Has there ever been a point where communism worked well?

[Plotinus]

a/ replacing God, or any idol - with Humanity itself that becomes the absolute against which everything else should be measured

b/ extirping human socities from History (tabula rasa), ie destroying any form of culture that does not submit to the dogma of a/

It's contentious to say that these are (necessarily) the aims of communism; it's certainly ludicrous to say that they are the aims of socialism. Socialism as we know it today has been hugely influenced by Christianity, especially the concern for improving the material lot of the poor that came to the fore in the nineteenth century with figures such as Maurice. Keir Hardie himself was a lay preacher (who called Jesus the first communist), and the last three leaders of the British Labour Party have been Christian Socialists (even though the last two famously avoid the S word, although Blair did associate himself with it at his last PMQs!). This is also true in the US (figures such as Rauschenbusch and Niebuhr) and especially Canada (Bland). In France, it is true that socialism has tended to be associated with secularism; this is certainly not the case in the English-speaking world. Socialism just means the state providing services for everyone on an equitable basis, to promote fairness; there's nothing inherently atheistic about that.

 

[St Exupère]

Plotinus,

When Christians help the poor they first do it (if they really believe in God) for the Love of God. Charity is a consequence if truth, dogma and faith. Communism and its derivative, socialism, have kept the consequence but said they would get rid of the source deemed "mythical", "irrational" and "opium-like".

I know that in the UK for instance, conservatives are heavily influenced by franc-maconry and materialism whereas liberals are often from a christian background (unlike France and most of the rest of Europe, except Italy). I also know that there are many faithful christians in Mr Brown's government just as there were in Mr Blair's. Yet, I believe they are serving the same anti-christian ideology because they do not dare to put their faith forward, they do not dare say that it is because of God that they want to be charitable in their policies.

The consequence is that, for the past 10-years in the UK, all salient points defended by most Christians faiths around the world and deemed "uncompromisable" (family, pro-life, etc...) have not been defended by those "christian-socialists" you are talking off. On all these points, things are getting worse and worse in the UK (and all over Europe in fact, except Poland).

There is no charity without truth; I can understand that when capitalism started doing its terrible damages in the XIXth, many Christians found similarities with socialists and humanists in order to fight misery - up the heretic theology of liberation in the 1970's. I cannot however understand how some still fall into such trap in 2007, when the impacts of moral relativism, mass atheism and extreme secularism are all too visible on the basics of our societies themselves.

 

[Plotinus]

I think you have a very narrow understanding of Christianity as well as of socialism. But since neither of these is the subject of this thread, we'd better not discuss it further here.

 

[carmen510]

Communism would work in theory, as long as it was Marxism or Leninism without totalitarian rule. Then it would probably work for a large nation. Trouble is, nobody seems willing to work for a huge group, only for themselves. And then there would be the upper class fighting communism.

(A true communist state that would work would be one with no money, since money is the root of all evil, but there would be a monetary system, say 1 cow = 2 sheep, and everyone worked together.)

 

[Emperor2]

HEHEHE! NO COMMUNISM THREAD WILL ESCAPE MY GRASP!
Lets take a look at every communist country there ever was:
USSR (includes East Europe)-everyone knows that country was always in shambles.
China-Capitalist now, and still not extreamly rich, just on an incredible climb to it.
Cambodia-Genocidial dictatoship and still failing
North Korea-Everyone there has always been starving. And don't blame it on the US, SKorea was in that war and is now the 10th largest economy ever.
Vietnam-Always in shambles until recently, WHEN IT ADOPTED rudementary CAPITALISM.
Cuba-Has always been on the economic decline.
African communist states: None of those places were doing well when communism came in and still arent.
That country south of Arabia: Don't know too much about this one, but it had oil, so I can't imagine it did to awfully bad.

Any other communist states? I think I mentioned most of them in my description. I did not mention socialist states, BTW. And for a map of all socialist/communist countrys, please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Empire

 

[carmen510]

That country south of Arabia is Yemen, although I believe its chief export is agriculture, not oil. And I think its democratic now.

