Why would someone want communism?

[Aajj333]

Im not saying its bad. Im not saying its good. I just want to know why someone would want to live under communism?

[britishboy]

Im not saying its bad. Im not saying its good. I just want to know why someone would want to live under communism?

Why? Because they want an easy life? Want to destroy hard working citizens lives? Haven't really thought about it? No good reason.

[Harry Smith]

Why? Because they want an easy life? Want to destroy hard working citizens lives? Haven't really thought about it? No good reason.

Eh your worse than David Cameron with the 'hard working people' rhetoric.

I'd very much doubt that communism is at all about wanting an easy life-I mean I doubt the workers in 1917 deposed the Provisional government in Russia so that they could have an easy life.

I think that's why people wanted communism, wanted being the key work. Back in the 1910's/1920's there were hardly any working rights and the lower classes were being trampled by society

[Miserabilia]

Communism in it's essence is about equality and not allowing other people to be very poor while others strive and do nothing.

[Korashk]

The better question is, why WOULDN'T you want communism.

Communism is an extremely utopian idea and the only reason I don't advocate for it is because it can't happen.

EDIT: Basically, when I'm saying is that everyone should want communism because if everyone wanted it then it would work and things would be amazing. The problem is that because people don't want it it doesn't work.

[britishboy]

Eh your worse than David Cameron with the 'hard working people' rhetoric.


Heaven forbid you work hard! :o

[Vlerchan]

I'm with Korashk: why wouldn't people want to live in under communism. It would be utopian.

I don't support it because we are still at a stage in economic-development where the transition stage still has the potential to be disastrous.

EDIT:
Communism is an extremely utopian idea and the only reason I don't advocate for it is because it can't happen.
Do you find right-anarchy to be any less utopian?

I'm not asking about its workings here (that's another discussion) but rather its establishment: whilst unlike with communism and left-anarchy the foundations are already present in the form of the global capitalist system, where abouts does the support base for such a move come from?: big business owners get much more out of our current crony-capitalist system than they ever might out of free-market capitalism so you won't be able to count on their support and you are never going to sell this to working class people. It doesn't help that you'll need to pre-establish some form of dictatorship (or at least I've read this as espoused by David Friedman and Von Mises? - definitely Friedman) in order to bring about the reform of society, which will only take away from its already narrow appeal.

[tovaris]

A provocatine one arent you :) yor luckey im in a good mood not to start an entire monolog here ;) (thow other posters be warned).
But jeah its as simple as that the curent sistem has don its mission and we need to mowe on to socialism and than communism its as simole as that.

Why? Because they want an easy life? Want to destroy hard working citizens lives? Haven't really thought about it? No good reason.

yeah because those working in the stockmarket frowing some shity papers around are the ones who realy create welth not at all the people producing the corn, aluminium shoes etx they are selling and buing....
Think about it, people pay their enploiers to tell them to work faster and reduce their wage. Who produced the capital for the new machines? Who produced the capital for all the wages, the raw material, the marketing? Who poduced the managers extremly high wage?

[Sir Suomi]

It's an illogical style of government that is highly susceptible to corruption. It's nice to think about, but it'll never happen.

[Vlerchan]

It's an illogical style of government that is highly susceptible to corruption.
If a society is stateless then it by definition doesn't have a government. You are thinking of socialist command-economies here.

Even then, your criticisms about corruption-susceptibility is only worth considering if we presume that the command-economy is operating from a highly centralised format (ala the USSR or North Korea) as opposed to through a federation of regional or even local governments (workers councils, perhaps) - which would be much less susceptible to such, as well as that such a state would possess a reasonably unaccountable leadership. I'm also unsure where the generic 'illogical' criticism came from but I'm presuming its linked to corruption-susceptibility and so I'm skipping over it.

[phuckphace]

It's an illogical style of government that is highly susceptible to corruption.

seems like a disingenuous statement considering that in this day and age it's hard to tell if The Wolf of Wall Street was fiction or a documentary.

I'm not a communist, but I think it's funny when people deride it as particularly susceptible to corruption and then turn around and defend globalized capitalism. beyond the whole Stalin thing, it's difficult to find anything more corrupt than the current ruling class of degenerate crony capitalists.

