Well, they have great military parades. :rolleyes:
To those who claim that “Communism works in theory,” well, so do flying monkeys. In practical application, the least harmful thing it has produced is sociopolitical repression and economic backwardness. In its worst applications, it has produced corpses numbering in the tens of millions, something no modern democracy, however laisse faire and debauched, has ever approached.
A well run socialist democracy–Sweden or Denmark, for instance–seem to best embody the humanistic ideals behind communism without the dogmatic adherence to absurd political (and often pseudoscientific) theories in the face of reality and without justifying mass murder or indefinite incarceration in the name of some readily-corrupted cause. Unfortunately, the preconditions for such–a wealthy, well-educated, industrially-developed culture with little in the way of economic disparity or class distinctions–limit the societies in which it can be successfully implemented; hence, the more-or-less failed implementation in the UK.
Communism is a sophomore-level dorm room bull session philosophy writ large. It isn’t “good theory” any more than is Lysenkoism or intelligent design. And personally, I can do without the parades.
I think the very fact that Communism in reality cannot duplicate Communism in theory has been the main factor in the flaws of Communism in reality. Communist regimes are metaphoricly trying to fit a theoretical square peg into a real world round hole. And as it becomes more apparent that the fit isn’t working, they just keep applying more force to make it fit. Trying to defy reality tends to bring out the worst in totalitarian regimes.
That’s probably going too far. Communism is a popular movement in countries with genuine problems. And in those countries if communist revolutions overthrow the government they do solve those genuine problems - Communists did help destroy a feudal regime in Russia and end a pointless war; Communists did vastly improve the welfare of the peasants in China; Communists did eliminate a corrupt government that was selling out the country in Cuba. Heck, most Communist regimes would probably be remembered fondly if they had voluntarily disbanded after their first year in power. But instead they insist on staying around and end up creating more and worst problems than the ones they were originally called upon to solve.
So your point is that Communist regimes aren’t quite as bad, at least initially, as the corrupt, repressive, and inept governments they overthrow? That hardly seems like a valid argument; you could make the same claim for several of the Fascist governments that arose in Europe in the 1920’s and 30’s, more more generally, any revolutionary movement that seeks to overthrow a repressive regime. “Hey, they might have killed 20 million people…but at least they made the trains run on time.”
The new scoundrels are always more popular than the old scoundrels. That doesn’t make them better.
Unfettered capitalism in societies tends naturally to transform those societies into oligarchies by wealth. Like Batista’s Cuba. They literally create communism, or fascism, as people try desperately to escape a dead-end system. That’s where America is headed right now. We’re not there yet, the middle class is too huge to destroy in less than decades, but man are we headed that way.
I forgot to mention two famous example of real-life communism that worked - if we define communism without Marx, and without bureaucracy (because every system has bureaucracy), just simple as sharing of resources, communal ownerships, and valuing not personal profit as first goal:
The early christian communities were communist.
And the Kibbutzim in Israel still function today.
Yes, both were voluntary, and both come from a shared background. But they work(ed), despite what some people have said about greed being an essential human trait, or people not working without monetary rewards.
Well, that goes back to the “voluntary” part. One assumes that the greedy people wouldn’t participate in a commune or kibbutz. In reality, they are often asked to leave by other members, or social pressure kicks in and they get so uncomfortable that they leave. (This is what I’ve seen with communes and coops in the US, anyway.)
A whole country is harder because you can’t deport all the greedy folks or the people who won’t work for national pride. You can oppress them, you can force them into work, but that brings with it the seeds of rebellion, as we’ve seen time and time again.
That’s complete nonsense. Communism’s rise in world history had nothing to do with laissez faire capitalism and everything to do with the injustices brought about by the Czarist monarchies of Russia. It spread against other brutal dictatorships for the same reason. It had absolutely nothing to do with capitalism. In fact, countries that were born into the free-enterprise arena of capitalism have succeeded despite attempts at communist influence. The only way communism can be maintained is through direct military suppression of its citizens.
