A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

Straight from dictionary.com. See: COMMUNISM ISN'T NECESSARILY BAD. Ooh, but how the youth of America is raised to hate communism without knowing what it is. Thank goodness I was exposed to the true meaning of communism before I did anything stupid. The reason people think communism is so bad? When communism is practiced, the leader/dictator figure is usually not obeying of the theory and takes advantage of the position in power they've been granted. Communism is something that works very well in theory, but not necessarily when put to action. The idea of communism itself isn't something to hate or fear. That's why they said "A theoretical economic system". Now learn all of you, or I'll make you read the Marx excerpt with the extended metaphor that goes on and on and on. You don't want that, do you?

I know fully well what communism is, which is precisely why I am against it.

Any ethical system that puts the society in front of the individual is not beneficial to the individual. We are a society of individuals, society has no rights, people do.

I knew plenty well what communism was, but then again a lot of people do not. They are the morons.



My opinion anyway.

I understand what communism is perfectly. However, I think why so many people are opposed to it is partially due to propaganda, but also partially because in the past, systems that attempted communism (although, I understand, from a Marxist-Leninist standpoint, most of these countries really didn't *achieve* communism) failed pretty miserably. Personally, I think it is a brilliant concept but that it doesn't work due to people's inherent greed. *shrugs* Or maybe I'm just cynical.

Every instance of communism on a country scale has been hijacked since the start, but it's not the fault of Communism, it's because of the methods used to attain it, namely revoltion... It's very hard to protect it in its early and vulnerable form.

Unfortunately, I really don't see the communist party being voted in anywhere any time soon.

I believe Socialism, which is really the unattained theory behind communism, doesn't put the state in front of the individual, they don't particularly preach the virtues of free thought, but no where does it mention the party stifiling civil rights or appointing leaders. Socialism is an economic system, the social part has always been made up, and leaning to the right, not the left, which isn't in the spirit of socialism is it?

Communism could work, could be good (even though I don't entirely agree with it) but sadly the method of introducing communism isn't always good and .. causes it to fail almost from the beginning, even if you don't know it. Saying that though there are instances of countries where communism works.. I suppose.

I shouldn't post this since I don't know enough but hey.

I am a новый коммунист, which is the ideals of communism minus the corruption and racism etc.

I believe we can have an equal world, and that communism can work.

P.S вниз с капиталистической пеной!

I really don't like the idea of the state having complete control of the economy. So I'm not going to be voting Communist any time soon.

Then why are you are called 'CommieBastard'

Taken out of context, and with the addition of the word 'rich', doesn't this sound very much like the Bush Administration? Ironic really, isn't it?

Yeah, and if I didn't believe in gun control I'd fly over to Washington and shoot Bush right now.

I once was called a commie bastard in an argument, and I liked it, so it stuck.

[COLOR=gray][SIZE=1]

Say what?

You don't know what a новый коммунист? And you say you know what communism is, puff!

That, and I was confused by the fact you stated communism was racist and corrupted. Really. Tell me more.

Communism rewards slackers just as much as those who work extremely hard sometimes.

This is covering the corrupt, and most communists are homophobic etc.

What homphobia? Communism preaches equality for the workers. There is no racism either. the bourgeouisie are not a race, they are a class. The communists are just as self-serving as the capitalists. The only difference is capitalism doesn't punish you for being rich by means of the government.

When I say capitalism, please keep in mind this is laissez-faire capitalism, for no other kind exists. A "mixed economy" of socialism and capitalism is socialist in degree. It is not capitalist if it is not completely capitalist.

For those of you who simply weren't smart enough to learn the Cyrillic alphabet for the purposes of this discussion, that says "Noviy Communist". That means "New Communist", a term which has never previously existed. No matter, if you say something in a foreign language it must be taken seriously.

Now you are seeming my way. How about joining the party?

I'd prefer keep my individuality, thank you very much.

Watch out, or the party will vaporize you

I think people are against communism because in history it hasn't worked at all, and it goes against some principles many of us believe in, such as free enterprise. Communism in theory could work, but I still think greed would cause most of the communist society to become equally poor.

