Why has Communism failed everywhere ? A chance for commies to explain

[chequita guevara]

I think it is theoretically possible, but won't ever happen. Basically, the capitalists would have to surrender without a fight, which is something they've never done. Unless the communist movement taking power democratically is so overwhelmingly powerful, that the capitalists realize that it's futile to fight.

The problem with that scenario is that in order to get to that size, the communists would have to deliver when they were weaker, which would probably invoke an economic reaction from the capitalists, which would either cause the communists in power to retreat or cause the economy to tank. Then the commies either move forward with a more extensive program, which would probably lead to civil war and they do nothing extra, and get tossed out in the next elections.

[Jon Miller]

I tihnk the communists need to try and get in with the military

I think that that is a nessecary part of democratic recolution

JM

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sava
Only with a strong dictator like Stalin.

I must admit my own ignorance however... how corrupt was the USSR under Stalin? Did fear work in keeping people in line?

If not, then I'd argue that not having a strong leader with a cult of personality is what lead to the fall of the SU.

But you have to ask yourself, if "Communism" can only "succeed" when you have a strong dictator... is it really that good of a system?

Personally, I oppose Communism because I don't think it's realistic. And it requires almost the entire population's support to work. Maybe that's the reason Communism has never evolved out of a Democracy.

Stalin did limit the corruption of the state a great deal, but Russians are always going to be Russian. I don't want to sound prejudice, but they have never really been good at govt.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I tihnk the communists need to try and get in with the military

I think that that is a nessecary part of democratic recolution

JM

Absolutely.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sava
Do you think it could EVER evolve out of a Democracy?

It does require the whole polulation. It was not supported in the SU. Individuals did not work for the greater good, the managers were corrupt and the govt was evil.

But the thing is that the capitalists are so good with the media and propaganda in schools and stuff that it's hard to get support. The support comes when the capitalists fail, and their propaganda no longer works. That's when they use their military to start wars or take away people's rights.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious



You are walking the fence.

Perhaps but I think it is a fence worth walking. Unregulated capitalism has never been advanced by me and I doubt it could be seriously proposed by anyone. There are reasons for minimum wages and workplace standards and environmental regulation etc etc. We know that the market alone is insufficient to deal with many long term issues.

But communism ??? I have seen several flavors proposed and none of them seem preferable to me. heck most of them don't even rise to being even acceptable. One basic problem is that many versions seem to disconnect even further the difference between a person's effort and what they get to take out of society. Currently, I know that my additional efforts will be rewarded . . . I haven't seen that in most proposed communist societies. I also have serious reservations as to how personal freedoms would be impacted.


Probably my greatest issue comes from the uncertainty. We are told that every communist society we have seen wasn't truly communist so that there are no prior examples. But on inquiring questions about simple issues go unanswered. I went around through hundreds of posts exploring kidicious's communist vision and still have never gotten a straight answer as to how people are paid or whether my wife would "have to " work or whether she could choose not to work. I don't want to go read a hundred pages of theory written 200 years ago . . . Instead I want to hear how it would actually work in a real world.


Call me paranoid but if the proposed system has never existed and is not explained, I for one am not about to embrace it with open arms.

However if you are proposing something like current day Canada, I'm fine with that.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Flubber



But communism ??? I have seen several flavors proposed and none of them seem preferable to me. heck most of them don't even rise to being even acceptable. One basic problem is that many versions seem to disconnect even further the difference between a person's effort and what they get to take out of society. Currently, I know that my additional efforts will be rewarded . . . I haven't seen that in most proposed communist societies. I also have serious reservations as to how personal freedoms would be impacted.

You know your additional effort will be rewarded? How so? You ASSUME it will be, and it may, or may not. After all, you may die in 20 minutes for all you know. Tommorrow the people ou work for could go bankrupt due to actions having nothing to do with you- a fire could gut your apartment and leave you on the street- you can not possibly KNOW that further efforts mean further monetary rewards.

Probably my greatest issue comes from the uncertainty. We are told that every communist society we have seen wasn't truly communist so that there are no prior examples. But on inquiring questions about simple issues go unanswered. I went around through hundreds of posts exploring kidicious's communist vision and still have never gotten a straight answer as to how people are paid or whether my wife would "have to " work or whether she could choose not to work. I don't want to go read a hundred pages of theory written 200 years ago . . . Instead I want to hear how it would actually work in a real world.

