Communism, really, is the perfect form of government. it has worked throughout the world, but communism fails when its leaders become corrupt and the country and its people face revolution. Thats why communism will never prevail

Obama is a perfect example of communism, so its not that bad!

At 5/27/09 08:29 AM, Soapbubble wrote: I consider myself somewhat of a communist. But, I know it's impossible, thanks to humanity. I can also mention that I don't believe in humanity, as a general. Yes, there are lots of good people, but there will always be greed and lust. Communism in theory is GREAT, and I'd love to see it actually working in a society, but as we've learned from Communism being used in real life, I guess we can agree that it simply isn't working, due to corruption.

I've got a question though, economical, about taxes. In a communist society, what would the taxes be like? Extremely low or pretty high? High income and low VAT taxes? How about import and/or export?

Taxes? In a communist society, there is no government, and therefore no taxes. However, prior to society becoming truly communist, as the necessary reforms are being implemented, taxes on the rich will be high (redistribution of wealth) so that everyone starts on an equal footing.

Ultimately, I doubt communism would work. Whether or not capitalism created greed, I do not think that its overthrow would automatically eradicate greed from society, and I do not think that common ownership of the means of production would lead to intellectual liberation. Humans are creatures of habit, and living for so long under capitalism means we would have trouble accomodating ourselves to a completely different system. Some people would want more than others, leading to friction. Eventually, either capitalism would be restored, or a group of tyrants would take over.

Tl:dr, same as most other people in this thread have been saying, communism is great in theory but would never work in practice.

Communism can be very good. but a few evil dictators and American propaganda has ruind its image.

Communist Romania was the period in Romanian history (1947-1989) when that country was a Soviet-aligned communist state in the Eastern Bloc, with the leading role of Romanian Communist Party enshrined in its successive constitutions. Officially, the country was called the Romanian People's Republic (Romanian: Republica Popular%u0103 Romîn%u0103; RPR) from 1947 to 1965, and the Socialist Republic of Romania (Republica Socialist%u0103 România; RSR) from 1965 to 1989.

COMMUNISM ITS NOT GOOD ASK CHINA ASK ROMANIA ASK RUSIA FOR GOD SAKE!!
YOUR BLIND!! YOU HAVE SO MUCH EVIDENCE !!! YOU DONT KNOW HOW PEOPLE DIED FOR ROMANIA FOR FREEDOM! BUT SAD NOW AFTER 21 YEARS AFTER THE COMMINIST FALL WE DONT HAVE MUCH FREEDOM!
ITS TO PAINFULL TO SPEAK ABOUT THOSE YEARS!! YOU CANT IMAGINE HOW BAD IT WUZ!!! BUT SAD...PEOPLE LIKE YOU GUYS DO NOT KNOW THE TRUTH AND SO THEY MAKE AWFULL CHOISES AND MYSTAKES!! JUST READ AND RESEARCH BEFORE OPEN YOUR MOUTH!!

Main problem is that many people believe that there was comminism in Russia. They are wrong. Communism is only an idea and some countries wanted to realize it - they did not succeded. By the way...dictature is not communism. And Hi Romanian guy...lives of people in Romania were destroyed by selfishness and lust for power...not by communism.

communism doesn't work why do you think its almost non existant today after the fall of the USSR?

At 1/12/10 09:45 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: communism doesn't work why do you think its almost non existant today after the fall of the USSR?

Communism=Stateless, classless society in which the workers own the means of production.
USSR=State Capitalist.
There's no reason this should have to be explained everytime the subject of communism comes up...

At 1/12/10 09:50 PM, Kev-o wrote:

At 1/12/10 09:45 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: communism doesn't work why do you think its almost non existant today after the fall of the USSR?

Communism=Stateless, classless society in which the workers own the means of production.
USSR=State Capitalist.
There's no reason this should have to be explained everytime the subject of communism comes up...

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was a constitutionally socialist state that existed in Eurasia from 1922 to 1991 and the government was a Government Federal socialist republic, Single-party communist state. nice try kid let the grown ups talk.

At 1/12/10 09:59 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was a constitutionally socialist state that existed in Eurasia from 1922 to 1991 and the government was a Government Federal socialist republic, Single-party communist state. nice try kid let the grown ups talk.

You know, I've only read the Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, and TONS of communist literature ranging from anarchist-communism to Marxist-Leninism; As a communist, what the fuck would I know about communism? I can tell you that since the Soviet Union had both a state, and a class society, it was by no means communist. Also, the Soviet Union never declared to be outright socialist, they simply stated they were "fighting towards socialism" but they never got there. As I've pointed out several times to you before: You're not much older (clearly not much wiser, either) than myself, so the only thing I can suggest is that you read a book on the subject before I intellectually decimate you.

