What is your definition of Communism?

[theultimateend]

Communism is: BS. Basically the same as nazism (which was in fact based on exactly the same writings and social ideals) with the main exception that the two can't agree on which group of society needs to be eradicated to achieve something akin to socialism.

At the core of it lies a... let's say 'beautiful idea' for lack of a better term. However, I can't see it working on a large scale, what with human nature n' all.

I like your avatar but good lord man if this is honestly the tint of glasses you wear to examine the world you may want to check into another brand.

Thanks, I could use this thread. Seriously, teachers and schools won't tell me what it is and does FOR REAL. They treat me like some 2 year old who won't be able to wrap his head around it and leave me in the dark about an imporatant part on world history. I'll read on.
(And yes, I'm serious. The school officials, even the history teacher, won't tell me any truth about it.) I can't contribute to this, but I won't mind learning about it.

Does not surprise me, public schools in America are certainly in trouble. I've even heard people tell me when the Great Depression was taught, that farmers were the cause, and The New Deal got us out of the the depression. It does not take a lot to get a teaching degree, nor to be a teacher. It does, however, take a lot to be a good teacher, which you will mostly find at private/charter schools.

Of course there are always exceptions, both ways (bad teachers in private/charter and good ones in public) but again, they prove the rule. I usually always have to add the exception bit, it seems arguing exceptions is a favored tactic on the internet...

1 in 3 Americans cannot name the 3 branches of their own government. Yet almost 3 out of 3 feel they understand how other governments function.

The first of those is an actual study the second is my personal experience.

 

[space_oddity]

However, I can't see it working on a large scale, what with human nature n' all.

Its not human nature that needs to be overcome, its animal nature. The fact that we dont have a nature is what makes us human.

Communism: The idea that it'd be nice if we all shared our shit. Essentially a global hippy commune. Has failed in previous attempts because the implementers weren't chilled out enough.

 

[Sane Man]

Communism is, simply put, poorly thought out. The usual defense of communism is that "it has never actually been done", and that these totalitarians are just perverting the perfect ideas that Marx had.

While true that Soviet and Chinese communism are about as close to Marxism as I am to finishing the essay that I am supposed to be writing right now, it doesn't change the fact that Marx's ideas were just as poorly thought out as all these other communists. Marx's ideas don't stand up to rigor, and they don't satisfactorily explain the apparent problems with capitalism.

As sort of off topic as this is, I just had to say it. Someone I know uses the name "ExoplodingMan" when he is online. He is absolutely enthralled with communism and especially Karl Marx's ideas.

Perhaps I've found your archenemy?

 

[systhicsfg]

Communism is: BS. Basically the same as nazism (which was in fact based on exactly the same writings and social ideals) with the main exception that the two can't agree on which group of society needs to be eradicated to achieve something akin to socialism.

At the core of it lies a... let's say 'beautiful idea' for lack of a better term. However, I can't see it working on a large scale, what with human nature n' all.

your an IDIOT!. communism and fascism(Nazism)are total opposites in ideology and theory, and while in practice they may seem to boil down to simple dictatorships, they were still in fact very different.

 

[Jenkins]

in soviet Russia, roflcopter laughs at you!

 

[Plauged1]

Communism is: BS. Basically the same as nazism (which was in fact based on exactly the same writings and social ideals) with the main exception that the two can't agree on which group of society needs to be eradicated to achieve something akin to socialism.

At the core of it lies a... let's say 'beautiful idea' for lack of a better term. However, I can't see it working on a large scale, what with human nature n' all.

I like your avatar but good lord man if this is honestly the tint of glasses you wear to examine the world you may want to check into another brand.

Thanks, I could use this thread. Seriously, teachers and schools won't tell me what it is and does FOR REAL. They treat me like some 2 year old who won't be able to wrap his head around it and leave me in the dark about an imporatant part on world history. I'll read on.
(And yes, I'm serious. The school officials, even the history teacher, won't tell me any truth about it.) I can't contribute to this, but I won't mind learning about it.

Does not surprise me, public schools in America are certainly in trouble. I've even heard people tell me when the Great Depression was taught, that farmers were the cause, and The New Deal got us out of the the depression. It does not take a lot to get a teaching degree, nor to be a teacher. It does, however, take a lot to be a good teacher, which you will mostly find at private/charter schools.

Of course there are always exceptions, both ways (bad teachers in private/charter and good ones in public) but again, they prove the rule. I usually always have to add the exception bit, it seems arguing exceptions is a favored tactic on the internet...

1 in 3 Americans cannot name the 3 branches of their own government. Yet almost 3 out of 3 feel they understand how other governments function.