Small-scale communism has succeeded for short periods of time in the form of communes. As a financial construct it inevitably falls apart as it grows in size because of the disparity between effort and reward. In other words, it doesn’t allow for individual wealth. The most recognizable example in the United States is Oneida Community Silverware. It is what is left of the Oneida Commune. That was a bonifide free-sex, nobody gets married, I don’t know who my daddy is 19th century commune.
The idea of the wealthy stealing everything in a capitalist society is pure ideology. There is no finite cap on wealth in a country like the United States. Excessive wealth (as would be viewed by a communist) is available to anyone willing to work for it. Anyone can stumble out of the public school system with no discernable job skills and make $60K a year within 5 years. With that income you can buy a modest first house and pay for it in 5 years.
We already have all the marbles because the United States is not a purely capitalistic country. The wealthy pay almost all the taxes collected through a graduated scale. We’ve achieved the wealth distribution qualities of communism without any of the hardships or loss of freedom.
The notion that capitalist states are/will be destroyed by their own contradictions is falsified all over the world. The prediction that capitalism would lead to ever-increasing wealth for the capitalist and ever-increasing poverty for the worker is falsified.
If communism were a reaction to the horrors of capitalism, then why have communist revolutions only succeeded against feudal regimes? Communist dictatorship might be supported by the peasants and workers when compared to feudal autocracy, but it certainly isn’t anything compared to capitalism.
And I notice that Evil Captor constantly has to use the phrase “Laissez-faire Capitalism”. The purpose of this, of course, is to forestall any objections based on reality. It’s a true scotsman defense. To the extent that modern capitalist economies benefit the workers and peasants, he can claim they aren’t true capitalism, if we had real hard-core capitalism then everyone would be miserable, just like Marx predicted.
Of course, since his fantasy of rapacious, brutal, and tyrannical capitalism leading to slavery has never actually existed, I have no idea why he wants to insist that only rapacious, brutal and tyrannical capitalism is REAL capitalism, every other capitalist system that provides wealth, health and freedom is something else. Word games and semantics, signifing nothing.
Actually, I believe the delightful lass in question has earned a lot (as in, many millions) of money herself, by trading on her notoriety, not her stock portfolio. I wouldn’t hold her up as an example of inherited wealth.
Property is Theft? What exactly does that sum up best? How are we in a peasant state when anyone can walk across the border of a free country and make money with virtually no skill.
The good qualities of communism are apparent every time I hear someone complaining about how hard things are today. Under communism, people had guaranteed medical care, and jobs. Everyone was employed, and life was stable. For the intelligentsia, who wanted to read banned books or write satirical novels, things were bad, but for ordinary people who just wanted to go take care of their families, life was okay.
The transition to a market economy has been really tough for some of the eastern bloc nations. It’s far more than the system, the entire way of life has changed, and people who spent most of their lives under communism tend to have the hardest time adjusting. A lot of people here look back fondly at communism not necessarily because it was such a great system, but because they knew how it worked and because it was familiar and stable.
Well, I don’t pay taxes either. I just turn around and pass the cost on to my employers in the form of higher wages. Nobody pays taxes. Taxes don’t exist. Hey, is that a flying monkey coming out of my ass?
Whoa there, communism doesn’t guarantee you a job. And if you got on a government shit list you can kiss most jobs (if not your ass) goodby. You can’t make a claim that we don’t have health care for the poor because we do (Medicaid).
No, my point was that communists didn’t just sit around all day murdering kittens - they actually managed to run countries for decades and they couldn’t have done so if they hadn’t been at least minimally effective and occasionally provided a few benefits to its citizenry.
The truth about communism isn’t that it was the epitome of evil; the truth is that it was a third rate political and economic system that didn’t work very well.
I don’t know how old **Kyla **is, but I do know Kyla is from Bulgaria, a country that was communist until 1990, so it’s possible Kyla is the only person in this thread with first-person experience living under a communist political system. It might be interesting to get more of that perspective.
