What is communism ?
- Thread starter carniflex
- Start date
oagersnap
Emperor
A and C. B isn't really part of communism, but it's inevitable.
Reno
The Studio Ghibli Fanatic
C is what it was originally supposed to be. But communist countries are very likely develop into dictatorships.
And by the definition of Marx, there has yet to be any single truly communist state.
And by the definition of Marx, there has yet to be any single truly communist state.
Gabryel Karolin
Gammelgädda
B is also a part of communism since in the ideal state there is only need for one party.
SeleucusNicator
Diadoch
B can certainly exist outside of Communism, however.
The question that should be asked is "do you mean Communism in theory, or in practice?". There is a major, major difference.
The question that should be asked is "do you mean Communism in theory, or in practice?". There is a major, major difference.
Stefan Haertel
Title
A and C is what it is supposed to be. B is what it turned out to be.
amadeus
Serenity now
It's the amalgamation of the absolute worst in politics and economics.
CIVPhilzilla
Reagan Republican
C is the main definition, A is the best goal we can try to achieve with communism, and B is usually the awful byproduct when C and A fail. I choose A&C btw.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
@Carniflex :
It's funny you didn't make a multi-choice poll. That would have been easier to analyze the results.
I've answered to your question in wondering each time if it could be proper to communism. Clearly, only the A appeared as a proper definition of communism.
I'm not sure about the C one. Since abilities are not necessarily a significant factor in a communist plan. What matters is essentially that everyone has a job. The "needs" part is a lot more important in a communist system than the "abilities" part.
It's funny you didn't make a multi-choice poll. That would have been easier to analyze the results.
I've answered to your question in wondering each time if it could be proper to communism. Clearly, only the A appeared as a proper definition of communism.
I'm not sure about the C one. Since abilities are not necessarily a significant factor in a communist plan. What matters is essentially that everyone has a job. The "needs" part is a lot more important in a communist system than the "abilities" part.
Nate128
Bow to your king.
Hmmmmmmm.... Where is the "impractical" option?
Voted "other".
Communism is an economical system where the means of production are owned collectively. This ownership *in theory* does not have to represent a party or any authority of any kind. In fact, the absence of central authority is the point of communism.
The theoretical build of communism resemble enormously a form of enlightened anarchy, and it's not a "social system" just like bald is not a hairstyle - it's more about the lack of a "social system", which *should* have been outgrown by humanity by the time communism is reached.
To bury from scratch a common misconception, in communism there is private property - as long as the property is not a mean of production. That means you can keep from your underpants to your family jewels - what you "can't" own individually is a farm or a factory (I put this in quotation marks because in theory, this is less about "prohibition" than about the "extinction of the concept of owning supra-individual goodies").
Socialism, on the other hand, is an embryo, a transition formula between capitalism and communism, where a powerful central authority (not necessarily dictatorial) is committed to the redistribution of means of production. The failure of the communism theory seems to be that socialism, the intermediary, tends to deform into tyrannical entities (aberrations such as Stalinism, Maoism and Castrism) to perpetuate itself, and create a bureaucratic elite instead of s capitalistic elite, falling to the same problems of the previous system, added with a whole bunch of problems of its own.
Thing is, the theory of communism adopted the idea of armed resolution (probably, influenced by the successes of the French Revolution and of the US independence, which have given the world the impression that you could really change things with a will to fight and a noble heart), but it was very poorly executed in real world specially because communism was envisioned originally as the path of development of a rich and modern society, where the wealthy of capitalism and the conscientiousness of people mixed together, creating the means and the mindset for the proletarians to take over.
What happened in the real world was the contrary. Poor, backwards countries adopted it as means to destroy failing states and rebuilt them with a new grand vision, without abiding to its theoretical construct, no less. Quite frankly, its no surprise it was such a failure.
Regards
.
Communism is an economical system where the means of production are owned collectively. This ownership *in theory* does not have to represent a party or any authority of any kind. In fact, the absence of central authority is the point of communism.
The theoretical build of communism resemble enormously a form of enlightened anarchy, and it's not a "social system" just like bald is not a hairstyle - it's more about the lack of a "social system", which *should* have been outgrown by humanity by the time communism is reached.
To bury from scratch a common misconception, in communism there is private property - as long as the property is not a mean of production. That means you can keep from your underpants to your family jewels - what you "can't" own individually is a farm or a factory (I put this in quotation marks because in theory, this is less about "prohibition" than about the "extinction of the concept of owning supra-individual goodies").