 

[Traitorfish]

Define "communism", define "worked" and define "well", then you may be able to get a decent answer.

Such a society cannot work, since I believe it is a fundamental and absolute need of humanity to seek justification of its existence from outside if itself. Or in other words, without an external form of absolutism (=idol, or god) no human society can exist.

What basis do you have for this assertion? I think it is quite possible for humanity to "justify" itself without needing to resort to mysticism, it just takes a high enough level of intellectual development on the part of society as a whole.

HEHEHE! NO COMMUNISM THREAD WILL ESCAPE MY GRASP!
Lets take a look at every communist country there ever was:
USSR (includes East Europe)-everyone knows that country was always in shambles.
China-Capitalist now, and still not extreamly rich, just on an incredible climb to it.
Cambodia-Genocidial dictatoship and still failing
North Korea-Everyone there has always been starving. And don't blame it on the US, SKorea was in that war and is now the 10th largest economy ever.
Vietnam-Always in shambles until recently, WHEN IT ADOPTED rudementary CAPITALISM.
Cuba-Has always been on the economic decline.
African communist states: None of those places were doing well when communism came in and still arent.
That country south of Arabia: Don't know too much about this one, but it had oil, so I can't imagine it did to awfully bad.

You know, try as I might I couldn't find a single communist nation on that list. Socialist, there's a couple, pseudo-socialist, more than enough, but communist? Well, unless you're definition of communism was cobbled together from McCarthy-era propaganda (as I rather suspect yours is), there is not a single communist nation on that list.
Besides, not a single one of those nations ever even described itself as "communist"- they were always "socialist", an acknowledgment that Marxist theory holds communism as a stateless system.

 

[St Exupère]

What basis do you have for this assertion?

hundreds thousand years of human history

I think it is quite possible for humanity to "justify" itself without needing to resort to mysticism, it just takes a high enough level of intellectual development on the part of society as a whole.

It is actually the exact opposite: the more developped (knowledgeable) a society, the more heavily it must rely on what we call "myths" - or it crumbles.

 

[Traitorfish]

hundreds thousand years of human history

Hundreds of thousands of years of human history, eh? That's a lot of history, considering the rest of the world has under ten thousand years. You must have a secret stash of it!
That only works if you assume that the future will be like the past, which has time and time again been shown to be false. The world as it is know is rather different than it was "hundreds of thousands" of years ago, as anyone with even a passing knowledge of the paleolithic will be able to tell you.
The world changes, that's a fact. Once, there were no democracies. Before that, there were no nations. Before that, no cities. Humans have a habit of doing the unexpected.

It is actually the exact opposite: the more developped (knowledgeable) a society, the more heavily it must rely on what we call "myths" - or it crumbles.

Again, basis?

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Vietnam-Always in shambles until recently, WHEN IT ADOPTED rudementary CAPITALISM.
[/URL]

Are you absoluetly sure that had nothing to do with the fact that the US pretty much tore that country apart in the war?

Ho Chi Minh never really got to be the leader of Vietnam, he was reduced to playing the leader of a revolution trying to keep the country alive... Hell, Ho Chi Minh wanted to be a friend of the US, qouted the damn constitution and still the US invaded.

 

[carmen510]

Yeah, well, US tries to kill all communists, friendly or not.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yeah, well, US tries to kill all communists, friendly or not.

Except Pol Pot. They were actually okay with him because he helped keep Vietnam in check. Sure, the ethnic cleansing wasn't a barrel of laughs, but, well, it's not like the US hasn't been there.

 

[innonimatu]

hundreds thousand years of human history

It is actually the exact opposite: the more developped (knowledgeable) a society, the more heavily it must rely on what we call "myths" - or it crumbles.

Humanity predates gods. But I do agree that religion, form the simples mysticism of ceremonial burials in the stone age to the present elaborate religions, did accompany all the development of human society. However that was not necessarily a religion of idols.

