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.
Read the following to view the communist supporter's arguement
Then a communist leader would do what the romans did, increase culture by distracting the people with great teartres and tv shows. Even one movie that thrived in the box office about some worker working for his comrades would turn the masses into earth-loving communsts. But that may not work with everyone, for there will alays be someone who fights for greed and says he fights for people. Many leaders just kill those kinds of people. So, if i headed a new communist state, i ignore them ad let them run out of steam before every one stops careing so much and simply goes back to what is important much like we Americans do. Also, in a capatalist country, some workers work very hard, day in and day out, and don't see an extra penny in their paycheck for another 5 years. What keeps them motivated for five years with out any raise? The love of their family and the will to stay equal with the general population. That is what communists work towards, only in their sociaty, one can do anythingand receive enough money to live off of always. Which one day would eventually eliminate the neeed for a currancy. Unfortunatly, communism was defaced by Soviet monsters in Russia and critism from the USA has brought this careing and selfless system to its knees. Leaveing only the wicked, who dare call themselves "communist" to kill their own comrades, destroy their own people's free will, and worst of all, destroy democracy, own of the key components to a communist sociaty that wishes to function properly. In conclusion, communism is one of the freest, most overshadowed forms of sociaty in history. America says the "Red Menace must be crushed!". And with that act, they set in motion the downfall of any chance for a true Marxist sociaty.
wow.. rlly a topic about communism.. huh.. btw gorbachev was the one who decided to make russia democratic... so i wouldn't call him a monster.. Russians may, but he certainly isn't. ommunism is meant to make EVERY one equal. Which is wat the governments did do, just in a way that it wasn't meant to be. They instead took all the money, and left their ppl with nothing. Communism would suck if you had someone bad leading it, but would also be rlly rlly good if you had someone that marx intended. That would mean that the poor would also have as much as the rich... But since society is corrupt everyone thinks communism is bad due to government policy. And if you think that wat im saying is B.S look online before you start judging.....
btw gorbachev was the one who decided to make russia democratic... so i wouldn't call him a monster.
Gorbachev was a total reformist and wanted to bring an end to communism and establish his social democracy (Capitalism but with heavy taxation). He got away with socialism but was saddened that the Soviet fell.
Yes, and he was very good friends with President Reagen >_>
Why not look for something other than communist? Surprise us all! You might even find something hella better.
Theres really isn't much options.
They instead took all the money, and left their ppl with nothing
Not quite what happened. The Soviet economy progressed rapidly until say the 50s. Living of standard increased over that time, but in the 70s it took a major deep hill. The government didn't take away the money to build themselves castles >_>
There just wasn't enough produced. (Russia was not very industrialized, so a very backward country to build socialism)
And well, the government did use 40% of its budget during the Cold War I believe. The US used about 6%. Its really not a small amount though.
That would be hundreds of billions for both. Haha, the Soviet was barely behind the US. Mmm, so I'd regard the whole cold war a mistake.
If you have the power show the ones without it that your in control.
Moe, I couldn't answer your post my self, as I have said, I'm not too knowledgeable of Marx's works, so I had to ask a buddy...
His response.
Drace, the problem with these 'criticisms' is that they are very vague.
Moreover, your correspondent just denies that strife, for example, is caused by the class struggle. He does not explain why he says this, nor does he seem to know that Marx never claimed that it was.
What he said was:
Quote: The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...festo/ch01.htm
Taking a few specific examples of what this critic alleged:
Quote: What's funny is that Marxist Communism still needs people who make decision.
Now, ho would think that 'decisions' are not made by human beings. Nothing in Marx suggests he thought otherwise. What he did say was this:
Quote: Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...maire/ch01.htm
Human beings are not robots; so, they make decisions. But they are not 'gods' either. They are constrained by the past and by their class position, and that affects the things they decide upon.
Quote: Marxism also relies heavily upon certain presuppositions about the human condition - and those suppositions are pretty major and seem very unsound. Far better than Communism is a Capitalist-Socialist hybrid (which the U.S. and other countries are operating under). This is rather vague; the critic does not say what these 'resuppositions' are nor why they are mistaken.
And, as Marx noted, not even he was above history; indeed, all of us approach the world with certain 'resuppositions'. But, in this case, Marx's can be and have been defended. Can this critic defend his own presuppositions? If the above is anything to go by, one would think not.
As for the 'hybrid' he speaks of, again he is vague. Which ones are these? And how does he know they are 'superior'?
Quote: Even after class consciousness developed, it is far too simple to say that this was the primary cause of anything happening! Once more, the class struggle is not the primary cause of everything/anything that has happened; but it is the prime motor of historical development. And we do not just say this, we can in fact show it to be so from the record.
Quote: The primary objective of Communism is to stop the violence and revolution that have been the defining points of history. If Marx and Engels were right, then eliminating class would eliminate political and social upheaval. Unfortunately, they were wrong. Once more: vague. What is 'he' referring to here?
Nowhere does Marx say that the end of class society will end strife. What will end is the systematic violence that the class war brings in its train. Since society will be ruled by the vast majority on behalf of the vast majority, any pockets of strife that might remain will be up to us all to put right, not a minority who will only do so if it serves their interests (and in ways that consolidate their power).
Moreover, since class division will have ended, there will be no more causes of war.
Now, this critic might be looking at the former USSR (etc.) as his excuse for saying that Marxism has failed. He should know that Marxists regard the former USSR in many different ways. Speaking for myself, I would argue that the failure of such regimes was a failure of Stalinism, not Marxism.
I seem to have been straw-manned, but that's okay. Let me go over a few points again.
Nowhere does Marx say that the end of class society will end strife. What will end is the systematic violence that the class war brings in its train.
This is the very idea to which I object. This Marxist interpretation of historical events simply isn't cogent. Certainly if you look through the annals of history with Marxist colored glasses you can see this presupposed class struggle everywhere. But I could also argue that historical struggle is caused by potatoes or alcohol. When you go through history looking for one specific cause, you're bound to find evidence that supports your claim; what Marx does is ignore the piles of evidence against his claim.
Moreover, since class division will have ended, there will be no more causes of war.
Again, there are plenty of causes of war beyond class, and it is very naive to think that ending classes will end war. There was no class-consciousness at all until around the Industrial Revolution - even a Marxist must concede such a point. The gestalt here is that even if I concede that class consciousness existed before industrialization, it is still clear that the cohesiveness of this class ends at an economic delineation. I don't have anything at all in common with the other members of middle class America than my income bracket. People are far too diverse for such a blanket interpretation of people and motives. Even trying to narrow it down to people who are culturally unified - say 2nd generation Greeks - doesn't mean you're going to have any common interests. By the presuppositions about the human condition that I was referring to, I mean ideas about human nature. That competitiveness was brought about by capitalism simply isn't true and so again we have Marx trying to eliminate the cause of something - when it really isn't the cause. All of this is from a purely academic and mostly historic standpoint. I cannot argue for the fundamental economic principles or against them - although it does seem strange to view economics as a consciously maintained evolution of ideas. Perhaps Communism would be a better economic system if the right steps were taken to ensure that power could not be concentrated with just a few people. All I am trying to do is demonstrate that the fundamentals behind Communist ideologies are fallacious.