[tovaris]

It's an illogical style of government that is highly susceptible to corruption. It's nice to think about, but it'll never happen.

one question... How is a sistem that knows no curency seseptible to coruption?
oh and a nother one: how is the curent sistem not corupt

[Sir Suomi]

If a society is stateless then it by definition doesn't have a government. You are thinking of socialist command-economies here.

Even then, your criticisms about corruption-susceptibility is only worth considering if we presume that the command-economy is operating from a highly centralised format (ala the USSR or North Korea) as opposed to through a federation of regional or even local governments (workers councils, perhaps) - which would be much less susceptible to such, as well as that such a state would possess a reasonably unaccountable leadership. I'm also unsure where the generic 'illogical' criticism came from but I'm presuming its linked to corruption-susceptibility and so I'm skipping over it.

seems like a disingenuous statement considering that in this day and age it's hard to tell if The Wolf of Wall Street was fiction or a documentary.

I'm not a communist, but I think it's funny when people deride it as particularly susceptible to corruption and then turn around and defend globalized capitalism. beyond the whole Stalin thing, it's difficult to find anything more corrupt than the current ruling class of degenerate crony capitalists.

one question... How is a sistem that knows no curency seseptible to coruption?
oh and a nother one: how is the curent sistem not corupt

The whole ideal of Communism is based on the fact that humans will act together as one in a Utopia-style world. This is quite frankly near impossible to happen. It's nice to talk about everyone acting as one big family, equally distributing resources, and working together. This actually works in a small group of individuals to an extent, i.e, Native American villages before Western invasion. But even there, someone was designated as a leader, and this leader oversaw everything, and in the end, it was his call on decisions. However, it's been proven throughout our history that trying to live like that with a larger population has been proven fruitless. The main reason is that some people desire absolute power, and obviously, it's been shown that many so called "leaders" have used Communism as their rallying banner in order to take absolute power over the masses. That is why I deemed Communism "illogical", and "susceptible to corruption".

By no means, am I calling Capitalism free of corruption. It's most certainly there, and it's a shame that it is. But face it, corruption, greed, and the lust of power occurs everywhere where large amounts of control are available. In Capitalism, you are still presented a chance to advance your way up the ladder to make yourself successful, when in Communism, that can not simply happen. That's why I favor Capitalism, due to the fact that it's the lesser of two evils.

[Typhlosion]

The greatest problem that I see with communism is the principle - equality. How can we have a society were everyone has access to the same things and rights as the others if not one person is equal to another person. What if one person has the ambition to have more than the other - no - people will have these ambitions.

[Dalcourt]

Communism as it is meant to be is a nice utopia but will never work with human beings, enough said.

[Gamma Male]

Yeah, I just can't see stateless anarcho-communism happening. Tribes and citystates would form, regional leaders would grow corrupt, and without the power provided by a centralized judical system crime would run rampart. People just aren't good enough for it to work. A much better alternative is moderate democratic socialism, like found in the Nordic countries.

[tovaris]

Yeah, I just can't see stateless anarcho-communism happening. Tribes and citystates would form, regional leaders would grow corrupt, and without the power provided by a centralized judical system crime would run rampart. People just aren't good enough for it to work. A much better alternative is moderate democratic socialism, like found in the Nordic countries.

your american right? Because i cant emagine enione else calling the „noric states” socialist... Especaly Now!

[Vlerchan]

This is quite frankly near impossible to happen.
It's important to emphasise the word 'near' here because it being impossible is nowhere near the truth: there have been working communes on Earth in the past, and there are working communes on Earth in the present, and there will be working communes on Earth in the future. I accept that most where small scale, but then I have never argued that it would ever be anything more than a web of interlinked small- to medium-scale communes in a hypothetical future.

However, it's been proven throughout our history that trying to live like that with a larger population has been proven fruitless.
Would you mind referring me to communism or anarchy as attempted on a large scale that didn't collapse as a result of exterior forces? Thanks.

it's been shown that many so called "leaders" have used Communism as their rallying banner in order to take absolute power over the masses.
Funnily enough, this isn't exclusives to communism. Regardless, to claim that attempts must fail in the future because of failure in the past is fallacious reasoning: should we have given up on democracy after Athens?

