Communism

Discussion in 'World Events' started by mohammadm, Feb 27, 2003.

  1. mohammadm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    50
    What does communism mean? ( I was reading a book about WWII)

    THANKS FOR ANY HELP
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. SuperFudd Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    296
    I read over the weekend that it has meant 100,000,000 killed.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    The central tenet of Communism

    "From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs." (Karl Marx)

    This is the whole of theoretic Communism. Reality and politics, however, have written a different story.

    As to its death toll: 100,000,000? That's all? Could be worse, all things considered.

    Typically speaking, I always wonder if that number includes the 20m dead in WWII. And, of course, in a similar context, the damage done by Christianity, for instance, is in the millions, and the damage done by Capitalism is immeasurable. It's all in how you choose to look at it. Communism, like Christianity, Capitalism, and Democracy, has never seen its theoretic model realized.

    The Communist Manifesto (Australian National University): This is pretty much it; one of the most celebrated and reviled documents of human history.

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,888
    Tiassa; the figures I've often seen used in describing communist death tolls include all WWII deaths casued by Russia or suffered by Russia, the revolution and the various spurs of violence in the Union.

    What is communism? An economic system whereby each citizen gives what he can and takes what he needs. As Marxy said.

    Oh, and let's not forget Engels! I always wondered why his name never reached fame - they wrote the damn thing together!
     
  8. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,415
    When you strip away all facets which can also be applied ti other political/social systems, communism means simply that the state assets are owned and directed by the people. That's all.

    And no, Russia was not communist. Go look up what "USSR" stands for.
     
  9. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    The death toll for communism: 0
    There has never been a communist government, so its impossible for there to be a death toll for it.
     
  10. Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,888
    Yes, Adam.
    United Soviet Socialist Republics.

    The Nazis called themselves Socialists too, but they weren't.

    I'd say theoritical Socialism is closer to what Switzerland is today than what Russia was as the USSR.
     
  11. Xerxes asdfghjkl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,830
    The best way I can describe communism is like this.

    {An example told by my old SS teacher}

    There are three tables. Each table has a bowl of cookies in the center. There are four people to a table. The principal - who leads the meeting - carries a load of cookies, only to be distributed when any of the bowls are empty. What my SS teacher did in order to represent socialism, was he took all of the cookies in the bowl, and hid them. The principal came by and filled it up. This went on until the principal had no cookies left. While coatsies table went through three bowls, the other two table only went through two.

    Socialism is where you give all that you can and take all that you need (as many people have already explained). It's a benevolant system that will never work given human nature. Nice in theory, but it doesn't work.



    Communism (historically), on the other hand is basically where the government owns everything, and distributes it however they like with rule by an iron first. It won't necessarily be equal, and certainly not fair. Since the government owns everything, you have no real rights - even those are owned by the state, and distributed whichever way they like. Saying this, I do realize that the USSR as well as many other communist states have constitutions and suffrage, sometimes even dating back further than classic democracies! But it really is a sham, because in communism, the state comes before the individual, and that's the bottom line.
     
  12. SuperFudd Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    296
    Well said.
     
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Read the Manifesto

    That's the best advice I can give anyone. Read the Manifesto.

    And then remember that some people still believe the United States a democracy.

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Pollux V Ra Bless America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,495
    Tiassa

    If we aren't a democracy, or a republic, then what are we?

    Not autocratic. We still elect our government leaders every two or four years.

    Not socialist. I own numerous posessions.

    Not communist. I'm not working in a rock quarry.

    And, at the moment, we aren't a police state, although subsequent terrorist attacks may "force" us into one.

    Possibly a cross between an oligarchy and democracy, when I think about it. We elect our officials, but they rarely accomplish what is for "the common good," and instead bend over backwards to accomodate the elite at the top. I am generalizing.
     
  15. Coldrake Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    808
    jps and I had a good discussion on this in another thread. We have yet to see a true communist/marxist government. To date they have pretty much been totalitarian mutations. I'm of the mind that there can be no true communist government in a modern state. According to Marx in a communist state there would be no government and Lenin expected the government to wither away after about five years following the October Revolution. But the problem is, no large industrial state can exist without some sort of governmental infrastructure. There has to be sme sort of an elite leadership to organize and dole out responsibilities, and that inevitably leads to jealousies and corruption. I think that once you get above a basic tribal system to exist without a governing body is impossible, and there will always be a hierarchy, whether secular or religious.
     
  16. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,191
    It means you're a demonstrable minority. QED
     
  17. Balder1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    290
    Tiassa didn't say we weren't a republic, did he? I'd say we're basically a republic, not a true democracy. True democracy, like true communism, has not been fully realized in a nation, I believe. It wouldn't be workable(also like true communism). What do you fellows believe is the best government?

