The thought that capitalism has conquered connmunism is absurd as many know because in the words of shaw "communisim is like christiananity its a great idea but no one has ever tried it" The marxist basest is that when there was a extension of industrialisation throught the world there would eventually be a revolution of the proliteriate this is far diffrent from what happened in russian ect. with the current motion of globalisation it is actually an event that is logically fesable i have thought about this often and hope that possably in this new notion that this consept is not one of utopianism but rather one of a greater riseing of the humanity

Welcome to SciForums, amonkieslunch.

Please fasten your seatbelt, and keep your
arms and legs inside the cart at all times...

Enjoy the ride!Originally posted by amonkieslunch
The thought that capitalism has conquered connmunism is absurd...Then why did Communism fail when there were so many learned experts who thought that it ought to succeed?

Social reality is created more by the daily lives of people and how they are raised, and probably isn't easily altered by governments. Schoolteachers and parents are more important than politicians. I also think that it's very difficult to enforce cultural change; people need to be persuaded. So Communist USSR ended up looking similar to Czarist Russia after awhile -- a privleged elite exploiting and limiting the freedoms of the majority of the
citizenry.

Did their example of communism fail because it is a failed concept (as suggested by chaos theory) or did it fail because of the USSR's desire to dominate the world, and the world's retaliation with economic pressure which lead to its collapse?

It would be possible to argue forever and get no consensus. So let's go! :D

:m: Peace.

Posted by goofyfish
So Communist USSR ended up looking similar to Czarist Russia after awhile -- a privleged elite exploiting and limiting the freedoms of the majority of the citizenry.

That was the intent of Communism in Russia. Exhort the masses into giving you control, and then enslave them again.

Capitlism did defeat Communism is many way. Do I think its nessarly better, no. But during the Russian's Communism rise time period. The reason it fell was because of the Capitlistic inflences. The simple fact that people rather listen to lies that seem good and will have it served to you on a silver plater. Than the truth that seems good but its going to take a shit load of work. Not to mention its, not fair to compare Capitlism to Communism and say which one is better. Capitlism has such a huge head start and it has evolved over time and people have accpeted it. If we look back at the early stages of Capitlism, you could say no one had freedom. Bah I got to head to school now peace out yall Im come back later

So Communist USSR ended up looking similar to Czarist Russia after awhile -- a privleged elite exploiting and limiting the freedoms of the majority of the citizenry.
That was national socialism not communism which has never been practiced.
USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The Carter era had a long running propoganda campaign which obviously worked and is still ingrained into the minds of many.

That was the intent of Communism in Russia. Exhort the masses into giving you control, and then enslave them again.
See, the revelution made it open game for a totalarian dictatorship which is what eventually happened.

An out of date but still relevant statistic:
People in the Eastern bloc in 1989 were promised a better deal under capitalism but five years later the living standards have been cut by 40 or 50 percent.

Originally posted by Captain_Crunch
That was national socialism not communism which has never been practiced.So I ask again: because the theory is flawed?The Carter era had a long running propoganda campaign...Which was what?People in the Eastern bloc in 1989 were promised a better deal under capitalism but five years later the living standards have been cut by 40 or 50 percent.Had they achieved a true capitalist economy in five years? Have they achieved a true capitalist economy today?

:m: Peace.

So I ask again: because the theory is flawed?
Yes, the theory is flawed.
Stages of revelution:
Capitalism > Socialism > Communism
It never gets past the socialist stage because the dictators dont want to let go of the power because they are doing well for themselves. They rule the people with force thus ruling out any chance of revelution to communism.
Which was what?
Sorry, i got mixed up; I meant McCarthy.
The degree and intensity of anti-Soviet thinking is especially high during periods of perceived threat to patriotic values or national security. Since 1917, there have been three periods when this surge of anti-Soviet thinking has been the strongest. The first was the "Red Scare" following the Russian Revolution of 1917, with the infamous Palmer Raids, the numerous deportations of radicals and the U.S. government's criticism of the "Bolsheviki" influence on the American labor movement. The second was during the McCarthy era of the 1950s, when Senator Joseph McCarthy led a campaign to unveil and purge alleged "Communist influence" or "anti- American" sentiment from the government, industry and schools. The third current period, follows the collapse of détente and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Reagan Administration has led a sharp anti-Soviet and anti-communist campaign against the "threat" of Soviet expansionism and the "evil" influence of Moscow in the Third World.
Blurred vision: Stereotyping the soviet union (http://www.russianamericanchamber.org/dap/blurred_vision.html)
-----
Had they achieved a true capitalist economy in five years? Have they achieved a true capitalist economy today?
Yep.
Have they achieved a true capitalist economy today?
A economy full of mafia and corruption.