In Capitalism, you are still presented a chance to advance your way up the ladder to make yourself successful[1], when in Communism, that can not simply happen[2].
[1]: It seems like you are linking success to the size if your wage packet here: why is that?

[2]: This depends entirely on how you define success.

The greatest problem that I see with communism is the principle - equality.
Would you mind referring me to a Marxist theorist who ever claimed equality was possible? I'm unaware of any: Marx himself declared equality of outcome and equality of opportunity impossibilities. The basis of communism is the liberation of man from capital - whilst near-equality might be a by-product of that, such does not mean it is what communism strives for.

Communism as it is meant to be is a nice utopia but will never work with human beings, enough said.
Please, do tell me more about these human beings.

Yeah, I just can't see stateless anarcho-communism happening.
It is just communism.

Anarcho-Communist is a label for individuals who want to skip the transition stage (socialism) and head straight for anarchy - sometimes advocating an collectivist system before advancing to communism. Regardless of means the end-phase is called communism.

Tribes and citystates would form, regional leaders would grow corrupt
There would be no regional leaders in communism. Or there would be no leadership in a formal sense anyway. Though I agree with the idea of regionalism's rise and consider it a valid criticism: though, before I disclose my own reasoning, I'd like to know yours.

and without the power provided by a centralized judical system[3] crime would run rampart[4].
[3]: There is no reason why a centralized court system might be needed as opposed to localised mediators, etc.

[4]: I doubt it. I'd argue that crime stems from social ills such as: poverty, gross inequality, discrimination, social exclusion, etc., and anarchists/communists feel that the elimination of such would drastically reduce crime. In a commune this elimination would becomes top priority. If crime persisted then citizens militias, etc., would undoubtedly arise to deal with such. Or, perhaps, a commune might elect a number of accountable officials to deal with it. There's a number of means, and I can't garuntee that any single commune might pursue any single one of them.

People just aren't good enough for it to work.
Expand, please.

[Dalcourt]

It's important to emphasise the word 'near' here because it being impossible is nowhere near the truth: there have been working communes on Earth in the past, and there are working communes on Earth in the present, and there will be working communes on Earth in the future. I accept that most where small scale, but then I have never argued that it would ever be anything more than a web of interlinked small- to medium-scale communes in a hypothetical future.


Would you mind referring me to communism or anarchy as attempted on a large scale that didn't collapse as a result of exterior forces? Thanks.


Funnily enough, this isn't exclusives to communism. Regardless, to claim that attempts must fail in the future because of failure in the past is fallacious reasoning: should we have given up on democracy after Athens?


[1]: It seems like you are linking success to the size if your wage packet here: why is that?

[2]: This depends entirely on how you define success.


Would you mind referring me to a Marxist theorist who ever claimed equality was possible? I'm unaware of any: Marx himself declared equality of outcome and equality of opportunity impossibilities. The basis of communism is the liberation of man from capital - whilst near-equality might be a by-product of that, such does not mean it is what communism strives for.


Please, do tell me more about these human beings.


It is just communism.

Anarcho-Communist is a label for individuals who want to skip the transition stage (socialism) and head straight for anarchy - sometimes advocating an collectivist system before advancing to communism. Regardless of means the end-phase is called communism.


There would be no regional leaders in communism. Or there would be no leadership in a formal sense anyway. Though I agree with the idea of regionalism's rise and consider it a valid criticism: though, before I disclose my own reasoning, I'd like to know yours.


[3]: There is no reason why a centralized court system might be needed as opposed to localised mediators, etc.

[4]: I doubt it. I'd argue that crime stems from social ills such as: poverty, gross inequality, discrimination, social exclusion, etc., and anarchists/communists feel that the elimination of such would drastically reduce crime. In a commune this elimination would becomes top priority. If crime persisted then citizens militias, etc., would undoubtedly arise to deal with such. Or, perhaps, a commune might elect a number of accountable officials to deal with it. There's a numberi of means, and I can't garuntee that any single commune might pursue any single one of them.


Expand, please.

