Communism is simply a terrible ideology, but it is often misunderstood, especially on an Internet where all sorts of falsehoods run wild. I will attempt to explain what Communism is as well as its history as best as I can. I suppose I have an agenda behind this, because my family lived in Beijing at the height of Mao's power.
Let's look into the idea of Marxism first. Marx was not part of the proletariat, or working class. He was a member of the middle class who looked at the plight of the working class and saw the terrible working circumstances that they lived in. So you could say that communism began with a genuine interest in helping these people. Marx decided in a couple of rules that became the main ideas of Communism.
1. History is a series of class conflict. Marx found inspiration in the ideas of Hegel, who said that new ideas will clash with the status quo until a synthesis of the ideas results. To put this in an analogy, the Romans used to worship a variety of Pagan Gods. When Christianity came along, there was a brief struggle of ideas that resulted in a new Christianity becoming the main belief, a Christianity with additional motivations of materialism and with new beliefs and rituals, such as the date of December 25 for Christmas. In the same way, Marx applied the idea of idea conflict and substituted classes. He argued that history chronicled the exploitation and the alienation of the working classes by the "upper class." 2. The ultimate triumph of the working class. Marx believed, however, that eventually, the working class would wake from its oppression, band together, and overthrow the bourgeoisie (middle and upper classes), using their past experience of being exploited to avoid exploiting others. This communist utopia would result in the collective ownership of everything by everyone. Unfortunately, this point has numerous shortcomings. For one, Marx expected developed nations like Britain and France to adopt Communism first, rather than the poorly-developed Russians. The exact opposite happened. Moreover, the working class still has not found unity. Even to this day, we categorize the working class by their occupation: plumber, mechanic, laborer, etc., and even the working class still uses this categorizing scheme. When people say that "If humans were perfect, Communism would succeed," they mean that if the proletariat leading the revolution were perfect, then communism would happen. However, if the people were really perfect, would they really be prompted to rise against the bourgeoisie instead of working industriously? Instead, throughout history, we have seen that the few who set themselves to lead their fellow proletariat were corrupted by the power they received, using it to gain and consolidate more and more power. 3. Ideology. Marx mentioned ideology several times without actually defining it. According to his confidant Engels, ideology is the rules that the dominant-class-ruled society sets to confuse the subjugated class. In other words, in the case of capitalism, it was argued that the upper class used capitalism to confuse the working class into having private property. The upper class would have the agenda of keeping the working class working for them. Ideology is extremely important to any Communist country. To the Communists, the idea of fostering a perfect ideology was extremely important to them, and that is exactly why there is so much propaganda and censorship in Communist countries. 4. Labor Theory of Value and the evil of capitalism. Marx looked at how hard the working class worked and sympathized with him. What this theory means is that the only thing that should determine the cost of a commodity is the amount of time and effort it takes to make it. Marx did acknowledge, however, that different objects had a use value (the direct use of it) and an exchange value (the market price). For example, the use value of firewood is that you can burn it and it keeps you warm, while the exchange value goes back to the basics of the Labor Theory of Value. Marx argued that capitalism was stiffing the working class; that capitalism wasn't giving workers their fair share of the money. He called the gap between what they should earn and what they actually earned the "surplus value." He also argued that capitalism destroyed social relationships over more objective relationships; in other words, people were becoming overconcerned about the market price of a good instead of how much work it actually took to make it. He called his "Commodity Fetishism." There are some glaring problems with this. Economists both in his time and in more recent times have shown that there are many other factors to the price of a good, including the prices of its raw materials, the skill required to make the good, and all other costs (the electricity to run a factory, for instance). Marx's absolute claim that the only source of profit is the exploitation of workers has seen much criticism as well.
As a communist I appreciate the intellectual approach to the topic rather then "COMMIE FAGGET!"
Lolz.
Marx was not part of the proletariat, or working class. He was a member of the middle class who looked at the plight of the working class and saw the terrible working circumstances that they lived in.
