Communism/Socialism/Marxism

    So, What is everyone's opinon on this? I belive you know where I stand. :)

In thoery communism is an ideological opposite to fascism.  But in practice it always seems to be the exact same thing.  Then again I find democracy, communism and fascism all part of the same movement...the mass movement and the worship by the people of the state via charismatic rulers they took to power.

I believe Marxism was in itself a good idea, which Marx rightfully considered as necessary to help the millions of people who were living in poverty and slavery to the kapitalist system. Its major flaw however was that Marxism is not workable in practice. Communism is an attempt to put it in prctice, and it horribly failed. Communism, I agree, is a criminal form of government.

Edited by Aelfgifu - 24-Jul-2006 at 05:02

Stalin's Soviet Russia was probably the only country which managed to be both socialist and fascist at the same time.

no, I mean actual socialists, who are in oppsition to the liberals.

Communism: an anachronistic economic system from the first half of the 20th century.

Socialism: Very wide body of ideas, some of which have been adopted by every nation on the planet. Eg, pension plans or unemployment insurance or worker's injury compensation, minimum wage, even regulations to curb inflation and guarantee reasonable prices for things like utilities, are all socialist in some sense. Almost all advanced, modern economies are mixed economies.

Marxism: An economic theory or critique. It helped establish some modern economic science (eg his interpretation of labour theory of value), is the inspiration behind communism and a few other things - eg, some of his insights are even used by investors.
    

Edited by edgewaters - 24-Jul-2006 at 09:41

The idea of socialism is a good one, and could probably work on a small scale in a situation where there were plenty of resources to go around and with people who believed in the system.

The main faults, in my view, are that some people are lazy and will refuse to work. Then they either get kicked out of the commune, which is tyranny and thus against the idea of communism, or they live there and are supported by the community. If the latter, then the commune runs the dangerous risk that more will follow suit, seeing that they can be just as well provided for if they work less - or stop altogether.

Secondly, some people like to lead and have Power, which isn't always a bad thing since sometimes people want to be in those positions because they think that they're able to make a difference. Fine and well, but in communism, this doesn't work. Everyone is completely equal. Thus one person might decide to force himself as leader on the rest of the commune. Hence, the system is destroyed as he becomes the "public" and all the property therefore belongs to him since he controls the commune by force. Bad joo joo.

Also, should a truly communist nation be subject to war, as wouldn't be unheard of if they're successful, a leader is required to lead the people successfully, lest the commune fall and its people be placed in bondage. Therefore a general is elected, who has under his control a group of armed citizens. This is naturally a dangerous situation since the general is armed while the populace is not, or if they are then the general has a much more organized force that isn't subject to vetoes and councils for every decision. The general, since he was elected is already popular, can conjure up a pretense and take power, enforcing it with his soldier since during war soldiers grow to be loyal and fond of their generals if they're successful. This situation can only be effectively met by electing a second general on behalf of the people to fight the renegade first. However, should the first general be shrewd enough, he could easily form a pact with the second and completely take power.

Finally, the system would fail completely if there was one item or resource that was limited. Let's say there was a specific tool which there was only one of and no more could be produced. Jelousy and anger would arise since people would always have to wait for the tool, and others may refuse to give it up in a timely manner since it's very useful.

In short, communism has too many If's to work successfully.

Originally posted by Red Russian Interesting Fact: Marx Himself Siad that Russia had no hope of ever becoming a true Communist state. He believed only industrialized nations could!

We can thank Lenin for that, since he made Communism the ideology of the people, rather than the proletariat.
    

Red Russian, I think you live in dreams. Communism will never return, its age is over. Like edgewaters already said above:

Originally posted by boomajoom The idea of socialism is a good one, and could probably work on a small scale in a situation where there were plenty of resources to go around and with people who believed in the system. The main faults, in my view, are that some people are lazy and will refuse to work. Then they either get kicked out of the commune, which is tyranny and thus against the idea of communism, or they live there and are supported by the community. If the latter, then the commune runs the dangerous risk that more will follow suit, seeing that they can be just as well provided for if they work less - or stop altogether. Secondly, some people like to lead and have Power, which isn't always a bad thing since sometimes people want to be in those positions because they think that they're able to make a difference. Fine and well, but in communism, this doesn't work. Everyone is completely equal. Thus one person might decide to force himself as leader on the rest of the commune. Hence, the system is destroyed as he becomes the "public" and all the property therefore belongs to him since he controls the commune by force. Bad joo joo. Also, should a truly communist nation be subject to war, as wouldn't be unheard of if they're successful, a leader is required to lead the people successfully, lest the commune fall and its people be placed in bondage. Therefore a general is elected, who has under his control a group of armed citizens. This is naturally a dangerous situation since the general is armed while the populace is not, or if they are then the general has a much more organized force that isn't subject to vetoes and councils for every decision. The general, since he was elected is already popular, can conjure up a pretense and take power, enforcing it with his soldier since during war soldiers grow to be loyal and fond of their generals if they're successful. This situation can only be effectively met by electing a second general on behalf of the people to fight the renegade first. However, should the first general be shrewd enough, he could easily form a pact with the second and completely take power. Finally, the system would fail completely if there was one item or resource that was limited. Let's say there was a specific tool which there was only one of and no more could be produced. Jelousy and anger would arise since people would always have to wait for the tool, and others may refuse to give it up in a timely manner since it's very useful. In short, communism has too many If's to work successfully.