. I NEED A PIE NOW!!!

[Reddig]

When you get down to it, the U.S. is actually closer to communism than the U.S.S.R. was.

Whoa. Man. US is one of the farthest from communism countries, than the other way arround. Communism is not about high taxes, free schools and all that. It's like saying, that the British are fashist, because they have a strict immigrant policy and they are fond of their country.


in the U.S., it is possible for anyone to break out of poverty. It has been done, if you are determined enough. The problem is the attitude of the people themselves.

Very true. The US has a system in wich it is easiest to change your social class for a better one. Look at chicago Poles for example. There is a bunch of them, which came to the US with a few dimes in their hands and dirty clothes. They worked hard, they had a good idea for a living, and now they some of them are now millionares. Things like that don't happen in Sweden or Norway (wich are very social-like), if you are poor in sweeden you stay poor. And your kids stay poor. And their kids. I've read, that while in USA you need about 10 years to change your social-class for a better one, in Sweden you need three generations.


The thing that most Europeans and Americans have against communism stems ( for the most part ) from World War II, and Stalin. He was a rightous bastard, and he was in charge of Russia. We ended up becoming allies out of necessity near the end of the war, but there was no love between the leaders. Russia was seen as an enemy, but we couldn't attack because we were allies on paper. American industry came out of the war untouched by the fighting, and Russia's was moved and in full swing outside of the area where Nazi Germany had invaded. America was flexing it's muscles, and Russia was embarrassed over the way the war had turned out. The anomosity was inevitible.


Well, not exactly. First of all, Soviet Russia was threatening before WWII (for example - in 1920 Poland fought a war with the bolshevic army, which it has won by a miracle. The whole problem was, that if Soviet Russia got to Germany (which was very pro-soviet then) it would have ment a catastrophy). Russian communism was rotten from the beggining (X.1917).

And the "alliance" was not a reason why the US and the USSR did brake off a war. What's funny - both countries fought with each other (although not directly) in places like Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Izrael, Afganistan, Africa and so on. Besides, Russia couldn't have been embarrassed by the way the world war had turned out, because they were pretty vitourious after it, and gained control in most of the eastern Europe. Of course Soviet Union came out more battered from the war, but it was more battered before the war anyway.