Real Communism could not be other than what real Communism ever was. The seeds were planted in the irrationality and delusions of the theory. About the most that can be said is that it says much about the nature of man that anything so nonsensical and so obviously flawed in both theory and practice became so widely embraced.In that Marx deserves credit He held a mirror to the face of humanity. It was not pretty.
@Passinggas Thank you. Very kind.
Agreed, very eloquent.
Thanks so much for your kind compliment.
You think Hillary Clinton is a communist?
@goaded Wait until they meet a real communist if they think Hillary was one.
@tara987 y'all do know that there were more presidential candidates than Trump and Clinton right...
@HiImInsecure Which one do you think she was referring to, if not Hillary, as an alternative to Trump, where Hillary wouldn't be the obvious alternative?
@goaded the hell? I'm not a US citizen, pal.
@tara987 you guys don't realize there are people from other countries? Apparently not 👍
o o f. Sorry mate
@HiImInsecure no problem friend, I was asking those two above you.
Most people on here are from the US, and your profile is private; it wasn't an unreasonable assumption. Which country are you from? I'm in Germany (as you can see from my profile).
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
You fail to understand what the picture means don't you?
Hit submit too early...But without going into a whole tirade, literally any kind of government is inherently broken.
But they are supposedly ''trying to get there'' and failing at it.
They really aren't trying though. The leaders care far more for personal power and profit over social well being.
Hence why it shouldn't be tried.
So then nothing should be tried.
No need to jump to absolutes. We have observable proof that an attempt at one system fails more thoroughly and often than the continuous use of another system does.
We do? Then why does capitalism still exist? Why do we still maintain this broken system that is horribly corrupt?
It's cyclical. Even at it's worst, regulated capitalism works better than Soviet-Style socialism. I hail from Eastern Europe - I was born in a post-Soviet era and I didn't have to be blind to tell that something was amiss before my time, especially after I grew up watching Western shows and got to compare.
Soviet style socialism. Did I or anyone advocate for Soviet style socialism? No. no we did not. Socialists have criticized the Soviet Union and even rebelled against it during it's hayday.
All forms of socialism are criticized - why should anyone take anything you try to smear as better?
That's not what I'm saying. But you are conflating two completely different economic and political systems.
* typo omission, which could go either way... I meant to say "I DON'T delude myself", etc. LOL
This was a pretty good one.
How is rampant capitalism not much better? Abuse is only possible through government.
Riiight, because people and companies in a position of power and money have never abused their position.
There is no meaningful power without government.Government has a monopoly on violence, they can literally use deadly force to make you do something. Businesses can't force you to do business with them, they have to convince you.
I think you are confusing captialism with anarchy if you say no government.Government monopoly on violence is hard to claim in strong capitalism. Just look at the US prison system or contractors for military assignments.
I'm not confusing anything, private prisons and Military contractors operate with the blessing of the government, on behalf of the government. If they did anything they did without such blessing and/or not on behalf of the government then they would be punished by the government.In a pure capitalist state, the government does not involve itself in the operations of businesses, meaning no regulations. This makes it impossible for corruption to happen as the only way a business can give itself an edge over its competitors is to offer a better product for less money. This creates a race to the bottom for prices and a race to the top for quality, which creates the highest access possible for the consumer to the best products.Any interference in this by government drives up prices and drives down quality.
@gotc147 I think you are forgetting oligopoly as a very common occurrence in a completely free market, as well as the risk that one company takes over completely and you are then stuck with whatever prices and quality they deem fit. If you believe companies are driven by having lowest prices with best quality, or think that's the only thing that influence buyers you are in for a big surprise. They (the companies) are driven by maximizing income while minimizing OPEX. And there are many ways to skin that cat - especially without government oversight. You are also kidding yourself if you believe those companies are not able to, or interested in, influencing the government. The way a country is governed can affect companies in many indirect ways, regulations or not.
How can you influence the government if there is no government?One company overtaking an entire market is impossible in a pure capitalist state, unless that company has the absolute lowest prices and highest quality products. If they don't, another business will startup to compete, with no government regulations to stop them.
@gotc147 Ok, make up your mind. If you want to get rid of the government you are talking about anarchy, not capitalism. And one company taking over a market is quite easy. Just buy them, drop your prices until they go under and then raise them again, launch a massive slander campaign which they can't afford being an upstart. And without a government it's even easier - bribe, threaten, extort or kill anyone who gets in your way. You are quite naive.
