communism in a nutshell

please explain it

You see, Communism is rule of the workers. I work, therefore I rule.

>>1 barack obama

The idea is that everyone should share the wealth equally.  Everyone works and everyone earns the same.  Theoretically this system involves "rule of the workers", in other words, very little government.  There are several problems with this.

1) Whatever organization is in charge of distributing everything equally becomes the defacto government and has extreme powers whether it is supposed to be the government or not.  This is why many communist nations end up with dictators.

2) You can't count on everyone contributing equally to society.  Some people are disabled and some are lazy and will exploit the system.

3) Few people will want to make the effort to become medical doctors or engineers when they will get paid the same as laborers who did not have to spend lots of time and work really hard to gain their skills.

This system has still popped up around the globe because it can be made to sound quite good on paper even though it tends not to work in reality for the above reasons.  It also sounds really good to poor people living under very oppressive regimes such as in Russia before the revolution.  The most successful communist nations are the ones that mix some communist ideas with capitalistic ones like in China.

A political philosophy which identifies the problems of class and the state and attempts to figure out how to achieve a classless stateless society, the general conclusion reached is that society should emphasize direct democratic local governments called collectives for dispute resolution and that everyone should equal say in the running of the economy as though everyone is a shareholder. Marxist-Leninism of Soviet Russia and Maoism are generally not considered "true communism".

It is presumed there is a certain level of dedication to the cause in the political culture of a communist society, democracy can only last as long as the people want democracy, so in the same way that democracy is dependent on it's society it is assumed communism is possible if society is changed to suit it.

I am not a communist, I am not a foaming at the mouth communist-hater either, I hope you can appreciate my concise unbiased answer.

>Marxist-Leninism of Soviet Russia and Maoism are generally not considered "true communism".

"No True Scotsman" fallacy sighted and saged.

>>2
>You see, Communism is rule of the workers. I work, therefore I rule.

Is that what slaves tell themselves when their master cracks that whip? Come work for me, comrade. I needs more free slaves that work for free.

Being considered state property is cool! Communism FTW!

>>7
The core problem with this is that in order for the views of millions of workers to be represented a bureaucracy is needed and bureaucrats have leg room to be incompetent or apply their own agendas and get away with it.

The issue here is not pretending these problems do not exist in some zealous haze of utopian ideology, it is to find better alternatives and minimize these problems as a logical pragmatist.

Does communism fit the bill with this stance? It certainly deserves to be filed away in a library, perhaps though it is time to build upon what we have learned and move on from Marxism.

Communism is a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

The most familiar form of communism is that established by the Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution of 1917, and it has generally been understood in terms of the system practiced by the former Soviet Union and its allies in eastern Europe, in China since 1949, and in some developing countries such as Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea. Communism embraced a revolutionary ideology in which the state would wither away after the overthrow of the capitalist system. In practice, however , the state grew to control all aspects of communist society. Communism in eastern Europe collapsed in the late 1980s and early 1990s against a background of failure to meet people’s economic expectations, a shift to more democracy in political life, and increasing nationalism such as that which led to the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Why is communism "bad"? It's not bad, that is a lie perpetrated by greedy, crooked people who exploit fellow human beings. There is nothing "un-American" about communism, unless "American" means a bunch of modern corporate bullshit. The economic system of the United States is outlined nowhere in the Constitution. In the Declaration of Independence we have the words "union" and "welfare" though.

>>6

In >>4 I wasn't trying to say that the Soviet Union and China were practitioners of true communism.  My point was that historically attempts to establish true communism end up failing because people are to greedy to institute it properly.  Large groups of people will not just get together and share everything equally.  So the state ends up haveing to step in to enforce this. This tends to lead to a system that is not actual communism.  Thus communist movements have historically failed in their infancy.

>>9
>Why is communism "bad"? It's not bad, that is a lie perpetrated by greedy, crooked people who exploit fellow human beings.

A lie that has been proven true in every case it has ever occurred in history. Communists hide behind class warfare as a Trojan horse to create a dictatorship based off the idea that you're going to give them equality in exchange for being turned into state property.

They will make you free by turning you into a slave. They will make you wealthy by making everyone equally poor. They will protect you by taking your liberty and rights away. This is what commie fags really want.

They want to do anything they want without you having any say in it. This is how Communism actually works in real life. This is called a dictatorship. People wouldn't want that so you try to pass it off as some deep and complex ideological bullshit. Thus, Communism is the great LIE. 

Dear selfish and greedy fuck...go fuck yourself and your lies.

>>9
>There is nothing "un-American" about communism
An overwhelming state that owns everything everyone produces and assigns it back to the people based on their perceived "needs", regardless of whether anyone has earned anything or not, is not un-America?

>>12
You are correct.

>>9
Isn't it obvious? They believe the way to help the poor is by collectivizing everything under some centrally planned bureaucracy.

Not sure what exactly is a mystery to you here.

>>1
Well, "in a nutshell," communism shall be explained.

In practice, communism is collective or otherwise public possession (and operation) of the "means of production," such that the fruits of labor applied via these means flow "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," among the citizenry and participants, while seemingly no expectation of transferring these means to another group or a specific individual exists among them.

>>15
That sounds more like theory than practice. For communism in practice try Maoist China, Mugabe Zimbabwe, North Korea, Khmer Rouge Cambodia or Stalinist Russia.

>>16
That is the problem with Communists. They ignore the practice and regurgitate the propaganda for the theory.

>>4
Also, communism allows social mobility (at least in theory), as opposed to (other) oppressive regimes that will tend to find some way of stalling (or even outright banning) it.

Not to mention that in a «classless society», there are (again; in theory) fewer social strata to spend time and effort climbing in the first place.

>>16
To partake in the described action is to partake in communism. To do anything otherwise is not to partake communism.

>>19
All attempts to partake in communism result in totalitarianism. Try again.

>>20
Any related "totalitarianism" is contained purely within the operation of capital, otherwise the situation is not communism.

I see a lot of Americans say "our country" or "our economy". How is it "your country" and "your economy" if the institutions you are referring to are privately owned? Because it happens to be located on particular soil? Well guess what, it's owned by a kike or chinaman.

>>22

So unless it's owned by the American government it's not American?

>>21
So all attempts to partake in communism result in a situation that is not communism, I think you finally understand what's wrong with communism.

>>24
The coordination, organization, governance or order of the very operation of capital is arbitrary, and as such can potentially be rather regimenting of the workers' uses of capital or presences within facilities, according to collectively (likely democratic majority) ordained terms. There isn't actually anything "totalitarian" about it in the strictly autocratic sense, save for the possibility that dictators are to be democratically or meritocratically, elected or appointed to oversee (or help oversee) the operation of capital or the distribution of goods produced therefrom. The idea that the subjects under this system are to have no authority whatsoever as in the case of true totalitarianism, isn't by any means to be met, because each "subject" has equal discretion over the common capital.

I already know what is wrong with communism. However, I've not discussed it.

"Totalitarianism" is communism but with a promise that it's for the greater good. Naturally, once the communists have control, the greater good is whatever they want it to be. 

Kinda like the way the Truth is whatever liberals want it to be.

>>1
There really is no ``communism in a nutshell''. The so-called ``communist states'' that existed were in actuality, socialist. Very authoritarian socialist. Take some time from your day and read articles on marxists.org and you should be able to gain a better understanding of Marxism and communism.