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

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Also -- Cuba is far far from a communist society. people are selling stuff for prsonal profit all over the place and most of the tourist industry is housed in hotels built by foreign corporations and run for profit.

They need dollars to buy oil, but that's starting to change.

The fact is you can't have a communist nation, only a communist world.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Sava
However, Social Democratic societies like Canada and some of Europe are quite healthy.

I know that Canada is universes apart from any form of "communism" I have seen proposed. Its capitalist with a social safety net and its what I see as the best option when we leave theory and enter into the realm of what works in practice.

Its imperfect yes but I know that an illness will never bring me to bankruptcy to pay medical bills. There is income support and assistance to the poor etc etc. The system needs tweaks and changes but the basis of it is one I accept and I applaud the idea that some people are richer than others Good for them !!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It's the leather jacket of the youth of the 21st century. Don't worry, they grow up. Most of them.

Those aren't real communists NYE.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The fact is you can't have a communist nation, only a communist world.

If the system is incapable of working in a portion of the world, then you are confirming that it is a pie-in the sky theory with no practical application to the current situation on earth.

Wake me up when you have achieved world unity

[chequita guevara]

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

Originally posted by Flubber
Sorry that gets a

Maybe so, and I'm glad I could amuse you. It is, however, the reason why Marxism, of all the varients of socialism over the years, because the most popular. Even Pipes admits such in his anti-communist diatribes. Remember, it's possible to be logical and rational and still come up with seomthing that is totally at odds with reailty (which I am not admitting is the case with Marxism). Your explaination of emotional factors is also valid.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



I know that Canada is universes apart from any form of "communism" I have seen proposed. Its capitalist with a social safety net and its what I see as the best option when we leave theory and enter into the realm of what works in practice.

Its imperfect yes but I know that an illness will never bring me to bankruptcy to pay medical bills. There is income support and assistance to the poor etc etc. The system needs tweaks and changes but the basis of it is one I accept and I applaud the idea that some people are richer than others Good for them !!

Income support for the needy is communism.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
If the system is incapable of working in a portion of the world, then you are confirming that it is a pie-in the sky theory with no practical application to the current situation on earth.

Well, it's not so much that we need to control the world to make it work as we need to control most of the world's economy to be safe from the economic depredations of capitalism. That could be accomplished, say, by have a socialist EU+.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


If the system is incapable of working in a portion of the world, then you are confirming that it is a pie-in the sky theory with no practical application to the current situation on earth.

Wake me up when you have achieved world unity

You are assuming that it is easier to implement communism in a nation with Imperialist enemies instead of in a world were those enemies have been liquidated. Why?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Income support for the needy is communism.

That is a massive oversimplification, comrade. It's also wrong. Income support for the needy is charity. Communism means to abolish charity as much as possible, by abolishing the reason people need charity and enabling everyone to lead some sort of a productive life. There are always going to be those who are totally helpless, but we expect to reduce that number considerably.

[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.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That is a massive oversimplification, comrade. It's also wrong. Income support for the needy is charity.

Income support for the poor certainly isn't capitalism and charity is done freely. It isn't an obligation.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Income support for the poor certainly isn't capitalism and charity is done freely. It isn't an obligation.

That doesn't make it communism. Charity was common under feudalism as well, and in that society ti was obligatory. Capitalists understake all sorts of non-economic related works which serve no other purpose but to make life a little more bearable. They support the arts, build libraries and parks, found schools, etc. It is necessary to remember that capitalists are human beings too, however distored by their position in socioety, and that doing good works makes them feel better. Regardless, we can't expect capitalist charity to sustain those whom capitalism considers useless.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That is a massive oversimplification, comrade. It's also wrong. Income support for the needy is charity. Communism means to abolish charity as much as possible, by abolishing the reason people need charity and enabling everyone to lead some sort of a productive life. There are always going to be those who are totally helpless, but we expect to reduce that number considerably.

It's called a mixed economy. The individualism aspect is the capitalism and the regulation and the social obligation aspect that makes things fairer and work better is the communsim aspect.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
It's called a mixed economy.

There's no such thing as a mixed economy. The term mixed economy is used by some because people confuse state ownership of the means of production with socialism. It's not. In a society geared around production for exchange-value, state ownership of the means of production is state capitalism, which is still capitalism.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That doesn't make it communism. Charity was common under feudalism as well, and in that society ti was obligatory. Capitalists understake all sorts of non-economic related works which serve no other purpose but to make life a little more bearable. They support the arts, build libraries and parks, found schools, etc. It is necessary to remember that capitalists are human beings too, however distored by their position in socioety, and that doing good works makes them feel better. Regardless, we can't expect capitalist charity to sustain those whom capitalism considers useless.

I know. They have to be obligated. Charity is by definition, not an obligation. The obligation makes it communism in so far as it doesn't serve only individuals or special interests.

And I know it's not absolute or ideal communism, but it isn't capitalism, and it is communism within a capitalist system, just like you can have capitalist aspects in a communist system.