Communism
-
The threads in here are kinda boring, so I'll start my own. And I know their is one in the chit chat forum but I think the people here are smarter.
Okay, let's clear some things up first:
Capitalism: An ECONOMIC system
Democracy: A POLITICAL system
Communism: A POLITICAL system.
Socialism: An ECONOMIC system.
Communism, by the Engels and Marx's Communist Manifesto, called for the overthrow of capitalism. (I realize communism doesn't imply Marxism, but this is how I'm backing what I'm about to say.)
Karl Marx believed that the capitalist system, which produced the Industrial Revolution, would eventually destroy itself in the following way.
Factories would drive small artistans out of business, leaving a small number of manufacturers to control all the wealth. The large proleteriat would revolt, seize the factories and mills from the capitalists, and produce what society needed. Workers would control the government in a "dictatorship of the proletariat", as Marx termed it. After a period of cooperative living and education, the state or government would wither away as a classless society developed.
This final, classless phase is what Karl Marx called pure communism. It's what communist communist governments should work towards.
Marx's phase order.
1. feudalism and/or absolutism
2. capitalsim
3. socialism
4. communism/complete socialism
A reason some believe communism never worked is because every nation that had ever experienced communism didn't follow through Marx's phases correctly. Though Russia was a bit industrialized, it was for the most part still a feudal monarchy. There were serfs in Russia up until the beginning of the 20th century and far too many farmers for Russia to the move right on to the "step" of communism. Many believe communism would work, provided you industrialize beforehand.
Still, I can see how a communist system wouldn't work because it's contrary to human nature. The entire "people are lazy" is a rather clichéd argument against communism, so I'm not even about to go into it.
One theoretical perspective in sociology is the conflict perspective, which follows in the tradition of Karl Marx. People who employ this perspective focus on those forces in society that promote competition and change.
According to Marx, it is capitalistm that is contrary to human nature, and communism, if done correctly, is in keeping with human nature. Marx believed that no human would choose to work, if they could do otherwise, and thus the capitalist is going against human nature by forcing the worker to work to survive. Since that capitalist controls the means of production, the completely dehumanize the worker by making him perform labour against his own desires and wishes to produce something to make the capitalist richer. Thus the worker is reduced to being only as valuable as what he can produce. So the worker is doing something dehumanizing to produce something that is not human to make someone who is not the worker richer. This is how it is against human nature.
I've been reading a lot of Marx recently, and it's very fascinating reading. I won't do a very good job conveying what Marx was saying, since Marx was a genius and a very good writer, and I am neither. And please post your comments and tell me what you think. -
Socialism can be defined, well, in a rigid sort of way as an economic system in which the workers own the means of production and distribution of goods.
A more laxed definition would be simply that the workers maintain political control over the production and distribution of goods.
An ideal system of government for the people, except we'll always be human. With different people comes different ideas, different political / economical agendas, sooner or later it will spell internal chaos and a breakdown of national interests.
I couldn't give an example or anything relevant in real life since you are right about communist governments in history never ran as a complete socialist entity in it's purest form. Although George Orwell couldn't have illustrate this better with Animal Farm.
An interesting thing to note is that socialism and communism with it's affinity to the working class, had often times been used as a cover for a more vicious totalitarian political goal than an actual govt itself.
Nazi Germany was the manifestation of the National Socialist Party, which by itself was nothing more than a masquerade for Fascism.
So beware govt bodies with a *national socialist* construct in their names
-
Communism cannot exist in this world. It can only exist in a PERFECT utopian world, where theres no greed and selfishness. Communism has so far been a thorough failure, as stated, most did not truely follow the Marxism, and was distorted by Lenin. Finally, most of these countries became more of a "state capitalism" rather than communism.
-
To the people who say that communism doesn't work, well it doesn't work in our rich modern world, but it works much better than capitalism in a world where there is little capital, i.e. the world 100 years ago and back. And its principles works excellently in miniature (tribal) societies and families. Of course you may call your family "capitalism", but do you think it will be fun?.Originally posted by Shotgun:Communism cannot exist in this world. It can only exist in a PERFECT utopian world, where theres no greed and selfishness. Communism has so far been a thorough failure, as stated, most did not truely follow the Marxism, and was distorted by Lenin. Finally, most of these countries became more of a "state capitalism" rather than communism.
And for communism to work they must follow marx phrase of order and everyone mush be communist. -
then which category would China fall into now? aren't they like part of these and that?
can anyone advise? -
They are more of capitalism + dictatorship.
The reason things didn't become as Uncle Karl predicted was because the western capitalist nations took certain steps to thwart the advance of communism. (A healthy dose of anti-communist propaganda.) -
Well that's the hard part. The system will have alot of difficulties proceeding past the second in the order.Originally posted by NewBWithACause:... And for communism to work they must follow marx phrase of order and everyone mush be communist.
Proceeding past the third phrase (Socialism) would be even more unimaginable, because as it is well documented in history that it usually leads to a vicious totalitarian goal.
It is difficult to draw a possibility margin when the problem of human nature is not part of the package.
This nagging crux had more or less led to the experimentation of different systems of government for mankind. If there is a perfect system of government, the human race had yet to discover it. -
Well we goes past the first phrase. So I guess it is just a matter of time(a few hundred years maybe).
-
China incorporated Capitalism in their agenda simply because they know that the republic will not work as a communist entity any longer.Originally posted by NewBWithACause:They are more of capitalism + dictatorship.
Since the Tiananmen Square incident and other economic factors, China had gradually steered away from it's Communist roots. It's a good bet in about 10-20 years China may only be Commmunist in name only.
China however are doing it the smart way, old ways of life in such a populace die hard and would collapse the entire infrastructure, thus the progression is slow but sure.
