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...
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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".
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.
@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.
@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.
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".
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?
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.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
73Opinion
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.
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.!!
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.
Capitalism, if left completely alone, is impervious to corruption.
Corruption is only made possible with government.
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.
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.
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.
yeah and capitalism sucks for the same reason.
Communism doesn't work because it enslaves the people to the government.
Death is a preferable alternative to communism
THrow em from helicopters
Evil, oppressive, theft, bondage, destructive, corrupt, unjust.
Mao, Stalin, Cuba, Venezuela, Korean War, Vietnam war... millions dead.
It is a lie.
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 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/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.
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.html
The 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.
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".
@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.
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.