Socialism, on the other hand, is an embryo, a transition formula between capitalism and communism, where a powerful central authority (not necessarily dictatorial) is committed to the redistribution of means of production. The failure of the communism theory seems to be that socialism, the intermediary, tends to deform into tyrannical entities (aberrations such as Stalinism, Maoism and Castrism) to perpetuate itself, and create a bureaucratic elite instead of s capitalistic elite, falling to the same problems of the previous system, added with a whole bunch of problems of its own.
Thing is, the theory of communism adopted the idea of armed resolution (probably, influenced by the successes of the French Revolution and of the US independence, which have given the world the impression that you could really change things with a will to fight and a noble heart), but it was very poorly executed in real world specially because communism was envisioned originally as the path of development of a rich and modern society, where the wealthy of capitalism and the conscientiousness of people mixed together, creating the means and the mindset for the proletarians to take over.
What happened in the real world was the contrary. Poor, backwards countries adopted it as means to destroy failing states and rebuilt them with a new grand vision, without abiding to its theoretical construct, no less. Quite frankly, its no surprise it was such a failure.
Regards
.
josephstalin
Kremlin Highlander
A and C. B an be and can not be part of it, depends on the case.
sebanaj
Prince
An abomination. A fallacy. A system that opposes nature and reason.
A system where the individual is abolished. It's like a giant prison.
Without competition there's no progress. As the Austrian Economist, Ludwig Von Mises, thought: it's a system where prices can't be calculated, so how can the burocrats decide what is needed what is not needed, what has more or less value, etc.
Read: Ludwig Von Mises "Socialism" and "Human Action"
The errors of Socialism, a work by Friedrich A Von Hayek
A system where the individual is abolished. It's like a giant prison.
Without competition there's no progress. As the Austrian Economist, Ludwig Von Mises, thought: it's a system where prices can't be calculated, so how can the burocrats decide what is needed what is not needed, what has more or less value, etc.
Read: Ludwig Von Mises "Socialism" and "Human Action"
The errors of Socialism, a work by Friedrich A Von Hayek
vbraun
Raytracing
A and C, becasue B doesn't really fit in a real communism.
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
What FredLC said.
Communism is an economic system. However, it is not based on a centralized, state-run system. Therefore, none of the options are correct except "other."
And for the record, C is considered utilitarianism--the term was coined by Bentham.
Communism is an economic system. However, it is not based on a centralized, state-run system. Therefore, none of the options are correct except "other."
And for the record, C is considered utilitarianism--the term was coined by Bentham.
Neonanocyborgasm
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,695
FredLC said:Voted "other".
Communism is an economical system where the means of production are owned collectively. This ownership *in theory* does not have to represent a party or any authority of any kind. In fact, the absence of central authority is the point of communism.
The theoretical build of communism resemble enormously a form of enlightened anarchy, and it's not a "social system" just like bald is not a hairstyle - it's more about the lack of a "social system", which *should* have been outgrown by humanity by the time communism is reached.
To bury from scratch a common misconception, in communism there is private property - as long as the property is not a mean of production. That means you can keep from your underpants to your family jewels - what you "can't" own individually is a farm or a factory (I put this in quotation marks because in theory, this is less about "prohibition" than about the "extinction of the concept of owning supra-individual goodies").
Socialism, on the other hand, is an embryo, a transition formula between capitalism and communism, where a powerful central authority (not necessarily dictatorial) is committed to the redistribution of means of production. The failure of the communism theory seems to be that socialism, the intermediary, tends to deform into tyrannical entities (aberrations such as Stalinism, Maoism and Castrism) to perpetuate itself, and create a bureaucratic elite instead of s capitalistic elite, falling to the same problems of the previous system, added with a whole bunch of problems of its own.
Thing is, the theory of communism adopted the idea of armed resolution (probably, influenced by the successes of the French Revolution and of the US independence, which have given the world the impression that you could really change things with a will to fight and a noble heart), but it was very poorly executed in real world specially because communism was envisioned originally as the path of development of a rich and modern society, where the wealthy of capitalism and the conscientiousness of people mixed together, creating the means and the mindset for the proletarians to take over.
What happened in the real world was the contrary. Poor, backwards countries adopted it as means to destroy failing states and rebuilt them with a new grand vision, without abiding to its theoretical construct, no less. Quite frankly, its no surprise it was such a failure.
Regards
This is the most intelligent thing I've read in ages!
Similar threads