The first of those is an actual study the second is my personal experience.

The 3 branches of MY government are legislative(legislature), judicial, and presidential.
I'm not a complete idiot, but at the rate of degradation that alot of schools are going through, I won't and can't say that with confidence.

 

[Garrett2533]

Anything that hates freedom.

I was gonna leave it at that, but in the effort of not looking like a total moron, I'll go on.

I haven't read through the other posts, to try and keep my retard mind pure, but I believe communism had something to do with all provisions being government regulated. There are no private ownerships of businesses or property, everybody works for the government, and by that there's no capitalist competition and resources are evenly shared.

 

[fulano]

Communism is, simply put, poorly thought out. The usual defense of communism is that "it has never actually been done", and that these totalitarians are just perverting the perfect ideas that Marx had.

While true that Soviet and Chinese communism are about as close to Marxism as I am to finishing the essay that I am supposed to be writing right now, it doesn't change the fact that Marx's ideas were just as poorly thought out as all these other communists. Marx's ideas don't stand up to rigor, and they don't satisfactorily explain the apparent problems with capitalism.

Actually they do explain satisactorily what you say they don't. They go into it rather thoroughly, I'd say.

Wanna read them? Just say yes or no and I'll send you a silly hyperlink that you can find by yourself if you actually want, but I'll make it easy for you. Just say the word.

Whether they stand to rigour or not is to be seen. Human history has this thing about it of not having been wholly written yet.

 

[oktalist]

I would go so far as to say that greed is an integral part of human nature, a factor that any societal structure must take that into account. The difference here is that in a captalist society, greed is expected (ambition and desire for personal gain), where sometimes business sectors overstep bounds of safety and risk financial damage (and in this case, with severe and collateral consequences); whereas in a communist state greed undermines the very ideology on which the nation is founded. At least in captalist state it is in the best interest of the national leaders to get the problems under control.

I would disagree. Greed is a product of capitalism. Because capitalism is now so embedded in our understanding of how the world works, it's difficult to discern what is truly human nature, and what is just the natural response of humans when they find themselves in a capitalist system.

How could there be greed when any citizen can have any material possession they desire? (which would be the case if communism could be made to work) They would not just fill their house with piles of crap they don't need, like in the current consumerist system. They would not be interested in hoarding money, since it's essentially worthless. They can have whatever they want whenever they want, so there's no need to stockpile for a rainy day. All of human production is focused into making life better for everyone, instead of being subordinate to the profit incentive.

Personally I support impossiblistic or De Leonist socialism. People talking about communism are either talking about true communism, which itself seems to be a flawed interpretation of the broader field of socialism, or they're talking about Bolshevism or Marxism-Leninism, which is just state-controlled capitalism that retains waged labour, an economy based on money and the ownership of the means of production by a small elite. I believe the Bolsheviks were wrong to think that their form of "communism" could be used as a stepping stone to proper socialism; for me it's all or nothing. Indeed, going for a more centrally controlled system is the polar opposite of what socialism is about: self-governing local communities and direct democracy. Plus, anyone implementing socialism will first need a democratic mandate from the people and can't use violence.

 

[Sane Man]

The 3 branches of MY government are legislative(legislature), judicial, and presidential.
I'm not a complete idiot, but at the rate of degradation that alot of schools are going through, I won't and can't say that with confidence.

Not to be THAT guy, but to be technical the presidential part of the American government is called the Executive Branch. Although it is vested in the POTUS so you clearly know what part it is.

 

[fulano]

I would go so far as to say that greed is an integral part of human nature, a factor that any societal structure must take that into account. The difference here is that in a captalist society, greed is expected (ambition and desire for personal gain), where sometimes business sectors overstep bounds of safety and risk financial damage (and in this case, with severe and collateral consequences); whereas in a communist state greed undermines the very ideology on which the nation is founded. At least in captalist state it is in the best interest of the national leaders to get the problems under control.

I would disagree. Greed is a product of capitalism. Because capitalism is now so embedded in our understanding of how the world works, it's difficult to discern what is truly human nature, and what is just the natural response of humans when they find themselves in a capitalist system.

How could there be greed when any citizen can have any material possession they desire? (which would be the case if communism could be made to work) They would not just fill their house with piles of crap they don't need, like in the current consumerist system. They would not be interested in hoarding money, since it's essentially worthless. They can have whatever they want whenever they want, so there's no need to stockpile for a rainy day. All of human production is focused into making life better for everyone, instead of being subordinate to the profit incentive.

