Communism is stupid. It has repeatedly attempted to abolish the traditional 'pyramid' of society by consistently doing everything it can to retain control at the top to 'protect' communism. But democratically communists could never win, because nobody is going to (and evidently isn't) voting for a regime with such a dreadfully bloody history of oppression ahead of a parliamentary democratic party (even most dodgy ones).
This itself makes communism an impractical idea since, due to its unelectability, it can only be brought to power through additional violence. Additionally, communism itself was based on a series of reactionary values dating all the way back to industrialising Europe in the revolutions of 1848 and a stupid (and evidently wrong) concept of 'class struggle'.
'Class Struggle' was central to the Communist cause. Without it, communism would no longer be 'inevitable', nor even necessary if the middle class could grow. Marx supposed that the ruling Imperial classes would attempt to crush the middle class 'bourgeousie' (itself an outdated concept, an overgrowth of the beaurecracy of the middle ages in which literally 'middle-men' in towns would acquire wealth by professional carreers as merchants and so on) which represented a threat to their cause. The middle-class, along with the disaffected proletariat would then attempt to overthrow the ruling classes. But that's never enough to allow the proletariat to gain power since the middle classes gain power instead. Which puts the proles back to the bottom of the pyramid.
The communists, obviously, planned to change all that by launching a proletariat revolution. This was supposed to occur in developed economies. But this did not occur since the middle class grew in these and the middle class was satisfied by parliamentary democracy and the basic but fulfilling standards of living they enjoyed.
Communism was thus based on principles as an anti-Imperialist reactionary movement based on 19th century, industrialising societies. This is clearly no longer a relevant political persuasion, so why do communists bother?
The Fabian Society (as an example, hundreds of similar organisations existed) was founded in the 1880s to oversee the implementation of a socialist reformist agenda rather than one forged, rather pointlessly, by incessant bloodshed and political repression.
Communism is a dead cause.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-07 8:42
I almost forgot to mention, I am a socialist reforme and firmly believe that the socialist reformist agenda is the way to go, until a better, stable, lasting government solution (such as an AI-governed utopia of perpetual bliss) is found and reliably brought into being.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-07 9:34
duh
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-07 9:36
Also socialism is as fail as communism, the Germans tried it and look what happenned.
>>3
I didn't want to state the obvious, but couldn't avoid it because what I really meant to show was how obviously flawed communism really is by its most important principles and that it's an appaling embarrasment for so many people to continue to support it.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-07 19:29
>>5
Oh you know, just that whole WORLD WAR 2 thing.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-07 20:11
You know, no one actually believes in communism anymore.
It's just that they way things are now doing work is no fun.
Yes, the average man bends over and accepts his fate, however, we radicals are VERY lazy people and refuse to do anything unless some conditions are met under which we believe that we might get in the mood to work.
This is true for communists and anarcho-capitalists alike.
You'll never find a working class guy who knows something about either marginalism or the labour theory of value.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-07 20:32
>>8
Marginalism or the labour theory of value are autistic levels of analysis based on a few idiotic assumptions. Everyone from hedge fund investment consultants to shitpot cleaners know that communism is just statist assholery, perhaps college boys are able to define it a little more clearly but it's pretty obvious to anyone in any level of society. Only deluded college boys who've never had to face reality believe that shit, most of the peasants who joined in these revolutions in the past didn't give a flying fuck about socialism, they just wanted to get on the good side of these thugs rampaging across the country.
There are 2 types of college boys who study humanities. Those who study economics, management studies and law. Then there are those who study liberals arts, sociology and [insert arbitrary unimportant demographic here] studies. I'll leave you to figure out what I meant by college boy in both instances.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-08 5:17
Communists seek to abolish both CLASS SOCIETY and the STATE APPARATUS that preserves CLASS SOCIETY - the most advanced the human race has come in terms of socialism is leninism (the idea of a "vangaurd" party overthrowing the "bourgoisie" and establishing a state -- based off of select writings of marx -- which is sometimes treated as scripture in leninist parties -- which is totally RETARDED.)
