Excuse me if i sound silly or dumb but i want to understand this.

How come in my studies of history, and reading through these boards i always get the feeling that communism is regarded as bad? I mean it's not just that i get the feeling, it's calling people a 'commie' and so on.

Anyway i always thought it was a good thing. Because to me communism means sharing money with all the people and putting it back into the community, creating equality. How does it mean you will live in fear of poverty or that violence needs to be used to control the people of a communist country?
I mean i know that Cuba is a communist country and with my own researching ive learnt they even have their internet restricted, have shitty hospitals and freedom of expression is restricted.
But why do you HAVE to control the people so harshly to make it work? If people wanted communism then wheres the need to be so harsh and controlling?
If it cant work for a whole country as my learning has taught me, my question is why? Couldn't it work for a small community who all wanted it? (I've read of an experiment where it's like that i think it's in India if i can remember what it's called or anything i'll post it) Because to me it is a good idea, the idea of sharing everything. But of course with a greedy leader it would never work.

Also - why does communism mean no individuality? Why cant you be an individual? Whats stopping people from being themselves, i don't get the criticism so please enlighten me so i can learn something. I've always felt that if everybody's goal were to become strong individuals we wouldn't have a strong community, in the end we all belong into some group whether that be our family, community or country.

I think i'm done now, excuse me if i seem to ramble or seem naive. But anyway - opinions and explanations please.

Communism is in theory a decent idea, as it usually means that each will work according to their ability and each will receive according to what they need. However, Karl Marx's idea was that communism was a goal and in order to acheive it there must be an uprising of the working class. As well as a struggle (this turns into the idea of socialism) and the struggle would be violent before it became good.

Through out history many countries have adopted their own means of communism, and in many cases it has been with large amounts of people. In communist china many ideas ended up being repressed as philosophy and art were viewed as harmful during the Cultural revolution. Another problem with communism is due to not really gaining much from working people often weren't inspired to work hard. In the soviet union it was difficult to get items that were needed and people had to stand in long lines in order to get basic necessities.

Perhaps the idea of having communism on a small community may work, but certainly using it with a larger group of people and under a dictator it has not been the best system of government.

Communism is bound to happen, that's all I need to say. With all the revolutionized means of production all exertion of labor will be minimal; making it subordinate at the biggest form. So does the value of the bourgeoisie conditions of productions with the constant commercialism of such means of production. The bourgeoisie won't be able to keep the proletariat as a thread anymore, therefore abolishing a necessity in the bourgeois mode of production. Revolution is the response of the worker (note: not reaction, response).

All those prejudices that Communism is bad are all according to the controlled bourgeois media (and its true: who controls media - rich people), they would like to retain their wealth, won't they? But all the Cuban and Soviet revolution demonstrated is revolution without the zenith of bourgeois development - fatal against the proletariat revolution.

Workers of all lands, unite!

well...I don't even know what communism is.
soo...?

quote:

Originally posted by applefan:
The problem with communism is that you need a leader in order to regulate goods and services. And then you need money to take care of the goods and services. But there isn't supposed to be a leader in communism.

The next part is hard to explain but it has happened in every isntance of communism to date.

Soon a leader becomes powerful who the people flock to for guidance. The people become convinced that the leader is just helping them. But the leader always has become corrupt and has gained so much power the people are helpless.

Leaders are necessary. That's why communism doesn't work. You should read the book Animal Farm by George Orwell. Very good explanation.

Unfortunately, you're suggesting fascism. Facism is defined by strong faith in a supreme leader, the idea that there is a elite class within society that can guide the lower classes. This flies in the face of most historical examples, where fascism (and a strong central leader) fails.

(If you need a quick set of examples, Pinochet in Chile, Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany, and various short lived dictatorships in Africa and South America.

Corporatism (the economy based on what you're describing: a strong leader or government directing a capital based economy) has only really worked out in Post-War Japan.

If you're using Animal Farm by George Orwell as an argument against communism, you know very little about George Orwell himself, who was an avowed socialist, almost borderline communist. He used 1984 and Animal Farm to warn against dictatorships and the tyranny of the proletariat, just as Marx did.

You're also mistaken on how many instances of "communism" there has been. There is a vast divide between any traditional branch of communism, be it Trotsky's version or Marx's version, and what was put in to practice.

Very few people remember that Lenin came in to power by putting Capitalists in place to boost Russia's industry, something Marx never purposed. It's also forgotten that Stalin actually increased class tensions by referring to classes of Russians as lower then they actually were, such as the argratarian farmers known as the Kulaks.