I personally am not agains any political party, but humanity itself. it is flawed in nature

Communism isn't possible in contemporary society for the same reason that a free-market economy with elaborate financial and banking systems wasn't possible in the Dark Ages.

If we are to assume that technology can improve the productivity per person to the point where great labor was no longer necessary to maintain the survival of a society, and to the point where a comfortable standard of living and physical and social security was guaranteed for every individual, then society would become classless, money would lose its purpose, and communism would effectively exist.

In a purely hypothetical scenario, this could exist if robots replaced human labor for virtually every purpose, then there would eventually be plenty of everything to go around for every individual. Of course, you don't need to wait for this to happen; the main logistical problems of socialism can be solved with sufficiently advanced technology and methods.

At 12/6/09 12:51 AM, Warforger wrote: Now not many people seem to realize whats the difference between Socialism and Communism

Socialism: System of Economy where the government owns public programs and public area's, but there is free enterprise

Communism: System of Economy where the government controls everything, and no private property

Capitalism: System of Economy where everything is free enterprise.

God no!

Communism: System of economy where the means of production are communaly owned by the people.
Capitalism: System of economy where the means of production is owned by individual entities.

Socialism: Ideology, or rather a group of ideologies, advocating communal ownership of the means of production. Socialistic ideologies have communism as an end-goal.
Is also used about the in-between capitalism and communism period advocated by marxist-leninists and democratic socialists, where the means of production is publicly owned.

At 1/12/10 10:08 PM, Kev-o wrote: I can suggest is that you read a book on the subject before I intellectually decimate you.

A comrade, finally a brother in this dark part of the internet! I salute you!

Where are you from if I may ask?

haha what a bunch of delusional idiots

you think if we get rid of the state, people are just magically going to form communally owned firms?

lol no, communism is not emergent

Even if classless societey existed amongst a modern day world of extreme scale, the selflessness of security would commence a rejection of selfless ideals of social benefit towards anything but ones self. Thus meaning decay of any social system without direct adress of smaller-scale personal needs and the downfall of any selfless utopian societey which harbors the possible spawning of primitive animals of any kind.
- hence the problem being humanity itself, not communism

i think the communism is cool, but it is impossible, and a lot of people thinks it is the worst thing because all the leaders, who tries to put the comunism as the countrie's ideology end up being dictators or monsters, inequality also continues because they usually have more money than the common people
when I read the Communist Manifesto I though this is so cool, what a shame that I could never see it

PS:sorry for the grammar,it's hard for me to wride in english

Well in this sense it isn't fair to point at Russia and say Communism/Socialism, during the first 100 years of Democratic Republics, only about 1 adhered to the principles and was effective in its execution, that being America, look at France, dictators killed many in the name of the Revolution and didn't adhere to the principles of it, sound familiar?

Communism is a good idea, but always seems to have problems in practice. They should perform small tests runs before trying to use it for the entire nation. For example, Utah will be communist for six months. Then they can evaluate and make changes if necessary.

At 11/7/09 05:24 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I like how people say communism is good IN THEORY, yet don't think that neglecting something little like, say, INHERENT HUMAN NATURE, still makes in good in theory.

It's ironic coming from someone who repeatedly stated that if you give people total unbounded freedom, people will make things work for the good.

Communism is a concept much like infinity is - it is neither good or bad. However, when extremists invokes this idea in order to take and retain power, slaughter and massacre people they don't like, and centrally control everything - then it becomes a bad thing -- especially when you're not the extremist who is revolting.

Personally I believe communism wouldn't work, just like other radical sides of politics. Simply because for it to work, you have to erradicate everyone who opposes it and that is something you don't want to get.

I do believe strongly in taking elements from it that are nice. Such as treating workers well and supporting everyone in society, leaving basic needs available t everyone. The good things should be available to everyone, not just to those who have a lot of money.

At 10/2/10 08:25 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: haha what a bunch of delusional idiots

Constructive. Aren't you an advocate of stateless capitalism?

you think if we get rid of the state, people are just magically going to form communally owned firms?

That's kind of what happened in Spain, there's nothing really magical about it. The workers seized their workplaces, and formed collectives and worker's assemblies through existing syndicalist unions like the CNT-FAI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Rev olution

lol no, communism is not emergent

No one said it was, revolutions certainly don't happen over night.

I agree, `communism is a good political aspect if the leaders are well caring people, people who are not obsessed with money and is much better than imperialism or capitalism if we change the present moment for better brighter futures. Talking about Russia however, would be better off still Imperial.

Communism is the very best pen and paper government in existence. Unfortunately, as far as we know, there's never ben a truly communist country. Every time humans try to make one, it doesn't end up working out, or it becojmes some alternate form of communism specific to whoever's leading the country at the time of its implication(I.E. Stalinism, Maoism, Castroism).

Socialism and communism aren't two seperate entities in the way alot of people on this thread seem to think they are.

