Inqvisitor
King
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2005
- Messages
- 885
Communism as an economic theory is dead. Social Marxism, on the other hand...
Stigma against Communism?
- Thread starter Commie #4522
- Start date
Swiss Bezerker
Emperor
I would like to get one thing clear: Stalinism is NOT communism. The horrible starving people, the killing of religous authorities, the violent uprising, the rigged elections, the killing of those who apposed communism were all HORRIBLE ABUSES OF POWER. Take them away and you have a pefectly viable system. YOu dont HAVE to associate communism with anti democracy, and I think the best form of government would be a communism elected the same way as any other party, and can be washed away next election.
Corlindale
Emperor
Wouldn't it just be democracy, then?
Yuri2356
Test Screening
Communism as an economic system can operate under many forms of adminsitration, just like Capitalism can.Corlindale said:
Corlindale
Emperor
Sure, but most western countries today already have minor Communist parties. They just haven't been voted into any major position. So the potential for the Communistic economic system already exists within the frame of the democratic system, but it will only be instated if people vote the communists into power, which does not seem likely to be happening anytime soon.
Sephiroth
One Winged Angel
warpus said:
No I mean democracy... the U.S.A. is a democracy
sure people here have capitalistic ideals, but we vote for our own representation and laws in a democratic way
btw we also have communist partys here too, but they never get elected.... people just do not agree with there views....
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Cloud Strife said:
No I mean democracy... the U.S.A. is a democracy
sure people here have capitalistic ideals, but we vote for our own representation and laws in a democratic way
btw we also have communist partys here too, but they never get elected people just do not agree with there views....
Communism is an economic system - so comparing it to democracy doesn't really make sense.
Oh and not like it matters, but the U.S. is a republic.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Cloud Strife said:
No I mean democracy... the U.S.A. is a democracy
sure people here have capitalistic ideals, but we vote for our own representation and laws in a democratic way
btw we also have communist partys here too, but they never get elected.... people just do not agree with there views....
Communism can't be compared with democracy, they are different things, communism should be compared with capitalism.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Sounds good, in theory... each person contributes what he or she can, and is guaranteed to have his or her needs met.
In practice, though... how do you ensure that everyone performs to their abilities, and limits what is taken by "need". Do you truly "need" the computer you're using, or the car you're driving, or to see the movie you're taking a date to this weekend? Wouldn't the time and money be better spent contributing to the community?
I think Communism, as an economic theory, is unrealistic... humans are too much the individuals for it to succeed.
As far as the reason for a stigma applied to communists in the United States, I daresay the lion's share of that is due to the Cold War rivalry between the USA and the USSR.
In practice, though... how do you ensure that everyone performs to their abilities, and limits what is taken by "need". Do you truly "need" the computer you're using, or the car you're driving, or to see the movie you're taking a date to this weekend? Wouldn't the time and money be better spent contributing to the community?
I think Communism, as an economic theory, is unrealistic... humans are too much the individuals for it to succeed.
As far as the reason for a stigma applied to communists in the United States, I daresay the lion's share of that is due to the Cold War rivalry between the USA and the USSR.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
malclave said:
What if the basic needs (ie. shelter, food, clothing) were provided by the state - but any luxury would be up to the individual to acquire?
I'm not saying this would work - but it might be a more realistic model.
allhailIndia
Deity
warpus said:
"provided"..also a tricky word.
Do you mean to say that the State 'gives' everybody this much, or does the State 'ensure' that everybody has this much.
"shelter"....does it mean that if u have a roof over your head it is shelter, or does everyone have a right to a 2BR+K house/apartment?
"food" and "clothing", even trickier.
At best, what u have described is 'socialism' for which one needs a fairly homogenous, largely middle class country without too much ethnic/racial/religious conflict and a very educated populace without too much income disparities, which means about 4 countries in Europe. Most countries have too many people, or too few resources or oo many political problems to implement anything close to a truly 'socialist' economy.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
^ I suppose I was describing an imaginary paradise state that is somewhat modelled after Star Trek's Federation - the basic needs of every citizen are provided by the state.. but if an individual wishes to rise above that and acquire more for himself - then he'd be free to do so - a la capitalism.
I'm not sure if this would be feasible in today's world - but from where I'm sitting it sounds like an elegant compromise between communism and capitalism.
I'm not sure if this would be feasible in today's world - but from where I'm sitting it sounds like an elegant compromise between communism and capitalism.
Educational moment: Communism can only exist in a Democracy. A Communistic economic model outside a Democracy is by definition not a Communistic economic model.Cloud Strife said:
No I mean democracy... the U.S.A. is a democracy
sure people here have capitalistic ideals, but we vote for our own representation and laws in a democratic way
btw we also have communist partys here too, but they never get elected.... people just do not agree with there views....
The communistic ideas on distribution of wealth to be fairly equally distributed amongst the group will cease to be real when the power is not with the people.
Just a bit of trivia: the USSR had democratic elections, just not in the same way as the west is used to. They approved or disapproved a candidate; the West is forced to choose between a limited number (sometimes only 2) candidates who could all be bad.
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
Rik Meleet said:
Thanks for the reality check, Rik. I think that a lot of people tend to forget that the soviet union was more of a single-party state rather than an outright dictatorship. Given that there's only usually a few choices in a pluralist democracy, they're not as different as you might think. I think that the biggest problem that single-party states tend to run into is checks and balances: first of all, if there is no legitimate way to critisize the government, then change is hard to bring around. Second of all, if there is a way to concentrate too much power in one particular office, like stalin did with the general secretary of the central committee, corruption is of course soon to follow....
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
I don't follow......
