Communism in the sense of "the form of government and economy practiced in the USSR, China, Cuba, etc." (state-controlled capitalism) is obviously a complete disaster, just like any other form of capitalism.
Communism in the sense of "the form of socio-economic organisation described by Karl Marx" (democratically self-organising communities with little or no central government) is IN NO WAY related to the above, and could be fantastic if only people would realise it. Too many people saying it's too idealistic is
exactly why it
is too idealistic. If only people would think "actually, this could work" then it might work. It has never been tried. The USSR and others were doomed from the beginning, as they did not have mass popular support.
Most scholars estimate that the USSR was responsible for about 20 million deaths throughout its existence, with most of those occurring during the Stalin era (1922-53). So if we are so critical of the Soviets for this, should we not be equally if not more critical of ourselves for that same number of people who die
every five years due to poverty, which is a necessary component of the system of global capitalism that we have imposed? Should we not seek an alternative, and reject any need for a system of money in organising our society, as Marx suggested? (Note that all so-called "Communist" countries so far have still used money, this being just one of the many factors that automatically disqualifys them from actually being communist in any way.)
SnakeoilSage said:
It is the 21st Century. We cannot afford to base societies around such antiquated, fanciful designs.
I believe my great-grandfather said the same thing about it being the
20th Century in 1911. We are still no closer to breaking the plutocracy.
bluegate said:
Communism, if properly executed by the people in charge.
In communism, there
are no "people in charge".
theheroofaction said:
capitalism works in practice
It really doesn't. (See my 3rd paragraph above.)
UltraHammer said:
In practice:
Capitalism generates wealth and prosperity
Communism generates poverty and the peasant-aristocrat statuses
Are you seriously? Capitalism
invented the words peasant and aristocrat!
I don't blame most of you for believing in the shit that you do; the fault of that belongs to the people who lied to you. Just be honest, be critical, be tough; sneeze that shit out of your brain and enjoy no longer being a member of the force against prosperity.
It would be my honour to be allowed to hold a mirror up to you right now.
Person B taking something from person C, D, E, F, G and H against their wills, that's what socialism and communism is. Person B is the government.
That's capitalism. Person B is the capitalist class.
Tooshay said:
I think a lot of people here have confused communism with socialism, they are two different systems of political economy.
There is so much nonsense going around about both that it's impossible to separate them anymore; everyone has a different idea of what they think the theories are, despite never having read a single word of Marx.
If you like having any sort of human rights, then communism is not for you, by its definition everything you do, say, (and eventually, think) is dictated by the society (i.e. the dictator at top).
Communism is all about individual rights. If there is a dictator, it's not communism.
Regulated capitalism is the only system which allows freedom with economic growth.
I abhor the ritual worship of "growth" as an end in itself, rather than as a means to an end. As if growth is a panacea for all our problems. Growth just means that things get bigger. It doesn't imply that any kind of progress or improvement is being made. It just means that things carry on as they always have done.
