Can Communism work?

It cannot work in today's world. I see the fact that pure Marxism has not been perfectly implemented as a sign that it is impossible, or at least very hard, to do so. I think what true communism was trying to accomplish as something we should all strive for, but it simply cannot be done.

I am not sick of the 2 party system in America that prevents radical minority groups from gaining power over the majority. It would be nice to open up the system a bit, but I find the fact that both sides in America play to the middle or the center as a very good thing.

Does that mean that non voluntary democracy is also slavery? I may not want to live in a democratic country, but I don't have much of a choice do I?

Actually you do. There is a communist party in America, and you can feel free to join it, and if you somehow got 3/4ths of the country to agree with you, you could change the constitution and make all sorts of crazy laws! Too bad you can't do that in a communists country. You can also move to another country without the Democratic country putting up a wall to STOP you from leaving. We may not want everyone in, but you sure as heck can leave without much effort. And I don't think there could be "non-voluntary democracy" because it IS voluntary by nature. Just because you disagree with 99% of the population does not mean you are a slave.


Just to restate, I long for the day when true communism, or the "Law of Consecration" will be on the earth, but it isn't going to happen with the way things are now.

 

Coolguy, I live in Australia, where we too have a Communist Party. However, the majority is ruled by two parties which are verging upon becoming the same, and the public doesn't have a viable alternative as a political force. It is similar to the Republicans/Democrats I guess, but it has differences.

Yes, I could join a Communist party, however it has no hope of succeeding because the majority is unwilling to change, and Communism isn't something that can be brought about by decree (the Bolsheviks tried it in pre-WW2 Russia and failed miserably with "War Communism"). So no, I don't have an option really. Perhaps "slave" is too strong, but I don't have an option for change to a Socialist system, thus I am at the mercy of Representational Democracy, fraught with corruption, bribery and misconceptions.

 

thus I am at the mercy of Representational Democracy, fraught with corruption, bribery and misconceptions

Well if it's any consolation this is true in any government and is not specific to one particular group; however knowing this, this is partially (not totally as I have many other reasons) why I am against a big government.

 

I see the fact that pure Marxism has not been perfectly implemented as a sign that it is impossible,

Neither has perfect free market capitalism. Free market capitalism is supposed to increase the quality of lives of everyone, as huge corporations give out jobs, and generate massive wealth.

Obviously, it hasn't happened. Except, perhaps, for the middle-and-upper-working-classes in Western countries. This success is roughly comparable to the Marxist success of the Paris Commune, which only failed because the middle-class-controlled militaries at the time committed a massacre of those inhabiting the commune.

I think what true communism was trying to accomplish as something we should all strive for, but it simply cannot be done.

I've heard this said many times before. Often by people who are unqualified to make the remark, but are eager to appear that they know something on the subject.

I am not sick of the 2 party system in America that prevents radical minority groups from gaining power over the majority.

It's only a matter of time. As the two parties drift closer to the centre, social discontent and opinions that aren't even extreme, but not weak, will be expressed through pressure groups. The Greens and the numerous Socialist Parties for the left, and the multitude of right-wing nationalist groups for the right. If you look at opinin polls and voting behaviour in several countries, you can already see that the amount of people voting for the huge, established, credible parties has diminished, and more people are voting for pressure groups.

Why? They're disenfranchised.

It would be nice to open up the system a bit, but I find the fact that both sides in America play to the middle or the center as a very good thing.

Yeah, it means that most things are moderate. Some people - increasing numbers, if the polls would have us believe - are wanting more extreme measures to certain things. Not so much in America, but in a lot of the European countries, after World War II, followed the Civic Model, which encourages respect for the establishment, and following of the two or three major parties - it's stable, predictable and reformist, as opposed to unstable, volatile and revolutionary. However, especially in those European countries, and even in America, the Civic Model is wearing away, and being replaced by tendancy to extremism and conviction of opinion.

Does that mean that non voluntary democracy is also slavery? I may not want to live in a democratic country, but I don't have much of a choice do I?

You could go to China?

Actually you do. There is a communist party in America, and you can feel free to join it, and if you somehow got 3/4ths of the country to agree with you, you could change the constitution and make all sorts of crazy laws!

Democracy wouldn't die under Socialism, or even Communism. In fact, Communism would be an extreme form of democracy - maybe not in the way you imagine it (voting on the issues), but definitely in a pure form - the entire public control of the economy.