And China go very very well today but its not exactly capitalist.
i would take you there to drown you
Yes... 100% on board with your idea... lets send all comunist to the same place and they can live their live alone...
@nuberu17 You misspelt starve.
That's the thing, it doesn't work. You just need to study some history and you'll realize that the only ones that benefit from the system are the ruling class. Everyone else has to work their asses off for any scraps the government "generously" decide to give to them.
It doesn't work BCS humans dont have a hive mind. It works for ants and bees BCS they do have a hive mind, but not humans.
I literally said that if all people want it then they could do it
No they couldn't. BCS someone will eventually become an unofficial leader of the group.Not to mention that some people would contribute more to the group than others and will inevitably come to the conclusion that BCS they contribute more they should get more creating an "upper class". The only way for such a society to exist is through a totalitarian and oppressive system, where no one could become better And even if you could find people with saint like morals, it would stagnate and die.
yeah but that means you have to get rid of all the people who disagree with your ideology. Which is exactly what communist regimes like USSR have done throughout history. Hence it doesn't work
Actually, we should divide people into areas. Each area has different system. One for communism, socialism, democracy all that. People can choose where they wish to live. All activity that has anything to do with war is prohibited amd forcing your ideology on anyone is prohibited.
That would be PERFECT.!!
I'd argue that a dictator ship is worse. Communism is at least based on an attempt to make things good for everyone.
Attempt is nice and all but communism is a worse form of dictatorship think that every aspect of your life is being controlled by the government including your career choices, in normal dictatorship you will enjoy some degree of freedom you won't have in communism
In communism there is an attempted to keep the population healthy and fed. They might be treated like cattle but in a dictatorship their lives doesn't matter at all. I'd also say there is less freedom in a dictatorship.
Actually dictatorship can do a lot of good for a country. Hitler did bring Germany out of economical crisis. So like... yea he did kill Jews... but he helped the country... so like i guess yea...In conclusion, Hitler was actually not that bad.
@_Jay_ you are kidding, right?
actually kind of not. like im not one of hitlers supporters... but like stalin was worse... so is it a problem that i think he isn't that bad?
So... It's ok to kill 6 million Jews in concentration camps, throw Europe and the world into a war with millions of lives lost and crash the economy. Because it could have been worse?Seriously, go somewhere else to troll.
@_Jay_ look you are wrong in so many levels here, Hitler was a ruthless leader in a patriarchal dictatorship, he was elected democratically and then over run everything denying freedom from all people including German citizen they were brainwashed with Nazi propoganda 24/7, Germany's economy boasted only because he would pay the French on the Versailles agreement and he might also help boost the local economy with all the extra cash he had now but he is far from a great leader, he is as bad as Stalin and much worse
Capitalism, if left completely alone, is impervious to corruption.Corruption is only made possible with government.
Both systems are extremely flawed. Hence we see the world in the state it is today.
Mao, Stalin, Cuba, Venezuela, Korean War, Vietnam war... millions dead.It is a lie.
Although not false, capitalism is the same in that regard.
yeah and capitalism sucks for the same reason.
The only difference is under socialism, the means of production are still in private hands, with the government dictating how they are used.Karl Marx knew that socialism was just the transition period from capitalism to communism. With the government dictating the distribution of resources those who own the means of production have no way to make money, so they stop producing, forcing the government to "seize the means of production".
@gotc147 Really? Do you have a source for the idea that "under socialism, the means of production are still in private hands, with the government dictating how they are used"?Maybe I'm just thinking of Democratic Socialism, where there are regulations on essentials, but people are free to make money off everything else (and, for that matter, reasonable amounts of money on providing the essentials).
@goaded The Communist Manifesto.Democratic Socialism is no different, adding "Democratic" in front of "socialism" is just the latest in an endless line of attempts to present socialism as something it isn't.
@gotc147 No, it's a recognition that capitalism and communism both have positive aspects, neither is ideal, and that democracy is the best way to keep both systems in check and balanced.
@goaded I think what you described is Social Democracy. In modern parlance, "Democratic Socialism" is pretty much just traditional Socialism whereas Social Democracy preserves private ownership of all but key sectors that can't really follow market forces very well anyway: healthcare, transportation and education. @gotc147 What you described is state corporatism, and it isn't anywhere in the Communist Manifesto. Unless you consider a labor union "private hands".
