Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
xz598

Is Communism Actually Bad Or Is It The People?

Recommended Posts

When we were learning about communism in school, our teacher told us that it could have been good but the people in the government abused their privledges. I believe it could work if people weren't so greedy, but that's opening up a whole new topic if all people are greedy. Do you believe communism could work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Communism is classified bad because all of the leaders were dictators.

 

If you were incharge could it work? ur just stating another statement

It would not work if I was a dictator no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory it's a great ideology. Keeping everyone equal in terms of wealth is good. The thing is, the leaders of these countries are usually very corrupt and so the gap between the rich and poor continues to grow.

Edited by Xevan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Communism is something that looks good on paper but once you add the human greed to the equation it all falls apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's ideology may sound appealing but it can and will never be put into proper practice. It's underlying ideologies is also something I cannot in good conscience as a Catholic support. The de-individualisation of man. The use of economics as a culture and the worshipping of Party ideology as the only means to run my life. We're not bloody ants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only real example today of communism is North Korea and they have no friends, but that's their attitude. People like China and they say they're communist, but having been there they're not. A lot of people hate communism because of Russia but you've got to remember that the only reason it fell apart was because they were posing a nuclear war with a far richer country, America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only real example today of communism is North Korea and they have no friends, but that's their attitude. People like China and they say they're communist, but having been there they're not.

 

China's communist ideology is dead. The Party there is slowly granting their people more and more rights, liberties and privileges due to their increased demands and needs. Their increased education, exposure to new ideas and wealth makes the Chinese citizens harder to press than their neighbours in North Korea. Even within the Party itself, factions are starting to show that differs on major issues such as economic development, civil liberties, the environment and wealth distribution.

 

It will be a slow process towards democracy but I'm certain they will soon end up there. The Party knows their ideology means nothing anymore in this new world order. They will either have to please the majority of their citizens or be run out of power. They can't turn back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only real example today of communism is North Korea and they have no friends, but that's their attitude. People like China and they say they're communist, but having been there they're not.

 

China's communist ideology is dead. The Party there is slowly granting their people more and more rights, liberties and privileges due to their increased demands and needs. Their increased education, exposure to new ideas and wealth makes the Chinese citizens harder to press than their neighbours in North Korea. Even within the Party itself, factions are starting to show that differs on major issues such as economic development, civil liberties, the environment and wealth distribution.

 

It will be a slow process towards democracy but I'm certain they will soon end up there. The Party knows their ideology means nothing anymore in this new world order. They will either have to please the majority of their citizens or be run out of power. They can't turn back.

The general feeling from kids in China (this is like 14/15 year old Chinese kids I met, so in around 50 years this will be the people governing probably) is that the government work people too hard compared to other country and that western culture is better. I don't agree with the second point but a lot of the kids at the school I went to had around 10 lessons a day 6 days a week, compared to 5 lessons at my school. Slowly also freedom of speech is getting more widespread, two friends I made there criticised the government for how they ran the country and also a tour guide we had criticised the government, and we were told not to criticise before we went by the trip leaders.

However I don't agree communism promotes being uneducated, as a lot of the adults I met in China were born in the time where communism was still very new and were incredibly clever. I agree that democracy will happen at one point, but the fact that the local elections for essentially someone who will be controlled by the government are being screwed up isn't a promising sign for the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China isn't really communist. They are far from an Advanced Liberal Democracy, but they aren't really communist. They have a communist party in control, but it isn't communist. Economically, they are more capitalist. Now civil liberties, on the other hand, are in danger in China. No free speech, constant surveillance, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China is a fusion of socialism and communism at the moment, it's not leading towards democracy, it's leading towards socialism.

 

Then again half the problem is the misunderstanding of the words. I have liberal views, but believe the United States must remain a Republic.

 

There's a few problems with communism.

 

On the government sector, pride, greed, etc forces it to end up being an oligarchy instead of a working system. In the financial sector it isn't (V+R) = W, it's V=V which doesn't work.

 

(For those confused, V=Value, R=Risk, W=Wealth)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not bad but humans wont let it work. Some people would not do their fair share and its natural for humans to be ambitious. In a society where someone who picks up litter would earn the same as someone who does heart surgery. No matter what you do you have the same status as everyone else.

 

Think about runescape for example, you grind levels because you want to be better and to reap the benefits. But if every time you mined you got no xp, everything stayed the same, there were no hiscores as nobody would be higher than anyone else.

 

There would be very little technical advancements as there would be no competition, its the ideal to stagnate a society.

 

If however everyone did pull their weight it would be ideal, but goverments are poop and greedy and love-childs :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, this is the problem with most every government that has been invented since prehistory (including our current system: capitalism).

Humans (us, homo sapiens,) have a nature to be very materialistic in thinking. As one ancient Greek philosopher once said, "bread and circuses", that is, we live off of entertainment, and food. Take those things away, and you are left with a world revolution. This greed is what currently fuels our capitalistic society. What Karl Marx hoped for was to get rid of that greed and use its absence to the government's advantage. As we are only human---yeah right!---this system doesn't work AT ALL. If we were "perfect people" with no greed and want of more, we would be able to impose this system easily. What I believe is that the correct system that will work is a recently invented system named PROUT (PROgressive Utilization Theory). Look it up... (www.prout.org)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Communism is classified bad because all of the leaders were dictators.

 

In communism, you don't really have a leader, if I'm not mistaken. So what you are saying is wrong.