Too bad you can't do that in a communists country.

There are none. Cuba, China, North Korea, etc... all of them are bastardisations and failures.

but it isn't going to happen with the way things are now.

I agree. Several things must occur first, and if it is to work, it can't occur in a third-world country. It has to occur in one of the so-called industrial nations - America, Britain, Germany, Japan, etc. That isn't the same as "can't" work, though.

Coolguy, I live in Australia, where we too have a Communist Party. However, the majority is ruled by two parties which are verging upon becoming the same,

Yeah. I had a problem with that when I lived in Australia.

Yes, I could join a Communist party, however it has no hope of succeeding because the majority is unwilling to change,

This is mistaken. Just look at the vast numbers of the Nazi Party in Germany during the late twenties, thirties and early forties. Look a

 

Coolguy, I live in Australia, where we too have a Communist Party. However, the majority is ruled by two parties which are verging upon becoming the same, and the public doesn't have a viable alternative as a political force. It is similar to the Republicans/Democrats I guess, but it has differences.

Having been involved in political processes in Australia, I dispute this! I can assure you that the Liberals and the ALP are very unlike. I can't agree on many things with even the Right-faction of the ALP!!

Yes, I could join a Communist party, however it has no hope of succeeding because the majority is unwilling to change, and Communism isn't something that can be brought about by decree (the Bolsheviks tried it in pre-WW2 Russia and failed miserably with "War Communism"). So no, I don't have an option really. Perhaps "slave" is too strong, but I don't have an option for change to a Socialist system, thus I am at the mercy of Representational Democracy, fraught with corruption, bribery and misconceptions.

With all due respect R_P, I don't think that any minor parties have anything to offer the Australian people. The major parties continue to win because, among other things, they have broard policies which appeal to a great proportion of the Australian population.

An example is the Democrats, who spend so much time squabbling that they can't give any policy.

Conversely, there is the Greens who have just started broardening their policies to focus on more than the environment, and as a result are more sucessful electorally

 

I am not sick of the 2 party system in America that prevents radical minority groups from gaining power over the majority.

Speak for yourself, I'm tired of the Democrap and Repooplican parties. They both stink and they both keep the minority parties down. Which I might add have better things to say than both of our major parties. I'm looking forward to a day when both the Democrats and Republicans fall. If it doesn't happen in my life-time, it'll suck, but it will happen. You'd call the reform, green, and the independents radicals? PSHAW on you!


It would be nice to open up the system a bit, but I find the fact that both sides in America play to the middle or the center as a very good thing.

Yes, wouldn't it? Instead you get the same candidate year after year. Sure they may say they're different, but they're both the same.


Sorry for dragging this off-topic. Those comments were completely ignorant IMO.

 

I'm looking forward to a day when both the Democrats and Republicans fall.

I'd wait a while...those two parties themselves are over 150 years old each!!

 

Yeah, but the Democraps are already falling.

 

Marv, I'll discuss Australian politics, but this isn't the right place to debate them.

Scarlett, huge post, I respect most of your rebuttal, except for claim that the Communist/Nazis etc walked in... it certainly requires particular circumstances, and we don't have any in Australia at the moment. As for political acitivism, if I join the Communist Party and become active, my family will disown me and the majority of society will thumb me. The attitude towards communism hasn't changed much since the Cold War.

 

Marv, I'm labor right, there is little to differentiate the ALP and LNP. Some, but not much. I agree with R_P. It's probably the bane of bicameral systems...

F_I_D, just wait for the atheist, black, female, non-partisan lesbian president to end bipartisanism buddy!

E_S

 

Ok, this idea is far-fetched but as you know finding an incorruptable leader is nearly impossible. Well, what about AI? I mean a computer program could indeed one day be the leader of small little Communist village (or island) without the fear of corruption.

 

If you are living in laissez-faire capitalist country, and you cut the Government way back, you simply become a slave to the corporations, rather than a slave to the Government.

A small government does not have to equal a weak or unprotective one. A small government is self definitive. It sets the rules, enforces them, protects the people and leaves industries to themselves and does not take over any but the most essential. No universal health care does not make you a slave to corporations. In free enterprise you have choices when one does not suit your needs, which you do not have when the government does a poor job administering it. (I use roads here in KC as a prime example. I don't want to privatize roads but 2 years ago we just gave them millions to fix pot holes and the condition actually got worse, and the previous pot holes were patched with cheap material that fell apart after one winter, so they came around asking for more in the last election. The money fell into beaurocratic hands. We can fire the heads, but the beaurocrats that mishandled the money keep their jobs. We have no choice to turn to.)

