Is Communism dead?

[Communisto]

Also, Early Judean christian societies were completely Anarchist.

 

[Left]

I would call Spanish communes special circumstances because they were populated by people who really wanted it to work. Today's westerner is so used to leadership it would only seem natural for someone to fill the void.

 

[Communisto]

I would call Spanish communes special circumstances because they were populated by people who really wanted it to work. Today's westerner is so used to leadership it would only seem natural for someone to fill the void.

Understandable. A slow decent into Anarchy would work. A violent Revolution or coup would only fail and give Anarchy even more of a bad name (see assassinations of the 60's). Small communities that switch over and that spreads the ideal throughout the world is possible, especially with the help of such communal technologies as the Internet. Until the revolution comes though, protesting, informing and smashing symbols of Capitalism is a way of making people aware.

 

[Godwynn]

Until the revolution comes though, protesting, informing and smashing symbols of Capitalism is a way of making people aware.

You speak as though there will be a glorious communist revolution that will forever end poverty, pain, and hopelessness on Earth.

It will never come.

*teehee*

 

[Communisto]

if you'd read the thread, you'd know I was talking about Anarchy. I am not a communist.

 

[jwijn]

Ahh, now I have something specific to argue about.

I don't, those and Barcelona proved it could work on a grand scale. Many African tribes are completely leaderless as well as the thousands of Communes that are currently working around the world.

Many African tribes? Care to name any?

Communism defeats itself by allowing money to exist, even if it is distributed equally. Money is the source of greed and Capitalism, thus Communism cancels itself out. What those people really want is freedom, only Anarchy can deliver that

And this anarchy plans to abolish money, then? Is that your grand solution to our problems? Let me give you a crash course in Economics here: Money is a commodity. Just like chickens or shiny beads or boom-boom sticks. It just happens that money is the commodity of choice when making transactions. So simply abolishing money will have no effect, as people will find other ways of trading.

Look, as much as I would like to live in a society where everything is communally owned, where I can go and sleep in my neighbor's bed if I want to and he can eat some of his food, it is not feasibly going to happen on a large scale. Human beings love to quantify things. This is why you see them obsessively poring over the Nutrition Facts on the backs of food in the supermarket, because they are getting their daily fix of Meaningless Statistics. Saying we should abolish money is like saying we should abolish the metric system, or do away with seconds. Money is simply another way of quantifying how much of something there is. It makes the process of transactions so much easier, and, in fact, fairer. In a world without money, someone could easily coerce another to give them more than their fair share either through excellent debate skills or intimidation. Money ensures that, at that specific moment, and according to market prices, those two groups of items are equal in value.

Furthermore, your statement that "Communism defeats itself by allowing money to exist, even if it is distributed equally" displays your lack of knowledge about what the communist movement really stands for. As Marx famously declared, "To each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Communism is not about every Joe, Frank and Wanda having exactly the same possessions or even the same money in their bank account. Communism is about equality of opportunity. Naturally, there is no concensus within the communist movement as to how this equality of opportunity is achieved (hence the many splinter groups), however, the more mainstream communist movement believes in worker democracy - where the workers have taken control of their industries and are able to elect and recall representatives instead of having bosses dictate the means of production to them. In the same manner that a democracy depends on people being concerned both for themselves and their country, so too does a worker democracy work on the premise that each worker is concerned for the him/herself and the future of the company. Workers who work hard and win the admiration of their fellow workers would receive bonuses or pay raises, and if the elected representatives abuse their power then they would be removed from office either in a recall or the next election.

 

[Communisto]

And this anarchy plans to abolish money, then? Is that your grand solution to our problems? Let me give you a crash course in Economics here: Money is a commodity. Just like chickens or shiny beads or boom-boom sticks. It just happens that money is the commodity of choice when making transactions. So simply abolishing money will have no effect, as people will find other ways of trading.

As I thought you would, you do not know what you are talking about. It isn't abolishing money, Currency becomes obsolete and not needed. You are still thinking about a Capitalist society. I implore you to know even a little about the Anarchist movement before diving into trivial arguement.