 

 

Communism is not bad, it's the people who make their own version of it (leninisme, stalinisme, maoism...) and call it communism, that makes it look bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Communism is classified bad because all of the leaders were dictators.

 

In communism, you don't really have a leader, if I'm not mistaken. So what you are saying is wrong.

 

 

Communism is not bad, it's the people who make their own version of it (leninisme, stalinisme, maoism...) and call it communism, that makes it look bad.

I thought Marxism is where you had no leader?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Communism works great... On paper. Once applied, the leaders turn into dictators, and their country will last for less than a century.

See example: Cuba (impoverished mainly), Soviet Union (Warsaw Pact also, collapsed), North Korea (just fudged up in general) etc. etc.

~Vincent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first problem with Communism, or any branch of marxism, is that it was a direct challenge to western thinking, as far in America that it was forbidden.

Naturally nations that didn't benefit from liberal democracy, like Russia, embrased it because for most of the people it was an improvement for them. The richer people, mainly farmers who wouldn't benefit from the increased workforces, protested against it to the point where they were forced into following communism. An ideology will never work if it's forced onto anyone.

 

Dictators in communism is a reaction to Fascisms challenge to Marx, employing a strong leader and strong patriotic ideals onto the state to inspire the support. Every ideology needs some leadership.

 

 

Edit: I Need 2 lrn 2 grammar

Edited by Joe The Twin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Communism is classified bad because all of the leaders were dictators.

 

In communism, you don't really have a leader, if I'm not mistaken. So what you are saying is wrong.

 

 

Communism is not bad, it's the people who make their own version of it (leninisme, stalinisme, maoism...) and call it communism, that makes it look bad.

I thought Marxism is where you had no leader?

 

"Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society"

 

basicly: no leader and everybody equal

 

 

If I'm not mistaken; Marx is the only one who actually studied the whole subject.

And I can't think of any country that followed the steps like Marx said (felodality-> kapitalsm-> communism, through revolution of the proletariat)

 

 

by the way; shouldn't communism be possible; if you have an army which task is to make sure that no person takes the power?

Edited by Dreak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Communism is classified bad because all of the leaders were dictators.

 

In communism, you don't really have a leader, if I'm not mistaken. So what you are saying is wrong.

 

 

Communism is not bad, it's the people who make their own version of it (leninisme, stalinisme, maoism...) and call it communism, that makes it look bad.

I thought Marxism is where you had no leader?

 

"Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society"

 

basicly: no leader and everybody equal

 

 

If I'm not mistaken; Marx is the only one who actually studied the whole subject.

And I can't think of any country that followed the steps like Marx said (felodality-> kapitalsm-> communism, through revolution of the proletariat)

 

 

by the way; shouldn't communism be possible; if you have an army which task is to make sure that no person takes the power?

But that can't work can't it... Anarchy is bloody madness. Marx never really understood this.

 

So, along came Lenin with his Vanguard Party, the CPSU. That worked for a few years until Lenin died an was replaced by Stalin. Unlike Lenin, Stalin was a ruthless powermonger who regularly killed everyone who did not worship him. In 1956, he was replaced by Khrushchev. But wait! Khrushchev was one of Stalin's friends in the good old days! He wasn't an idealist like the old Leninists, he was a weasel who sold his soul years ago! So not much got accomplished. Stalin was largely replaced by the Politburo, a group where true power did not rest in the hands of any one man, but rather in the hands of men who allied themselves with other Politburo members. Survival was the key and nobody pushed for reform, so stagnation continued. State control over the economy meant that the USSR was running out of money. Gorbachev showed up too late and only accelerated a process that was already initiated long before.

 

We can learn a few things from this timeless tale:

1. State control SUCKS. Everything the government touches, turns to shizzle. That's why gun control is stupid, why government stimuluses and loans suck. Let things run their natural course. Human nature is a very powerful force, my friends. It will set things right.

2. The Soviets had inefficient and piss-poor state institutions. Too much bureaucracy, too little got done

3. Communism fails because it eliminates markets, and therefore competition. The Russians learned this the hard way when it became apparent that all their tanks, which they loved to display on parades, were manufactured poorly and corners were cut. In the US, the Pentagon would simply award a contract to someone else.

 

The army is irrelevant here, they are a tool of the government. Dreak, if there is total, true Marxist communism, then there is no army because there is no government to fund it and organize it. Perhaps some communes might have their own militias but that would be it.

 

Communism can't work because people are not perfect little robots.

Edited by theking1322

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I'm not mistaken; Marx is the only one who actually studied the whole subject.

Friedrich Engles helped him and published Das Kapital. Marx himself studied more than just socialism to come to his conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I'm not mistaken; Marx is the only one who actually studied the whole subject.

Friedrich Engles helped him and published Das Kapital. Marx himself studied more than just socialism to come to his conclusion.

Marx simply believed that all human conflict is born out of class inequality. So, if you get rid of social classes, you theoretically end those problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But that can't work can't it... Anarchy is bloody madness. Marx never really understood this.

And unfortunately anarchy always ends up becoming a governmental system (usually controlled by those who started anarchy in the first place) so expect an oligarchy from anarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But that can't work can't it... Anarchy is bloody madness. Marx never really understood this.

And unfortunately anarchy always ends up becoming a governmental system (usually controlled by those who started anarchy in the first place) so expect an oligarchy from anarchy.

Because human communities are much like wolf packs. We need a leader, an alpha male. We can't live without authority, it contradicts nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.