Maybe if you think about why there are only tiny communes here and there that seem to work, or why all states that tried their hands on it never overcame the transitory dictatorship of the proletariat, then maybe you find out for yourself why it is an utopia that doesn't work with humans for yourself.

[phuckphace]

In Capitalism, you are still presented a chance to advance your way up the ladder to make yourself successful...

in theory, anyway.

the problem with this view is that it overlooks the human element of the equation (as all economists regularly do) and focuses solely on the amount of money one makes as the ultimate measure of some narrowly-defined "success." there's more to life than the numeric amount shown in the "Wages" box on your W2 form, or how many McMansions or cars or Apple products you can buy with that money.

in any case, it's not a realistic proposition for everyone in a given society to be a SU¢¢E$$FUL BU$INE$$ OWNER or INNOVATIVE ENTREPRENEUR. someone has to scrub the toilets, operate the cash registers and flip the burgers. capitalism comes with a number of obstacles that only a very few people will realistically hurdle, but won't deign to address the issue of what to do with those who don't (the "solution" is always "let them starve.") it's a good deal for business magnates to profit massively from and economists to draw graphs and jerk off to, but fails as far as being beneficial to society as a whole. if you adopt capitalism but don't take measures to counteract its drawbacks, you end up with...well...what we have now. and what we have is unsustainable at best and soul-destroyingly nihilist at worst.

[Vlerchan]

Maybe if you think about why there are only tiny communes here and there that seem to work[1], or why all states that tried their hands on it never overcame the transitory dictatorship of the proletariat[2], then maybe you find out for yourself why it is an utopia that doesn't work with humans for yourself[3].

[1]: Irrelevant to question. It's hard to operate on a model of mutual aid within a overarching capitalist system is the short answer however.

[2]: Perhaps if capitalist states didn't actively work to bring down post-revolutionary states then the revolutionaries wouldn't feel the need to concentrate power into the hands of the few and could actually operate a bottom-up system of proletarian democracy as theorised by both Engels and Luxembourg amongst others. Though again this is irrelevant to the question: arguing future impossibilities on past failures is fallacious reasoning as I pointed out earlier in the thread.

[3]: I've thought about past failings and the small-scale of current commune operation and not come to any definite conclusions on why communism is a eternal impossibility. Would you mind giving me that answer now?

[Stronk Serb]

[2]: Perhaps if capitalist states didn't actively work to bring down post-revolutionary states then the revolutionaries wouldn't feel the need to concentrate power into the hands of the few and could actually operate a bottom-up system of proletarian democracy as theorised by both Engels and Luxembourg amongst others. Though again this is irrelevant to the question: arguing future impossibilities on past failures is fallacious reasoning as I pointed out earlier in the thread.

Exactly. I wonder how the October Revolution would've ended if monarchists and capitalists didn't fight it. Same goes for Anarchist Ukraine.

[Vlerchan]

Yeah.

The buisness in Ukraine is the point in which the hope I held for progressive USSR begins to die. I would have been real interesting if the anarchist experiment had been allowed to continue.

[Korashk]

Do you find right-anarchy to be any less utopian?
Sorry, for the late response, but yes. Anarcho-capitalism isn't a utopian idea in execution.

I'm not asking about its workings here (that's another discussion) but rather its establishment:
I guess I could agree with that notion to an extent. Establishment of anarcho-capitalism in an already existent society is unlikely at best, which is why there are many movements within the ideology to congregate and establish our own societies and run them like we think that kind of society would run. They range from reasonable notions like moving to New Hampshire to unreasonable ones like building a floating island nation on the ocean.

It doesn't help that you'll need to pre-establish some form of dictatorship (or at least I've read this as espoused by David Friedman and Von Mises? - definitely Friedman) in order to bring about the reform of society, which will only take away from its already narrow appeal.
I'll admit that I've never read that notion espoused by the major anarchist philosophers, and it certainly doesn't sound like Mises. Not sure about Friedman though, I'm only familiar with Milton.

[sqishy]

Well, if tried without corruption, then I'd live in a communist system and see what it's like, nothing like the actual experience of something. Personally I don't see it as anything evil, yet, if I ever will.

