
What do you think about communism?


To understate it just a hair, it does not have a great track record. It is well gone.
Socialism was a romantic reaction to the Enlightenment. To wit, the idea of the Enlightenment was that man was a spontaneously rational and social being. That he had rights, rooted in nature.
However, man has been corrupted by institutions that evolved over history but that were not inherently rational and therefore not consistent with his natural rights.
The idea behind the Enlightenment then was that man must be stripped of the illogical and irrational/pre-rational sources of his identity - i. e. religion, ethnicity, tribe, etc. - and law made in conformity with his natural rights. When law and natural rights are consistent, man will live in harmonious relationship with his fellows.
The problem. of course, was that man gets his sense of identity from religion, family, tribe, nationality, etc. When stripped of these - as the British statesman and political philosopher put it - man is "reduced to his naked shivering nature."
Into this stepped Marx. In brief summation, he combined man's need for a sense of identity with a "scientific theory." He discerned a dialectic in History - with a capital "H" - in which economics and class was the source of man's true identity and that the clash of owning and working classes would result over time in a stateless utopia where man lived in fulfillment of his nature.
This, of course, was not scientific at all. It greatly oversimplified man's nature and, in practice - and this is skipping over a LOT of important detail - conduced to the concentration of power in an elite whose job, in Marxist theory, was to guide the workers toward that classless utopia that - allegedly - History was moving toward anyhow.
Pursuant to this, as a matter of economic policy, the government would own the means of production, private property would be abolished, and the economy - all levels of production, consumption, etc, - would be centrally planned. Suffice to say, such concentrations of power and planning with no intermediary institutions between the government and society conduced to brutal tyranny.
The disconnect between what Marx prophesied - it is too much to say postulated - and what resulted from the real world application of his theory had its roots in the patent absurdity of Marx's theory. It was pure drivel.
A dialectic that magically, mystically stops at the right moment of a classless, stateless utopia. The notion that man, a complex being of many motives, was driven by one thing - class. The notion - more from Lenin to be sure - that power could be vested all in one place, the party, and that power would not be abused. Moreover, the notion that the party was needed to guide what was supposedly inevitable and would presumably therefore need no guidance.
The list goes on. Marx caught on because he sat at the nexus of two philosophical traditions. On the one hand, his was a romantic reaction against the rationalism of the 18th century Enlightenment. On the other, he purported to be in the intellectual line of that rationalism - hence the phrase, "scientific socialism."
It was pure nonsense and its results were as predictable as the sunrise, and indeed were seen early on. Stalin's purge of the Kulaks because they had the effrontery to wish to be compensated for their losses. The empty store shelves because, not surprisingly, people were not apt to be motivated by class identity so much as the desire to earn a living. (So, mutatis mutandis, "false conscience" is born to explain what Marx could not explain.)
The final absurdity being, when it became convenient to Stalin, the internationalist universalist vision of Marx becomes "socialism in one country." The only theoretical addition to Marxist theory that Stalin ever proffered - not surprisingly because it helped justify his power.
CONT.
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.
Eloquent!
@Passinggas Thank you. Very kind.
Agreed, very eloquent.
I know that only hopelessly blind fools still believe in it. Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism, every single attempt at communism went the exact same way. Dictatorship, shortage of goods, starvation, mass murder, national bankruptcy and nation-wide revolt. History is rarely as empirically clear with things as it is with communism.
In a communist state people are reduced to a cog in the machinery and stripped of all individual right. There's no openess or chance for you to strive for your ambitions or dreams, because any private enterprise is forbidden. And it endgenders a cruel and souless people. When Soviet reigned over Ukraine for example, Russian officers were allowed to simply walk into any house they wanted, oust the family and take over.
It's not a good idea and it does not even sound good in theory. Equal opportunity is justice, which is capitalism, not equal outcomes, which is communism. The capitalist principle is straightforward and fair. I need something, and you need something, we exchange what we need with each other based on services and agreements and thus we survive and prosper. Capitalism has also raised a third of the world out of abject poverty.