'Socialism' was the philosophy advocated by Marx. Since its origin, there have been many sub-categories of it, the main ones being:
- Communism, Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism (all different but bound by fundamentalist socialist principles)
- Democratic Socialists (agree with communists in ends but not means)
- Social Democrats (a tamed and humanised form of capitalism with an accomodation with individualism)
- Neo-revisionists (what most 'left wing' parties are these days... who acknowledge a limited welfare system and taxation but really embrace capitalism).

Hope that clears things up slightly... of course there is the chance that you Americans are taught differently.... at the end of the day it's all just terminology and doesn't really matter.

At 5/25/09 07:04 AM, The-General-Public wrote:

At 5/23/09 09:34 AM, Kev-o wrote:

Stop using the Soviet Union as an example of a communist society, please.

Just because you personally don't like Marx-Leninism doesn't mean it's not communism. I'd also remind you that anarcho-communists were completely unable to defend themselves when Lenin and Trotsky decided to destroy them in the Ukraine.

They were able to defend themselves. Against , imperialists, the whites, nationalists, and the Bolsheviks. No way they could have succeeded.

Socialism and communism aren't two seperate entities in the way alot of people on this thread seem to think they are.

'Socialism' was the philosophy advocated by Marx. Since its origin, there have been many sub-categories of it, the main ones being:
- Communism, Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism (all different but bound by fundamentalist socialist principles)
- Democratic Socialists (agree with communists in ends but not means)
- Social Democrats (a tamed and humanised form of capitalism with an accomodation with individualism)
- Neo-revisionists (what most 'left wing' parties are these days... who acknowledge a limited welfare system and taxation but really embrace capitalism).

Hope that clears things up slightly... of course there is the chance that you Americans are taught differently.... at the end of the day it's all just terminology and doesn't really matter.

And the Communist Anarchisms. Understanding these socialist theories is difficult, and you won't if you don't concentrate. You never will if you only socialize on these kind of forums and with you a-political buddies.

At 10/20/10 04:47 PM, Nitr0gen wrote: Socialism and communism aren't two seperate entities in the way alot of people on this thread seem to think they are.

'Socialism' was the philosophy advocated by Marx. Since its origin, there have been many sub-categories of it, the main ones being:

No. Marxism was the philosophy advocated by Marx; Socialism precedes him by a long time, I believe the Levellers from the English Civil War were the original Socialists from the 1600's. Even then alot of philosophical ideals espoused Socialist-like rhetoric like the Ancient Greeks or the Bible. What Marx was doing was taking alot of their work and taking it to the next step, much like how you can find Freudian psychology in Plato's work.

Socialism is the idea that the means of production should be owned by a democratic government and that the people should be able to vote on their livelihood, that everything should be decided democratically and through redistribution of wealth so everyone is equal.

- Communism, Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism (all different but bound by fundamentalist socialist principles)

Sort of. Communism is the idea that society goes through stage and that the current one, Capitalism, is just one before Communism. There are two main classes, the bourgeois and the proletariat, as time goes on the proletariat will grow, taking in displaced farm workers and Capitalists who lost everything, until the bourgeois are a tiny fraction of the entire population. Then they will overthrow the Capitalists, reform society through eliminating bourgeois ideals, redistribute the means of production equally through a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" and achieve Communism where everyone is equal. The problem with this is that it assumed it would happen in the developed Industrial countries, which leads us to the next philosophy on the list.

Leninism. Basically the Communists in Russia wanted power, but they were in a predicament since Russia was backwards. Basically what Lenin and his Bolshevik comrades did was draft a way on how to achieve power and what to do when they got there. They basically espoused establishing a 1 party state where the vanguard party dominates the country, instilling Communist ideals until everyone becomes Communist. Due to the emphasis on the state other Communists opposed them like the Luxemborgists or the Menshiviks.

Stalinist was even further away from Marxism. It began to emphasize the leader, the individual, and created a cult of personality. This was contrary to Marx and Lenin who sought to downgrade the importance of individuals (Lenin actually wasn't too well known, not many people knew what he looked like in the early days of the USSR).

Leninism is fundamentally different from Communism in the end.

- Democratic Socialists (agree with communists in ends but not means)

No, no they don't.

- Social Democrats (a tamed and humanised form of capitalism with an accomodation with individualism)
- Neo-revisionists (what most 'left wing' parties are these days... who acknowledge a limited welfare system and taxation but really embrace capitalism).

Hope that clears things up slightly... of course there is the chance that you Americans are taught differently.... at the end of the day it's all just terminology and doesn't really matter.

True true, but alot of people throw these words around without any knowledge of what they mean. Especially those people who say "Cultural Marxism" about things like Political Correctness (which is ridiculous, since the Soviets had more in common with Republicans in terms of social issues).