communism - how it went wrong

AckwelFoley

I would like you to give that little speech to the thousands of cubans that flee the country in makshift rafts and die along the way.

Tell them how much better cuba is. :rolleyes:

Rossibaby

im not comparing cuba to ireland,im comparing it to countries with more likeness such as latin american countries.its a matter of opinion,but socialism is what i believe in and watered down socialists and capitalists are what i dont

AckwelFoley

Rossibaby wrote: »

im not comparing cuba to ireland,im comparing it to countries with more likeness such as latin american countries.its a matter of opinion,but socialism is what i believe in and watered down socialists and capitalists are what i dont

The world is a large place. I challange you to name one country in the entire world that has a hard left socialist government, and has a decent standard of living for its citizens, similar to western europeans.

1 rule, it must be a nation where the citizens are free leave the country as the please.

Have fun.

Rossibaby

do not presume i will go looking on google now lol....you little game will not endear me to change my views on socialism as i believe it is for the best for the people

AckwelFoley

Rossibaby wrote: »

do not presume i will go looking on google now lol....you little game will not endear me to change my views on socialism as i believe it is for the best for the people

lol, its not a game, im serious.

Just one country.

If you or anyone can show me a nation as described, i vow to vote for Sinn Fein / Green or the party of your choice next election

Go'on do it for socialism.. you could win a vote!

PeakOutput

from my understanding of communism its a great theory but will never work in practice.

from my understanding of anarchism its a great theory but it will never work in practice.

the reason why, in my limited knowledge, is that it dosnt take ambition into account people strive to improve if they feel they are going nowhere they will either stop trying = no productivity or do whatever it takes to improve their lot = corruption / criminality.

now you can say well if they do that its not communism or not anarchism but there will ALWAYS be people with the above mentalities in every community and i believe there will always be enough to ensure the models above will never work.

what does work is democracy. cuba has one good thing going for it that i can see and thats its healthcare system. it is a dictatorship however and i imagine if there was any chance of the dictator being overthrown by the people he would resort to the same tactics every other dictator does, if he hasnt already, submission by extreme force.

democracy works because it accounts for everyone. the majority hold capitalist ideals and therefore the countries are run as such. when the majority supports a leftist government ill think they are stone cold crazy but ill do everything in my power to make sure they have their leftist government.

Morlar

Rossibaby wrote: »

do not presume i will go looking on google now lol....

In soviet russia google looks on you ! Well not anymore as its not communist - the point is the internet in communist china looks on you.

Re the bet - the key part is 'freedom to leave'. If communism was based on freedom then the countries that have tried it would not have had to take measures preventing anyone from leaving. 'Utopia' shouldnt need walls and locks on the doors to keep people in now should it.

AckwelFoley

Morlar wrote: »

In soviet russia google looks on you ! Well not anymore as its not communist - the point is the internet in communist china looks on you.

Re the bet - the key part is 'freedom to leave'. If communism was based on freedom then the countries that have tried it would not have had to take measures preventing anyone from leaving. 'Utopia' shouldnt need walls and locks on the doors to keep people in now should it.

Well exactly..

Communism prevents people leaving to get a better life else where, because communism does not allow freedon, freedom of choice, freedom of expression, freedom to speak out simply because it doesnt work, so they need these laws to shut the people up and keep them in

@ PeakOutput, from your post, id say your knowledge is far from limited

Rossibaby

who do you vote for,blueshirts?

ejmaztec

Communism would only work if the whole world were under the thumb of one Communist dictator. The equality aspect of it would never work in any circumstances. The mere fact that there would be leaders would negate that.


Also, OP, Karl Marx was a crazy German/Prussian, not a crazy Russian.

brianthebard

snyper wrote: »

This is the smartest thing said in this thread so far.

Communism sounds great, however it kills people will to progress and work harder as there is no reward for extra effort, if there were, then all would not be equal.

People deserve to reap the rewards of their work. More you work better you do.

Communism in its ideal is made with the best intentions, but its fundamently flawed, and never works

Again that's a completely flawed look at communism, although it may be informed by people's opinions of why the USSR failed. There will still be reasons for people to work harder in a communist state, because if everyone works better, and the country produces more as a whole, then everyone will benefit more. It works on exactly the same principle as a capitalist state in that respect. Many people believe that communism means surrendering all individuality to the state and trusting that it will provide jobs, food, etc in return, but that is the complete antithesis of communism. As I already stated it is about communities running themselves. The central end goal of communism is to wipe away the very need for a centralised state power. Again I must reiterate that the USSR, Cuba and China, although they are frequently referred to as communist, are not and you will find that just about every leader in those states would/will admit to that.

Edit: for those that believe that communism prevents people trying to work harder, some socialists have theorised that the free market is actually a socialist ideal, rather than a capitalist one.

AckwelFoley

There will still be reasons for people to work harder in a communist state, because if everyone works better, and the country produces more as a whole, then everyone will benefit more. It works on exactly the same principle as a capitalist state in that respect. Many people believe that communism means surrendering all individuality to the state and trusting that it will provide jobs, food, etc in return, but that is the complete antithesis of communism.