A) Communism was NEVER achieved, due to basic human flaws - greed, selfishness and stupidity.
I always laugh at ignorant people who mistake socialism for communism - it's NOT the same.
Right-wing extremists should know that communism was NEVER "tried in practice" (that was in fact Socialism).
B) Stalinism is also NOT communism, it's a totalitarian dictatorship started by a crazy egomaniac, who was no better than Hitler... his bad example was later followed by Mao and many other so called "communist dictators" (none of them ever followed the ideals of communism).
C) USSR was a socialist country (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) - NOT "communist republics".
Religious freaks should know that communism originally doesn't forbid religion.
Communism wasn't invented by Marx & Engels... Communism was actually invented by the Catholic philosopher Victor d'Hupay.
His ideas were partially inspired by Thomas More (the one who wrote "Utopia") - he was also a Catholic.
Communism was named after ancient Christian communes (communities).
D) Communism is:
- Classless society - Did we ever have that? Nope, never (members of the so called "communist party" were privileged compared to other citizens).
- Moneyless society - Did we ever have that kind of society? Nope, USSR had Rubles, that's money, every Socialist country had their own currency.
- Stateless society - Did we ever had it? Nope, never, USSR was a state, there are no states in real communism, therefore, dumb people should learn that there never were any "communist countries", because communism is an utopian society without the countries - The whole world would be united.
E) That's why your comic fails miserably, because we actually never had communism.
In real communism (which was NEVER achieved) - Everyone would work according to their abilities, and get according to their needs (and needs of their families)... there would be no need for money.
F) So, when you talk about communism, first thing you need to do, is to realize what communism really is...
It's NOT what capitalist propaganda claims it to be;
It's NOT what nazi-fascists are barking at;
It's NOT what corrupted priests are lying about.
G) If you want to realize what communism really is - It's the society of the future, perfectly displayed by Gene Roddenberry in Star Trek.
No countries nor borders - the Earth is united.
No money - At least not on Earth and other Federation planets.
Ferengi still have it, they are a parody of capitalists.
Jean-Luc Picard: "The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity; We’ve overcome hunger and greed, and we’re no longer interested in the accumulation of things".
H) Of course, we all need to realize that... humanity first has to evolve beyond greed, selfishness and stupidity, because a society closest to perfection - can't be achieved by masses of ignorant, indoctrinated, money-driven and corrupted people.
Hence why it will never work
In the future it might work, just like in Star Trek ;)
Star Trek is fiction. Also, the system in it doesn't hold up, from what I've heard
100 years ago, space travel was just a fiction, and look at the modern space ships... humanity makes progress from time to time ;)
The system holds up quite well (unless you prefer the Ferengi system) :D
It only looks good on paper. In practice is just a pile of sh*t because human nature doesn't allow it to function as it should. We have the perfect examples in North Korea (starving and malnourished people, except some priviledged ones) and Venezuela (starving people running off to every country in south america).
I don't trust communists either. They take advantage of people's anger and lie to them with promises of a better world and social justice.
In the last presidential elections I voted for a conservative asshole because he's still better than a communist that's full of BS.
@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?
@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.
My experience with this has been that the vast, vast majority of people have no idea what communism means - It's just a buzzword rightwingers throw around hamfistedly to scare people who know as little as they do.
As an economic system it's fine, I just prefer capitalism.
Opinion
71Opinion
I’d agree that it’s not been carried out correctly.
My problem with democracy is that “one person, one vote” sounds great on paper, except I don’t believe the majority of people are all that intelligent... so leaving decisions in their hands is questionable at best. Also, people generally vote out of self-interest, which isn’t all that respectable.