 

I agree with tenorjedi

Why should one group have monopoly power and be immune from market forces?

 

To prevent idiots from running the nation... I'm all for a nation run by elite intellectuals...

 

And who are you to decide that, Rogue_Product?

Governments and Companies both stuff up; the only difference being that you cannot avoid paying one for their stupid mistakes..

 

A small government does not have to equal a weak or unprotective one.

A small Government is a free-market capitalists dream. Which means exploitation.


A small government is self definitive. It sets the rules, enforces them, protects the people and leaves industries to themselves and does not take over any but the most essential.

Si! So, all the major industries and services are in the hands of the corporations. Profit before people. If they decide that they would rather save money than put on a good service, then whose gonna stop them? The electorate? Oh, wait, corporate heads aren't elected. This is UNDEMOCRATIC.

No universal health care does not make you a slave to corporations.

It just means that if you're poor, you're going to be very sick. I can just imagine you, tenor, explaining softly to a terminal cancer patient that he is going to die because the corportions don't see the profit in providing him with free or subsidised health care.

It's simple.

As corporations first priority is profit (in order to stay in power, they need money), that will come before the people.

As a Governments first priority is the electorate (in order to stay in power, they need votes), they will come before profits.

If that isn't enough, the fact you can vote to change the second one is good enough.

I'm not FOR big Government. I'm not particularly for ANY Government. But I'd prefer a monolithic leviathan of a Government than a state run by faceless corporations.

- Scarlet.

 

Hello Scarletbanner

So you're a Marxist and I'm and Economic Rationalist - well at least we can agree on something

A small Government is a free-market capitalists dream. Which means exploitation.

Stupid, pointless, emotive rhetoric.

Si! So, all the major industries and services are in the hands of the corporations. Profit before people.

Actually they are driven to make profits because the corporations are at the mercy of their shareholders, of which you and I can become one easily. There's only the issue to resolve of corporate payouts not based on performance - but hopefully the right legislation is in place in order to make the system fairer.

If they decide that they would rather save money than put on a good service, then whose gonna stop them? The electorate? Oh, wait, corporate heads aren't elected. This is UNDEMOCRATIC.

Corporations don't save money, they re-invest it back into the business. And they do have a responsibility to the company, it's myriad of workers and shareholders to perform well or else as principle dictates they should be sacked.


No universal health care does not make you a slave to corporations.

I must have missed that one......

It just means that if you're poor, you're going to be very sick. I can just imagine you, tenor, explaining softly to a terminal cancer patient that he is going to die because the corportions don't see the profit in providing him with free or subsidised health care.

Well that's why they should have had health insurance so they could cover their costs (you can kind of think of 'free healthcare' as a form of taxpayer insurance). Ok, so their poor, with some people times get tough but that's why we have charities and so forth..


As corporations first priority is profit (in order to stay in power, they need money), that will come before the people.

Well, they do have to consider demand and supply in the marketplace, innovations and opening of new markets. Most profits go to the shareholders, which creates opportunties for those wanting to invest and create alternative sources of income. Most businesses don't even make profits, like the majority of small business are likely around the sales = costs mark. But without the huge monopoly corporations you so despise, where does the mass production of new goods come from; and why would they do it without the profit motivation? (eg. a suitable return on their investment)


As a Governments first priority is the electorate (in order to stay in power, they need votes), they will come before profits.

And most governments are concerned with economic growth and GDP - which wouldn't exist without business.

If that isn't enough, the fact you can vote to change the second one is good enough.

True, you can. But democracy is not a perfect system, and can be abused (two-party system, anyone?)

I'm not FOR big Government. I'm not particularly for ANY Government. But I'd prefer a monolithic leviathan of a Government than a state run by faceless corporations.

Don't be so cynical. There's a reason why the world is leaning toward economic rationalism you know. That is, because, in theory it will benefit everyone to a greater extent than the more traditional system of state intervention.

Besides, if everyone were the same, where's the incentive to work and achieve??

