Did Lenin mess it up?

Did Stalin forever tarnish the entire system?

etc etc etc

 

Your views

Well, Russia was never communist. It was State Socialist. That Lenin & Trotsky buggered up the revolution is without doubt.

 

But then again I'm dubious to whether it's possible to have a revolution that doesn't leave things worse. I can't think of a single revolution in history that hasn't in the short term made thinks considerable worse.

 

Communism seems to work well in the few places it exists. Such as Israeli Kibbutz.

 

A) Russia was an agrarian society

B) Lenin argued all power to the Soviets, which in reality didn't happen.

 

Hardly the communist paradise the rhetoricists spout out is it?

 

At least, I believe the enterprise should be communist NOT THE STATE!

 

Private enterprises should be communitaries, something like the cooperativism with steroids.

 

The state should be democratic, always.

 

Pinguin

 

 

 

 

 

 

But socialism is a branch of capitalism.

 

Capitalism is a method of dividing society along non-meritous aristocratic lines where birth is worth more than talent. And then once this system has been created, maintaining it that way to the detriment of the fitter.

 

 

Communism was first theorized by Karl Marx. He introduced many wonderful and brilliant ideas He introduced many ideas that were great... but he, like many idealist, did not explain how some of his ideas were possible. For instance, he believed that all workers would rise up and with their determination, goodness and will to make the world better place, would successfully overthrow the elites and distrub all the goods equally to everyone.

 

 

The problem is people. Many, if not all, want to become superior than others. As Napoleon in animal farm once said, "Everyone's equal. It's just that some are more equal than others." Mankind's nature of jealousy and their sincere will to become better than others would prevent any classless utopia that Karl Marx predicted. Granted, some may be kind and sincere, but the problem is that much of world's population want wealth, freedom and popularity. Knowing that people would get same wage regardless of how much they work... it is natural for the workers to get lazy. So what if they produced 3 AK-47 instead of 7 as requested? They would still get the same wage. Who cares if I got 20% in the Chemistry 30? I would get same apartments with similar wage as the person who got 98%. It's not worth it...

 

Perhaps strict and controlled education for everyone might make communism a step closer to reality...

 

"All Animals Are Equal, But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others."

 

                                                - Napoleon, from Animal Farm

 

 

Isn't this similar to what Latin American states like Venuzela and Bolivia are doing?

 

I think Democratic Socialism is a better idea at least on paper than Soviet Communism was.

 

Communism has had huge benefits especially to Europe, our social state, national health service, state education and other state functions are direct Communist policies. The people have benefitted from this, the workers have strong Unions, better wealth equality measures were bought in and so on.

 

There are aspects of Communism which are fantastic but also those which are questionable and pretty destructive.

 

I think the Latin American brand of Socialism will be more sucessfull than Soviet Communism and have a greater impact.

 

For example, in Brazil 99% of the wealth is held by 1% of the population, this is an example of the problems of capitalism. Thus the masses will naturally be attracted towards socialism.

 

However, socialism also has to adapt, it's criticized for being oppressive, effectively a dictatorship, an enemy of religion, humanity and faith where we are viewed as robots.

 

 

 

 

Spoken like so many when confronted with the simple reality of a flawed and and failed system. 

 

Not true. The only resources in the world which is finite is the natural resources, and the world hasn't yet reached a point where this becomes an issue (at present there is enough natural resources to supply economic avtivity, even with the recent boom in China). Labour fundamentally equals the number of users in an economy so it shouldn't be an issue unless it is made an issue through artificial interference. Skilled labour is limited and this is what both systems address in its own way. A capitalist system will result in the remuneration for skilled labour being higher, attracting more entrants into that area. In a communist system the centralised authority will attempt to manage skilled labour in deciding where entrants are needed and facilitating the entry into the market of said labour force.

 

To say that if the US gets richer, someone else needs to get poorer is untrue. Where there is a situation which could be regarded as unfair, is where markets have been artificially protected (as with the agricultural sector in Europe and the steel sector in the US).  

 

 

 

Labour: Africa

Cheap Food: South America (high tech production)

Manufacturing Imports: China+India

 

What else?

 

 

Which is the reason why it's so hard for a poor nation to get back to the top. That's why we call German, Korean and Japanese economical recovery miracles.