Alright I hate hearing from all the illinformed, uneducated, misguided capitalist assholes about how "communism" is bad... and how the soviet union and north korea are communist bastards... So lets get a few things straight.
1) No country has ever succeeded in creating a socialist government. Not the USSR, DPRK, PRC, DRV... nobody. This is because they all were led by the flawed theory of Leninism... The idea that a revolutionary elite should hold political office until the proletariat are fit to lead. Also they skip social evolutionary steps. History does not need a push, Marxism will happen on its own once the internal mode of the capitalist mode of production fails and there is no longer any way for the proletariat to rationalize capitalism.
2) Communism is not a political system... Socialism is a political system. Communism is merely a point in social evolution in which the state dissolves, there is no centralized currency, no private property, and no business owners. A truly utopian proletariat run social system.
3) Marx may never have held a job, however this is because he was educated enough to know he would be exploited. He was born to a wealthy industrialist prior to the industrial revolution, we can now assume from this he witnessed this exploitation first hand.
4) There is no 'red menace' in fact socialism will probably not even come to the world under that name.
5) Countries with socialist characteristics in their political systems tend to be doing a lot better that of countries that don't. Canada for example has Universal Healthcare, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark all have universal healthcare, excellent benifits and social programs, stable economy ( for the most part ) they also have the highest standards of living in the world.
5) The USA relies on socialism... The social programs brought about by FDR are all excellent examples of socialism...Obamacare (while a horrible example) is the USA's attempt at universal healthcare.The bank bailouts too
6) There is not just one type of communism... Marxism is just one of several variations. Including Anarcho-Communism which essentially stand for the same goals as communists however they disagree how it'll occur.
7) A planned economy determined democratically would be much more efficient, fairer, and overall better than a free market.
8) Communism strives for overall equality. What else can i say?
9) Even countries with horrible dictators such as the USSR with Stalin or the DPRK with Kim Jong Un and that had very little to do with socialism ( but still had a tiny bit ) were much better off economically than any other country. The USSR for example, under Stalins reign of terror the soviet economy boosted to unpresidented levels. And rapidly industrialized the soviet union. Under Lenin's rule new opertunities were available to women, homosexuality was finally legalized, and Lenin brought about one of the worlds greatest education systems.
10) Capitalism has already failed, contributed to the death of billions worldwide over the last few hundred years. Led to the exploitation of millions just to turn a profit... Isn't it about time we had a change?
>working their asses off 10 hours a day at some dead end minimum wage excuse for a job
>hate communism to help the government keep them that way
I give you Murrica.
>still a socialist
babby's first revolutionary thought
come back when you are a communitarian anarchist because you understand the inherent hierarchy of a state is what breaks communism down
So, if by your own admission, no nation has actually successfully implemented communism, yet every time they tried it turned into an oligarchy and literally millions died, why do you insist on trying again?
It is worth noting that when Adam Smith proposed the system we now know as Capitalism, it was supposed to happen with only ONE rule - the strictest of rules. There could be no exceptions. Absolutely zero government interference. No regulations, no lopsided taxes, no labour laws. So what we see today isn't REALLY Capitalism. Just like we saw in the Soviet Union, where we didn't REALLY see Communism, just a raped variation in that name.
That being said, I am not a Capitalist. I enjoy economic and political philosophy, and I identify as a Marxist. It's just as unfair for Capitalists to judge us for the USSR and North Korea as it is for us to judge Capitalism off of the Western World today.
>the soviet union
>using current tens to reffed to the USSR
sorry but the soviet Union hasn't existed since the early 90s, Russia isn't even communist anymore.
Why do people have this misconception? Communism, and by extension, Socialism, were both created AFTER Capitalism and Mercantilism. Capitalism was made for the world when barons and merchants were the wealthy and people weren't much interested in education.
Communism, on the other hand, can ONLY function in an Industrial society (according to Marx). To date, Capitalism is outdated and outmoded. It didn't take into consideration Corporations, the Stock Market, Conglomerates...
So Communism was actually created as a more advanced economic system than Capitalism at the time.
And I sincerely disagree on the innovation front. People think that competition drives innovation. This is true - but only up to a point. Let's take any product, which we'll call X. With competition, X will continue to be shaped, molded, developed, and improved so that everyone else's X is a lesser product. So what happens when it cannot be innovated anymore? Well, what if all the groups working on X were to combine their knowledge to make the best X possible? Well there's no profit incentive for that, so it will never happen.
Imagine what would happen if the cure for Cancer was discovered in America versus being discovered in Norway or Finland. Or some utopian Communist society. I could predict what would happen, but I'll let your imaginations soar.
1) The idea of communism - just like any other utopia - was, is and always will be used by particular groups to enforce their own view of what political regime should be like. History does not need a push? Well, bad news: if people decide to push it, it will move forward because it's people who decide it's course.
2) That would not be communism but a pure anarchy that would eventually stabilize into some mafia-driven world - because social systems can't remain chaotic forever.
3) Yeah, but wasn't this exploitation a natural part of the process he himself described?
4) Tell that to Western Europe between 1920 and 1953.
5) If a country is extremely wealthy and people are hard-working, almost any political model will do. You think anyone in Saudi Arabia minds that being a dictature as long as he can sleep on the money?
5) If you want to argue socialism, first count the amount of taxes you're paying. USA's Tax Freedom Day is April 21; where I live, it's June 22.