Marx actually lived through poverty his whole life. It was Engels who was quite wealthy and a petty-bourgeoisie.
"
If humans were perfect, Communism would succeed,"
In here, I think its rather meant that communism requires that everyone be all good doing so that it can work. But its quite of a misunderstanding.
To the Communists, the idea of fostering a perfect ideology was extremely important to them, and that is exactly why there is so much propaganda and censorship in Communist countries.
That really has no relevance. There was much propaganda in the US as well at the time.
Economists both in his time and in more recent times have shown that there are many other factors to the price of a good, including the prices of its raw materials, the skill required to make the good, and all other costs (the electricity to run a factory, for instance).
Those are all produced by labor. Price and value are quite different. Value is the actual worth of it something (As I and Marx would argue, the amount of labor needed to create it) while price is what its sold for.
Marx did live in poverty through his life, but he was not one of the actual proletariat.
Propaganda has existed from the beginning of time. It is just the way and the focus of communist propaganda that is different. Watch something like Battleship Potemkin, and compare it with Casablanca, or look at propaganda posters from both countries, and you will notice their differences and their similarities.
As for the last point, yes, they are different, but Marx did argue that the market price (exchange value) reflected the labor value in a very literal sense.
Er...the quote said "People for a perfect world," not "eople from a perfect world."
Well then it doesn't make any sense grammatically...
Marx did live in poverty through his life, but he was not one of the actual proletariat.
Well no but we cant consider him middle class.
As for the last point, yes, they are different, but Marx did argue that the market price (exchange value) reflected the labor value in a very literal sense.
Well it is somewhat.
A fair trade could be calculated on the basis of the labor it took to produce a product. An individual may prefer a less valuable item(in terms of amount of labor for its production). I know this as 'use value' which is differentiated among individuals, but on a larger scale, say the market, things are of value according to the labor consumed for the production of the item. So some fool can value a tennis ball more then a car. If such a trade is made, then the fool is still ripped off, because say if the car took 4000x times the labor, he could of had 4000 tennis balls instead! This is undeniable, since all it does is recognize a factor which plays the role of the ultimate factor in production, labor.
Communism was thought up by people for a better world. It just didn't execute the way it was intended. How is it grammatically incorrect?
Well no but we cant consider him middle class.
He was born to a middle class family, he married a member of the petite bourgeoisie, and he spent his money on items that the bourgeoisie would have, although his finances were tight. Duck test would apply here.
So some fool can value a tennis ball more then a car. If such a trade is made, then the fool is still ripped off, because say if the car took 4000x times the labor, he could of had 4000 tennis balls instead!
That is the exact problem with Marx's economic view.
China is most definitely communist in its political ideology. However, it has strayed very far from it economically. Economically, China was a very capitalist society since ancient times, and 25 years of communist rule simply cannot change that. I am not a big proponent of Chinese democracy, because its society has been most undemocratic, and to change it so suddenly causes massive problems, as the Kuomintang and the Taiwan debacles have shown. Sudden change in general has created big, big problems.
communism is dumber than heck
If you really think about it, Communism really is something that everyone would want to have. Everyone gets to enjoy a high standard of living. Unfortunately, socialism inevitably alienates somebody. To put it in an analogy, say you are in a college class, taking a test. Let's say there is a wide spectrum of grades in the class, from A, B, C, D, to F. This would be like capitalism, where you got what you studied for. Socialism would be what happens when you take the points from people who have A's and distribute it to everyone so that everyone has a C+. Understandably, if you had an F, you would be happy. But what if you were that person with an A or a B? Just something to think about. Someone is going to get affected, which one should we affect? There is a reason why Communist countries have risen on the backs of peasants.
Well in the USSR, they actually payed accordingly. Now I would argue that the rich guys don't deserve all the money, so it is only fair for it to be redistributed.
There is a reason why Communist countries have risen on the backs of peasants.
Ehh simply because WW1 took place in those countries :-$