One step ahead of you, I'm a party member in good standing



See?



Bah, you think you Bolshevics are misunderstood? Spare a thought for us Anarchists

As the founder of the new-communists, I greet you.

I'll start work on the sign.

Doesanyone know where you can get a decent pic of Kirby?

What exactly makes you different from the old communists?

I never knew they were divided into "new" and "old" communists. I also didn't realize what starting this topic would do.

Вы говорите по-русски?

Или, является этим притворством - сделать Вас появитесь умными?


Why do communists have to speak Russian anyway? Marx war der Schöpfer des Kommunismus, muss Kommunists Deutsch jetzt sprechen? Then there's the People's Republic of China...
_________________________

There are many different forms of Communism, and none of them have ever really fully taken off on a Nation-wide level. State / district level communism has occurred in various guises at different stages in history (eg. in some southern states in India in the 80s and 90s, and more recently in Nepal).

You've got pre-Marx socialists, Marx and Engles' approach to Dialecticism and the eventual stateless pure communist society as the ultimate synthesis... then you have the Russian take on things with Mencheivsm vs Bolchevism, the rise and supremacy of the Socialist Soviet - the splits between Leninism and Trotskism, and then Stalinism (which has more in common with Fascism than Communism - ie. one supreme leader / dictator ruling over the elite - the communist party who carry out his wishes and then the Soviet / masses who are just there to give support and follow the leader's orders), whilst this is going on we have revolutionary communism in Vietnam and Cuba (with ideological splits between Che and Castro), Maoism (as opposed to Stalinsm) in China, and the unpleasant mix of Maoist and Stalinist tendencies that forms North Korean communism. There are the multitude of European and Developed world communist groups that seem to borrow from any of the above systems, and then you have the rise of USSR influence throughout the developing and third world, with Asian, South American and African communism rising slowly throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s.
_________________________

So - what is Communism?

You can start up your own version easier than starting up a small company or business. You just take a couple of basic ideas (preferably from someone slightly famous - to get a bit of credibility), get as many people to sign up and off you go... revolution in the making comrades!

I've had a brief look at the multitude of socialist and communist ideologies that are out there, and some are quite odd (like an obscure form in the congo during the late 80s that mixed Marx's teachings with the gospel according to Mathew), fortunately - others tend to follow a more standard set of values / rules.

A common thread between most of them is:

1. the belief that only their form is the right form;

2. the belief that only their form of communism is going to overturn the capitalist oppression (which is the same the world over);

3. the belief that the revolution is comming soon, so we must all do what we can to bring about the overthrow of the capitalist oppressors and take power;

4. the belief that it's all very simple and easy...

It is because of this common thread that most of these systems do not have a hope in hell of achieving anything more than a noisey protest march or two at the next anti-globalisation rally.

The communist groups that have any chance of getting anywhere are far more realistic, pragmatic and cunning. The communist regimes in Yugoslavia, Cuba and Vietnam weren't as hap-hazard in their assumption of power as their counter-parts in Russia or China. They took power after careful and realistic planning and then through systematic revolution. They avoided the infighting that led to the fall of the Socialist government in Spain at the hands of Franco and Hitler. They used a simple message without over-simplifying the revolution. They waited for the right time and then siezed power without dithering. And they sought help from capitalist countries as well as other Soviet regimes...
_________________________

So - gothictheysay - it isn't just about old and new, it's about a key belief that seems to vary from person to person.


Your dictionary definition is only partly correct however... Communism does have a simple core message - that the workers are being exploited by the ruling middle class who are in power, and that this should change somehow... Marxist teachings, as adopted (in word, though not in action) by most other forms, explains that the Proletariat should only hold power in a dictatorship until any threat of counter-revolution passes. The idea is that Communism = a stateless society - where there is no authoritarian power base, where everyone enjoys collective ownership and there is only a proletarian working class. So why hasn't this ever been the case?

That's why.

And yes, Communism has been misinterpreted, partly thanks to the excesses of Maoist and Stalinist Communism, thanks also to the Cold War (and it's hot points esp. Vietnam and Cuba), and also thanks to the fear of the Capitalist Democratic West that has long feared the upset of balance that communism could bring.


