Communism

Communism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

candystripper -> Communism (6/29/2008 2:23:04 PM)
quote: Communism, which is also described as "Revolutionary Proletarian Socialism" or "Marxism," is both a political and economic philosophy. The abridgment of Communism is enclosed in two primary writings: (1) The Communist Manifesto, which was first published in 1848 by Karl Marx, and (2) Principles of Communism, by Friedrich Engels. At the request of the Communist League, an activist group they were members of, Marx and Engels together authored The Communist Manifesto.. According to The Communist Manifesto, Communism has ten essential planks: Abolition of Private Property. Heavy Progressive Income Tax. Abolition of Rights of Inheritance. Confiscation of Property Rights. Central Bank. Government Ownership of Communication and Transportation. Government Ownership of Factories and Agriculture. Government Control of Labor. Corporate Farms and Regional Planning. Government Control of Education. http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/communism.htm quote: The Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) is a Marxist-Leninist political party in the United States. For approximately the first half of the 20th Century it was the largest and most widely influential communist party in the country, and played a defining role in the U.S. labor movement from the 1920s through the 1940s, originating or helping to originate most of the country's major industrial unions and pursuing intense anti-racist activity in workplaces and city communities throughout this first part of its existence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA The Party still exists, but is largely a curiosity of the past. IMO, the philosophy is fundamentaly flawed, because it fails to recognise the essential selfihness of men. It is the nature of man to seek to improve his lot in life and, for some men, to gain power over others. For this reason, the 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs' philosophy is flawed. Still, the CPUSA and other portions of the American Communist Movement did quite a bit of good in their heydays. Do they still teach Communism in Philosophy 101 classes? Any thoughts? candystripper

Raechard -> RE: Communism (6/29/2008 2:50:04 PM)
Communism isn't about being selfless, what gave you that idea? In fact it is totally selfish in my opinion. The people in the communists parties are just as rich as the people in the capitalist parties they’ve just got their wealth by different means. Communist movements have their routes in jealousy and that is selfish. (by the sea shore)

seeksfemslave -> RE: Communism (6/29/2008 3:36:05 PM)
Communism is a totally idealistic theory which would never work in practice. however I dont think that that is sufficient reason for US governments to kill commies. I realise that that is not why the do, kill commies I mean. Sufficiently obscure ?

Owner59 -> RE: Communism (6/29/2008 9:00:15 PM)
Real communism hasn`t been tried yet. The soviets,China,and the few other`s have/had more of the dictator model.

Alumbrado -> RE: Communism (6/29/2008 9:04:37 PM)
I stayed at a real commune once, with real communists... nobody wanted to do the dishes...

hisannabelle -> RE: Communism (6/29/2008 9:30:09 PM)
greetings candystripper, we didn't learn about communism (or other political philosophies) in my intro philosophy class. personally, i am a socialist (mainly because it's about as close to communism as one can get, practically speaking, in this world), but because of my own experience and belief about what is morally right in terms of civil rights, distribution of wealth, etc., not because i am an expert in the philosophy. respectfully, a'ishah.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: Communism (6/29/2008 10:08:57 PM)
Karl Marx never worked a day in his life. He leeched off of other people; most notably his friend Fredrich Engles. Marx's family lived in poverty, and three of his seven children never survived to adulthood. He was a lazy, fat member of the very bourgeois he railed against in his writings. The poverty of his own family didn't compel him to join the ranks of the working class, but it didn't stop him from spending the little money he had on luxuries. He was a hypocrite of the worst kind. Communism is an unworkable idea that operates in opposition to human nature. The only way it can be implemented is through force, and we saw how that worked out in the 20th Century. Twenty-million plus dead in the Soviet Union under Stalin, probably close to 50 million dead during the Chinese famine, two-million plus murdered by the Khmer Rouge, and on and on.

cyberdude611 -> RE: Communism (6/29/2008 10:52:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Real communism hasn`t been tried yet. The soviets,China,and the few other`s have/had more of the dictator model. The idea behind the Bolsheviks was that dictatorship was needed until the correct systems were place and the revolution was complete. Then the dictatorship will yield to a democracy. The problem is that it never progresses. The dictatorship finds a way to create one crisis after another to justify it's grasp on power.