6) There is not just one type of communism... True. Except that 99% of the types were never tried in practice.
8) There's no such thing as equality. It's just a concept, a though experiment. What else can I say?
9) Their economy boomed. Hm. No. And even on the areas it did, it had nothing to do with the distribution of wealth amongst the citizens.
10) There's no capitalism; only corporationism. I'd love capitalism but it seems just as impossible as communism is.
11) Communism, no matter the form wether it be Marxism or Anarchism it is unavoidable. The socio-economic systems are already shifting and paving the roads for a socialist revolution. The political offices of the world are so corrupt and constitutions and laws so old we must have a new system to compensate. A system of direct democracy perhaps?
Both failed miserably... Leninism was the idea most 'communist' nations followed which always ended in having a revolutionary elite creating a dictatorship. Stalinism was not a political system but rather the methods of rulership set forth by Stalin
>11) Communism, no matter the form wether it be Marxism or Anarchism it is unavoidable. The socio-economic systems are already shifting and paving the roads for a socialist revolution. The political offices of the world are so corrupt and constitutions and laws so old we must have a new system to compensate. A system of direct democracy perhaps?
Oh, this is the best. So sure it's MY idea that is that "next thing" the fate has decided to happen; so much religious fanaticism that whatever thought comes to some philosopher's head is the new "course of history".
So much intellectual masturbation while, in the meantime, the world prosaically goes for just whatever works at the moment.
Leninism never took off. We can't say it failed. Lenin's "professional revolutionaries" were supposed to be men of intellect and devotion toward an ideal - able to judge and act accordingly, to adapt to changes and accept the fact that the people - the proletariat - were ultimately the ones making decisions. So it's hard to say that the Eastern European countries picking up Communism shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution fit this description. Furthermore, don't forget that the Truman Doctrine severely neutered any countries trying to implement this type of system following WW2.
Eh, he's right though. At the peak of our technology and social evolution, we have to end up with something closer to Communism. That may be 3,000 years from now, or 3,000,000 years from now. But the peak of human evolution has to end in equality.
Genocide is the systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group
>wrote by a jew
>jewess calling for europe to be more multicultural, because, reasons
>jew changed americas immigration act to allow non-whites
>the jew who coined the phrase "melting pot"
>communism created by jews
ever wonder why nazism is condemned but communists are being more widely accepted?
In Mein Kampf, Hitler described children resulting from marriages to African occupation soldiers as a contamination of the white race "by Negro blood on the Rhine in the heart of Europe." He thought that "Jews were responsible for bringing Negroes into the Rhineland, with the ultimate idea of bastardizing the white race which they hate and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that the Jew might dominate." He also implied that this was a plot on the part of the French, since the population of France was being increasingly "negrified".
I understand that, But i feel Rosa Luxembourgs ideas on a collective revolution using the Proletariat as a whole to destroy the existing system was a better way of doing so. Lenin's professional revolutionaries have always ended as history shows, in a dictatorship. I just think the temptation is too big a flaw in Lenin's ideas... Its human nature
>conspiracy theorist detected
>implying Mein Kampf was worth reading in the first place
Mein Kampf was seriously one of the worst books I've ever read.
Also, why would Jews want something like Communism when they're stereotypically known for "accumulating shekels"?
inb4 reverse psychology jewish masterrace
I'm not particularly well-versed with Rosa Luxembourg, so I can't possibly make an educated response.
What I will say is this: if the temptation is too much, then you didn't choose the right revolutionaries.
You're getting it SO wrong.
History is not like a book where the action goes linearly from a to b, from b to c and eventually, to z, which is the end. History goes random ways, hits the dead ends, circles around etc. etc.
Claiming that there will be some "final stage" of it is stupid. Claiming that we will "end up" at something is misleading because it implies that at some point humanity will find that "perfect" social, political and economical deal.
When, in reality, even in a heaven on Earth, there are always people around the corner ready to poop on the parade.
All humans are capable of feeling temptation. If in the right situation. Thats why instead of having a select few run the revolution and the system it should be run by the proletariat as a whole
I do agree, Leninism in theory is lovely but history has just shown it to fail. We need a new type of revolutionary system. or at least implement an old one that corresponds with todays society.
Well that's the endgame for Leninism - he just understands that you need a transitional government to step in while the proletariat get organised. The proletariat can't revolt as a whole - they need representatives to do it for them.
My argument is twofold: First, there are thousands if not millions of people in the US who are disgruntled with the way things are right now. Why haven't any of them revolted?
Second, why WOULD the average man revolt? If it fails, they have ruined their lives, and if it succeeds, they have ruined their lives. They have to rebuild no matter what happens, and they are burdened with the decision to go either way.
The people want someone else to do it for them, so that they may follow. Revolting and ruling as a whole from the beginning is contrary to (modern) human nature. Not to say it's impossible of course.
>implying killing innocents is the reason Communism fails
Thats not entirely true... Perhaps today thats true but people tend not to count that over time and in different situations peoples mind can change. And thts what Luxembourg and Marx thought. They believed that once things have gotten so bad it would have to end with a collective revolution... If a revolution needs a vanguard, your country wasnt ready for a revolution
I like that last line. I'll research some more. I like to consider myself very well-versed on Marxist economic and political theory, but I certainly don't know it all. Thanks for the insight.