who thinks communism is good, bad , or misunderstood? i think communism was currupt by that monster Stalin an therefore, it became hard for that form of government to be truely used as Marx had intended it.
Gantic where do you get this preposterous hypothesis from? one misleading quote 'religion... is the opiate of the masses'? The thing to say is that marxism's incompatibility with religion is completely false. Ok, so religion is heirarchical, but it needn't be so. Most religious people are not so because they support the heirarchy, but because they believe etc.
Put into context, the quote ubove is much more telling. "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." Here you see that Marx uses the term opium not as a recreational drug, but as a pain-relief drug, whose necessity is borne of a class system and of the alienation, isolation and suppression of potential of the masses of ordinary people.
For a much better account than I can give here, see: [url=http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1817&Itemid=125]
communism gets rid of a leader eventually smellwreck
And that's what the Chinese leaders have been telling the people for years, with their "5-year plans". Fact is the politicians will never give up their power, so communism won't work in its truest form. Someone will ALWAYS force their way into power, anarchy can't exist. If someone's going to force themselves into power anyways, why not use a sort of "democratic fascism", wherein a leader is elected and then has supreme power until their death, when another leader is elected.
Then again we run into the problem of idiots not knowing what they want or what's good for them, so voting should be restricted to the intelligent... but I'm getting ahead of myself, and off topic. This discussion is about communism.
And that's what the Chinese leaders have been telling the people
prehaps they were lieing and prehaps the were simply waiting for capatalism to die down enough so that it is safe to let the people be the government. If they let go of their leadership, one could argue that the military would evaporate and the U.S wpuld easily move in and set up a nationalist/capatalist government in its stead.
one could argue that the military would evaporate and the U.S wpuld easily move in and set up a nationalist/capatalist government in its stead.
One could also argue that when the government leaves, a new one WILL replace it, regardless of who sets it up. Maybe not the US, maybe not a foreign power. Maybe someone from within China. People can't govern themselves - since the dawn of humanity, people have organized themselves behind a "clan leader" of sorts. Someone WILL take power, through a people's decision or by force.
One could also argue that when the government leaves, a new one WILL replace it, regardless of who sets it up. Maybe not the US, maybe not a foreign power. Maybe someone from within China. People can't govern themselves - since the dawn of humanity, people have organized themselves behind a "clan leader" of sorts. Someone WILL take power, through a people's decision or by force.
Mmmm, authority will be established. It will perhaps be a representative democracy, but on a much lower scale. Say mayors of towns who don't have much power.
Anarchy and Communism is very similar. The difference is mainly in how it will be reached. Anarchists oppose the Marxist interpretation of the socialist stage transferring to communism.
Heh. I like communism and all, but there are too many factors within a society that it doesn't account for. (people's ideas won't always be the same, since they each live out their lives differently, and may pick up different beliefs along the way) The economy itself has problems since not everybody likes working in a collective farm (since transportation costs too much energy). Propaganda may not even override our need for luxury, and Unless you find a proper village/city infrastructure and a methodical (revolutionary) way of thinking, you will find that not even technology can balance out the limited resources. (gotta be efficient with your resources or you will find imbalance) You will then have to divide the work force properly and distribute them properly so there will be available resources at all times. Pretty complex, eh?