This is a total overgeneralisation... have you actually met every communist the world over?

Yes, under Mao and Stalin acts of intense racist hatred were prepetrated in the name of the Soviet - but neither Mao nor Stalin had anything to do with communism, did they?

As Sir Max says - there's nothing within Communism to suggest either Racism, Sexism or Homophobia... The prejudices within Communism are towards the bourgeoisie middle class, the aristocracy and monarchy.

*bows* I think we all needed that. All my respect to you. Would you like a coffee or something?

Yes, but all the communists I've met are homophobes, but it is probably a thign around here. The ideals of communist are not for this, but how many Christians have NEVER-EVER sinned? You see things are changed (like my communism).

Fine, then you know homophobic communists. That does not mean communism preaches homphobia and you have provided no evidence other than hearsay to support your claim. My incredibly right-wing friends are homophobic too, but does that mean that extreme rightism(American super-patriotism/nationalism) preaches homophobia? No, of course not. You can be a homophobic communist, the same was as you can be a brown-haired Nazi. It's not ideal, but it's possible.

I'm just learning about Communism this year. And I'm seventeen. Sad but true.

Sure, communism is a great idea, it just doesn't work.

Well, it hasn't so far, you mean.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Communism has and does work, just not in groups as large as countries (especially not large ones). The Essenes, the group of Jews that Jesus was most likely a part of, were early communists (not exactly like 'actual' communists, but relatively close), though I don't know if they still exist. There are small communist communities even in the USA (well, as communist as you can be when under a capitalist government), and they do fine.

Communism works, just not on a large scale.

I assume gerbil you mean the kibbutzim in Israel and New Harmony type places in America. These places are not communist. Communism is Marxian socialism. Stalinism, Maoism, Leninism, any dictator with an "ism" behind it is not communism, but their own version of socialism. Marx would not call these places communist, utopian socialist yes, but not communist.

Whenever I think of communism, I think of the monty python bit with mao and marx and lennin competing in a game show. Really what it shows is that the majority of goverments, no matter in what form, are farcical in some way and mistaken in many.

The general message here seems to be that while communism is workable in theory, human corruption leads to its mishandling. While this is true for all governments (in my opinion), warped versions of communism/socialism/etc often open the door to genocide and poverty. (Need I bring Animal Farm into this?) However, for all those promoting democracy out there (democrazy) and capitalism with it, it may be pointed out that those systems allow for dictatorship as well (wasn't even Hitler voted into office, hm? and I need not name *cough* current names), and stratefy the social structure on top of it. I choked on my tea this morning watching the news--there are people out there with bloody gold doorknobs while several blocks away sits a little colony of cardboad boxes. If democracy and capitalism are so ideal, why do they allow that?

also, this needs be said. the UK--USA--etc--do not have a democracy. most modern "democracies" are actually republics. thank-you.

It is ideal because it maintains freedom. I have no obligation to the cardboard box resident, why should I have to pay for him? True capitalism allows for that, socialism does not. For me it is a question of ethics, and I find socialism morally wrong. Then again I feel the same of democracy and more so republicanism.

I'm a socialist man myself, I think it would do us all good to put the good of the people (NOT nessisarly the state) ahead of some of our more extravagent luxuries.

In the states at least, we have no social conscience. As long as people get their SUVs and 214 channels they don't give a damn about anyone else. We could achieve so much if we only worked together.

But, I rant. Perhaps I'm an idealistic flower child.

*raises fist drunkenly* f**k capitalism!!

I disagree whole heartedly. We are implored to give to charities in television commercials, religious institutions, etc. Judeo-christian tradition has lots of social conscience, not something lost in the states. Yes, we are selfish, but not fully so. Why do you feel obligated to help those who will give you nothing in return? Why should I be forced to against my will?

grabs guitar
*Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya...*

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, lets not fight. Wait.. almost out of alchohol.

I have no wish to fight. I merely wish to engage in debate, as this is the issues forum it is rather appropriate.