(Don't worry, I used to be like you, but soon you'll see the light )

 

Hello Scarletbanner

That was quite polite. Hello to you, too.

Stupid, pointless, emotive rhetoric.

Or a statement of fact. There was nothing emotive about it. I didn't break out the tissues or turn on the water-works. A small Government is the dream of a free-market capitalist. Care to disagree with that statement?

Actually they are driven to make profits because the corporations are at the mercy of their shareholders, of which you and I can become one easily.

Provided the company is PLC. Also provided that "you and I" have the money to do so. Whatever the motive for being driven to make profit, exploitation is a necessary by-product.

There's only the issue to resolve of corporate payouts not based on performance - but hopefully the right legislation is in place in order to make the system fairer.

The legislation is pro-business. Read it.


Corporations don't save money, they re-invest it back into the business.

This is stupid. I didn't mean "save" it in the traditional sense - I meant conserve and heighten it, for whatever purpose. If re-investment is that purpose, I don't care. We're too far along in the process, Nyder. I'm interested in profit-generation, not profit-use.

And they do have a responsibility to the company, it's myriad of workers and shareholders to perform well or else as principle dictates they should be sacked.

And how many corporate bigwigs do you think are principled enough to sack themselves? This, like you said of my sentence earlier, is stupid, emotive, pointless rhetoric.

Well that's why they should have had health insurance so they could cover their costs (you can kind of think of 'free healthcare' as a form of taxpayer insurance). Ok, so their poor, with some people times get tough but that's why we have charities and so forth..

The profit of all the charities in America put together would not be enough to create efficient socialised health care. Furthermore, poor people can't afford health insurance. And "with some people times get tough" isn't going to cut it.

Well, they do have to consider demand and supply in the marketplace, innovations and opening of new markets.

Yes. It's called "competition." What fuels competition? Profit. What allows businesses to compete? Profit. What is the purpose of and end goal of competition? Profit.

But without the huge monopoly corporations you so despise, where does the mass production of new goods come from; and why would they do it without the profit motivation? (eg. a suitable return on their investment)

Mass production, in a Socialistic system, would not be quite as large as it is now (mass production is really a thing of the Industrial Revolution onwards). That which would take place would be mass production in the public sector, with no attention paid to profit. The service would be the foremost goal, and the creation of enough quality goods.

And most governments are concerned with economic growth and GDP - which wouldn't exist without business.

Why do you think I'm advocating the abolition of business? I'm adovacting the nationalisation of business, and the public ownership of the means of production. Nothing more. There would still be a GDP, though undoubtedly less under a Communistic system. It can't produce the same sheer amounts of wealth as a capitalist system, that is beyond dispute. However, exploitation would disappear, unemployment would plummet, and the existing classes would be abolished, with a mind to preventing any new ones from forming. I think that's more important than a nice GDP figure.

True, you can. But democracy is not a perfect system, and can be abused (two-party system, anyone?)

The nationalisation of the economy as a form of democracy has nothing to do with a two-party system. Democracy simply means the power/rule of the people, nothing to do with Senates, Parliaments or Parties. They are all parts of representative democracy.

Don't be so cynical. There's a reason why the world is

 

Don't worry, used to be like BOTH of you and you'll both see the light

E_S

 

Don't worry, used to be like BOTH of you and you'll both see the light

ROFL.

- Scarlet.

 

I just want to point out, that the entire objective of corporations is to make money. That is why they exist!

If they didnt exist, there would surely be much higher unemployment!

 

"I just want to point out, that the entire objective of corporations is to make money. That is why they exist!"

Not Non-profits. They don't directly profit financially. They do profit from media exposure and increased awareness of particular issues.

The idea that corporations exist only to make a profit is a gross generalization existing only in abstract social theories and outdated perspectives.

The Nationalists and Communists both had it wrong.

Marx correctly diagnosed some of the flaws in Capitalism, but his solution failed.

 

I guess what I'd like to say could best be summarised with a " ? " ShaneP?

E_S

 

I'm sure a smart-ass like you knows the difference between "equal" and "same."


Not necessary.

Keep the personal comments out.

 

E_S.

You know exactly what I'm talking about. Nice try though.

If it doesn't fit your vision, it must be wrong eh?

Non-Profits are formed under the corporate laws of many nations and exist in many instances for altruistic functions.

To say that ALL corporations exist for profit is wrong. Period.