Why does Communism keep failing?

Socialism not=communism

Communism=lack of state
Socialism=state regulating ecenomy and (nowadays mostly) weak on social issues.
 
luceafarul said:
I also want to ask everybody this: where has Marx or any other champion of egalitarian socities stated that in said societies individuality, creativity and pleasure should be abolished?
And does somebody still confuse being equal and being identical?

It doesn't need to be stated, they've learned it from the propeganda and rhetoric western governments have fed to them.

Let's just put it this way, no economic system is going to please or benefit everyone. If you don't like something, go out and change it.
 
nonconformist said:
Socialism not=communism

Communism=lack of state
Socialism=state regulating ecenomy and (nowadays mostly) weak on social issues.

How could you have communism with no state? Wouldn't that be anarchy?
 
thestonesfan said:
How could you have communism with no state? Wouldn't that be anarchy?

Communism effectively is anarchy, except on a world wide scale, and without an economy. Everyone's supposed to get down to work, and act together like a big community.
In other words: Marx's reasoning sucks more than black hole.
 
I don't really want to enter this discussion, but I'd like to say that just because Marx wrote a book called The Communist Manifesto and was generally credited with popularizing the idea, doesn't mean that he is the definitive authority on the subject. Just so's you know ;).
 
Wow, people may actually be starting to understand communism by misinterpreting anarchy.

The "anarchy" meant in the sense of total disorder and chaos is NOT what anarchy means in a political sense.

"Communism effectively is anarchy" is VERY close to the truth, but nonconformist, if you've read 'The Dispossessed' by Ursula Le Guin you would have an idea of what it *could* mean in implementation, and it is beliveable as a system of governence (although like all systems it will have issues). You MUST have some kind of structure to 'do' things at a national or international level, but the concept is that ALL people can affect this as they can affect anything in society if they wish to and have the motivation to do it. The government IS the people and by definition HAS to be FOR the people. This is a claim democracy makes but consistently falls down on!

The concept that 'nostate=no organisation at all' is nonsense and another misinterpretation of anarchy/communism as a political system.
 
punkbass2000 said:
I can't believe this thread is still around, it's a blatant troll. If I were to start a thread "Why does Bush keep screwing up the world?" or "Why does the Catholic Church promote ?", it would be shut down immediately. It is clear the the original poster is not interested in the subject, just in putting down the entire concept, you can see that in his OP and his first response. :gripe:

You're going to say that about all my threads, aren't you?

nonconformist said:
One thing I"d like to know is if Fox actually knows what communism is, rather than spewing a lot of rhetoric that seems to be drummed into American kids from birth nowadays.

What made you say that?

luceafarul said:
Absolutely not. The Soviet Union was basically Tsar Russia with some red painting paying lip service to socialistic ideas.

Yes, and the Russians fought a revelution where 4 million died jsut so they can change the title "Czar" to "Communist". :p

luceafarul said:
Well obviously he doesn't . :lol:

Where the hell are people comming up with this?
 
Fox Mccloud said:
You're going to say that about all my threads, aren't you?

What made you say that?

Yes, and the Russians fought a revelution where 4 million died jsut so they can change the title "Czar" to "Communist". :p

Where the hell are people comming up with this?

I think you've just given a point to Punkbass2000, re: Troll
 
Fox Mccloud said:
You're going to say that about all my threads, aren't you?



What made you say that?



Yes, and the Russians fought a revelution where 4 million died jsut so they can change the title "Czar" to "Communist". :p



Where the hell are people comming up with this?

Here.

Fox Mccloud said:
Communism has split Germany, Vietnam, Korea, all of Europe, and China into two. China's the only Communist success story, but they might end up falling like the Soviet Union did.

Communism didn't "split" Europe into two. The iron curtain may not have existed beforehand, but there were significant differences between Western and Eastern Europe (e.g. culture and the extent of industrialization). Moreover, communism did not split Vietnam. France split Vietnam because it didn't want the whole country to be communist. The South was supposed to be incorporated in national elections that were to begin in 1956, I believe ( I may be off a year or so), but the South decided that it didn't want to join the communist North in 1954 or '55, causing the war. You can't simply blame the war on communism.

Moreover, China is hardly communist. With the SEZs in the east and the privileges granted to Hong Kong, China's becoming more and more capitalist, being almost socialist in name only except for the fact that the government is oligarchic and owns some companies.


Fox Mccloud said:
Don't give me that b/s! Communism has been tried, AND IT FAILED! Are you telling me that Communism isn't about % the West or die, Be Atheist, or die, give up your rights, or die"? That's basically what it does. Soviet Union was Communist, It failed! You can't give your leaders absolute power like Communism does, because they start killig their people!
You're right that communism has been tried and that the efforts were fruitless. However, communism is not about screwing over the West. That was just a result of the Cold War being between a Western and Eastern power, each with putatively diametrically opposed (or made so through propaganda); being against the West isn't part of communist doctrine, but merely a product of the times. Moreover, being atheist is not a requirement for communism. Marx did, however, exclaim that "religion is the opiate of the masses." Finally, communism is not about giving up your rights. Rather, the socialist state that is supposed to precede it has a planned economy, not the communist society, which is supposed to be stateless.


The multiple errors that you made (the most egregious ones being the "atheist or die" and "screw the west") make people think that you don't know what you're talking about.
 
The question is flawed - by what definition failure?

Likely the frequency of 'failure' in Communist attempting society is no more than that of Capitalist.

What examples of Communism there are remain few and far between and, especially, the main bug-bear examples are, as examples, seriously flawed in their nature - as representative. That is, basically be inaccurate in that.
 
10Seven said:
The question is flawed - by what definition failure?

Likely the frequency of 'failure' in Communist attempting society is no more than that of Capitalist.

What examples of Communism there are remain few and far between and, especially, the main bug-bear examples are, as examples, seriously flawed in their nature - as representative. That is, basically be inaccurate in that.

The communist movement, in a sense, has failed, since they have promised to bring the communist revolution, and have failed to deliever.
 
Fox Mccloud said:
What made you say that?

The reason I said this is beacause you seem to show no more awareness of communism than if you'd spent all your life watching 1960s "Duck and Cover" cartoons.
If otherwise, please show off the top of your head, and in your own words, what communism is.
 
Communism is inherently flawed

Communism requires that the country first become a dictatorship in order for it to move towards the communist ideal
 
nonconformist said:
If otherwise, please show off the top of your head, and in your own words, what communism is.

Sure!

Communism: The bleif that everything is owned by the people; Factories, Houses, etc. In reality, tho, The government ownes everything and distributes them among the people, equally. Therefore, in a new Commie nation the former slaves, and former noble rich people are at the same level. How's that?
 
Chronic said:
Communism is inherently flawed

Communism requires that the country first become a dictatorship in order for it to move towards the communist ideal

You can say that, but maybe it is humanity that is inherently flawed. However, without this "flaw", we still might be tuck with 17th century tech.
 
Back
Top Bottom