I wonder how many Americans woke up and said "today I will send a child in Rwanda 10$"? Or is it more of a American watching a commercial of starving kids Rwanda playing in human waste while they watched on a three hundred dollar TV connected to a five hundred dollar surround sound system, sitting on a six hundred dollar couch, in a three hundred thousand dollar house with a thirty thousand dollar SUV in the garage, wearing a fifty dollar outfit that was made in a sweat shop where the child labor was paid two cent a day??? Do you have to give someone something in return of nothing? No... should you though? That is up to you.. But as a responsible citizen of the world that wears the outfit made in sweatshops, who drives the SUV that consumes our natural resources... maybe you do have a responsibility. We are all interconnected. The computer you are typing on could not be made without someone who created the components to build the circuit boards….you are connected to the farmer that grew the food that person ate to gain nourishment to go to work and create the components. Every human is dependent on another human you have never met for one thing or another, unless you live in the woods and are self sufficient and if so I doubt you will be in this forum. So maybe in that aspect you do owe something to these people..

so what makes giving to charity through the church good when you're against doing it through the state? why do you have to get anything in return? and what makes you think you don't?!

socialism isn't meant to be "giving against your will", it's about helping others 'cause:
a: it feels good
b: it's the moral thing to do
c: you never know when you'll need a helping hand

basically, its institutionalized favour giving. and call me crazy, but i think paying a little more at tax time is well worth the health care system, welfare, community schools, etcetera that are available to me and my loved ones in exchange!

the way i see it, if everyone pitched in and helped those in need, nobody would ever need very much...

tommy douglas lives!

Using that logic can lead to a philosophical stalemate, what I call the realm of infinite possibility. If everyone affects everyone else, than anything you do can possibly hurt someone else. If we are paralyzed with fear of affecting someone else negatively w would all stand still and die.

To say we are all inter-connected is a potential romanticism. It's very poetic, but holds little water. If a Russian farmer dies chances are it won't have any big bearing on my life.

While American social conscience is much more guilt driven than anything else, so is the tenet of altruism as a whole. "Put everyone before yourself and if you don't give thou shalt be looked down upon and smitten for being selfish". My obligations to those who made my tshirt were made when I bought the tshirt. I paid the money, a small portion will filter down to them, I have taken part in a trade.

I am against government socialism. I am against societal/cultural (guilt driven) socialism. I am i favor of communal socialism (for those that do not know me I define community as a "codependant social group where the goals of one are the goals of all, where the individual and the society have the same mindset and are mutual beneficiaries of any actions"). Does this make me a communist? No. Communism falls into the socio-cultural realm, despite its name I do not recognize communism as communal.

You must have posted when I did, I'll address you now.Not for me I like my money.Says whom? Altruism? Altruism preaches putting society above you, it is counter-intuitive to the individual good. It is unfair that individual good and morality cannot happen at the same time.That seems irrelevant. If I help the homeless guy what are the chances that money will ever be reciprocated back to me? Nilch.I never said giving through the church was good. It is slightly better since I don't face jailt ime for not giving to the collection plate. Why do I have to get anything in return? Because I don't believe in burning my money away for a cause I don't necessarily believe in. I am against being pressured to give when I don't want to. Let's be realistic. The romanticized view of everything is connected is an oversimplification as I stated above. Rwandan children will have almost no affect on me. However when I don't give I have to suffer the guilt by watching those damn commercials.

I ask you all a question. What is so wrong with rational selfishness?

yes, your needs should come first, however i believe that the needs of your community should come above your wants. i figure if you've got a home and food in your belly it's really not going to do that much to your individual good to put some money toward the communal good.



no. the homeless guy is never going to give you anything in return. this isn't a barter system, this is a social safety net. that means that if for whatever reason you need to be hospitalized, or fall on financial difficulty, you will be taken care of. it's like a form of insurance. so unless you are absolutely certain that nothing bad is ever going to happen to you, it is a wise thing to invest in.



first of all, saving the children of rwanda isn't the issue here unless you happen to live in rwanda- as we are talking about socialism within the context of our own communities.

second of all, do you realize that if every adult that lives in a first world country were to give one dollar, just one dollar to the people of the third world that the third world wouldn't exist anymore?! but i digress...