In a real small nutshell, communism fails because there is a lack of incentive to work because all of your hard efforts are divided between everybody. By not working as hard, you could "freeride" off other people's labor. If enough people do this, then nothing gets accomplished. An additional shortcoming is that it gives too little room for individual initiative and freedom. Originally posted by Captain_Crunch
...dictators dont want to let go of the power because they are doing well for themselves. They rule the people with forceThe population will rally around any leader, even if they don't like him, when they are faced with what they perceive as external threats. Our fifty-year attempt to destroy communism is, quite possibly, what perpetuated it. I firmly believe that if today we dropped all sanctions and travel restrictions to Cuba, in a year Castro would be gone.

Exposing communists to democracy brings change. Isolating communists enhances their ability

:m: Peace.

You can have individual liberties and a free market in communism.

Communism, socialism, whatever you want to call what was tried in the USSR, China, etc. failed as an economic system but basically much of what Karl Marx called for in his Communist Manifesto: universal education, redistribution of wealth, has been accepted and implemented in the capitalist-democracies. Look at what the government did in 1850 versus today and you could say that other than in the economic realm, communism "won".

Communism / Socialism are economic failures. They have been, they continue to be, and will always be so.

It doesnt matter whether the systems were implemented to the extend that you demand, what matters is that people tried (and failed) to make the systems work; the efforts were subverted in one way or another. If your system of economics / politics is not robust then it will fail.

This is something the evangelical Marixsts cannot seem to accept; but they're really pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

As well, Marxism is dead. It's fundamental philosophy was that revolution will come from the oppresed masses within an industrialized nation. Not only has this not come to pass, but it's been utterly disproven. The economy is not zero-sum, wealth can be created, and it does not concentrate in the hands of the elite.

Perhaps some of this discussion is relevant:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=14602&highlight=Perfect+government

what has not been understood throught this thread is that the fact is that marxism has not been tried this is because of 3 reasons
1 There was not global industrialism at the dawn of the experements of the russian there for saying that they where tests of communist experiments is akin to saying that the ability of one to jump can be evenly tested when they sit in quick sand.
2 Due to the lack of industrialism there was no upriseing of the proliteriate but rather one of self bettering bolshivic reds that where not truely marxists but rather leninists
3 The for the world to unite as one that supplies what ever is needed for all and where one i does what he can for all there must be an advancement of globalisation.

Currently 5 billion people live below what 1 billion consider the povrity line do you beleive that this "great capitalist system" will be supported by these people so that we can debate on our computers ?:confused:

Communism / Socialism are economic failures.
Hoe do you know Communism is an economic failure if it has never been tryed?

Currently 5 billion people live below what 1 billion consider the povrity line do you beleive that this "great capitalist system" will be supported by these people so that we can debate on our computers ?
If you cant change the system, go with the flow.
"Trying is the first step to failure" - Homer Simpson.

Originally posted by amonkieslunch
Currently 5 billion people live below what 1 billion consider the povrity line do you beleive that this "great capitalist system" will be supported by these people so that we can debate on our computers ?:confused:

Yes. There will come a day when all but cave hermits have electricity and indoor plumbing. Still, a poverty line will be arbitrarily drawn and most people will fall below it.

I doubt that Marxism or Communism was ever meant to be anything but a ruse to grab money and power. We’ll never know for sure.

How do you know Communism is an economic failure if it has never been tryed?
I've been under the impression that communism by Marx was always a theory, it's never been implemented. But you can still study the theory and look for possible problems. I haven't studied Marxism in depth but from my dribble of knowledge I can come to the conclusion that the transition to Marx's communsim is where the problem lies. People never forget the imprint of what excess, luxury, and certain freedoms give them. The beginning of a communist society would give them little to nothing, and the people would have to rely on the government more than they will have to in the future. The power that the people are willing to give the government ruins the theory. Like I said, I haven't studied in depth so everything I said could make no sense at all :o

Marxism theory: “Buddy, will you accept the same wage no matter how hard or smart you work? Everyone will be better off that way!”

Marxism reality: “Buddy, I’ll take a nap while you do the work for both of us. After all, I’ll still get paid!”