Owner59 -> RE: Communism (6/29/2008 11:07:33 PM)
Dictator is as dictator does... ~Forrest Mugabe~

Caius -> RE: Communism (6/30/2008 12:28:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Real communism hasn`t been tried yet. The soviets,China,and the few other`s have/had more of the dictator model. The idea behind the Bolsheviks was that dictatorship was needed until the correct systems were place and the revolution was complete. Then the dictatorship will yield to a democracy. The problem is that it never progresses. The dictatorship finds a way to create one crisis after another to justify it's grasp on power. I've been quite pleased of late that this point, really for the first time in my life, has come to be very broadly understood. The veneer of propaganda (both that of the early "communist" nations and of their enemies) seems to be peeling off sufficiently that the truth of the matter can be realistically treated.. Russia, one of the more ignominious cases for the abuses of communist states against their people, is also one of the more elaborative in this regard as well. Almost from the beginning of the establishment of Bolshevik power, the workers councils were edged out of the central roles that they were supposed to have played -- roles essential to a true communist governmental structure. The workers councils weren't the only structures or people to be marginalized in this fashion either; the Bolshevist elite had always recognized the revolutionary necessity of the councils and other groups, but they apparently never expected to leave any significant decisions in their pervue and acted quickly to curtail the influence of anyone who opposed their particular vision, which would utliamtely become something recognizably closer to modified capitalism than communism. They were aware of just what an extensive betrayal of their supposed ideology this was and they justified it, as cyberdude alluded to, through a string of excuses, not only of the "it's a work in process" variety but also because they were dealing with "foreign-supported reactionary forces" (which was true, but became a cache-all excuse for all manner of horrific actions) and, most importantly of all, because they were Marxists and they believed the change in the global order was supposed to proceed in a certain fashion -- the true revolution was to take place in Germany, at the time the world's dominate industrial and economic power, on-par the modern-day U.S. in terms of it's influence and industry. In fact, a wave of socialist and anarchist sympathy did sweep through Germany and much of central Europe not long after but was brutally crushed -- across the Atlantic, American elites chose to deal with their own leftist surge with slightly more limited violence but also the creation of the most extensive propaganda system ever known to mankind, a legacy Americans still deal with every day of their lives. Which brings us back to how, for so long, the myth of the evil giant communist nations could have been perpetuated -- because it was helpful to be able to use that title to justify any form of foreign action, military or economic, against even the smallest and poorest nations, even when their communist governments were closer to "real" communist unions -- that is, they had structures consistent with the stated ideology -- and they were genuinely trying to better the lives of their people and to disseminate power as broadly as possible to the citizen and worker.

candystripper -> RE: Communism (6/30/2008 2:05:19 AM)
Very interesting post Caius. I wasn't really aiming at a history of communism but i suppose by examining attempts to implement the philosophy we can best examine it's falws and strengths. As a political system, it seems to work best in small, relatively homogeous state in which they people have been experiencing exploitation of some sort -- whether by colonist or by a dictor or elsewise -- but apparently once the evils of the past have been alleviate the desire to attain positions of superiority and power destroy the political sytem from within. It seems to be very unstable. I think it's a shame if communism is no longer taught in Philosophy 101 classes. There was a time whwn universities and colleges thought they owed a duty to students to expose them to different world views and broaden their horizons. candystripper