I agree with you about the myths. But I disagree that only religion can supply stable myths. A myth does not necessarily require religion, or at least belief in gods. Communist, or humanism, or any other idea can be just as effective a myth. And these are not recent phenomenons, historically Asia has had "philosophical religions" for millennial. No idols or gods needed, just an idea - a myth.
And capitalism, by the way, is as much a myth as socialism.

As for moral relativism I think that's a good thing, as opposed to blind dogma.

 

[Alpha Killer II]

HEHEHE! NO COMMUNISM THREAD WILL ESCAPE MY GRASP!
Lets take a look at every communist country there ever was:
USSR (includes East Europe)-everyone knows that country was always in shambles.
China-Capitalist now, and still not extreamly rich, just on an incredible climb to it.
Cambodia-Genocidial dictatoship and still failing
North Korea-Everyone there has always been starving. And don't blame it on the US, SKorea was in that war and is now the 10th largest economy ever.
Vietnam-Always in shambles until recently, WHEN IT ADOPTED rudementary CAPITALISM.
Cuba-Has always been on the economic decline.
African communist states: None of those places were doing well when communism came in and still arent.
That country south of Arabia: Don't know too much about this one, but it had oil, so I can't imagine it did to awfully bad.
QUOTE]

Communism's purpose is not Wealth, it is assuring the well being of the people, but the downside of this is that it is not economically rich, which is why Communist states have to learn to trade with other countries


Capitalism's purpose is not assuring the well being of the people, it is for the wealth of the citizen, but the downside of this is that the Capitalists will do whatever they can to get their hands on money, even if it means slavery

But what would u rather have, the well being of urself or money?
Hell, Cuba has better Healthcare than the US! and the best part is that its free

 

[ParkCungHee]

I agree with you about the myths. But I disagree that only religion can supply stable myths. A myth does not necessarily require religion, or at least belief in gods. Communist, or humanism, or any other idea can be just as effective a myth. And these are not recent phenomenons, historically Asia has had "philosophical religions" for millennial. No idols or gods needed, just an idea - a myth.
And capitalism, by the way, is as much a myth as socialism.

Georges Sorrel FTW!

 

[Emperor2]

Communism's purpose is not Wealth, it is assuring the well being of the people, but the downside of this is that it is not economically rich, which is why Communist states have to learn to trade with other countries


Capitalism's purpose is not assuring the well being of the people, it is for the wealth of the citizen, but the downside of this is that the Capitalists will do whatever they can to get their hands on money, even if it means slavery

But what would u rather have, the well being of urself or money?
Hell, Cuba has better Healthcare than the US! and the best part is that its free

[/QUOTE]

Capitalism's purpose is fairness. You get money depending on how ambitious you are. And no, MOST capitalists (not all; we aren't perfect) agree that slavery is evil. Look at Reagan. And assuring the wealth of the citezen assures their well being. They can afford good quality things that will make them well. Communism's purpose is equality, but through extermination of those that aren't communists; In short, almost the same as the Nazis.

And the cuba thing: There are SO many things wrong with this statement, I don't know where to begin. How about the fact that it is free because it is so low quality? Or the fact that Cuba dosen't have good doctors because the smart ones actually want to get paid good because they save lives. But the whole low quality thing is the most true. There isn't any good medicine, no good doctors, no good medical supplies, everthing is economy grade.

 

[West 36]

Many Native American cultures had communist-esque societies, everyone had an equal voice and decisions were made based on those. People produced what was needed.
And when people of other cultures (whites, blacks, etc) came to them, they loved it and hated if they were forced to come back to the european societies.
Just a thought.
You know what would be more fun? Find countries that have identified with different political movements and see how close to them they actually stick.

 

[West 36]

Capitalism's purpose is fairness. You get money depending on how ambitious you are. And no, MOST capitalists (not all; we aren't perfect) agree that slavery is evil. Look at Reagan. And assuring the wealth of the citezen assures their well being. They can afford good quality things that will make them well. Communism's purpose is equality, but through extermination of those that aren't communists; In short, almost the same as the Nazis.