Why would people have to be paid? Man lived 90% of his existance with the concept of 'pay' not in existance. And most importantly, why should the point of your work be to get paid? Why not "work" because its want you love, without having to worry that you must work in order not to starve or die cold on the streets?.

Call me paranoid but if the proposed system has never existed and is not explained, I for one am not about to embrace it with open arms.

You mean like Smith with capitalism? In the end, communism with lower c is more of a theory of life, much as capitalism with a lower c is.

[Heresson]

There are several. The capitalist countries did all they could to destabilize them.

Which just means that the capitalists were just better than communists also in this matter

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Heresson
Which just means that the capitalists were just better than communists also in this matter

Communist countries did not try to destablize capitalist ones, at least not after Stalin's "theory" of socialism in one country. After that, communist revolution happened in spite of the USSR, not because of it, excpt, of course, in areas occupied by the Red Army.

On the other hand, we commies tried to do all we could to destabilize capitalism. But since we're ametuers, we didn't have a lot of success.

BTW, you should provide a link in your sig to your wonderfull frog thread. I love your frogs.

[Heresson]

Thanks

Done!

[Heresson]

Uh, no. How should it be done?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by GePap


You know your additional effort will be rewarded? How so? You ASSUME it will be, and it may, or may not. After all, you may die in 20 minutes for all you know. Tommorrow the people ou work for could go bankrupt due to actions having nothing to do with you- a fire could gut your apartment and leave you on the street- you can not possibly KNOW that further efforts mean further monetary rewards.
.

If I am dead my family would get the rewards. For me they are clear and written as I take a percentage of everything I bill. Employees have first dibs on funds in a bankruptcy and I have insurance for the fire-- next?? Oh ya and a meteor could hit earth and destroy mankind but I prefer to have an economic system that works for me if we all happen to be here tomorrow.

Originally posted by GePap

Why would people have to be paid? Man lived 90% of his existance with the concept of 'pay' not in existance. And most importantly, why should the point of your work be to get paid? Why not "work" because its want you love, without having to worry that you must work in order not to starve or die cold on the streets?.

I am aware that pay structure may not exist in some versions of communism. Thats fine. But people are pretty vague on who does the necessary work. If we assume that work is unnecessary since society has functioning robots or something, thats fine. In the current world I do not believe it is possible just to do what we love and still produce the things we want and need

Originally posted by GePap


You mean like Smith with capitalism? In the end, communism with lower c is more of a theory of life, much as capitalism with a lower c is.

Again fine--but I don't embrace or accept some theoretical capitalism . . . what I accept and support is the country of Canada and its economic system. I don't say its perfect and it will and should evolve but I like the basics. . .. an economic system where the market plays a part, personal freedoms, opportunity for advancement and a decent social safety net. So my model is not some vague theory . . . its a working country of 30 million people. As I say, NOT perfect and given divergent viewpoints, I don't think it ever could be perfect .

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Heresson
Uh, no. How should it be done?

Type:
[ url="XXXXXX"]My Frog thread![ /url]
where XXXX is the link. Remove the empty spaces in the [ url] tags

[Ned]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Communism is not successful because it does not take into account the people, and seeks to imprision millions under authoritarian rule. Communism is fatally flawed. Most people who believe in communism these days don't know what their own system entails. It brings tyranny, poverty and corrupt rule.

Points to China. Communism is successful when it adopts capitalism.

[Whaleboy]

Stalinism |= communism

Communism is, at it's most fundamental level, just an "ism" for when people collectively work together... hence there are big communist elements in capitalism, nazism, popularism etc. For sure, Stalin (indeed to a lesser extent this also happened back with the Bolshevics) bastardised this notion but it in no way taints the name of such like libertarian communism/socialism, anarcho-communism and the like.

But I think perhaps that's sidetracking a little from the jist of your question. Any political theory that fails to take human nature into account is doomed to failure. Hence any political system that survives for more than 40 years in any particular manifestation is deemed successful. In the case of Stalinism, it was so far away from Marxism that human nature was irrelevant, and where it was utilised it was done in a way VERY similar to democracy... where human nature is politically turned back on itself, hence popularism (national socialism) results. That is of course the conclusion of both communism and democracy, in the latter case it is both the cause for its longevity and it's biggest flaw, which I believe we are seeing now as the environment, overpopulation and the rich-poor divide will bite us in the arse.