Do you think Communism could benefit a country? Personally, I am in favour of it, because I like the idea of an equal distribution of wealth and a proper welfare system for the people.
I also am not in favour of the Capitalist idea of the rich benefitting simply because they have more money, and the labourers working hard yet still being paid badly, or the unemployed who are deprived jobs because the capitalist entrepreneurs find it more profitable to use machines.
For the record, if you look at what people such as Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Trotsky, Che Guevara, Mao, or any genuinely (in) famous "communist" leader, they all claim the worker's/peasants will be in charge at some point in their history future and the only way to realize prediction is through a revolution and destruction of all pre-existing parts of bourgeois society.
Wow, they really said that? I thought they were just trying to build up a huge army and run their countries with an iron fist. I saw them as the types of people who would say absolutely anything to get people to side with them. However, I didn't know that they all said that. Communism sounds ok. I think I could dig that. I mean, if you don't think about it, it makes perfect sense!
It may surprise you that Orwell himself was a socialist. He was only being critical of Stalin.
Rather ironic, a socialist's work is perhaps the #1 book for promoting anti-communist. Also funny that people think they can outline their political views from a fiction story.
Wow, they really said that? I thought they were just trying to build up a huge army and run their countries with an iron fist. I saw them as the types of people who would say absolutely anything to get people to side with them. However, I didn't know that they all said that. Communism sounds ok. I think I could dig that. I mean, if you don't think about it, it makes perfect sense!
A whole paragraph of stupid sarcasm was a waste of your time and everyone's who read it.
A whole paragraph of stupid sarcasm was a waste of your time and everyone's who read it.
Yeah, you are right. Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Trotsky, Che Guevara, Mao; these men worked hard and honestly for their positions of power. They would never make a promise that wasn't true. These men are revered for their honesty. I apologize for what I said. The abolishment of pre-existing middle class societies is the only way for the middle class to live a life of equality with their fellow comrades.
Well of course it would apply to regimes with similar characteristics.
Name me a communist regime that doesn't have similar characteristics to Stalin's? Poor economic performance, isolation from (and often hostility towards) the international community, nationwide government-controlled censorship, a totalitarian police-state and propaganda parades enough to come out of your ears to name a few.
Strop don't look over China? I'd really not call them Communist because Wikipedia says they're commies it must be true and therefore.. China is pretty dang rich and Commi.
Do I get a cookie?
And particularly, Communism is a fail system. Nobody can try, and before someone thinks of trying there will be the fat slacker. And then the non-fat slackers will eventually be fat slackers/people who realize shooting for the stars just means being a fat slacker anyway. And then, after some time of fooling the people with propaganda... You have a fat slacker country.
Nope, but I have to say I was waiting for this attempt. China is no longer a communist country except in name and police-state. Their economic operation can hardly be considered socialist.
Adam de Hegedus in an early review of the novel in The Commonweal: Orwell is not angry with Russia, or with any other country, because that country "turned Socialist." On the contrary he is angry with Russia because Russia does not believe in a classless and democratic society. In short, Orwell is angry with Russia because Russia is not socialist.
The two pigs represent the communist leaders (Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky). The allegorical roles played by the humans in the story are: Mr. Jones, the last czar in Russia Mr. Pilkington (who represents the leader of England) is described as: "an easy-going gentleman farmer who spent much of his time in fishing or hunting according to the season," and his farm is "large, neglected, [and] oldfashioned."' Mr. Frederick (Germany's leader) is: "a tough, shrewd man, perpetually involved in lawsuits and with a name for driving hard bargains," and his farm is "smaller and better kept."
the final lines of the novel: Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
the interpretation of George Woodcock in The Crystal Spirit: A Study of George Orwell:
old and new tyrannies belong to the same family; authoritarian governments, whether they are based on the codes of old social castes or on the rules of new political elites, are basically similar and present similar dangers to human welfare and liberty.
George Orwell did not thought that Communism was Bad, he did not like how the Russian revolution turned out.
I acknowledge that Orwell was hardly intending to criticise Socialism in writing Animal Farm. However, I'm taking the liberty of interpreting the story and its messages my own way, because I'm claiming that any regime that purports to enact socialism invariably falls down a combination of two paths:
1) A corrupt, secretive government that does not support the people so much as themselves and their image (e.g. North Korea).
2) The abandonment of socialist principles in seeking affluence and increased quality of life in a once-again stratified society (e.g. China).
1) A corrupt, secretive government that does not support the people so much as themselves and their image
I don't totally agree here, there is no doubt that extremely often communist governments tend to be corrupted, but the USA were very corrupted during the fifties and they were far from a communist state. So communism does not lead compulsory to corruption.
About the secretive part I agree with you. They are very closed and isolated, but this is partially caused by the western counties which rarely accept them or want to have relations with them.
Communism is static, capitalism evolves. Marx was a very intelligent person, but you cannot base a whole system on his theories which were written 150 years ago. The society has changed, but the communists have not.
1) A corrupt, secretive government that does not support the people so much as themselves and their image (e.g. North Korea).
I don't totally agree here,
Why don't you agree?
there is no doubt that extremely often communist governments tend to be corrupted, but the USA were very corrupted during the fifties and they were far from a communist state. So communism does not lead compulsory to corruption.
Oh... so that's why...
You said that communism is very often corrupt, but not always. Then, you talk about America being corrupt in the 50s. This doesn't have anything to do with communism. If you're going to say that communism isn't always run by a corrupt government, then give an example of when communism wasn't run by... a corrupt government; rather than explaining when America was a corrupt government. You gave us an answer to a question we didn't ask and avoided the one that was.