[TheBigUnit]

People who are pro-communism tend to be underpaid blue collared people

[Capto]

People who are pro-communism tend to be underpaid blue collared people

Interestingly enough, the most popular stereotype of communists tends to be that we're all overpaid old money rich students who just want something cool.

[Vlerchan]

Sorry, for the late response, but yes. Anarcho-capitalism isn't a utopian idea in execution.
I don't believe that it's workings are utopian, it seems feasible enough - though I do have some doubts (competing laws jumps out), but I'm not supportive of it on the basis of finding its outcomes unfavourable. I'd rather sacrifice freedom for security, especially when its only freedom insofar as I can afford it.

They range from reasonable notions like moving to New Hampshire to unreasonable ones like building a floating island nation on the ocean.Interesting, I'd heard the idea mentioned elsewhere, though thought it was just a mad suggestion as opposed to the basis of a movement.

I'll admit that I've never read that notion espoused by the major anarchist philosophers, and it certainly doesn't sound like Mises. Not sure about Friedman though, I'm only familiar with Milton.
I was actually wrong on both counts here:/ It's been a long time since I bothered reading into libertarianism, though, in my defence.

It's Patsi Friedman, Milton Friedman's grandson, and not David Friedman, Milton Friedman's son, who opposed democracy, because libertarian candidates were always going to be unfeasible, arguing "Democracy is rigged against libertarians. Candidates bid for electoral victory partly by selling future political favors to raise funds and votes for their campaigns. Libertarians (and other honest candidates) who will not abuse their office can’t sell favors, thus have fewer resources to campaign with, and so have a huge intrinsic disadvantage in an election." (http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/06/patri-friedman/beyond-folk-activism) Which is fair enough, I think: democracy tends to be not well suited to electing anything beside centerism.

I was entirely off with Von Mises: whether I was misremembering something he said about Mussolini's Fascist state, or attributing Hayek's semi-appraisal of Pinochet's Chile to him, I don't know. Whilst I was scouring the internet for the Von Mises quote that never existed, I did come across this interesting character however: Hans Hermann Hoppe (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe), an anarcho-capatalist, who opposes democracy, and seems somewhat major from the quoted Rothbard appraisal.

[TheBigUnit]

Interestingly enough, the most popular stereotype of communists tends to be that we're all overpaid old money rich students who just want something cool.

Students is the key word

[Capto]

Students is the key word

Exactly my point.

[phuckphace]

Anarcho-capitalism isn't a utopian idea in execution.

of course it is. the original Greek word outopos itself means roughly "nowhere", and carries an underlying implication of impossibility. about as apt a description as you can get.

anarcho-capitalism isn't a plausible or even coherent proposal because it is based on a fundamentally flawed view of how people behave and how societies work. especially in the latter case; an-caps think society means "a bunch of people" and don't recognize that what holds true on the individual level doesn't always work when applied to groups, and vice-versa. I have long suspected that the vast majority of an-caps have sociopathic tendencies or autism, and really nothing else can adequately explain the basis for the profound detachment from normal human drives that they display.

this is further exemplified by their perception of the economy as a giant accounting ledger for which our sole purpose is to find the equation for maximum efficiency and presto!...everything will work out for the best. an-caps also don't seem to understand the concept or value of tradition and customs...everything that can't be reduced to a numerical sum of money or capital is pointless to them and must be thrown out.

Vlerchan noted that the outcomes would be unfavorable, which is putting it rather mildly...you're talking about an extremely radical abandonment of a time-tested way of life in favor of *BEEP*<RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST>*BOOP*. might that possibly introduce a number of negative externalities for which AC won't deign to address? "uh...<EXECUTING FREEMARKET.EXE>...there! should be fixed now!"

I could go on. really, there is nothing quite like AC when it comes to ideologies that are divorced from reality. you guys are more than welcome to attempt your very own IRL Galt's Gulch or Rapture, but good luck skirting around the whole "human nature" thing.

[Vlerchan]

To put phuckphaces response in non-hyperbolic:

Most Anarcho-Capatalists tend to hold an unusual religious-like faith in the 'invisible hand of the free market,' tending to argue 'Econ 101' in response to most criticisms: "free market ... free people ... innovative ... competition ... ad naseum." The problem Econ 101 presents, and economics as a science in general presents, is that it presupposes all individuals as 'rational actors', which is simply not the case, and that is where the ideology fails.