1 example of a country where this is a success, and people are free to leave the country.

Give me 1 country in the world, and i will agree with you and vote Sinn Feinn in the next election.

Morlar

brianthebard wrote: »

There will still be reasons for people to work harder in a communist state,

There certainly are - if you dont you go to a camp or you get shot.

Whereas in a capitalist system if you work harder you can then afford better things for yourself not for your superiors or for your neighbours who are 'family-connected' to somone important and corrupt and lazy.

brianthebard wrote: »

because if everyone works better, and the country produces more as a whole, then everyone will benefit more.

This is the standard communist propaganda - I doubt this spiel has changed much since 1917.

brianthebard wrote: »

It works on exactly the same principle as a capitalist state in that respect. Many people believe that communism means surrendering all individuality to the state and trusting that it will provide jobs, food, etc in return, but that is the complete antithesis of communism.

I would like to see your evidence to back up this in a real life context.

brianthebard wrote: »

Again I must reiterate that the USSR, Cuba and China, although they are frequently referred to as communist, are not and you will find that just about every leader in those states would/will admit to that.

Your point here seems to be that people can not or should not criticise communism as practiced in China, russia etc on the basis of China, Russia are not 'perfect' examples of communism - but the fact is they are the most relevant examples in the history of earth and so therefore when judging communism in practice it is perfectly valid to take a long look at china, russia etc.

Thats just as silly as saying that 'you would be wrong to consider criticisms of capitalism as practiced in the united states' because the usa implementation has been subject to human flaw.

There is no such thing as a utopian ideal in real life everyday practice. We are free and correct to judge things on how they are not on how you think in an ideal universe they should or could someday be.

brianthebard wrote: »

Edit: for those that believe that communism prevents people trying to work harder, some socialists have theorised that the free market is actually a socialist ideal, rather than a capitalist one.

Who really cares what some socialists have theorised. Any idiot can theorise anything - your point here means nothing whatsoever imo.

brianthebard

The USSR, China and Cuba are only communist when people want to insult these nations. I've already pointed out why they failed to be communist. If someone was to set up a republic, but leave the monarchy as the head of state and not have democratic elections, would it still be a republic? Of course not! Just because something is lazily labelled one thing doesn't make it so. There's really no point in me arguing further until you can comprehend that simple point.

Gobán Saor

brianthebard wrote: »

The USSR, China and Cuba are only communist when people want to insult these nations. I've already pointed out why they failed to be communist. If someone was to set up a republic, but leave the monarchy as the head of state and not have democratic elections, would it still be a republic? Of course not! Just because something is lazily labelled one thing doesn't make it so. There's really no point in me arguing further until you can comprehend that simple point.

Fair enough, I agree that, in theory, these states are not what communism is supposed to be. However, isn't it the case that communism requires coercion to make it work? And the level of coercion required invariably leads on to totalitarianism, suppression of democracy and denial of human rights. Which brings us back to the USSR, China, Cuba and that favourite destination of Ireland's erstwhile stickies, The People's Democratic Republic (no less) of North Korea.:(

ejmaztec

I don't know why anyone would criticise North Korea after visiting their official website:cool:

http://www.korea-dpr.com/menu.htm

brianthebard

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Fair enough, I agree that, in theory, these states are not what communism is supposed to be. However, isn't it the case that communism requires coercion to make it work? And the level of coercion required invariably leads on to totalitarianism, suppression of democracy and denial of human rights. Which brings us back to the USSR, China, Cuba and that favourite destination of Ireland's erstwhile stickies, The People's Democratic Republic (no less) of North Korea.:(

Its true that most communists would probably believe in armed revolution, but if it were properly introduced communism wouldn't need coercion. If you look at the USSR, the soviets led a successful revolution but were then defeated in the polls, so Lenin took away the vote. When the Bolsheviks went against the popular voice they invalidated their position imo.

thusspakeblixa

I'm a believer in the Communist system (a Communist, if you will) and I think that discussing whether or not Communism has worked or not is irrelevant, because it has never been fully or properly implemented. Up to Stalin's takeover in 1924 Soviet Russia showed signs of ambition to become a true Communist state, but Lenin and Stalin both gave in and pandered to the whims of the Kulaks and Nepmen.
So yes, it could work, if implemented properly, it just hasn't been so far.

ejmaztec

thusspakeblixa wrote: »

I'm a believer in the Communist system (a Communist, if you will) and I think that discussing whether or not Communism has worked or not is irrelevant, because it has never been fully or properly implemented. Up to Stalin's takeover in 1924 Soviet Russia showed signs of ambition to become a true Communist state, but Lenin and Stalin both gave in and pandered to the whims of the Kulaks and Nepmen.
So yes, it could work, if implemented properly, it just hasn't been so far.

With corruption, elitism, abuse and human nature, it would never have worked.

Fratton Fred

ejmaztec wrote: »

With corruption, elitism, abuse and human nature, it would never have worked.

I think that's the key. Communism as a theory is great, but theories always presume a perfect world and this isn't.