    Democracy/republic seems the best to me, hands down. Communism doesn't even really seem to be a government, it's an economic system, like capitalism. You don't call capitalism a government, do you? Same with socialism. Perhaps the problem is that communism/socialism cannot be linked with a democracy or republic is because it would be refused by the people. Although there are many socialist countries in Europe, and most of them are democracies, right?

    Therefore, it must be linked with a totolitarian/fascist government, thereby forcing the people to accept the communism even if they hate it. And I've always hated coercion, personally.

    With the United States, it is possible that we could even vote to change our economic system to socialism/communism, and still retain our democratic government. Then, we could change it back when things started falling apart. The socialist system would basically take the rich people's money away and give it to the poor.
     
  18. Pollux V Ra Bless America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,495
    I think democracy/republic is the best, but I feel that we have yet to see a better political system. The flaw behind democracy is that voters can be easily decieved over and over again, liberals or conservatives, it makes no difference. Even if we elect our officials, some, at least, are incompetent. I'll be thinking about this today, I'll see if I can come up with something better...

    I had an idea awhile ago for a lottery government, where random representatives are chosen on the local, state, and national levels, and each level elects its own leaders from their congresses. The problem is that these people would not "know" how to be politicians, if there is such a thing, and they might all be morons and hillbillies.
     
  19. Hamlet Registered Member

    Messages:
    15
    Wow, my first post.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    What you so far said is somewhat true, not all though. I've been experiencing socialism myself. I hope I will find the right words to explain it a bit from the theoretical point of view. English is not my mother langauge.

    Communism is theoretically not a bad thing at all. It's actually superior to ie. capitalism. But it doesn't work in practice, because people tend to be selfish. Lenin said that only "new human race," which respects elemetary terms of social cohabitation without violence and without subordination, will reach communism. In todays world communism is a fiction.

    Communism is a higher form of democracy. Socialism is the first state, first phase of direct democracy and communism in the second state/phase of direct democracy. The goal of socialism is to get to communism. One of the differences between socialism and communism would be that in communism you don't need coersive measures because everyone controls themselves. In communism there are no authorities/governments - social self-government.

    In communims there is no need for government. As soon as you reach communism, subordination of individual to division of labour dissapears and state witheres away. This means that with this subordination of individual to division of labour, social inequality dissapears, which is a cause of excess in society and state is actually there to prevent this excess in society, meaning there is no need for state - as said before, state witheres away. This is a long-term and spontanous process, which is dependent on velocity of development of communism. To achive communism Marx also said that labour must first become vital neccessity and not only resource of existence (livelihood).

    There are no individual in socialism and no individual in communism. There is only community. Government does not own anything in socialism nor communism - dicatorship of proletariat. Cumminity owns everything (it's all ours and nothing is mine). Private property does not exist.

    No country every practiced communism. Although you may hear it on the news about communist China, Cuba, USSR, etc., those countries practice socialism in reality.

    Switzerland is not socialist country, not even close. Switzerland is capitalistic and is social-democratic state. USSR was socialistic and also social-democratic state (although democracy in this case is not really a democracy in full sense of a word). The USA are capitalistic and democratic state (I believe). You need to separete economic systems from political system. Communism, socialism, capitalism are not political systems, they are economic systems. Political systems would be democracy (also social-democracy), dictatorship, totalitarism, etc.

    P.S. Social in social-democratic means that it's a country with higher level of mutuality. Country that "cares" for people with free schooling, "free" health care,... This doesn't mean it's soacialistic state. It's still capitalistic.

    Take care,


    Hamlet
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2003
  20. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,415
    Communism is not better than capitalism. They can not be compared in such a way. One is an organisation of state assets, and the other is the practice of gaining interest on money or goods lent.

    Communism: the people own and direct the state's assets.

    Capitalism: you lend ten dollars, you get back twelve.

    A communist state is quite free to have a free, open, capitalist economy. The two are in no way mutually exclusive.

    The idea that capitalism and communism are somehow at opposite ends of a spectrum is nothing more than the remnants of McCarthy's bollocks propaganda.
     
  21. Balder1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    290
    Are you sure about that, Adam? I think that capitalism also implies individualism, free market, free trade, and those sort of things that are hard(or impossible) to intregrate into a communist society. The communist doesn't allow you to own your business, expand your business, and make a lot of money.
     
  22. Coldrake Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    808
    If you lend money ($10) and get back ($12) you have created a class system - a lender and a borrower. A class system can't exist in a true communist system.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2003
  23. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    Hamlet,
    The USSR was not a democratic-socialist state. The USSR was a totalitarian government run by a small upper class of party leaders.

    Democratic-socialist states are those, like Norway for example, in which you have a semi-democratic semi-capitalist system in which the government places greater limits on business than in an aristocratic-capitalist country like the US.
    And ensures that everyone has a basic right to what they need to survive, medical care, housing, etc..
     

Share This Page