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

[Whaleboy]

since when was charity a communist idea? That's laughable at best

Since when was altruism a realistic idea? It's a dilusion, as stupid as anyone who thinks that "human goodness" will overcome the selfishness in humans to any significant degree required to do anything majorly useful or significant in the world.

Dictatorship

[The Vagabond]

I seriously wonder whether the Iranian model of democracy would have worked in the USSR (with communism substituting the Iranian religious fundamentalism).

[Ted Striker]

.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
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.

The pay would be pretty equal, but some people would get more time off for incentive. And you should remember me saying that your wife should be able to stay home until your child becomes school age.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I seriously wonder whether the Iranian model of democracy would have worked in the USSR (with communism substituting the Iranian religious fundamentalism).

There are actually significant similarities between the Iranian and Russian Revolutions. In both cases, a workers' revolution started out democratic and was hijacked by extremist elements, with a charasmatic leader returning from exile. Iran, however, remained significantly more democratic, even with the external threats of invading neighbors and imperialists fomenting counter-revolution. And in both cases, the ideological leaders of the revolution ended up becoming the ruling class, though in Iran, they became an owning class, wheras in the USSR, they became a managing class.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Iran, however, remained significantly more democratic, even with the external threats of invading neighbors and imperialists fomenting counter-revolution.

Yes, indeed. So perhaps the Iranian model of democracy shows how a communist country could be organized in order to be successful? Unfortunately, such a model has never been tried in a communist society. It really offers a healthy element of democracy while not allowing a bourgeois overturn of the system.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
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.

Human nature is multi-faceted, greed is only part of it, and for most people greed is not dominant. Humans started out in tribes, thus all psychological elements that help build a successful tribe (helping each other, function as a group, etc.) are dominant - because we are the descendents of these successful tribes.

Besides, greed is really just artificial "human nature." It only came into being after humans had invented "private ownership."

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I have read that Russians consider western manners annoying, such as when we say, "thanks," etc., when someone does something nice, for example opening a door or brining someone something.

It's because this may be perceived by Russians as some kind of falseness. For example, Russians welcome only sincere smiles. A polite but insincere smile may be perceived as false and cause an adverse effect. (What I say here should be understood in relative terms, as a tendency compared to the West, but not literally. Besides, times change...)

I read that this was because Russians just sortof automatically do these things without thinking because it is part of the community spirit they were raised up in. Since there is more of a group identity, it's just kinda built into the culture, wheras in the western world, the emphasis is on the individual, so doing those things is out of the ordinary and not expected.

I wouldn't link that with an individual or a group identity. Russians are generally less polite than Westerners. So not all of those things are done by Russians. But if certain such things are done, they are largely perceived as natural, so that an unnecessary "thank you" may sound awkward.

[Ned]

You will note, dear sirs, how in a communists society you will be paid equally, will be permitted time off, will be permitted to stay home to take care of the baby, permitted to have a certain size apartment, certain clothes, etc., etc., etc.

Permitted. Permitted. Permitted. Permitted. Permitted. Permitted. Permitted.

Think about this for a moment.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Human nature is multi-faceted, greed is only part of it, and for most people greed is not dominant. Humans started out in tribes, thus all psychological elements that help build a successful tribe (helping each other, function as a group, etc.) are dominant - because we are the descendents of these successful tribes.

Besides, greed is really just artificial "human nature." It only came into being after humans had invented "private ownership."

When wasn't their private ownership?

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Ned
You will note, dear sirs, how in a communists society you will be paid equally, will be permitted time off, will be permitted to stay home to take care of the baby, permitted to have a certain size apartment, certain clothes, etc., etc., etc.

Permitted. Permitted. Permitted. Permitted. Permitted. Permitted. Permitted.

Think about this for a moment.

As opposed to not permitted?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Permitted. Permitted. Permitted. Permitted. Permitted. Permitted. Permitted.

Think about this for a moment.

2 Reasons:

1. When talking about communism with capitalists, we have to endure the prejudice that we are totalitarians. As such, we must repeat what is obvious to us (people can wear the clothes they want), but what is not to prejudiced capis.

2. There are plenty of things the capitalist system allows by law, but which isn't permitted to plenty of people for financial reasons. In capitalism, you can have a home of whatever size you want... Unfortunately, many of us will have something too small for the needs of their family, and some are even homeless: these people are barred from having a satisfying home, not by law, but for financial reasons.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Spiffor

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

Thanks. Lets see if it works..

[Whaleboy]

Human nature is multi-faceted, greed is only part of it, and for most people greed is not dominant. Humans started out in tribes, thus all psychological elements that help build a successful tribe (helping each other, function as a group, etc.) are dominant - because we are the descendents of these successful tribes.

Group think. Greed is fundamental. Want and need are relative terms, i.e., want is a function of what other people have. Need is more subjectively absolute, i.e., I need to breath in order to live. However the want to live is still relative, since our definition of "self" is relative to other people, i.e., the individual and society is dualistic. Though this supports my argument, history on its own has shown that wherever humans get together, greed is the fundamental force, since any cooperative elements are still operating on an egoistic premise; altruism is still a dilusion, whether or not egoism is a conscious process, it is still the premise for all of our actions.

Whether what we delineate as "capitalist" or "communist" is successful depends solely on incidental economics, there is no "better" option since they both work best in different circumstances. In times of plenty, the best course of action egoistically speaking is competition and acquisition, when times are hard it makes the most sense for an individual to work together with other people in a cooperative commune.

Besides, greed is really just artificial "human nature." It only came into being after humans had invented "private ownership."

See above.

[Ned]

Spiffor, thanks for the acknowledgement that communism is inherently totalitarian.

We need not inquire further as to why all prior "communist" systems are failures, particularly from the human rights point of view.