He sorta loses me at 'what about tradition!', and notions of 'human nature' (which I'd love to see supporting proof of), but then we've always diverged on such, so it is sorta expected.

[phuckphace]

He sorta loses me at 'what about tradition!', and notions of 'human nature' (which I'd love to see supporting proof of), but then we've always diverged on such, so it is sorta expected.

yes, you have a curious inability to see the value of those things despite having been raised from birth in a society with traditions. your society and culture continue to exist from previous generations because they were preserved by people who valued their specific way of life. why are you so cynical about it?

anyway, most people don't concern themselves exclusively with self-interested economic pursuits, contrary to what an-caps might claim. consider the family, for example. there's no money to be made in starting a family - it's costly from both an economic and psychological standpoint, and many families "operate at a loss" so to speak. to an an-cap, this arrangement seems like a total waste of money, time and resources because they don't understand that most people have drives that go beyond money. as social primates, most of us value our relationships with others, which precludes the type of grasping, sociopathic selfishness promoted by Rand et al.

[Lovelife090994]

Communism sounds fair on paper but it's corrupt in reality. Sadly, many communists are very anti-tradition which threatens all culture. There is a reason why much of the world has had enough of communism. It becomes totalitarianism i.e. North Korea.

[Miserabilia]

Communism sounds fair on paper but it corrupt in reality. Sadly, many communists are very anti-tradition which threatens all culture. There is a reason why much of the world has had enough of communism. It becomes totalitarianism i.e. North Korea.

True.
Communism in practice tends to go that way.

[Vlerchan]

your society and culture continue to exist from previous generations because they were preserved by people who valued their specific way of life. why are you so cynical about
I don't support retaining tradition for the sake of retaining tradition, if that's what you mean. I recognise the usefulness of retaining certain traditions, but I have no problem advocating a departure from tradition if I find the old to be redundant.

I also recognize that culture evolves: it's not fixed, it differs on the basis of immediate material conditions. You'll find that modern Irish culture differs hugely from 1950s Irish culture, and so do immediate material conditions.

[thegreatgatz]

Im not saying its bad. Im not saying its good. I just want to know why someone would want to live under communism?


Well, leftist theory and Marxism states that communism is a classless, raceless, stateless society, where all people stand together in harmony working together. Socialism, according to most 'communists' is the means through which communism is achieved. There has been no true communist society, but socialist ones which are known as communists.

In a socialist society, the economy is stable. Due to state creation of wealth and control of industry, societal need dictates the amount of jobs and production, rather than market demand. It places workers above capitalists. Those who earn wages generally have their interests more directly fulfilled by communism, those who earn profit from the wages of others do not.

[1]: .

[2]: Perhaps if capitalist states didn't actively work to bring down post-revolutionary states then the revolutionaries wouldn't feel the need to concentrate power into the hands of the few and could actually operate a bottom-up system of proletarian democracy as theorised by both Engels and Luxembourg amongst others. Though again this is irrelevant to the question: arguing future impossibilities on past failures is fallacious reasoning as I pointed out earlier in the thread.
Furthermore, the dictatorships of the proletariat haven't been around for all that long in reality. The oldest extant one is probably Vietnam or Laos, because at this point North Korea, China, etc are now devolved workers states which are now fascist and capitalistic rather than socialistic or proletarian oriented. It is indeed true, the dictatorship of the proletariat is incapable of ending until all of world society is under its leadership. This is due to the fact that class is a temporary construct which is needed to wage class war against the bourgeoisie. A classless society cannot be developed until the class war has been won



Posts merged. Next time, please use the "multi" quote button. -Alluring

[Vlerchan]

Blast from the past.

I don't think I was a communist 15 months ago but reading here might be tempered with me being even less of one now.

[Hindsight]

Believe me, anybody would love to live in a communist society. Just getting to one is hard.

Karl Marx specified five stages of society: Primitive communism, slave state, feudal society, capitalism, and socialism. He pointed out that a socialist society is inevitable, but looking at the conditions as of now I probably won't live to see a complete socialist society.