And the cuba thing: There are SO many things wrong with this statement, I don't know where to begin. How about the fact that it is free because it is so low quality? Or the fact that Cuba dosen't have good doctors because the smart ones actually want to get paid good because they save lives. But the whole low quality thing is the most true. There isn't any good medicine, no good doctors, no good medical supplies, everthing is economy grade.[/QUOTE]

Capitalism 'enslaves' the poor of other countries to produce at low price crap that the sellers then tell the buyers they want. 'Wealth given depending on you ambition' implies that everyone can make it big time, which of course is wrong, because 1. not everyone can be a winner (but in reality I'm sure capitalists know this) and 2, as Hellen Keller (yeah, that one) said, roughly: there are some people that just DONT have the ability to be as rich as those born into a privledged life. Also, those kids that are making your nikes dont have that chance. Now I agree that people should be paid more if their job is important and also requires skill, jobs should be paid on something like that, but we all see how people aren't paid what they deserve. I'm not exactly sure if communism wants everyone to earn the same thing- the USSR wanted more coal, so offered more money for coal workers, but the USSR wasn't 'communist- so I'll withold a comment there for now.
Wealth ensures your well being- nice, but people that work hard and are paid crap deserve better, don't you think? I for one thing wealth is almost abhorable, in that people CRAVE money more than anything, but should look to life in a more down-to-earth way.
Can't say much about Cuba because it's illegal to go there, and therefore how can I be sure what I'm being told is true? At that, if the US had opened trade with Cuba, it would be doing mucho better right now.

and I'm sorry for double posting

 

[Emperor2]

Capitalism 'enslaves' the poor of other countries to produce at low price crap that the sellers then tell the buyers they want. 'Wealth given depending on you ambition' implies that everyone can make it big time, which of course is wrong, because 1. not everyone can be a winner (but in reality I'm sure capitalists know this) and 2, as Hellen Keller (yeah, that one) said, roughly: there are some people that just DONT have the ability to be as rich as those born into a privledged life. Also, those kids that are making your nikes dont have that chance. Now I agree that people should be paid more if their job is important and also requires skill, jobs should be paid on something like that, but we all see how people aren't paid what they deserve. I'm not exactly sure if communism wants everyone to earn the same thing- the USSR wanted more coal, so offered more money for coal workers, but the USSR wasn't 'communist- so I'll withold a comment there for now.
Wealth ensures your well being- nice, but people that work hard and are paid crap deserve better, don't you think? I for one thing wealth is almost abhorable, in that people CRAVE money more than anything, but should look to life in a more down-to-earth way.
Can't say much about Cuba because it's illegal to go there, and therefore how can I be sure what I'm being told is true? At that, if the US had opened trade with Cuba, it would be doing mucho better right now.

and I'm sorry for double posting

It does not enslave; First of all, I am saying here that capitalism in the sense that I support it, requires democracy: The buyers tell the manufacturers what they want. An essential point of Capitalism is "Something is worth what the buyer will pay for it". So that is wrong. And everyone can be a winner, its just that a lot of people don't try. My mom went through some tough times with socialist hippie druggie parents and lived in shelters for a long time and is now the assistant regional manager across the ENTIRE northeast US. And those with a born into a privilaged life will not always make it. Buisnessmen realize they will lose money with them, and fire them. And those kids making Nikes (which I don't buy) would have that chance IN A DEMOCRACY! And the people that aren't payed what they deserve should go to a different job, or to collage (work for a scholarship) and get a good job that pays well. It is possible, its just that some people are too lazy.
And capitalists don't crave money; We just work for our fair share. And we are ambitious enough to try and make a better living for ourselves. And to those that are going to bring up the "Christian Socialism" argument to me, look here: here.

 

[Plotinus]

And to those that are going to bring up the "Christian Socialism" argument to me, look here: here.

Absolutely hilarious. Thank you for giving me a good laugh over breakfast. However, I'm sure you'll understand if I wait until someone gives me a good counter-argument or counter-example before changing my views on this particular matter.