 

[Insane_Panda]

You speak as though there will be a glorious communist revolution that will forever end poverty, pain, and hopelessness on Earth.

The proletariat revolution shall destroy big capital!

Anyways. Human greed defeats communism. It is a basic animal instict for us to care about our survival over that of others, and humans are naturally oriented towards themselves, not towards the betterment of some grand ideaology.

 

[I am the Future]

The proletariat revolution shall destroy big capital!

Anyways. Human greed defeats communism. It is a basic animal instict for us to care about our survival over that of others, and humans are naturally oriented towards themselves, not towards the betterment of some grand ideaology.

beter not say that i did a while back and got my head bitten off for it

 

[I am the Future]

if you'd read the thread, you'd know I was talking about Anarchy. I am not a communist.

This thread is a comunisum discusion not an anarchy one.

I kindly ask you to stop preaching your anarchy to us or i will get a mod involved

 

[Elgalad]

Do you think Communism favours the appearance of dictators like Stalin, or do you think there can be democracy in a marxist regime?

I've never been convinced that the Soviet Union was Communist in anything other than name. In point of fact, the term "Communist State" is an oxymoron since a 'state' or government should be unnecessary in a communist society. That being said, the nations of the world that have 'embraced' Soviet style 'communism' have had a pretty poor track record regarding despotism and dictatorships. Nearly every State that has called itself 'Communist' has in fact been led by a single dictator, elite cabal, or single ruling party who act to 'preserve' social equality. Some could argue that a few of these leaders were benevolent by nature, but the bottom line is, they were dictators; unelected and unaccountable to any public electorate. So my answer to this question is unequivocally: Yes, Communism favors dictatorships and No, democracies are not compatible with Marxism.

For those who read books or watched documentaries about the supposed communist oppression, here is my question: do you believe in them really? Or do you think they are only an invention?

There are virtually Mountains of evidence of mass murders, tortures, and imprisonments under Stalinist style regimes. I think someone would have to be extremely naive or criminally ignorant of the truth to believe such evidence an invention. By most accounts, the sheer scale of Stalin's own purges Dwarfed that of Nazi Germany during the Holocaust. But other Leaders have done their .. 'best' .. to stand out as well: Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, and Peru's Shining Path have all set their own individual standards of brutality and oppression. And crimes against humanity continue to this day in the Sick Funhouse of the Damned, formerly known as North Korea, which continues to provide fun and enjoyment for Secretary Kim Jong-Il.

Do you believe in this model? Do you think the State should control the economy, or there should be economical freedom?

Personally, I believe the economy should be kept as free as possible. The State obviously exists for a reason, but I believe its first responsibility should be to protect its citizens from foreign invaders and domestic criminals. When the Government starts dabbling excessively in regulatory policies, it usually ends up knocking the whole economic machine out of whack and hurting a heck of a lot more people than it helps. Now I do realize that my views on this reflect a minority viewpoint on this forum, but they do be mahn and I reckon I'll just stick with 'em.

In these forty years of Cold War, was there any influence left by the Communism in the United States law or culture?

Definitely! We'd have never witnessed the creation of the Red Elvises, and I shudder to think of a world bereft of their musical genious!

Seriously though, there's simply no question that the Cold War left lasting and Permanent legacies on the United States and the rest of the world, many quite positive. For example: The Race to Space was a direct extension of the Cold War and it is doubtful that mankind would have advanced as rapidly technologically as it did in the latter half of the 20th Century without it. Numerous innovations can be pointed to as direct benefits of that competition (including the very devices we are communicating with!) and while it did consume massive amounts of money, I'm firmly convinced that every single penny was More than worth it.

For what reason do you believe Communism failed in the Cold War?

It ignored basic human nature. People quite simply need the opportunity to set lofty individual goals and then strive to reach them or fail in the attempt. When you take that ambition away and enforce equality by ensuring that everyone has their basic needs met but disallowing their dreams to be realized, you depress the human spirit and 'kill' progress. You cannot force achievement to take place without competition, you cannot draft plans for innovation, and you most certainly cannot Free people by limiting their choice.


"Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." -- Alexis de Tocqueville



-Elgalad

 

[Gladi]

Bright day
No it isn't, as in: there are still many communists.

And when arguing about it, I think North American communes of 17th century would be better case as they for AFAIK longer and were without inside or outside "hard" pressure.

 

[Winner]

Ask the Germans - one of the post-communist parties will be among the strongest parties there after the next elections

And it it already a third strongest where I live

People are stupid, they love to vote for the extremists to bash the government. Obviously they're too dumb to find a less suicidal way of doing that

 

[frekk]

I've never been convinced that the Soviet Union was Communist in anything other than name.

True enough. Kruschev himself admitted that the USSR was basically a firm economy controlled by a small cartel of corporations. It was all about state capitalism ... not unlike the web of partnerships between government and major corporations in the West today. Heck ... US government is right now filling up with former KGB and Stasi officials like Yevgeni Primakov heading up CAPPS II.

 

[Rambuchan]

Communism and Socialism are not dead by a long way.

There are a myriad political parties all around the world which still use Socialist principles as their foundation. They may not be Socialist or Communist parties in the strict sense of the word but the ideology is still very much alive. I think just about any European reading these words will be able to think of a party in their own country or neighbouring which has a Socialist influenced element in government.

The current British government (Labour) is of course supposed to be a left wing party. Many accuse them of not being but they have introduced many social welfare schemes which give a nod to socialist ideology. (Many more capitalist policies though).

Outside of Europe, India immediately comes to mind:

a) The Congress Party which recently swept aside the previous goverment is a 'Leftist' party, closely alligned with Socialist ideology (they were voted in by the rural masses who felt that the big business touting BJP was ignoring them).

b) The State Government of Kerala is Communist and has been for decades afaik. This state has the highest rates of literacy and also of life expectancy.

Some random entries for a very wide question .

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Well, can someone post a definition of Communism, so we know what we're talking about? Are we hinting towards Anarchy, Authoritarianism, Social Engineering?

The main tennets, as I see them are:
- "to each according to his needs, from each according to his possibilities"
- "private ownership of property is theft"
- "central planning can ensure the most equitable distribution of resources"
- "the value of things depends on the labour used to create them"
- "workers should own the means of production"

The main points of disagreement between Communists seem to be:
- the origin of property
- wether or not one individual should own at least the immediate produces of his labour (his house he build himself, his grain and animals he grew and raised)
- wether or not the state is that which grants property
- wether or not the state should exist


Is this accurate?

 

[Urederra]

I hope so. After killing 100+ million I hope that nobody will ever believe those who claim that comunism can be a solution to anything.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

No, I believe it is alive an well in China, though it may not be hardline.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Communism is like the old Pagan religions of Europe after Christianity became dominant and mandatory. There were still a few hardcore Pagans around for quite a while, but they had no real influence, and all were eventually assimilated, absorbed and rendered extinct.

 

[newfangle]

I've had a sort of revision in my thinking lately.

I'd always thought that the West's desire to implement government regulation in the economy on a widescale was a relic of Marx's ideas. I thought people actually bought in to Marx's vision of humanity and the future, but they didn't want to surrender their property and way of life. I do not think this is the case any longer.

Modern social democracies do not operate under the assumption that slight redistribution of wealth is a moral and virtuous way of governence. The only reason such governments exist is pragmatism. By and large, social democracies work. People do not give a damn about helping the poor. They just don't want to have junkies and transients hanging out in their front lawn. People tend to want an easier life, even if it means comprimise.

I believe that what drives people to Marxism is a complete ideological quantum leap away from social democracy. To be a social democrat is NOT to be 40% communist.

That all being said, Marxism in its true form (ie actual Marxists and not western social democrats) is dead. DEAD. There is no prominant intellectual (whether in economics or philosophy) that takes Marxism seriously anymore. It's an assasine theory completely at odds with human nature. Some people constantly spout that this is due to man's selfishness (and therefore evilness) which is just total crap. It's the way we are. Get over it. Aside from wiping out the species and letting ants take over, communism is buried. It's an ideological relic from the kneejerk reaction to Classical Liberalism.