I do agree however, that most people aren't ready to be unplugged from out current system of power and even when that does happen -- they are more than likely to become nutto conspiracy theorists. (i.e. RON PAUL FAGS)
The OP clearly is still PLUGGED IN to the current system of power -- depending on grants, money from parents, maybe petty employment at a fast food or chain restaurant -- whatever -- to eventually get a degree and climb to the corporate ladder of positions -- maybe if he's lucky he'll secure a managerial position -- OH BUOY!!!!
Communism isn't about "elections" it's about REVOLUTION and the establishment of a classless state.
Btw, Einstein was a socialist.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-08 5:19
>Communism isn't about "elections" it's about REVOLUTION and the establishment of a classless state.
I mean, a classless society... not a state -- in communism there would be no formal state with parliaments, congresses, etc -- as it exists today.
Capitalism is 5 people tossing the other 15 overboard on a boat that can hold 20 people.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-10 9:14
>>13
Von Mises and Murray Rothbard. Probably the only lovable kikes there are though.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-11 0:24
>>15
more like 3 and 15, with the other two kept as slaves
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-11 0:29
If capitalism becomes rampant it is the fault of the people for not organizing to cut down government and corporations when they need to. Public schooling is also a big factor in unchecked corporations.
>>20
If the boat holds 20, there's no need for 5 to "survive" over the 15 being tossed to the sharks. There's a difference between survival and prosperity. There is an implied right to life, well over the lack of right to profit.
... you fucking Randroid piece of shit. :^)
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-12 0:50
>>9
Yes, definately, the Russian Civil war proved that above all else with the Reds only winning by offering farmers possibly more power than the Whites (who would simply go back to the crowded near-feudal farm system in place beforehand)
>>11
Corruption and inequality is a practically inseperable part of human nature and consequently so is the pyramid that results
>>12
Then how are large and important decisions made? Without consensus it would quickly become an abusive tyranny and making the entire classless society's political processes decentralised would be pretty well impossible
>>18
Extra public involvement wouldn't change that much, I believe. Even in countries that have made voting compulsory (Switzerland, Australia, maybe some others) there are still issues with large sections of the public having no idea what they're doing (many clueless idiots vote for parties well opposite their own views)
>>21
Bad metaphor, for a world of 6 billion people with more problems than you have cells
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-12 0:53
My main point is still that it's an embarrasment for significant numbers of people to be supporting a system that makes less sense than Christian Totalitarianism and Republicans on crack combined
>>28
There is some truth in what you say, but not much. There is nothing natural nor sensible in the market today. Fraud is utterly rampant. The disregard for the more normal features (tribalism, nationalism, social expenses) is creating more poor people per second than ever achieved in the world. In short, modern Capitalism CREATES the poor, since it requires a large base of poor upon which it may feed.
Since corporations now pay ZERO attention to their social formations, their corporate immunity should be REVOKED. We'll see how long after that that the elite within them continue dumping costs upon society at large.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-13 2:49
Communism fails because humans are not prepared for it. We've all got a lot of growing up to do before such a system can succeed.
That being said, I think it could work at some point in the distant future. With advances in robotics, A.I., and nano-technology the means of production will be largely automated. If we can find a way to make the most out of our resources, or mine minerals and water from asteroids most goods could be cheap enough to distribute freely. Though I imagine some form of population control would be necessary.
Still, above all other things, people will need to be educated and spiritually aware. If the vast majority of people are smart enough to know what's good for themselves, and still care about the good of others, communism will finally work.
But I wouldn't count on it anytime soon.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-13 22:46
>>30
>Still, above all other things, people will need to be educated and spiritually aware. If the vast majority of people are smart enough to know what's good for themselves, and still care about the good of others, anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism will finally work.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-14 1:32
>>31
That's true too. But if/when manufacturing becomes dominated by robotics a lot of people are going to be with out jobs. And it's not like we can all be artists or white collar workers. At some point capitalism won't matter anymore. It won't even be practical because everyone will realize that fiat money is essentially worthless. But again, not for a very very long time.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-14 12:41
spoilers: real world in not a tv show
it'll NEVER be like star trek where humans can replicate absolutely everthing they need