Most references to modern day communism, are actually the furthest thing from it. Perhaps the closest thing we can call communism would be Cuba. However, Cuba is more acuratly described as a bastardized form of socialism, not communism.

Leaders are not necessary either. In fact, most western nations focus on the exact opposite: Leaders are not necessary to the survival of the state, they're only useful. Such is nature of democracy.

quote:

applefan you said it.

I know people in communist China that if they believe a certain religion and if the government finds out they will come in and at first will give them warning, but then after I don't know how long the police comes in and starts taking them to jail.

Like applefan said it sounds good in theory, but it really isn't.

China isn't communist. China is a socialist-capitalist hybrid that switches between the ideals of Mao and the new bursting capitalist economy that's industrializing China. How you manage to fit communism in to a market/capital based economy.

People seem to have misconceptions about communism, so I'd like to remind people of a few pieces.

1. Communism is about class equality. Any organization that aggrevates class inequality is NOT communist.

2. Leaders must inherently create an elite class. Therefore, any society with a designated leader that speaks for the whole of the society can not be communist.

3. Communism must therefore be inherently democratic, as the only way to have direction without a leader is through democratic process.

I have heard about this religion that believes in an idea called the Law of Consecration. Essentially this is law is what communism was based on. The idea behind this law is that everybody believes in a single faith and religion and so they are all interconnected. This fixes a major problem of communism: lack of motivation. The motivation comes from a mutual respect, if not love, for the others in the community. And also, as has been stated, somebody has to regulate the money and supplies, and since every person of this religion believes in the prophet and believes that he has divine right to be in charge,therefore the problem of jealousy and greed are lessened. (they do not disappear and probably never will disappear from the face of this earth.) If every person is willing and capable of performing their lives unselfishly, and this is important- and nobody gains anything more than what they need to live- then communism is a viable system and can be considered "good." However, in every communist society to have been constructed so far is doomed to fail, because the leader (usually a dictator, if not always) has complete power for the country. He has more money and power, which defies the very structure of integrated living, and therefore when the people decide they want him to be destroyed because he has more than them, when they do rebel and the dictator is destroyed all the power and money of the economy gets destroyed with him. Causing the downfall. Tell me what you think. This is just my take on all this.

i think comunism is one of those things were it looks good on paper, but not really in the real world. it could work if we have a honest society with little corruption and an abundent supply of nesesities but we can never have neither. also, no one is equal. lets face the facts here, we all caNT BE EQUAL on a physical or mental level so a totally equal society cannot work.

Personally, I dislike Communism.

Communism is idealistic but in reality, if you look at it it doesn't really work. For example such countries like China and Russia, the people are still suffering, not really the happiest people on earth aren't they.

The people don't have freedom, no motivation. The idea of everything being balanced and equal seems like a great idea but it has its downfalls like things in money. If you as a doctor gets paid the same amount as a janitor. What would you feel? A lot of communist countries are suffering, personally I don't really like it. You can't have individuality. It's not exactly the best thing for me.

applefan you said it.

I know people in communist China that if they believe a certain religion and if the government finds out they will come in and at first will give them warning, but then after I don't know how long the police comes in and starts taking them to jail.

Like applefan said it sounds good in theory, but it really isn't.

Communism in theory is good. Everyone and everything is equal, with no government to interfere. Everyone has equal power.

The problem with communism is that you need a leader in order to regulate goods and services. And then you need money to take care of the goods and services. But there isn't supposed to be a leader in communism.

The next part is hard to explain but it has happened in every isntance of communism to date.

Soon a leader becomes powerful who the people flock to for guidance. The people become convinced that the leader is just helping them. But the leader always has become corrupt and has gained so much power the people are helpless.

Leaders are necessary. That's why communism doesn't work. You should read the book Animal Farm by George Orwell. Very good explanation.

To add to what a lot of people here have said, communism would only be a hindrance to the people if the government is not making enough revenue to share among its citizens.Example Cuba.Although russia is doing well because she make lots of funds from Oil.

Communism is more wrong than right.

Sharing money isn't bad its just that in a communist society people are paid the same so there is no difference between a doctor and a garbage man. Understand that I'm not saying that either is better. I just think that some people work harder then others and deserve to keep their money. I believe in helping those less fortunate but I don't agree with helping those who won't help themselves. I don't think communism is bad or good. Depending on who you are you may like it or hate it. I don't like communism and i never will. But if others do, Best of Luck to ya.

any extremism is bad, left or right

quote:

Originally posted by therat:
COMMUNISM IS NOT BAD. IT IS ONLY PORTRAYED AS BAD BECAUSE ALL THE POLITICAL FAT CATS ARE TOO AFRAID OF LOSING THEIR JOBS.

