Successful Communism

[sophie]

One major problem I have with communism is the proposed way in which to implement it; I can't imagine investing sole power in a dictator and then expecting that person to give up all that power and dismantle the government. Anyone less than a saint would not want to give that up, in my estimation. For the record, I think living in a communist society is the most moral way to live. I just can't see any country ever really getting there.

George Washington stepped down...

 

[civ_king]

George Washington stepped down...

because it was too stressful

 

[ilduce349]

George Washington stepped down...

and what happened after that, democracy, not communism, democracy. That is why communism will never work, because man needs someone to lead, and others to follow, it has been like that for 20 000 years (the length of time humans have been around).

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

You bring up a good point, though I'll withhold that sort of judgment on communism until I'm satisfied with my research on it.

 

[ParkCungHee]

20 000 years (the length of time humans have been around).

You may want to check your dates again.

 

[sophie]

and what happened after that, democracy, not communism, democracy. That is why communism will never work, because man needs someone to lead, and others to follow, it has been like that for 20 000 years (the length of time humans have been around).

Besides, there are examples of societies which don't have leaders.

 

[Traitorfish]

One major problem I have with communism is the proposed way in which to implement it; I can't imagine investing sole power in a dictator and then expecting that person to give up all that power and dismantle the government. Anyone less than a saint would not want to give that up, in my estimation. For the record, I think living in a communist society is the most moral way to live. I just can't see any country ever really getting there.

Which is why very few socialists and communists (collectively referred to as "collectivists"), Marxist or otherwise, propose such a system. Whether they seek progression into anarchist collectivism or not, modern socialists tend to favour a form of democratic socialism, while those seeking direct transformation to communism would simply skip the problem altogether. Those countries in which despotism emerge inevitably represent a mutation of Marxist thought- itself but a single strain of collectivist thought- either in theory, application, or both, and so do not represent a legitimate refutation of Marxist thought, let alone all collectivism.

Also, wouldn't the entire world pretty much have to be communist in order for it to work? I mean, if one country has successfully achieved communism for itself and another has not, wouldn't the non-communist country be able to easily conquer the neighboring utopia?

Hence the Marxist advocacy of socialism.

 

[GhostWriter16]

and what happened after that, democracy, not communism, democracy. That is why communism will never work, because man needs someone to lead, and others to follow, it has been like that for 20 000 years (the length of time humans have been around).

No, Republic followed. As I have stated, Democracy is an evil system.

 

[Traitorfish]

No, Republic followed. As I have stated, Democracy is an evil system.

As a clarification, Domination thinks that "Republic" means "constitutional representative democracy", and that "Democracy" means some sort of ill-defined form of legally established mob rule; "constitutional ochlocracy", perhaps? It's best just to humour him, rather than to begin another unresolvable argument about this.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Those countries in which despotism emerge inevitably represent a mutation of Marxist thought- itself but a single strain of collectivist thought- either in theory, application, or both, and so do not represent a legitimate refutation of Marxist thought, let alone all collectivism.

The fact that a single mutation continued to take hold, and has developed to be the most successful variation of Marxism, across a wide variety of circumstances, certainly represents a very serious problem for Marxist thought, and one they have not spent sufficient time contemplating.

 

[aelf]

The fact that a single mutation continued to take hold, and has developed to be the most successful variation of Marxism, across a wide variety of circumstances, certainly represents a very serious problem for Marxist thought, and one they have not spent sufficient time contemplating.

May I know how you came to such a conclusion? Marxist literature is chock full of discussion of the betrayal of the people's cause.

 

[Lone Wolf]

As a clarification, Domination thinks that "Republic" means "constitutional representative democracy", and that "Democracy" means some sort of ill-defined form of legally established mob rule; "constitutional ochlocracy", perhaps?

Since, as we all know, USA spreads freedom and democracy everywhere, Domination must really hate America.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Since, as we all know, USA spreads freedom and democracy everywhere, Domination must really hate America.

Really, they spread freedom and Republic everywhere. I admit it sounds clunky, but that's the truth.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Name one place the US has spread freedom and republicanism to

 

[GhostWriter16]

Name one place the US has spread freedom and republicanism to

Name one place it has spread Democracy to.

Afganistan and Iraq at least for Republicanism.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Afghanistan and Iraq are both not rated as republics by any independent group.

Try again.

 

[Traitorfish]

Afghanistan and Iraq are both not rated as republics by any independent group.

Try again.

Since when was an "independent group" require to verify the absence of a monarchy?

 

[Huayna Capac357]

A republic requires a group of representatives governing the nation.

Afghanistan is in a state of virtual anarchy, not a republic.
Iraq is a republic, but it is not free.

So Afghanistan and Iraq are not examples.

 

[Traitorfish]

A republic requires a group of representatives governing the nation.

In a literal sense, "republic" or "res publica" means "rule of the people", a concept very similar to democracy. In common usage, it refers to a state which lacks a formal monarchical or theocratic government. It only refers to representative democracy for a select few on the American right, who neither represent the greater mass of people, or, it would seem, are particularly interested in communicating with them in anything resembling an effective manner.

Unless, of course, you want to claim that United Kingdom is a republic, while, say, the Republic of Cuba is not, in which case I can only say "feel free"...

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I'm using his definition.