That doesn't mean we should stop fighting for socialism, continue class struggle. Just because a fortuneteller tells you that you will dodge a bullet when someone fires a gun at you doesn't mean you don't have to work to dodge the bullet. Communism is the final form of socialism, where there is no private property, currency, social hierarchies, or state. It is widely regarded, even by certain communists, as a bit "utopian". But besides that there is no reason we should progressing towards it. It is a perfect logical way of operating society.

[ndrwmxwll]

communism can only ever work on granite, not in reality

[thegreatgatz]

communism can only ever work on granite, not in reality


The execution of socialism has worked in Scandinavia. One day they will be close to communism whether they know it or not

[tovaris]

The execution of socialism has worked in Scandinavia. One day they will be close to communism whether they know it or not
Scandinavia is hardly socialist my comrade.

[thegreatgatz]

Scandinavia is hardly socialist my comerad.

(comrade is the correct spelling. Just saw your signature, hope I'm not being snide)

Actually, they have successfully implemented socialist policies and are slowly reducing corporate influence over their people.

[tovaris]

(comrade is the correct spelling. Just saw your signature, hope I'm not being snide)

Actually, they have successfully implemented socialist policies and are slowly reducing corporate influence over their people.

Thats called being a social state not a socialist state.

man this therd is so getting shut down, who revived it

[mattsmith48]

Im not saying its bad. Im not saying its good. I just want to know why someone would want to live under communism?

Its like marriage in theory it works but i reality its a bad idea

[thegreatgatz]

Its like marriage in theory it works but i reality its a bad idea

Until socialism is built marriage will be an important social construct.

[mattsmith48]

Until socialism is built marriage will be an important social construct.

Why marriage would be an important social construct?

[thegreatgatz]

Why marriage would be an important social construct?

It provides order and family in a society where the larger world doesn't do that

[mattsmith48]

It provides order and family in a society where the larger world doesn't do that

What do you mean by order?
And it provides family? you don't need to be married to be a family. A family is 2 parents and their kids that lives in the same house that's a family. Whether the 2 parents are married or not doesn't mater.

[Hindsight]

What do you mean by order?
And it provides family? you don't need to be married to be a family. A family is 2 parents and their kids that lives in the same house that's a family. Whether the 2 parents are married or not doesn't mater.

I agree with you that marriage is an artificial concept that unnecessarily traps two partners together. In my view marriage is romanticizing the force of eternal love and faithfulness idealistically. In truth, love could quite possibly be polyamory. Under a society with such existence of private property it is only logical to bond a partner with you, in a way of "owning" each other. In a stateless, classless state with no private property the way of how a family operates will dramatically differ. Marriage would be a pointless concept, therefore abolished. However, I doubt people would accept such notion as long as private property still remains.

I do not agree with your comparison of communism and marriage. Communism is an ideal state of operating society based on material conditions and logic. Marriage, on the other hand, is an arbitrary and potentially reactionary concept.

[Microcosm]

Well, leftist theory and Marxism states that communism is a classless, raceless, stateless society, where all people stand together in harmony working together. Socialism, according to most 'communists' is the means through which communism is achieved. There has been no true communist society, but socialist ones which are known as communists.

In a socialist society, the economy is stable. Due to state creation of wealth and control of industry, societal need dictates the amount of jobs and production, rather than market demand. It places workers above capitalists. Those who earn wages generally have their interests more directly fulfilled by communism, those who earn profit from the wages of others do not.


Furthermore, the dictatorships of the proletariat haven't been around for all that long in reality. The oldest extant one is probably Vietnam or Laos, because at this point North Korea, China, etc are now devolved workers states which are now fascist and capitalistic rather than socialistic or proletarian oriented. It is indeed true, the dictatorship of the proletariat is incapable of ending until all of world society is under its leadership. This is due to the fact that class is a temporary construct which is needed to wage class war against the bourgeoisie. A classless society cannot be developed until the class war has been won



Posts merged. Next time, please use the "multi" quote button. -Alluring

This thread has been bumped. At the time you posted this, the thread had been inactive for over a year. That being said, please refrain from posting in threads which have been inactive for over two months.

:locked2: