Is communism really bad? Watch

Aeolus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#41
Report 8 years ago
#41
(Original post by arabcnesbit)
Read this

Once you are done you can move onto something that is better written, more substantial, and intellectually rigorous.

Like this perhaps....

0
reply
adam_zed
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#42
Report 8 years ago
#42
(Original post by Aj12)
Tell that to the millions killed by Stalin and Mao to try to implement the workers paradise.
Not to say that Stalin is a sweetie pie, but the figure of 64 million (I think ) that is attributed to him is a vast over-exaggeration according to the book "The Soviet Century". From what I can remember this figure apparently includes death by diseases induced by poor conditions (which I dont see any death toll attributed to any 19th Century Prime Minister of Britain during the Cholera epidemics?) and other natural deaths in order to beef the figure up. Not that this excuses the other millions of people whose death he was responsible for.

Also, I dont know about Mao, but Stalin completely twisted Marxism beyond Leninism (which I believe, correct me if I am wrong, to have been a distortion of Marxism only as in to adapt it to Russia's alien structure from which Marx thought would fall last) to his own ideology. Therefore using him as an example to exhibition to highlight the faults and weaknesses of Communism arent entirely accurate. Cant really say anything about Mao though except some lame joke about how it ruins sandwiches, teehehehehee.
0
reply
adam_zed
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#43
Report 8 years ago
#43
(Original post by Aeolus)
Once you are done you can move onto something that is better written, more substantial, and intellectually rigorous.

Like this perhaps....

Not often that TSR makes me laugh but damn this did the job!
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#44
Report 8 years ago
#44
(Original post by adam_zed)
Not to say that Stalin is a sweetie pie, but the figure of 64 million (I think ) that is attributed to him is a vast over-exaggeration according to the book "The Soviet Century". From what I can remember this figure apparently includes death by diseases induced by poor conditions (which I dont see any death toll attributed to any 19th Century Prime Minister of Britain during the Cholera epidemics?) and other natural deaths in order to beef the figure up. Not that this excuses the other millions of people whose death he was responsible for.

Also, I dont know about Mao, but Stalin completely twisted Marxism beyond Leninism (which I believe, correct me if I am wrong, to have been a distortion of Marxism only as in to adapt it to Russia's alien structure from which Marx thought would fall last) to his own ideology. Therefore using him as an example to exhibition to highlight the faults and weaknesses of Communism arent entirely accurate. Cant really say anything about Mao though except some lame joke about how it ruins sandwiches, teehehehehee.
Communism is very open to corruption and such. When you think that Communism calls for a transition through socialism which is basically a dictatorship. No one is ever going to let go off that power. As Stalin and Mao and a dozen others have shown.
0
reply
BakerStreet
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#45
Report 8 years ago
#45
Yes.

/Thread
0
reply
Lewis :D
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#46
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#46
(Original post by adam_zed)
You are basically dismissing the ideas built and fine-tuned during one man's lifetime based on a clichéd criticism. I think Marx would have accounted for such evolutionary considerations. I dont see why a people united after years of oppression and practical slavery, willing to shed the unregulated capitalism of which the workers of industrialized nations in the 18th/19th centuries had to suffer, isnt viable?

Also surely your suggesting that nature creates a higher class also renders egalitarian ideas in which countries such as America were based on?
Chillax, I only asked a question, I got my answer so you lot can stfu now
1
reply
Aeolus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#47
Report 8 years ago
#47
(Original post by Aj12)
Communism is very open to corruption and such. When you think that Communism calls for a transition through socialism which is basically a dictatorship. No one is ever going to let go off that power. As Stalin and Mao and a dozen others have shown.

Remind me how capitalism was nurtured and established as the dominant economic model?
0
reply
arabcnesbit
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#48
Report 8 years ago
#48
(Original post by Aeolus)
Once you are done you can move onto something that is better written, more substantial, and intellectually rigorous.

Like this perhaps....

Well it's better written than her novels I thought.

What would you recommend I read to make me realise the error of my ways and turn me into a devout communist, apart from the afore mentioned title, "It hurts when I poop"?
0
reply
Joinedup
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#49
Report 8 years ago
#49
I think it might work with very small commune sizes where people voluntarily and wholeheartedly opt in.

The kibbutz were sometimes refered to as working examples of socialism.

apart from that it's going to be just horrible I'm afraid.
0
reply
adam_zed
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#50
Report 8 years ago
#50
(Original post by Lewis :D)
Chillax, I only asked a question, I got my answer so you lot can stfu now
Chillax? I wasnt angry.

You made a thread making a point and asking a question. Why react so badly when people answer?

(Original post by Aj12)
Communism is very open to corruption and such. When you think that Communism calls for a transition through socialism which is basically a dictatorship. No one is ever going to let go off that power. As Stalin and Mao and a dozen others have shown.
The same can be said of any system. Stalin and co were meant to be nothing more then the Vanguards of the proletariat in order to assist the transition into a system that had more in mind the urban likes of Prussia and Britain when it was being written, rather then the peasant populated Russia. It is true that this position can be exploited but how many countries have adopted a "democratic" system yet refused to let go of the executive function and instead pass legislation to give them more power. As we see not just in recently democratic countries, making the transition into a liberal capitalist society having previously had little exposure to the system, but also established systems like ours and more so places like Italy, corruption exists everywhere.

If you are going to use Mao to counter my points, please elaborate on your use of him as I have no idea about China.
0
reply
Fusilero
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#51
Report 8 years ago
#51
(Original post by Aj12)
Communism is very open to corruption and such. When you think that Communism calls for a transition through socialism which is basically a dictatorship. No one is ever going to let go off that power. As Stalin and Mao and a dozen others have shown.
Socialism, or the stage of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", doesn't refer to classical authoritarian dictatorships as we understand them today but rather to distribute political power to the hands of the producers i.e. the Proletariat rather than the holders of capital i.e. the Bourgeoisie in order to distribute the products of labour in a more fair fashion, dismantle the framework of the dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie and set the framework for an eventual communist state. It is a republican and constitutional concept of leadership, in the Roman sense, of a social class rather than of individuals or parties.

You're confusing that with the idea of the Vanguard Party proposed in Leninist ideology, which is not a universal ideal in regards to Socialist thought, and has shown to be a flawed concept throughout history - as Stalin, Mao and a dozen others have shown. The idea of self-appointed revolutionaries answerable to no one, to me, always seemed rather too messianic.
0
reply
sucess
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#52
Report 8 years ago
#52
its good in theory but its messed up by corrupted leaders
0
reply
Silent-Varjoisa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#53
Report 8 years ago
#53
(Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
Why do you log onto TSR, and then take apart a political doctrine with 2 embarassingly simple lines?

I mean let's just stop and think... do you think that Lenin, Marx, Kropotkin, Bakunin (I know they're Anarchists, using it interchangeably here), Engals, Gramsci, Lukacs all these incredibly intelligent men, it never occurred to them "Oh it just can't work, hurr durr, people naturally take charge, we is so stupid for not knowing this!" :rolleyes:

Do you really not think they don't address these issues? Do you think in the whole of the collected works of Marx, there is no reference to this? Do you really? :facepalm:

In short, Marx states that capitalism is the ideology that perverts men. Men are not inherently greedy, selfish, domineering etc.. they're perverted by capitalism. He points to pre neolithic men, before capitalism, before the concepts of money... where everything was just collectively shared. I think it's in the German Ideology (it's been a while since I've read Marx) where he discusses how men are perverted by capitalism into being selfish etc... you manage to break away from capitalism, and eventually you can escape these ideas about taking charge, avarice, jealousy... these are all bi-products of Capitalism, man himself is inherently benevolent. Furthermore, you may not think you can't escape capitalism but you can, you have a false-conciousness. Your material life informs your ideology; "Conceiving, thinking, the mental intercourse of men, appear at this stage as the direct efflux of their material behaviour... Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life". < German ideology.

Remove the capitalism, your false conciousness goes, your ideology goes, man will no longer be selfish and individualist.
It all boils down to your interpretation of human nature; personally I think that people are selfish creatures although with the innate ability to work together to further their own aims through society. Which involves a hierarchy so pure communism can never work. Those political theorists you listed are of course a lot smarter than me, but we have the ability of hindsight and we know that communism in the end failed. What more proof do you need?

Oh and pre neolithic men did not share out food equally for example the chief got the most etc.

Mostly just lurking interested in the subject and I am looking forward to more interesting arguments from both sides.
1
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#54
Report 8 years ago
#54
(Original post by Silent-Varjoisa)
...

Oh and pre neolithic men did not share out food equally for example the chief got the most etc.

...
Is there any particular research which has brought you to that view?
reply
Camlon
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#55
Report 8 years ago
#55
Communism is not a good idea and do not work. Part of communism is the belief that punishment and reward is wrong. People shouldn't work because of punishment and reward, but they sould work because they want to contribute to society.

Lets say we implemented communism at home. If your kid did something good like cleaning the house, he should get no reward. If the kid is causing trouble, then he should get no punishment. This would cause the kids to be out of control. Some people think that when kids turn 18 they suddenly become different and don't need punishment and reward to work. That is bull**** and therefore communism will never work.
2
reply
Silent-Varjoisa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#56
Report 8 years ago
#56
(Original post by Oswy)
Is there any particular research which has brought you to that view?
I won't profess to be an expert but ancient civilization really fascinates me, and is part of the reason I want to do Archeology at university so therefore I've read quite a bit on it. They've found found evidence of property in archeological sites from the Near-East: for example the finding of granaries inside houses points to the possibility they were owned by wealthy individuals.
0
reply
username196545
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#57
Report 8 years ago
#57
(Original post by Silent-Varjoisa)
It all boils down to your interpretation of human nature; personally I think that people are selfish creatures although with the innate ability to work together to further their own aims through society. Which involves a hierarchy so pure communism can never work. Those political theorists you listed are of course a lot smarter than me, but we have the ability of hindsight and we know that communism in the end failed. What more proof do you need?

Oh and pre neolithic men did not share out food equally for example the chief got the most etc.

Mostly just lurking interested in the subject and I am looking forward to more interesting arguments from both sides.
That's a very Hobbesian approach, ofc it boils down to points of view, however I don't believe yours is correct so hey ho.

And we don't have the benefit of hindsight, Marx was writing like 150 years ago, very little has changed since then. We're not in some post-Communist stage are we? Communism didn't fail in the end because we've never had Communism; it was never implemented properly, it was never Communism, we do not have hindsight at all. The World today is very similar to the one Marx was writing in; massive disparities of wealth, booms and busts... I see limited change.
reply
JW92
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#58
Report 8 years ago
#58
In a Capitalist society, I spend my money on the goods and services that I want. In doing so, I reward the clever people who made those goods or provided those services and I indirectly pay wages and create jobs. Everyone wins.

I don't understand how people can think Communism is a good idea even "in theory".
2
reply
Silent-Varjoisa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#59
Report 8 years ago
#59
(Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
That's a very Hobbesian approach, ofc it boils down to points of view, however I don't believe yours is correct so hey ho.

And we don't have the benefit of hindsight, Marx was writing like 150 years ago, very little has changed since then. We're not in some post-Communist stage are we? Communism didn't fail in the end because we've never had Communism; it was never implemented properly, it was never Communism, we do not have hindsight at all. The World today is very similar to the one Marx was writing in; massive disparities of wealth, booms and busts... I see limited change.
I've read communist manifesto and yes there were parts I agreed with, and course not much has changed there is still huge differences between wealth and so forth. But communism will never be implemented properly because of man's nature, which can't sadly be changed.

Also in what way did I give you the impression I am a follower of Hobbes's ideas?
0
reply
Fusilero
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#60
Report 8 years ago
#60
(Original post by Silent-Varjoisa)
I won't profess to be an expert but ancient civilization really fascinates me, and is part of the reason I want to do Archeology at university so therefore I've read quite a bit on it. They've found found evidence of property in archeological sites from the Near-East: for example the finding of granaries inside houses points to the possibility they were owned by wealthy individuals.
Granaries also point to post-Neolithic Revolution societies, by which point hierarchies, personal property and other various tools that would eventually form Capitalism emerged in an early form as a side effect of civilization. I believe Marx's ideal goes before this, to early communes at the start of the Neolithic Revolution and before.

Not to mention a Granary inside a house doesn't indicate that the owner of the house wouldn't share the grain, merely that his property also happens to hold grain.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (249)
38.97%
No - but I will (44)
6.89%
No - I don't want to (47)
7.36%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (299)
46.79%

Watched Threads

View All