Personally I support impossiblistic or De Leonist socialism. People talking about communism are either talking about true communism, which itself seems to be a flawed interpretation of the broader field of socialism, or they're talking about Bolshevism or Marxism-Leninism, which is just state-controlled capitalism that retains waged labour, an economy based on money and the ownership of the means of production by a small elite. I believe the Bolsheviks were wrong to think that their form of "communism" could be used as a stepping stone to proper socialism; for me it's all or nothing. Indeed, going for a more centrally controlled system is the polar opposite of what socialism is about: self-governing local communities and direct democracy. Plus, anyone implementing socialism will first need a democratic mandate from the people and can't use violence.

If the point is to do away with the previous ruling class, there is bound to be conflict sooner or later. It can't happen with just about everyone voting and all that pretty stuff. Look at Zimbabwe, it wasn't even communism, just a regime change, and it didn't work.

Supposedly, communism is to start in stages; beginning with the state seizing control of everything and lastly it being phased out of neccessity.

Were the bolsheviks wrong? Only as wrong as failing to live up to their own ideals, I'd say, and falling in the trap of following suit with carrying the methods of the exact same system they sought to erradicate in the first place.

And as far as I understand, socialism isn't broader than communism. Can you clarify what you mean?

 

[oktalist]

Anything that hates freedom.

I was gonna leave it at that, but in the effort of not looking like a total moron, I'll go on.

Good idea. You wouldn't want to look like a total moron

Actually communism is about more individual freedom.

I haven't read through the other posts, to try and keep my retard mind pure, but I believe communism had something to do with all provisions being government regulated. There are no private ownerships of businesses or property, everybody works for the government, and by that there's no capitalist competition and resources are evenly shared.

You've described the Soviet Union quite well there. The problem is, using the USSR as a model for communism is like using the Democratic Republic of Congo as a model for democracy. True communism would be more closely related to anarchy - no government as we understand it and everybody works for themselves. Resources are not necessarily evenly shared - at least not by some central authority - only access to resources is evenly available. There is no competition because life shouldn't be about competing against your fellow man - that just leads to people getting screwed over.

You're right about no private ownership, to a certain extent, but then you go on to say that businesses would be run by the government - that is private ownership! There would be no ownership, private or otherwise. That doesn't mean someone can just come into your house and steal your Xbox with impunity, that would be retarded. It just applies to the means of production, what you refer to as businesses. Private property remains intact. In fact, no-one would want to steal your Xbox anyway because everyone can have as many Xboxes as they want, for free! I know it's difficult to get your head around, having spent your whole life under capitalism, you have to unlearn a lot of what you thought were just facts of life.

 

[goodman528]

Communism is just one word: Justice.

When Marx wrote "Das Kapital", he wasn't trying to get a tenure at some university or come up with some brilliant theory on economics; he was just a random guy, who was very angry at the injustices of the capitalist system. And that's why it's called "capital", not "commune".

When Lenin, Mao, and Che started their revolutions, the people followed them because they stood against the injustices of the capitalist system. Those peasants don't know any economics, or politics, most of them couldn't even read or write! They didn't join the red army because they believed in planned economy over market economy, or because they thought dictatorship of the proletariat was better than democracy, those were just long words they didn't understand. No, what they fought for, and died for, was justice. That was what communism means to them, and that's communism means to me.

Today, it is precisely the sort of people those communists fought against who are the leaders of the party. Communism has become the symbol of dictatorship, brutality, and injustice. These people are an insult to the countless millions who died under the red flag!

 

[Plauged1]

The 3 branches of MY government are legislative(legislature), judicial, and presidential.
I'm not a complete idiot, but at the rate of degradation that alot of schools are going through, I won't and can't say that with confidence.

Not to be THAT guy, but to be technical the presidential part of the American government is called the Executive Branch. Although it is vested in the POTUS so you clearly know what part it is.

I know, but after Bush, I refuse to humiliate the ENTIRE branch. So, I just pick on the big guy and stamp his name on it. Saves time, and actually makes it alot easier to remember.(I understand you wanting to correct me though. I have the same tendencies.=) )

 

[fulano]

Communism is just one word: Justice.

When Marx wrote "Das Kapital", he wasn't trying to get a tenure at some university or come up with some brilliant theory on economics; he was just a random guy, who was very angry at the injustices of the capitalist system. And that's why it's called "capital", not "commune".

When Lenin, Mao, and Che started their revolutions, the people followed them because they stood against the injustices of the capitalist system. Those peasants don't know any economics, or politics, most of them couldn't even read or write! They didn't join the red army because they believed in planned economy over market economy, or because they thought dictatorship of the proletariat was better than democracy, those were just long words they didn't understand. No, what they fought for, and died for, was justice. That was what communism means to them, and that's communism means to me.