My thing with government and allegiances... it’s gotta be all or nothing, I’m not taking anything in the middle. I’ll either be totally allegiant to a government that funds every aspect of my life and I don’t have to lift a finger, or I’m completely independent and exercising the supposed-to-be unlimited freedom everything on this planet with a pulse is supposed to be entitled to, per Orders of nature, which outrank any desire of any being within nature.
Hit submit too early...
But without going into a whole tirade, literally any kind of government is inherently broken.
I think that the ultimate ideal concept of communism is great when applied to relationships: each partner contributes according to their ability and each receives what they need from the partnership. In the world, every attempt at communism has resulted in a dictatorial, totalitarian regime.
A failed ideology that only brought misery and fear to millions around the world.
Failed and presumably always will.
Communism is the endgame for Warren, Sanders, and their ilk.
They are far more concerned about their own lust for power to control other people than they are about increasing prosperity for anyone. They can control the lower class now because they are depending upon the government, but they cannot control the upper class, or even the upper middle, because they do not need government benefits until they retire, and then it is not the same grip as they have on the lower classes because they have their own assets. They are trying to change that of course and force everyone onto government benefit programs.
If these Communists are successful in implementing their "free" entitlement programs, they will have to either print the money or take it. They cannot obtain that kind of money from just taxing the "ultra wealthy" because their wealth will move, be hidden, and evaporate. The only way they can redistribute wealth is to directly confiscate businesses, commercial and industrial real estate, and homes and apartments. They will meet violent resistance of course, and must therefore confiscate people's guns first.
Wake up people.
I don’t think many people have read works of communist to know what they stand for. While I don’t agree entirely with Karl Marx, I see his observations more and more in the modern world. Corruption is everywhere, it’s just now that the pandemic is exposing the sins of our society. It’s time we need some reforms. The access to food, housing, and healthcare shouldn’t be dependent on who has the wealth, nor should it be a limiting factor to someone’s growth. I’m not denying capitalism is bad in all circumstances. When there is perfect (so each seller is selling identical products) or monopolistic competition (brands of clothes type of stuff), capitalism works well. But in this economy, there is a lack of competition and the most profitable route often is the exploitation of workers and consumers.
When people talk about communism, it’s a rather broad philosophy with many people that have different views. So when someone say that a communistic state failed, what were the philosophy of the leader in charge? Many of them took Marx’s philosophy and changed it.
I think very negatively about it. My family and I are from the Soviet Union. My grandfather told me so many stories about how life was like back in those days. From the end of world war two all the way until the collapse. And man, it's horrific compared to what I experience in the USA. The policies, the way of life, everything. Hard to believe. Wanna buy a new home? You can have one but you won't be able to see it first. Whatever we give you is where you will live. And things like faucets and showers are not included. Wanna buy some food? Especially bread, milk, sour cream, and more? Be ready to wait 24 hours in line. And there is no guarantee there will be enough left. You might go home empty handed. Create something new and incredible? No million bucks for you. We (Government) will take the money your invention is worth and you get a cheap gift like a new coat or a rug. Wanna visit other countries? Forget it. You ain't going nowhere. And so many other horrific stuff.
"Communal-ism" has worked... Communism does not. In fact, it's hardly different from pure capitalism at the highest levels, but it eliminates your chances of advancing due to merit on the lower levels. Think about it... every Communist regime is run by corrupt dictators or rulers who themselves are wealthy while most of their population remains poor or just getting by. Hmmm... not much different from capitalism except there's "elections" and more general freedoms, less censorship, and the like. It keeps everyone occupied, but the top 1 to 3% still rule us remaining peons. Don't get me wrong, I choose the poison of capitalism over communism any day, but I delude myself by thinking it's honest and the leaders are not corrupt.
* typo omission, which could go either way... I meant to say "I DON'T delude myself", etc. LOL
On paper, it's the best form of government in my opinion. However, it has the same weakness as Capitalism: failure to account for human nature. This failure makes both systems deeply flawed and unworkable. Lenin recognized the problem, but his solution (a vanguard party) was also susceptible to the same problem he was trying to solve.