@HungLikeAHorsefly Incorrect.First off, there is no sector that cannot follow market forces well. Healthcare is a perfect example, in the United States government intervention has caused the price of healthcare to skyrocket whereas in nations like the UK with socialized healthcare there is rationing of services. If we would just let businesses do what they exist to do prices would be acceptable and the most amount of people possible would receive service.What I described is socialism, regardless of what you want to call it. The NAZI's practiced it to the T, and later nationalized many industries, thus doing exactly what Karl Marx said is supposed to happen.As for Communism having positive aspects, no it doesn't, this is not up for debate.
@gotc147 Okay, then you can point to precisely where the Communist Manifesto says these things. The fact that you think the Nazis were Marxists says volumes about your understanding of this topic.
@HungLikeAHorsefly The Communist Manifesto clearly states that socialism is the transition period between the fall of capitalism and the rise of communism, I simply put into layman's terms what socialism is. Marx was not a socialist, he was a Communist, he simply understood how socialism fit into the workings of the real world, or at least his idea of it.The NAZI's were socialists, as is indisputable by the history books.Very interesting that you didn't say anything about my comment regarding markets by the way.
@HungLikeAHorsefly "what you described is Social Democracy"Absolutely right, sorry!
@gotc147 "The NAZI's were socialists, as is indisputable by the history books."Absolutely wrong!They took the word, and promised social reform, in order to take power. The Strasser brothers led the faction of the NSDAP that really believed in worker's power, and one was exiled in 1930, and the other murdered by the Nazis in 1934. Any industries nationalised by the Nazis were for Nazi gains, not the workers'.
@goaded "Any industries nationalised by the Nazis were for Nazi gains, not the workers"Yes, that's what socialism is. Who benefits is irrelevant, it's lip service.Another iT wAsN't ReAl SoCiAlIsM argument, that well is bottomless.
@gotc147 No, it's what the people in power call socialism, once they've killed the people who believe in socialism. It's a small difference, but an important one. And that's why Social Democracy exists (I got it the right way around this time, I hope); you get to vote the monsters out of power before they can do too much damage.
@goaded www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialismNothing in there about who is supposed to benefit.Nobody should ever mourn the death of a socialist.
@gotc147 From your link:"Socialism, meanwhile, is most often used in modern English to refer to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control. (The term is also often used in the phrase democratic socialism, which is discussed here.)"
" In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, "pure" socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth."
@goaded Except the Prime Minister of Denmark said in a speech in New York that Denmark is not a socialist nation.The concept of socialism is all the same, government deciding where and how resources are used. It is a horrible system with a zero percent success rate that has lead to tens of millions of deaths.Fools always try to spin everything to make a bad thing sound good. No matter your argument to the contrary, all variations of socialism work through government dictate.
Guys, I believe you are thinking way too hard about this.
@gotc147 Did I mention Denmark?Maybe you should check out "Why don't General Motors Sell Crack?"may22.blogspot.com/.../...l-motors-sell-crack.htmlThe point is that without government, things go to shit, and people die.
If you're annoyed by the notifications, there's a mute button, but I'd be happy to leave it here, if you want. Sorry!
Actually @goaded, I’ve turned the notifications off since quite a long time ago.
History doesn't support the idea that Nazis were Socialists _at_all_. At least not the Marxist form of Socialism. Those who think otherwise are ignorant of Marxist philosophy, the history of the 20th century, or perhaps both. People just don't seem to be able to wrap their minds around the fact that having a statist economy doesn't make you a defacto Socialist regime. Or that calling yourself something doesn't make it true. Thinking they were Socialists is a very, shall we say, naive point of view. Adolf Hitler himself was very outspoken about the fact that the Nazis were not Marxists, and the Nazi regime violated several fundamental tenets of Marxism. In fact, the Nazis *hated* Marxism with a passion and did everything they could to get rid of all traces of it in German political and economic structures. If you have actually read the Communist Manifesto, and understood what it said, and have a working understanding of the nature of the Nazi regime, you would not call them Socialists. You'd call them Fascists.
This is the only correct answer here, pretty much. Communism in its essence might have been worth considering, but people suck too much to execute it correctly. Every communist country in reality is pretty much just a dictatorship and every time people promoted communism it was just a means to power. I think Lenin might have had the most honest attempt, but he had no experience and as a result millions died, but it was probably doomed to fail anyhow, because people don't want to give up their possessions for the sake of the "common good".
@D4nielv Lenin was quick to invalidate the election that the "wrong" (ie less fanatical) communists won.
That's true as well, it's corruption all around in practice.
Economic communism since somewhere around 1990 😉
aw shit nigga, my bad, my bad