Caius -> RE: Communism (6/30/2008 5:05:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper As a political system, it seems to work best in small, relatively homogeous state in which they people have been experiencing exploitation of some sort -- whether by colonist or by a dictor or elsewise -- but apparently once the evils of the past have been alleviate the desire to attain positions of superiority and power destroy the political sytem from within. It seems to be very unstable. Well, I wouldn't say that is particular to communist political systems so much as human political systems. Also bear in mind that many of the more promising communist experiments were destroyed without a chance to demonstrate their worthiness, generally before they'd made much headway into rectifying the evils of the past, as you put it. After-all, a nation doesn't have the luxury in this world of shirking off colonial rule in secret and whenever one nation has decided the cost of continued occupation is too high and decided to divest itself of the colony there has generally been no shortage of eager states willing to take their place. On the other hand, and to address earlier comments suggesting that no real communist nation has existed which I neglected to attend in my last post, still other communist nations have survived even he most horrifically brutal attempts to destroy their sovereignty and flourished, doing pretty well by their people; these simply aren't the communist nations that people are encouraged to remember. So it isn't so much the case that communism has never really been implemented anywhere (a comment I must admit to have been guilty of using myself for expediency's sake) so much as that the nations most often cited as its most ardent champions are in fact generally the worst exemplars in terms of actually realizing communist thought. But then that too is pretty typical -- at the same time that American leaders were exploiting fear and hatred of communism in their own people the soviets were doing the same thing with "capitalist" America, even though the U.S. is hardly a living incarnation of capitalist theory, having market control and subsidization (for the rich anyway) up the wazoo. And thank you, btw. :) Edited to add: Hey, I got my third triskellion thing. Not bad for three years and some change, eh?

slaveboyforyou -> RE: Communism (6/30/2008 5:13:36 AM)
quote: I think it's a shame if communism is no longer taught in Philosophy 101 classes. There was a time whwn universities and colleges thought they owed a duty to students to expose them to different world views and broaden their horizons. Marxism is still taught in philosophy and a number of other subjects. I don't know why you presume otherwise.

pahunkboy -> RE: Communism (6/30/2008 6:02:26 AM)
communism is alive and well in America. It is called a cell phone plan. ;-0

Alumbrado -> RE: Communism (6/30/2008 7:45:28 AM)
Most Philosophy 101 classes are probably going to spend a lot more time on definition, principles, and the early philosophers than on socio-economic political systems...communism is well represented in the appropriate courses.