look, it's really not that far fetched that everything is connected. the human world is just as connected an ecosystem as the natural one. you seem to view your interests as being separate from those of your community. unless you are a hermit (in which case, how the heck did you get an internet connection?!) then you are not. by giving to various social programs, you reduce the amount of poverty and therefore the social problems that go with them- such as crime. by reducing the level of crime, you are reducing the probability that you will be a victim of crime. you also increase the number of children that will graduate from high school and who will go on to get a secondary education. the more educated people in a society, the more advancements that society is likely to make. therefore, by improving the standards of living within your society, you are improving your own quality of living.



not a bloody thing. i just don't see capitalistic greed as rational.

a. Everyone has a different moral system. Also, you cannot simply state something is moral without giving reasons. Individual good and morality can happen at the same time, after your needs are fulfilled, you are not obligated to give, and there is nothing stopping you from catering to your wants next. However, if everyone did that, don't you think we'd be a lot worse off, or there would end up moreoever being two extremes within the world's society? It is one thing to have your needs come first and then your wants, but whether or not the needs or wants of other people come in anywhere is your decision. Personally, I don't think you have to dedicate your life to the needs and wants of other people, but that it is generally a good thing to contribute to the needs and wants of others.

b. In the terms of the "social safety net", giving a homeless guy money simply will not have much to do with how you are effected. It does not guarantee that if you are hospitalized or fall on financial difficulty that you will be taken care of. What are you doing is helping someone in that situation, which reroutes to my first point.

Again, you don't have to do anything in return, it is your personal choice. People could never be equal, but that doesn't mean a bit of help to them will upset the system.

Improving the standard of living within your society would not necessarily profit your own quality of living...I don't think that is always true.

It is very simple with me. I am an individual. I have rights. A community, on the other hand, has no rights. It is an abstract, nothing more than a group of individuals.

What it comes down to is this. You feel that society has the right to tell me what to do to an extent. When I ask why, (and this is from many people not just you or people on the board)I receive an answer along the lines of "because it is karma, it is for the common good, because you don't need the money". You are right, I don't need all my money. But, it is MY money, not anyone else's. I work for it, I buy goods and enact trades with others. Why I should be forced (either with threat of imprisonment or with social put-downs[for lack of a better term]) to give that money away? It is mine! I earned it! If I don't care about the "common good" I shouldn't be forced to care. Not in this world.

If you want to give to the poor, by all means go ahead. Good for you. But if I don't want to, I don't want to be ridiculed for it or put into prison. This world, my country, is far from co-dependant. Their needs and goals are not mine. They have NO RIGHT to impress their needs and wants onto me. None. When I went to a church service with a friend, even though I am no christian, I would have been looked down upon had I not given money. To quote Henry Reardon from Atlas Shrugged, "To hell with the common good". If the common good is not the indivdual good, the indivdual should not be forced to give to the commonality at his expense.

Hedonism is not rational selfishness. I am against hedonism, it is the mutant brother of individualism. Rational selfishness is looking out for ones own interests. Giving without receiving is hardly what I call rational.I have refrained form quoting the entire paragraph but it shall do with this line. I refer you to my point on the realm of infinite possibility. Using logic like that and bringing it to its logical conclusion would make you terrified to do anything except stand still. "What if I took the last cheerios box at the grocery store, and someone didn't lower their cholesterol enough, got a heart attack, and died. And maybe he would be the person to save my life. Woe is me.". That is the realm of infinite possibility, and if you take the inter-connectedness concept to its logical conclusion you come up with that.

When a student once asked a learned objectivist "What will appen to the poor in an objectivist society?", she responded "If you wish to help them you shall not be stopped". Now in an altruist society like our own, the reverse is not true. If I don't give, I'll be put in prison. Which one seems ethical and rational to you?

You will?

To sum it up, give if you want to, don't if you don't want to. It all depends on your moral system and beliefs. You have no obligation to giving or not giving; it all depends on your point of view.

Taxes my dear, taxes.

If I don't pay taxes(when I get to legal age anyway ) I can be imprisoned. The crime is tax evasion.

Well, isn't that a little different than giving to people below you (in wealth)? The taxes go to the government...I think...