Human nature is such that people are greedy and competitive, both things don't go well with "Pure" communism.

thusspakeblixa

I think, anyway, that Communism lends itself well to our altruistic sides. But it does only take one eejit to mess it all up for good.

Aedh Baclamh

That eejit being a communist?

thusspakeblixa

No more of a greedy bugger

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think that's the key. Communism as a theory is great, but theories always presume a perfect world and this isn't.

Thats bull. Communist theory, by its very existence proves that people do not presume a perfect world or else there would be no cause for communism. Have you actually read the manifesto?

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

Thats bull. Communist theory, by its very existence proves that people do not presume a perfect world or else there would be no cause for communism. Have you actually read the manifesto?

not in detail, no. but all people are not equal. Some are lazy, some are greedy, some are corrupt. How does communism tackle tose factors any better than a free market society?

Besides, I have spent many an evening with the socialist workers party to know that they would never be able to rule anything.

brianthebard

Equality is a concept to do with republicanism. Communism/socialism aims to create a classless state based on merit, not wealth or family.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

Equality is a concept to do with republicanism. Communism/socialism aims to create a classless state based on merit, not wealth or family.

But a free market economy creates the same thing doesn't it? work hard, do well and you'll prosper.

The problem I have with socialism, or perceived socialism, is when people try and use it to get something they have no right to get, such as masive pay rises by holding a country to ransom, or benefits from the state rather than working to earn a living.

I don't believe there is a perfect political theory, talent and ability should be encouraged but the less fortunate should not be ignored. Socialism has it's merits, as does capitalism but I believe neither work on their own.

--amadeus--

The simplest expression of Marxism, the one that it all boils down to, is:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

As a statement it's a little like the 10 commandments. I'm a rock solid atheist but I can't argue against the bulk of the 10 commandments because they are an excellent set of moral rules to live your life by.

Likewise the basic concept that people should contribute as much as they can to society as a whole seems pretty uncontroversial. And why should the idea that everyone - regardless of who they are - should have the basic needs covered be disputed? Do we not all have a basic human right to be treated with dignity and have access to a roof, food, security (education?)

And there seems to be a misconception that talented people are only motivated by money and material possessions. I suggest a quick read through the work of Maslow and specifically his hierarchy of needs. The ultimate motivator is self actualisation, the feeling that you are making the most of your talents and are respected for who you are and teh work you do. Socialism as envisaged in it's earliest and simplest incarnations was unique in that it offered this opportunity for self actualisation equally to all in society (all should contribute according to their abilities).

Where it all falls apart is that socialism really needs either universal or micro application. In a worldwide context with a central co-ordination of rare commodities (oil for example) and small communities bartering amongst themselves for the basics it is possible that communism / socialism (note lower case lettering) could prosper and be a healthier system than the current one. For a real world, small scale example of how it can work on a micro level read Venkatesh "Gang leader for a day" where he discusses how - in extremes of poverty - small collectives form where individuals with key skills combine to raise the standard of living for all.

So to answer the cynical question about a successful communist country - it cannot exist, which is why it doesn't. It's too big to work on teh one community level and to small to work universally, it must trade with other (non-communist) countries and so is prey to the capitalist free market.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

But a free market economy creates the same thing doesn't it? work hard, do well and you'll prosper.

The problem I have with socialism, or perceived socialism, is when people try and use it to get something they have no right to get, such as masive pay rises by holding a country to ransom, or benefits from the state rather than working to earn a living.

I don't believe there is a perfect political theory, talent and ability should be encouraged but the less fortunate should not be ignored. Socialism has it's merits, as does capitalism but I believe neither work on their own.

A free market can exist within the framework of socialism, again you are making points that show you don't know all that much about socialism tbh. Socialism is not about controlling the market, rather decentralising government and creating a classless meritocracy are the core aims. Almost everyone who has started their post with "in theory" has gone on to make points not connected to socialism at all. People seem to be assuming that socialism is about forcing everyone to earn the same amount of money and work in a factory owned by the state so that they can go home and eat food in pill form handed down by the glorious government. Thats not socialism people.

edit: excellent post amadeus.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

A free market can exist within the framework of socialism, again you are making points that show you don't know all that much about socialism tbh. Socialism is not about controlling the market, rather decentralising government and creating a classless meritocracy are the core aims. Almost everyone who has started their post with "in theory" has gone on to make points not connected to socialism at all. People seem to be assuming that socialism is about forcing everyone to earn the same amount of money and work in a factory owned by the state so that they can go home and eat food in pill form handed down by the glorious government. Thats not socialism people.

edit: excellent post amadeus.

As I said earlier, I spent time hanging around the Socialist Workers party and tbh, that was enough to put me off socialism for life. From what you say, even they seemed to miss the point of socialism. They did have avery active anti fascist contingent which is what attracted me to them in the first place but even they had trouble seeing the wood from the trees sometimes.

The socialist movement in Ireland may differ from that in the UK, but the SWP were very militant and their main aim seemed to be disrupting any form of free market. Almost along the lines of businessman bad worker good type lines.

That was 20 years ago as well, I dare say they have changed in that time.