PEOPLE WHO BLINDLY ACCEPT THAT COMMUNISM IS WRONG BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN TOLD SO, SHOULD TRY AND THINK FOR THEMSELVES, AND THEN FORMULATE THEIR OWN OPINION.

all caps is cruise control for COOL!

communism is "bad" because it doesn't work. it promotes laziness and no one is motivated to work hard for same as someone who doesn't. its only seen as a good idea in countries that are over run with poverty, where people are scraping up a living with whatever they can find and along comes communism and gives them everything they need. but in any country where poverty isn't the majority its not a benefit.

But isn't the price of gold tied to the market?

At any rate, coins and currency are meant for paying debts. When you buy food, you owe the merchant money. You can use cash to settle that debt. Wealth really means nothing unless you use it to buy things. In other words, if you have $500 million, that simply means you have the ability to settle debts totaling $500 million.

Modern legal tender is really nothing more than a form of bartering. Instead of shells and beads, we use bits of paper and stamped metal. As speed said, it has no intrinsic worth. Only when it's actually used to trade for something does it matter.

quote:

Actually those pieces of paper are related back to resource based wealth, the standard of course being gold. In the majority of cash systems 1 unit of currency = x amount of gold. Now it's a given that man has been using gold as a form of currency since we found the stuff, modern currency is an extension of that, with the change that I don't need a mule/several servants to haul my wallet around for me.

Ok, get your wallet out of your pocket and pull out a dollar bill. Study it carefully. Where does it say it's redeemable in gold? It doesn't, it's legal tender, meaning it's value is intrinsically tied to the market's variations and the worth that we are willing to give it, it doesn't have a fixed value that can be translated to gold.

quote:

Originally posted by therat:
COMMUNISM IS NOT BAD. IT IS ONLY PORTRAYED AS BAD BECAUSE ALL THE POLITICAL FAT CATS ARE TOO AFRAID OF LOSING THEIR JOBS.

PEOPLE WHO BLINDLY ACCEPT THAT COMMUNISM IS WRONG BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN TOLD SO, SHOULD TRY AND THINK FOR THEMSELVES, AND THEN FORMULATE THEIR OWN OPINION.

Now, if you're gonna say something, make it count. Please tell us what your formulated opinion actually IS; we can all learn from each other but posts like this aren't convincing anyone.

It isn't bad, and true communism is not controlling or fascist at all! I'ma break it down simple for ya right quick:


- Communism is the equal distribution of wealth.
- Wealth includes personal autonomy, which is also political power. Thus, communism requires equal distribution of political power.
- The only pure form of equal distribution of political power is a direct democracy--no representatives, because they have the ability to wield power over those that elect them.
- A direct democracy, thus, is not a government because it's not a foreign power. It's just the people; it's a anarchy.

It doesn't mean no individuality or anything like that. The society just needs to have ALL voluntary members.

CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL! Seriously move your finger 7/16ths of an inch and turn it off. This will result in you not looking like a complete moron from the get go. Now as to your actual post...

quote:

IT IS ONLY PORTRAYED AS BAD BECAUSE ALL THE POLITICAL FAT CATS ARE TOO AFRAID OF LOSING THEIR JOBS.

To start the political fatcats actually have a far more stable life under communism. At least any communism that's been succesfully implemented on this planet. Have you ever heard of "the party"? yeah that's the political fatcats only they have unlimited power to control the people and you can't vote them out of office.
The power of the politician lies in the power of his goverment, communism is all power to the goverment, instead of in a democracy/republic where the power (for the most part) is with the people.

quote:

SHOULD TRY AND THINK FOR THEMSELVES,

Yeah you should work on that and actually read some historical texts about real communism instead of just parroting some BS that I'm willing to bet you picked up from one of the "cool" rebels at school. I'm also willing to bet that I've read more Marx then you have.

quote:

It's what allows you to feel empathy and identify with others.

Hmmm sounds like a waste of space, not to mention one of those purely social relations you were speaking of.

quote:

that certain pieces of paper are worth a lot of work, effort, and tangible physical goods.

Actually those pieces of paper are related back to resource based wealth, the standard of course being gold. In the majority of cash systems 1 unit of currency = x amount of gold. Now it's a given that man has been using gold as a form of currency since we found the stuff, modern currency is an extension of that, with the change that I don't need a mule/several servants to haul my wallet around for me.