Hasn't the fall of the Soviet Union proven that Communism is a stupid political idea? Why do some third world countries still cling to it?
I think you may have answered your own question there. Haha. From what I know about communism, it works really well on paper, but it doesn't in a practical appication setting because there are too many greedy, selfish, and power hungry SOBs out there.
I think third world countries cling to it, because the dictators who rule those countries find it easy to manipulate the people through Communism.
What's the difference between—oh my, you see it coming, huh?—greedy dictators and greedy mega-corporations in bed with bounty-seeking officials??
Well, if you don't know the difference, then any attempt to explain it to you would be wasted effort. If you really and truly don't know, then check a few definitions ...you should figure it out pretty quickly. Baron Max
Dictators are a single person with control over the masses. Mega-corporations are many many people who are not in control of the masses - although they clearly can influence the goverment who in turn controls the masses. Plus, mega corporations are subject to market forces which can put them out of business if they don't produce. Dictators have the luxary of ignoring market forces. There is a big difference. I don't see how this amounts to a wrench.
There is no difference apart from the fact that the former are honest about their position and goals, whereas the latter operate under the dressings of serving the interest of the people. ?? You cannot be serious. Do you honestly think that there's a difference between a government and a corporation? The government doesn't 'control' the masses; it serves as an illusion towards convincing the people who elected (sic) it that it serves their interest(s). Corporations on the other hand, have a daily influence upon how we live our lives. What's more, the people have no means of appeal when faced with a corporation that belies their interests. A corporation is an autonomous dictator. In any case, back to the OP's question. The reason why so many (predominantly 3rd world) countries 'cling' to a communistic model is because it is relatively cheap and easy to maintain. To adapt any sovereign body to a 'democratic' model involves a serious input of infrastructure and cultural change. I assume you mean 'why bother with communism as opposed to democracy?'. I wonder however, if you think that you live in a democracy. Are we talking economic models here or strictly political models?
Clearly there can be overlap. Dictators and corporations can and do behave in similar ways to the masses, at least some of the time. I am talking about speficially immoral behavior. Take a look, as one example, at the horribly harmonius way the corporations THROUGH AND HAND IN HAND with dictators behaved towards the masses in many South American coutries. And this idea that the market will somehow keep dictators in check is silly, they like having strong markets.
Corporations are owned by shareholders, who expect a return on investment. Corporations are subject to market forces. They're very different than dictators.
Sure, but in all essential effects on oppressed people they can function precisely the same. You can have a small group of people taking resources and money from the poor, undermining the democratic intentions of a country, hiring thugs to intimidate and even kill indigenous groups and so on. Again, do a little research on the late 20th century history of Latin America. I think you would be surprised to find out what decisions were made and by whom. Of course when you are talking about corporate power, you are talking about an oligarchy, which amounts to the same thing as a dictatorship for most of the citizens affection by those in power. Even in your country you have vastly less power then the owners of corporations to affect the laws, the politicians, the courts, foreign policy, etc. The idea of one person one vote is not remotely met. Do you have the courage to notice this? Imagine then what it is like in, say, Nigeria, in relation to the oil companies.
and as we have all seen first hand, democracy does not work either. now alot of people are going to say "yes democracy does work and its fair" but no it doesent work. its simple, if you give people power they will abuse it, be it a communist who took charge, or a democrat who was voted. they all turn corrupt with the power. they all bend the rules and it never ends up fair for the everyday joe. when we speak of communists we always view them as evil "non white" monsters dont we. it seems to be a western stereotype of a dictator/communist. but look at englands history. look at rome. all of the kings and emporers of old. they are spoke about as "great people" noble and powerful leaders, leaders who made an impact on the world. was julius caesar not a dictator? the roman empire and british empire were lead by communist "monsters" but you dont hear people bashing them in the same way as modern dictators and i find that quite foolish. peace.
EF of C Your post reminds me of the saying that every conservative worships a dead radical - not that the 'great leaders' you were referring to were all, or even mostly, radicals. Temperment is political. Most Christians today would have hated that uppity little rabbi wandering around with those hookers and claiming to know God and who wasn't listening to the religious authorities. Most conservatives would have not wanted independence from Englands, or freedom from they tyranny of ruling classes, nobles, etc. They simply defend the status quo and use the authority of people they would have turned in to the cops/military to back up their needs. In fact I think that is precisely what these people did in their past lives. And they will do it again, given half the chance.
At what point does "owned by a community of shareholders" become "communist" ? The fall of the Soviet Union was the fall of a large command economy, not communism as an organizational principle - which the Soviet Union hardly exemplifed. There is, after all, a big difference between "worker owned" and "state owned".