stella41b -> RE: Communism (6/30/2008 8:03:40 AM)
[image] IMO, the philosophy is fundamentaly flawed, because it fails to recognise the essential selfihness of men. It is the nature of man to seek to improve his lot in life and, for some men, to gain power over others. For this reason, the 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs' philosophy is flawed. [/image] This was my impression from being in the Soviet Union and living in Poland. But then again I wasn't around in the 1960's which I'm reliably informed was the golden era of Eastern European communism, or the times of Gierek and Gomulka in Poland. But from what i experienced corruption was pretty commonplace. quote: Communism isn't about being selfless, what gave you that idea? In fact it is totally selfish in my opinion. The people in the communists parties are just as rich as the people in the capitalist parties they’ve just got their wealth by different means. Communist movements have their routes in jealousy and that is selfish. Exactly. The principle behind communism is basically the same as in an M/s relationship. One side provides the control and direction, the other the submission and labour. However in practice the system somehow functions quite well when everybody is fooling themselves - the Party that they have the power, the intelligentsia that they have the power, and the workers or proletariat that... they have the power. Then you had the organized criminals who believed they had the power, just as the small 'capitalists' at the soccer stadiums and railway stations who also believed that they had the power. quote: Communism is a totally idealistic theory which would never work in practice. Interesting theory seeks, especially when you consider that for over 50 years in a considerable number of countries without dictators it actually worked quite well, and without many of the social problems such as destitution, crime, and homelessness you find in most Western societies. For example Albania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary. quote: Karl Marx never worked a day in his life. He leeched off of other people; most notably his friend Fredrich Engles. Marx's family lived in poverty, and three of his seven children never survived to adulthood. He was a lazy, fat member of the very bourgeois he railed against in his writings. The poverty of his own family didn't compel him to join the ranks of the working class, but it didn't stop him from spending the little money he had on luxuries. He was a hypocrite of the worst kind. Communism is an unworkable idea that operates in opposition to human nature. The only way it can be implemented is through force, and we saw how that worked out in the 20th Century. Twenty-million plus dead in the Soviet Union under Stalin, probably close to 50 million dead during the Chinese famine, two-million plus murdered by the Khmer Rouge, and on and on. What an interesting way of forming an argument. Character assassination. Ever consider that maybe Karl Marx never needed to work in his life due to having such an idea? Or maybe that Engels was his patron? Would you say the same of a corporate CEO who inherits power over a corporation from his family? Was Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart lazy because instead of working he chose to write music and compose symphonies? Was Peter Tchaikovsky leeching off people, or sponsored? Communism is an unworkable idea? Please, don't make me laugh. By the way the number of Slavs killed under Stalin is actually 66 million, not 20 million. You are, of course, assuming that all these 66 million were all lily white and pure of nature and character? Not subversive, not working against the communist system? Maybe also some of those 66 million weren't down to the direct use of force by the government against them, but conflicts between the Ukrainians and the Russians, people in Chechnya against Russians, conflicts between each other rather by way of communism being implemented and local conflicts between borders and peoples being exacerbated. But you know, when you actually stop and think about it, and say consider that it was mainly the former communist politicians who achieved the economic reforms in Eastern Europe prior to these states joining the European Union, not to mention Eastern European migrant workers kicking ass in Western European employment markets you've got to be pretty blind not to see some sort of work ethic there. The Soviets developed space programs too, without needing to wait for a windy day to put a man on the Moon. But we don't have to agree. I tried my best but countering prejudice and subjective assumptions isn't easy. But you know this much I will add, and this from my own perspective of having lived on both sides of the Iron Curtain, there are just as many diehard communists clueless about capitalism living in Eastern Europe as there are diehard capitalists clueless about communism in the West, which only goes to make you wonder what the Cold War was really all about. But wasn't this was what the Second World War was about? Fear of Hitler's Right vs. fear of Stalin's left? How can you explain then the Phony War between the Allies and Hitler between 1939 and 1940, when the West stood back and left Poland unprotected between Hitler and Stalin? In the light of the French surrender, was it not the case that Britain did not have the power ton take on both Germany and the Soviet Union, not even when financed by the US? And for US interests after the Depression wasn't a major conflict in Europe the ideal opportunity to increase their markets and expand into Europe to provide for an economic recovery? What was Lend and Lease really all about? What would have happened in 1943 had the outcome of Stalingrad gone the other way? How did the Second World War end? The annihilation of Hitler and his allies? Italy occupied, Germany in ruins, Japan about to surrender but then came Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Let us not forget where the Iron Curtain fell and who occupied Germany. Let us not forget the Berlin Wall and Checkpoint Charlie, West Germany and East Germany, and what happened to those who tried to get across from one side to the other. Wasn't Potsdam where Poland was shoved back towards Stalin's Eastern Bloc but shifted west a couple of hundred miles losing 30% of its territory and Germany not only reduced in size but divided up? What was Potsdam all about? Was it really to end World War Two, or merely a standoff between two enemies forced to fight together against another enemy common to both but who if in conflict could destroy the world through nuclear war? I'm not trying to present an opinion here, just speculating. About what? I'm not sure to be honest. I just have the impression that both sides have only half the story and that this was how it was meant to be. Anyone else feel similar? By the way no flames at this point please. Much of what's written above could be wrong, I'm just thinking off the top of my head. I'm just curious.

Alumbrado -> RE: Communism (6/30/2008 8:06:48 AM)
That you only have half the story and are filling in the gaps with self important verbage and tinfoil hat conspiracy theories? Yeah.

stella41b -> RE: Communism (6/30/2008 8:08:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado That you only have half the story and are filling in the gaps with self important verbage and tinfoil hat conspiracy theories? Yeah. So what's your contribution then, besides snide remarks?

Alumbrado -> RE: Communism (6/30/2008 8:16:01 AM)
I'm not surprised that you would't see my debunking as a contribution.

stella41b -> RE: Communism (6/30/2008 9:35:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado I'm not surprised that you would't see my debunking as a contribution. Neither am I for your argument strategies - not here nor on the General BDSM thread. The OP here is one word, that word is communism, not what you think about my way of thinking, level of intelligence or personal integrity, do you have anything meaningful towards this topic - i.e. communism? Like, as in, a point of view?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875