Today, it is precisely the sort of people those communists fought against who are the leaders of the party. Communism has become the symbol of dictatorship, brutality, and injustice. These people are an insult to the countless millions who died under the red flag!

That kind of sums up modern affairs quite well.

 

[oktalist]

If the point is to do away with the previous ruling class, there is bound to be conflict sooner or later. It can't happen with just about everyone voting and all that pretty stuff. Look at Zimbabwe, it wasn't even communism, just a regime change, and it didn't work.

But the ruling class is only a tiny handful of people, less than 0.1%. As long as they don't somehow continue to control the armed forces after socialists have been elected, or assassinate key socialists before election, they become grossly outnumbered and impotent.

Regime change counter-example: India. Yes there were deaths but not nearly as many as you'd expect when an indigenous people try to win their independence from an occupying power. (There were lots more deaths from Muslim/Hindu fighting afterwards but that's a separate issue.)

And as far as I understand, socialism isn't broader than communism. Can you clarify what you mean?

Well communism is a kind of socialism. Socialism is broader in the sense that it is an umbrella term encompassing several different ideas, one of which is communism. All communism is socialism but not all socialism is communism. Communism is a subset of socialism.

 

[Sewblon]

The basic concept is a society without private property or any real government in which distribution of wealth is done democratically and based on need instead of ambition or personal merit. Many variations exist but none of them have ever worked so far as I know so I am sticking with capitalism.

 

[fulano]

The basic concept is a society without private property or any real government in which distribution of wealth is done democratically and based on need instead of ambition or personal merit. Many variations exist but none of them have ever worked so far as I know so I am sticking with capitalism.

Ahem, most of the world's economy lies in shambles, as in right now. The rich have never been richer, and the poor have never been poorer, and the ever present gap just keeps widening. Right now we face the worst economical crisis in our generation, and you still stick with capitalism?

I'm ready to concede to anybody that instant shift to communism is not the best idea right now, but keeping things the way they are right now is just pure lunacy. Stuff has to change to contain the damn problem.

Why don't you look for the comparison between what was needed to combat world hunger efficiently and what was loaned as a financial rescue to the companies that got us in this mess?

 

[Sewblon]

The basic concept is a society without private property or any real government in which distribution of wealth is done democratically and based on need instead of ambition or personal merit. Many variations exist but none of them have ever worked so far as I know so I am sticking with capitalism.

Ahem, most of the world's economy lies in shambles, as in right now. The rich have never been richer, and the poor have never been poorer, and the ever present gap just keeps widening. Right now we face the worst economical crisis in our generation, and you still stick with capitalism?

I'm ready to concede to anybody that instant shift to communism is not the best idea right now, but keeping things the way they are right now is just pure lunacy. Stuff has to change to contain the damn problem.

Why don't you look for the comparison between what was needed to combat world hunger efficiently and what was loaned as a financial rescue to the companies that got us in this mess?

The poor have been consistently dwindling in number since the industrial revolution and the rich have been consistently increasing in number since the industrial revolution. More people are rich than they wear at the beginning of the 20th century because we have more money now. This is all part of the economic cycle, even depressions are part of the cycle. Wait, whatever gave you the idea that one person having much more money than another person is bad.

 

[Zer_]

The basic concept is a society without private property or any real government in which distribution of wealth is done democratically and based on need instead of ambition or personal merit. Many variations exist but none of them have ever worked so far as I know so I am sticking with capitalism.

Ahem, most of the world's economy lies in shambles, as in right now. The rich have never been richer, and the poor have never been poorer, and the ever present gap just keeps widening. Right now we face the worst economical crisis in our generation, and you still stick with capitalism?

I'm ready to concede to anybody that instant shift to communism is not the best idea right now, but keeping things the way they are right now is just pure lunacy. Stuff has to change to contain the damn problem.

Why don't you look for the comparison between what was needed to combat world hunger efficiently and what was loaned as a financial rescue to the companies that got us in this mess?

This.

Capitalism works pretty well when there are lots of smaller family owned businesses all competing in their respective areas. The second we introduce mega corporations into the equasion shit starts hitting the fan. When you have a lot of money you invest, and your money makes money for you. All that money has to come somewhere. The richest people in America invest their money, and they make more money then they spend. The money they make has to come from somewhere and it usually ends up being the less wealthy. The same applies to mega corporations. Mega corporations will make more and more money. When a mega corporation outspends their earnings it's always invested in a way to make more money faster.

This is one of the first cases where the rich tried to take money where there was none. Essentially mortgages and loans were given to those who couldn't pay it back and these were packaged and resold to large corporations as investment plans. You can pretty much guess what happened next.