(sigh) I really want to say a great deal more about this because I imagine anyone who reads my answer might not understand why I feel that way. But properly scratching the surface would probably cover the length of a Master's thesis. A good, concise, and impartial summary within the context of a GAG opinion/answer would be extremely difficult to do. I'm not qualified enough to try, sorry.
I think we first need to understand what we are talking about because the majority have no clue.
Its a futuristic society where everyone has access to resources and benefits from the means of production. Work as we see it today is less common as automatef businesses have made it obsolete. People are free to pursue their interests without fear of missing capital and there is no ruling or lower class. Money has been done away with as it's no longer necessary.
It's a society that on some form or another will exist in the future, its inevitable.
No, North Korea, Venezuela and China are not communist. If you claim this you clearly are uneducated.
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.
It sounds good when you have a child's level of understanding about the world.
This was a pretty good one.
I come from a formerly socialist country. Not even once. It is flawed at it's very core as it requires humanity to be perfect while ignoring basic human needs and drives.
Thus it is doomed to be a failure. It's not a coincidence that every time a communist regime was attempted - it turned into a massive authoritarian shitshow. Even if people try to argue "but muh this wasn't real communism". No shit, Sherlock. Your Utopia didn't work out but anytime you try to attempt it, it goes the same path.
Horrible. The idea sounds great based off the Communist Manifesto, but communism is actually a very destructive and horrible force that causes countries to fall apart socially, economically, and religiously (because it prohibits the practice of ANY religion).
Communism works perfectly as demonstrated by the USSR, China, Vietnam, the Middle East and some parts of Africa last century. Those countries began to go wrong when they left communism for a strange mixture of socialism, liberal socio-democracy with a lot of corruption, which in the end was neither socialism nor free market nor state economy. Of course, most of these countries socially and economically destabilized thanks to the wars and the friend USA The only communist country as such is North Korea, I do not defend the lack of freedom or its conservatism (although if the capitalist countries did not send spies) but to be so closed, maybe without amenities but it works
Funny that it tries to explain communism failing every time with rockets, even though Russia was beating the US through every step of the space race up to a man on the moon.
Communism isn't good.
Capitalism, despite being an unpopular opinion, is good.
It's an ideology the practitioners of which murdered and purposely starved (which is the same thing) tens of millions of people. It's a very dishonest ideology in the sense that the promised "withering away of the state" as a progression to utopia never occurs. The thing that never "withers away" is the brutal and murderous dictatorship.
While I'm not a proponent of Communism that cartoon is just stupid. If you want a real discussion on why Communism is talk about the actual basic ideas and how they can cause issues/be abused.
Can't say rampant captalism is much better though - just other forms of issues/abuse.
Riiight, because people and companies in a position of power and money have never abused their position.
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.
Communism isn’t scalable beyond a group who is personally and individually emotionally attached to each other member.
From all the ways of government checked communism is the worst, it takes away all the freedom from an individual and in the long term it harms the group because no one wants to be better, there is no motivation
I'd argue that a dictator ship is worse. Communism is at least based on an attempt to make things good for everyone.
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.
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
Communism is bad because it goes against personal liberty, and it's a form of statism. I'll take personal sovereignty and property rights instead. Organized labor is about the only thing Marx gets right, and even then it should only be in the private sector.
I love the state owning and controlling everything, under the right circumstances and caring/compassionate intentions.
Some commies give other commies a bad name. Best to not let a bad apple or two, ruin a nicely picked bunch of apples, aye? :)
Biggest piece of shit ever invented... genius because work with idiots and there is a lot of idiots out there... make everyone dependent of the state so they have absolute control... nahhhh not a fan... i have fought comunism in the past and it is worse than a cancer...
Briefly, it doesn’t work, as demonstrated by Russia.
It is not something i would like, but it might work if everyone wants it to work. Thus if we created a country where only people, who want communism, would live, the probability of it working is higher.
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.