This is why it will always be a theory.

Originally posted by Captain_Crunch
Hoe do you know Communism is an economic failure if it has never been tryed? Did you read my post? It doesn't matter if it's been tried to the extent that you see fit. It's been proposed countless times throughout the world, and the only result has been oppression and poverty for all but the elite who control it. Whether the nations that claim to be communist have implemented to the extent that you find acceptable or not is irrelevant; it was used as the auspice for revolution countless times and the result has been universal. Communism and socialism are economic and social failures as they themselves have demonstrated.


Moderator edit

kyle s you are a blind follower of propaganda and do not understand that for a theory to be tested they requirements for that theory must be fufilled or it is a test of a complealy diffrent theory that is being tested it is like saying that you want to find if 2+2=4 and useing division in the place of addition

The problme isnt that the ELITE nessarly control the place, there have been leaders, that for the most part are doing things for the greater good, but where is a certin amount of strees, from other countrys, espicaly capilistic ones, than Communism will fall. And like i have said before Capitilism has an huge advantage of being around longer.

Kyle S
Did you read my post? It doesn't matter if it's been tried to the extent that you see fit. It's been proposed countless times throughout the world, and the only result has been oppression and poverty for all but the elite who control it. Whether the nations that claim to be communist have implemented to the extent that you find acceptable or not is irrelevant; it was used as the auspice for revolution countless times and the result has been universal. Communism and socialism are economic and social failures as they themselves have demonstrated.

moderator edit
Did you read my post?
Indeed i did, yes.
It doesn't matter if it's been tried to the extent that you see fit.
Communism has been never tried.
It's been proposed countless times throughout the world, and the only result has been oppression and poverty for all but the elite who control it.
It has been proposed? Thats not put into practice. 'Socialism' has been put into practice, where indeed it hadnt developed to true Socialism. I give you an extract from a Socialist web site i had found:
Firstly, I think it would be more accurate to describe it as a defeat rather than a failure. Socialism was defeated by the extremely unfavorable social and economic conditions in the countries involved. Or to put it another way, the socialism that was defeated was not very developed. In fact what was defeated was scarcely socialism at all but something far more embryonic. The conditions were so unfavorable that virtually none of the changes I have referred in my discussion of ownership were achieved. What was achieved can at best be described as prerequisites for socialism or a few steps in the general direction. These measures included expropriating the old capitalists, the collectivisation of agriculture and a degree of unified control of the economy. None of the individual changes in the position of the individual worker were achieved. And the reason for this is that they can only be achieved on the basis of fully developed capitalism and not on the basis of the backward, feudal conditions that prevailed in those countries.

The second point to make is that the defeat of socialism happened well before 1989. The regimes that collapsed around that time had long ceased to be socialist in any sense and would be better described as state capitalist. So the failure of these regimes was not the failure of socialism.

The third point is that change is often a long and tortuous process and the transition to socialism is no exception. Although, hopefully this transition won't be as protracted and painful as the one from feudalism to capitalism. In Europe that transition took about 500 years and today is making hard work of it in the Third World.
The source (http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/Articles/FAQ.htm#soviet_union)
I do realise that this is the authors opinion but is intirely founded and thought through.
Whether the nations that claim to be communist have implemented to the extent that you find acceptable or not is irrelevant; it was used as the auspice for revolution countless times and the result has been universal.
It is intirly relevant.
Communism and socialism are economic and social failures as they themselves have demonstrated.
Communism hasnt been tryed so it cannot be said it is an economic failure. It is also debatable that true socialism has been tryed.

Moderator edit
I missed the original post, im guessing that he resorted to petty name calling.

Nope. Just a smattering of profanity, not directed at you.

:m: Peace.

Cheers Goofy, i was just wondering.

If communism really hasn't been tried, what is the reason that it hasn't?

How have all the world's communist countries not been "really" communist?

If communism really hasn't been tried, what is the reason that it hasn't?

How have all the world's communist countries not been "really" communist?
Communism hasnt been tryed due to the fact that revelution doesnt get past the stage of 'Socialism' which turns the state into a totalarian dictatorship.

ah, so perhaps that says something about communism that it can never even be put into practice. It fails because it needs what humans can never give.

Originally posted by aitrus
It fails because it needs what humans can never give.
I think I could add a little to this......It fails because it needs what people (that have been treated bad enough to support a revolution) can't give up, their sudden change in lifestyle and culture.