The Soviets gave them a grim example of the Glasnost. Reason enough not to move things too fast.
If you are refering to the Bilderburg conspiracy, maybe. But it may be that it didn't turn out the way it did simply because those under this type of government didn't want it any longer.
The reason things didn't become as Uncle Karl predicted was because the western capitalist nations took certain steps to thwart the advance of communism. (A healthy dose of anti-communist propaganda.) -
On actually I don't know anything about it.
Interesting Fact.
The average CEO in 1880 made 12 times what the avrage worker made.
In 1950 the average CEO made 47 times what the average worker made.
Today, in 2002 the avreage CEO makes around 1600 what the avrage worker makes.
Why would the world be so scared of communism? It's the rich that rule the goverment, and it's the money that would be taken away from the rich. They should have been scared. Why did the average working Joe agree with the rich's actions? The money owns the Media and the media controls public opinion.
It's all about the money. EVERYTHING in our sociaty is about the money. A ideology that calls for equallity of condition? Bah! The rich need people to live like animals in ghetto's and badlands across the country.
[This message has been edited by NewBWithACause (edited 19 March 2002).] -
LOL! True, that's why the Feudal Lords were the prime losers to any form of reform.Originally posted by NewBWithACause:On actually I don't know anything about it.
Interesting Fact.
The average CEO in 1880 made 12 times what the avrage worker made.
In 1950 the average CEO made 47 times what the average worker made.
Today, in 2002 the avreage CEO makes around 1600 what the avrage worker makes.
Why would the world be so scared of communism? It's the rich that rule the goverment, and it's the money that would be taken away from the rich. They should have been scared. Why did the average working Joe agree with the rich's actions? The money owns the Media and the media controls public opinion.
It's all about the money. EVERYTHING in our sociaty is about the money. A ideology that calls for equallity of condition? Bah! The rich need people to live like animals in ghetto's and badlands across the country.
[This message has been edited by NewBWithACause (edited 19 March 2002).] -
Could not have been better said. That's why it is so difficult to go past the 2nd phrase.Originally posted by NewBWithACause:....Why did the average working Joe agree with the rich's actions? The money owns the Media and the media controls public opinion.
But then again, this is the Age of Aquarius. A millenia that governs sudden burst of energy as well as the unexpected.
Who knows, things might be different in this century, i guess we just have to wait and see. -
Interesting fact,
Read the Communist Manifesto, and find the chapter about Communist party platforms. There are ten key points in there, the ten key points of socialism. You'll be absolutely shocked to find out that modern Singapore has all ten points, and they are considered so very fundamental in our society, that if someone tried to even discuss taking them away, you'd scream that there was coup de gras taking place. They are things that most people in our society simply would not be willing to live without. -
Shocked? Dude, SG is a Social-Democratic Society. School children recite the pledge everyday!Originally posted by NewBWithACause:...You'll be absolutely shocked to find out that modern Singapore has all ten points....snip
[This message has been edited by fraterlvx (edited 20 March 2002).] -
I though it was capitalism.
-
Originally posted by fraterlvx:
Talking about Social-Democratic, did we choose the way the society is shaped like today? Seems to be dictated to me though. How the govt controls the media, what we are receiving are more of a 'filtered' media.
Shocked? Dude, SG is a [b]Social-Democratic Society. School children recite the pledge everyday!
[/B]
Have we ever seen any opposing propaganda against certain legislation/policies in the papers even though people talk about them everywhere? So do we assume they are all 'rumours'? -
Communism can only exist in a socialist envioronment in which the ppl must work hard to ensure that the country survives.
Lets' take the Soviet Union as an example-
Lenin was a realist, and never believed that EVERYTHING Marx explained in his Communist Manifesto to be perfect.
However, under the weak leadership of the many Soviet leaders and the existence of extreme corruption, Communism still toppled in Eastern Europe.
The stages of Feudalism, Capitalism and Socialism have probably been reached, but unlike what Karl Marx said, the last 'perfect' stage, Communism, may never be reached without setbacks.
The ecomomy of the country will not be as good as Democratic countries. Just take the vast Soviet Union and the United States as examples. China is still a Communist state, and will probably stay like this for many decades to come. Unlike the other Communist states, China has been particularly sucessful, probably because of the might and good capability of her rulers.
If I'm not wrong, China still maintains a strict Communist system, unlike Gorbechev when he relaxed his grip on the Communist states of the Soviet Union. This, most probably is the cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe.
I'm not a very good writer, and probably never will be. However, I am really very interested on Russia and Communism.
Please email me if you want to talk about these topics in future.
Thanks.
------------------
::firefoX:::
[email protected] -
Never Never under-estimate the real powers of Communism, whether it's in China, russia or in other parts of the world... -
Not exactly true. Consider Cambodia under the rule of Pol Pot. He tried to revert it back to an agrian form of communist society, but it just did not work out. Communisim is against the human nature to strive for a better life and a belief for a "what you reap is what is sow" concept. Any system without the support of its people and which opposes the base human nature is doomed to fail.Originally posted by NewBWithACause:To the people who say that communism doesn't work, well it doesn't work in our rich modern world, but it works much better than capitalism in a world where there is little capital, i.e. the world 100 years ago and back. And its principles works excellently in miniature (tribal) societies and families. Of course you may call your family "capitalism", but do you think it will be fun?.
And for communism to work they must follow marx phrase of order and everyone mush be communist.
For tribal societies, as you siad the tribe is small and such a system could prevail, but even then, consider the fact that every tribe will have someone leading it nad he would be in the words of Owell, "more equal than the others". This by itself will be a death knell to any forms of commuisum. A correct word to describe such a system would be communal living.