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.
AND HAS ANYONE WHO HAS EVER POSTED HERE OR ANYWHERE ELSE ACTUALLY READ THE MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY?
Ye, i studied it at school when we were learning russian history. Its well worth it if you are interested.
I personally like the idea of council communism, but due to marx's vagueness on how the economic system would be run, im not sure how it could be put into practice.
I agree, he wasn't too clear on that, people have tried to do it their own way and basing everything on Marx's ideas. These natural revolutions simply were not occuring as often as expected and it was very hard to see a revolution in a capitalist super power. But there were still violent revolutions in countries where capitalism has failed.
True. Ironically communism had the most success in countries like Russia and China which were agriculturally driven, not in the urban sprawl of Gbr France and the USA like Marx predicted.
I would say the main reason for this was reform. In all those countries concessions were made by the govts giving the proletariat more power. As Tsar Alexander II put it, starting the revolution from above before there is a revolution from below.
And it lasted for over fourty or fifty years despite oppressive govenments. One can only imagine what would happen if Spartacus or Marx himself were the leaders.
I assume Marxism-Leninism then, since it's the biggest school. Then again, there are a ton of different Marxist-Leninist schools as well. There are the Stalinists, the anti-Stalinists, the anti-Maoists, the Maoists, the Trotskyists, Cuban M-L, Vietnamese M-L, and Laotian M-L. Take your pick.
Communism can work if you have a leader that doesn't try to take all of the power for himself and start single party policies. yet that has never happened. Many people saw how effectivley Stalin held power in Russia and made their own pirated versions of that, Stalinism is not really commmunism in that sence, just a dictator ship being sponsered by a self-described communist.
Communism can work if you have a leader that doesn't try to take all of the power for himself and start single party policies. yet that has never happened. Many people saw how effectivley Stalin held power in Russia and made their own pirated versions of that, Stalinism is not really commmunism in that sence, just a dictator ship being sponsered by a self-described communist.
I'd agree, but finding someone who wont end up going power mad would be insanley hard. I still don't like it but it's really just economics *shrugs shoulders*
It would not, the United states has a system that allows people to become president who perserves the best intrests in the people. ( or try to )
In communism as marx created at least, there is a leader and a group of vangaurds to guide the people. This ensures no corruption yet Stalinist-Communism ruined that.
It would not, the United states has a system that allows people to become president who perserves the best intrests in the people. ( or try to )
Let me give an example right now Obama could get more power than any president before. He has the whole legislative branch and a slight majority of the people on his side. I'm not saying he would but I don't think it'd be that hard to tip the scales.
The US Constitution was not made with Communism or socialism in mind. How a successfully revolutionized proletariat would uphold the Constitution is unknown, in my view quite impossible.
I agree with Samy, Stalin did hold dictator power for quite a many year, but so did my past leader, Adolf Hitler. Not as long as Stalin, but Hitler opened the world's eyes, and it communism made it all possible, plus it gave equal wages to everyone, so a plus there. Sorry, that last part was a little off topic, I apologize