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
Americans who dont know what communism is say it has never been tested and needs a chance
People like myself who emigrated to the states from Communists countries that were crippled by US regime change civil wars know what Communism is and wouldn't like to see it in the US
Most ideologies work until corruption and manipulation occurs. in plain English uses the system.
Capitalism isn't an exception. It's more fucked up then all communistic countries combined from our history.
in theory its great but in reality it has never worked... mind you i dont see this age of western late stage capitalism working so well either
Bad. people at top have full control and take all. workers don't get as much, opportunities are limited... lack freedom and individuality. bad.
An ideology that sounds good as a dictionary definition but it leads to tyranny and millions of people murdered or starved to death in practice because of course the dictionary would never tell you that.
Doesn't work, and won't ever work no matter how many times it's tried.
Waste of time.
Problem with communism is that it lacks God, morality, and Culture.
Although not false, capitalism is the same in that regard.
Communism doesn't work because it enslaves the people to the government.
Evil, oppressive, theft, bondage, destructive, corrupt, unjust.
Mao, Stalin, Cuba, Venezuela, Korean War, Vietnam war... millions dead.
It is a lie.
Communism and Capitalism is a lie. What you need is societies not governments. These are just tools to enslave majority by the minority
Both systems are extremely flawed. Hence we see the world in the state it is today.
A good concept in theory, an unattainable status in reality.
Socialism is a better compromise.
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 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.
@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'.
@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/socialism
Nothing 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.
@gotc147 Did I mention Denmark?
Maybe you should check out "Why don't General Motors Sell Crack?"
may22.blogspot.com/.../...l-motors-sell-crack.html
The point is that without government, things go to shit, and people die.
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.
It oppresses the individual in favor of the supposed common good, but in reality is used to concentrate power to an elite few.
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".
I couldn't agree with you more. Communism is a deadly and oppressive form of government but for some reason Antifa supports it. I guess they support oppression as long as its by their colleagues
Give all the power without limits to a government is a bad idea on itself.
And I know it isn't supposed to be the basic idea, but, are you able to say me one which doesn't make?
It’s a great idea
In theory.
You see communism could be amazing for everything be in a country run by it, but in actuality the governments become corrupt and keep everything for themselves.
"patria, socialismo o muerte"
what does it mean?
you're socialist?
Ideology from times passed. Which also didn't count with human greed.
Alaska Thunderfuck said it best
What works in your head doesn't always work in the real world, I don't know what's so alluring about the concept, if someone can explain I'd like to hear.
Complete stupidity. Only a select few get to live a life luxury while the rest of the population doesn't have a right to ownership and fully get to live out their dreams and desires.
I may be a little biased since my home country used to be controlled by the ussr (not really part of it though) but communism is good in theory but realistically, it sucks
Communism is great if you believe in working for free and getting food rations to survive, and living in government supplied homes.
I believe it's a great theory. Just like we should all treat people how we want to be treated. Everyone knows that one right? Right?
Communism begat femininazism and the female filth and germs of the modern cult. That's all the reason one needs to know that it's shit.
Death is a preferable alternative to communism
THrow em from helicopters
Sounds cool on paper, does not work in practice unless it's on a really small scale and nobody is abusing the system.
I feel intense justified personal hatred for absolutely everything it stands for and it's followers.
Nyet. It's very bad, and very scary. I would happily join the fight against communism.
Simples...
Worst system ever introduced to man. A system of mass murder.
Its perfect in an ideal world where humans aren't selfish, greedy or toxic.
Don't you mean, what do WE think about communism?
aw shit nigga, my bad, my bad
Thank you
Look at the people of China! Do they enjoy living in a Communist State? Fuck no!!
Okay on small scale, disaster on large scale
WE should try it again... maybe we won't have to genocide millions this time
Terrible. Mainland China & North Korea? Brutal.
My dad knows a communist. She's black too. Lives here in the U. S. very nice girl, just happens to be communist
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions