Communism, Socialism or Capitalism

[Mitch]

Which system do you think is the best or most efficient?

I think that a Socialist society is great, look at Sweden and Norway for example. Their economies are doing great and they have amazing social programs, free music lessons even!

[Cattraknoff]

I for one am for a combination of the three.

[Mitch]

lol, what is that supposed to mean? Wouldn't that average out to Socialism?

[Locke]

Purely for the cause of political philosophy, I believe in a slightly liberalized (economically, that is) form of socialism. Practically, however, the watery morass of corruption will be found within any political bowl, fluid and ever-reshaping.

[Cattraknoff]

lol, what is that supposed to mean? Wouldn't that average out to Socialism?

Not exactly.

[Mitch]

Oh, ok, thanks... Now I know what you mean.

[Locke]

What are the particular traits that seperate your political belief system from socialism?

[Mitch]

Like said before, I think Catt is about as useful as a Cat.

[Ed Jones]

There is nothing on the face of this earth as vile and corrupt as the webbing of lies, false promises and totalitarianism that is communism.

It is horrible, unworkable pointless system that preys on the intelligent and exploits the workers whose rights it claims to uphold.

It is a theory that claims to uphold the rights of the worker for the benefit of society as a whole when it benefits only those in power.

You cannot run a country based on the teachings of a deluded antisemetic fool like Marx and the romanticized image of Che Guevera on a t-shirt. The entire concept is laughable and frankly insulting.

[Locke]

I agree with you, but there is no need to be so vehement with your indictments. The same could be applied to any extreme doctrine or creed.

[Mitch]

Here's the mix-up with people and communism. People mix up communism with dictatorship. Those are two different things, communism is economic and dictatorships are political.
In theory, communism can be practiced in a democracy. But in practice people are dishonest and greedy. So, with those two factors you'll either move to capitalism or a dictatorship.

[Ed Jones]

but there is no need to be so vehement with your indictments. .
The hell there is!

Communist leaders have not had the most fantastic of track records. How many deaths would you estimate Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro or Stalin caused?

[Cattraknoff]

I agree with you, but there is no need to be so vehement with your indictments. The same could be applied to any extreme doctrine or creed.

As well as the more "moderate" ones.

[Locke]

The hell there is!

Communist leaders have not had the most fantastic of track records. How many deaths would you estimate Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro or Stalin caused?

How many deaths have Bush (for that matter the U.S. in general), Allende, Suharto, and countless others accounted for?
Borg stated it perfectly through "In practice, people will always be greedy."
One political system isn't any better than the other; each has its own flaws, and none of them will prevent humans from being avaricious and corrupt.

[Cattraknoff]

How many deaths have Bush (for that matter the U.S. in general), Allende, Suharto, and countless others accounted for?
Borg stated it perfectly through "In practice, people will always be greedy."
One political system isn't any better than the other; each has its own flaws, and none of them will prevent humans from being avaricious and corrupt.

None that we've come up with thus far. That's no reason to stop trying. Certainly no reason to stick with the current broken ones.

[Coll]

A benevolent dictatorship is obviously the most effective form of government. Theoretically.

[Cattraknoff]

A benevolent dictatorship is obviously the most effective form of government. Theoretically.

Being a very benevolent person, and having a fondness for dictating, I would like to put myself forward as a potential candidate.

[Mitch]

I'd vote for you Catt, o wait, dictatorships usually don't usually involve voting. Anyways, I'll help you take over parliament. :D lol

[bizwiz]

I vote for socialism. They have excellent social programs for their citizens plus low rate of crime with peace and order not really a problem.

[brookes]

We cannot have a society without any of them. We need Socialism and capitalism to go both hand in hand for the over all economic and social development of society. But some how i cant accept communism as it is always comes with violence.

brookes

[Locke]

Being a very benevolent person, and having a fondness for dictating, I would like to put myself forward as a potential candidate.

I'll be the scribe. The congenial scribe.

[Coll]

I'm still working on how a revolution could work in present days in one of the power/superpower states. I'm convinced it's doable but without some major planning it'd be suicide.

[Cattraknoff]

I'm still working on how a revolution could work in present days in one of the power/superpower states. I'm convinced it's doable but without some major planning it'd be suicide.

The largest problems are undoubtedly gaining some influential support, as quietly as possible, followed by a necessity of a rapid spread before the ringleaders are silenced.

[hideip]

Capitlism because the other two are not as efficient. In book terms, communism sounds excellent but things dont always work that way.

[Cattraknoff]

Capitlism because the other two are not as efficient. In book terms, communism sounds excellent but things dont always work that way.

Rampant capitalism promotes selfish greed and corruption. Capitalism in itself is foolhardy.

[Coll]

Socialism promotes communism.

[Ed Jones]

Socialism promotes communism.
Exactly.

Segregate the socialists! :p

[Cattraknoff]

Socialism promotes communism.

The solution then, is obviously Anarcho-capitalism.

Surely it shall be a long-standing, just, moral, and powerful system, to bring glory back to the west.

[GeneCosta]

Here's the mix-up with people and communism. People mix up communism with dictatorship. Those are two different things, communism is economic and dictatorships are political.
In theory, communism can be practiced in a democracy. But in practice people are dishonest and greedy. So, with those two factors you'll either move to capitalism or a dictatorship.

In theory (and in practice) communism must correspond with democracy. Communism revolves around the implementation of direct democracy and autonomy of the individual. Communism is, after all, just one form of anarchy. The revolutions that occurred in the 20th century were premature experiments. Marx and Engels even scoffed at the Russian revolutionaries for trying to implement a post-capitalist system in czarist Russia. Their concerns came true later on when Lenin (and Stalin) realized that you can't have socialism in a country of peasants whose only knowledge of tools ended at the plow. Mao faced similar challenges in China when he tried to democratize the small villages during the Cultural Revolution. His problem was even more exaggerated when the revisionists came to power in the USSR and took all aid away in less than a month.

I am quite open about my support for Marxism. In conversations I like to refer to myself a post-Marxist, although the term also applies to the recovery of East European nation-states after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[Cattraknoff]

In theory (and in practice) communism must be practiced with democracy. Communism revolves around the implementation of direct democracy and autonomy of the individual. Communism is, after all, just one form of anarchy.

I am quite open about my support for Marxism. In conversations I like to refer to myself a post-Marxist, although the term also applies to the recovery of East European nation-states after the collapse of the Soviet Union.



It still relies on the false ideal that people are equal in ability. They aren't. They should not earn the same.

[GeneCosta]

It still relies on the false ideal that people are equal in ability. They aren't. They should not earn the same.

Actually no, communists don't challenge the reality of individualism. We embrace it. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Under communism people wouldn't "earn" anything. Under socialism people are payed according to their work.

If people are not equal in ability, which is obviously true, then capitalism is a flimsy way of gaging wealth. Why should I get payed more than my neighbor if he's putting in all his effort and I'm just naturally good at what I do? There are plenty of people born to the upper tier who half-ass their way into millions while others work day and night to improve their conditions.

[Cattraknoff]

Actually no, communists don't challenge the reality of individualism. We embrace it. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Under communism people wouldn't "earn" anything. Under socialism people are payed according to their work.

If people are not equal in ability, which is obviously true, then capitalism is a flimsy way of gaging wealth. Why should I get payed more than my neighbor if he's putting in all his effort and I'm just naturally good at what I do? There are plenty of people born to the upper tier who half-ass their way into millions while others work day and night to improve their conditions.

Why should those who are better at things not be rewarded?

There is a line to be drawn though. No one deserves to make billions of dollars for pretty much nothing.

[GeneCosta]

Why should those who are better at things not be rewarded?

There is a line to be drawn though. No one deserves to make billions of dollars for pretty much nothing.

Those who are better at one thing than others should be rewarded with praise. Obviously under a system or profit-motive like capitalism (or even socialism) praise does not get you anything but little butterflies in your stomach, but without a wage system it would likely mean a lot.

Your second paragraph illustrates how the socialist transition stage will operate. Fantastic work will be rewarded much like it is under capitalism, only the wealth disparity wouldn't be so large because what would have been profits will circulate around to all workers involved. There can technically be an "entrepreneur." If I produce designs for an electric car running on 70 mpg, I can sell those ideas for $$$.

[Locke]

Sir, you are an idealist.
I tire of this debate. I tire of dogmatic enforcers, fence-riders, caustic polymaths.
To quote Buddhism: "Water is square in a square bowl: water is round in a round bowl. Yet often people forget that water itself is indefinite." We ascribe ourselves to these creeds, dispute over trifling matters, pseudo-speciate by cause of political leanings, yet nothing good has ever come of any dogmatic political/economic system on a large-scale because we are, in fact, all hominids of the specae sapiens.

[lihen]

In my point of view capatilisim is the most apt system in todays economy.
The advantages of capitalism are the government has limited control over business, which lets business compete. Capitalism lets people choose what kind of work they want to do and where they want to work. Capitalism lets people decide what they want to do with their money if they want to put it into a retirement account or in the stock market. But the disadvantages of Capitalism are barriers between people in terms of how much wealth they have or how much money they make. Another disadvantage of Capitalism is that government control is so limited that it lets a few businesses to dominate their industry and then they become able to make the rules for their industry.

[Mitch]

Capitalism is a VERY easily corruptible system.
Look at the US today, the US currency is owned by a private corporation. Your government is in an infinite amount of debt and can never escape unless the Federal Reserve is defeated.
Monopolization is very common, even with the laws. Most often, when a company starts up, let's a take a small software company Vs. Microsoft. The small company can't compete against Microsoft and fails, and Microsoft is left the one and only (AKA Monopoly).

[Cattraknoff]

Capitalism is a VERY easily corruptible system.
Look at the US today, the US currency is owned by a private corporation. Your government is in an infinite amount of debt and can never escape unless the Federal Reserve is defeated.
Monopolization is very common, even with the laws. Most often, when a company starts up, let's a take a small software company Vs. Microsoft. The small company can't compete against Microsoft and fails, and Microsoft is left the one and only (AKA Monopoly).

But it's the only system that's ever worked, is it not? That's why we should all accept it without question. We should not point out the flaws in the way our country is run. We must remain silent, because we wouldn't want people to lose faith in their country's future; financial or otherwise. We should close our eyes to the future that is awaiting us. Even though corruption is growing, and it's becoming obvious to the masses. We must have faith in our government, because it's a democracy. They haven't failed us before, we haven't fallen into tyranny since our nations were founded. Democracies have always worked, except in countries like Germany where they were "new democracies". We have to have faith that our democracy shall be eternal. Our democracy, our capitalist society is different, right? We will never know tyranny in our nation, because our populace believes in freedom, and would do anything to protect that. Do we all believe in the ideals that the United States was founded upon? What ancient Rome, as the Republic, was founded upon?

I imagine most would like to be treated equally by the government and the law. We do not want the law to favor the rich, the powerful. We do not want people to be treated better because of their status. We do not want people who are above judgement, who are above the law. The ideals that our society was founded upon, and the laws to protect them, are out-dated. As happened in Rome, as happened in Greece, as in many societies. How long did it take Rome to become corrupted? A few hundred years before it became an Empire. Less than that if you look from the beginning of their rise to power. The United States has been around at least as long as it took Rome to be corrupted. But it's far easier to corrupt us in the modern world now. We have far greater technology with which to pacify the populace. Rome had the gladiatorial games and other spectacles with which to distract them. To take their minds from the troubles of their day-to-day lives, to show them the greatness in conquering other peoples. Rome's corruption set in long before the fall. Its leaders perhaps even from the very beginning knew how to control the mob. They exploited this, and all the while the people believed they were working to benefit the people. They preached the ideals Rome was founded upon, to give the people faith in it. But a few quickly monopolized power, generally using their wealth, either hereditary or newly-made. Only the rich were able to gain positions of prominence in the senate, as they were the only ones who were known by anyone. Rome's corruption set in relatively early, and it was a long time before the Republic turned into the Empire.

What makes the United States so different? Do people truly believe it is so immune to the same corruption? Unchecked capitalism was a large part of the cause of Rome's corruption, and the same is true in the United States. The rich have monopolized power once again. A great deal of companies are absorbed into the major corporate leaders in any field. You can see as well in politics. Most of the men and women are fairly wealthy, and almost all of them have to follow a political party. The same corruptions that plagued the Roman Republic have affected America and most of the rest of the world. Our people blind themselves to the problems, because of the ease of doing so, and because we've been taught to have faith, we've been taught that things will somehow work out for the best, because our democracy is so great, so different. Many people simply can't be bothered to care, or believe that they can do nothing to fix the problems. Our society promotes this kind of thought. It's better to focus on other things: Our job so we can survive, and then spend as much time as we can distracting ourselves from our problems. We use TVs and many video games to be entertained without much real thought. Almost everything would encourage us not to think, unless it's solely about your job, or your enjoyment. Nothing else matters, certainly not what the government is doing. And when you do actually watch the news, you are bombarded with things you should be frightened of. Terrorism, global warming, economic crises, the only serious news we receive makes us not want to think about it too much. After being sufficiently terrified, we want to do something more "fun". We've had our fill of nasty thoughts for the day and so we change the channel to our favorite TV shows, or perhaps play some PS3. We rarely do any free thinking; Our thoughts are always directed at something, at the task at hand.

Our populace is one that is easy to control. We prefer our distractions, and so as long as we have them we shall remain content, apathetic. As long as we don't have to think about our problems too much, everything will be alright. We don't have to worry about our democratic rights being taken away. We don't have to worry about what the government is planning. We don't need to be afraid that they are able to use the military as a police force, that they are able to arrest people without charge nor trial on suspicion that they "might" be a terrorist. We don't need to worry that there is no way to verify that they are a terrorist or not, that they require no hard evidence to do this. We don't need to worry that these measures are strikingly similar to those implemented during Germany's transition to a fascist dictatorship prior to WW2, or Rome's transition to a dictatorship. We need not be worried, because our democracy is different. Because the rich do not have any power here, because there is absolutely no corruption to speak of... right? It surely doesn't run very deep. Our government isn't largely remaining in the hands of the same general group of people, is it?

How much faith can one truly have in their society? And what does it take to make the people question it? How obvious must the problems become before the people will act? I'm certain that few people actually believe in the benevolence of the government. How many people still like Bush? They dislike him but think that things will suddenly be better after he leaves. Politics in the west has been controlled by the type of people for generations. Few of them are not corrupt, and this is common knowledge. Yet we somehow trust them to continue running our lives. Why? Simply because people are not willing to do anything about it. In most cases few believe they even could, or they think perhaps the system will fix itself without the populace doing anything. They will suddenly decide not to be corrupt anymore, even as we are so easily distracted, even as it becomes easier to distract us.

The time for action against tyranny comes well before tyranny is set into place. We already have tyranny in a sense, it is simply well-hidden. The laws are in place that allow for complete control of the populace, and the wealth of the powerful ensures that they can remain in control. When it does finally become obvious to an oblivious populace, it is too late to act. The people do not realize what is happening until there is little hope of stopping it. There will be no chance this time around though. Tyranny this time will be absolute, new technologies will ensure it.

[Locke]

In my point of view capatilisim is the most apt system in todays economy.
The advantages of capitalism are the government has limited control over business, which lets business compete. Capitalism lets people choose what kind of work they want to do and where they want to work. Capitalism lets people decide what they want to do with their money if they want to put it into a retirement account or in the stock market. But the disadvantages of Capitalism are barriers between people in terms of how much wealth they have or how much money they make. Another disadvantage of Capitalism is that government control is so limited that it lets a few businesses to dominate their industry and then they become able to make the rules for their industry.

Why is it such an "apt" system within today's economy? Because the economy itself is capitalism. Therefore, communism or any variation thereof would obviously be impractical within actual society. It is inarguable to extol the practicality of one over the other as each has advantages and weaknesses.

We already have tyranny in a sense, it is simply well-hidden. The laws are in place that allow for complete control of the populace, and the wealth of the powerful ensures that they can remain in control. When it does finally become obvious to an oblivious populace, it is too late to act. The people do not realize what is happening until there is little hope of stopping it. There will be no chance this time around though. Tyranny this time will be absolute, new technologies will ensure it.

This is, in my knowledge, the fashion in which are manifested post-modern governments. Historically, because they were such paranoid sons of bitches, rulers often made shows of power to frighten and supress. It seems to me that it has been realized that there is nothing to suppress but the fear of revolution itself. Pockets of dissent will persist, but a longer-lasting empire can be built upon apathy than repression.

[oboehart]

The time for action against tyranny comes well before tyranny is set into place. We already have tyranny in a sense, it is simply well-hidden. The laws are in place that allow for complete control of the populace, and the wealth of the powerful ensures that they can remain in control. When it does finally become obvious to an oblivious populace, it is too late to act. The people do not realize what is happening until there is little hope of stopping it. There will be no chance this time around though. Tyranny this time will be absolute, new technologies will ensure it.

Fascinating. If I understand your post correctly, you believe that in a Capitalist system, the leaders are corrupt and they're destroying our lives. And we, the people, need to do something about it! Excellent idea. However, WAIT… if we switched to a different system of government (Socialist or Communist) we'd be giving these leaders MORE POWER!!!!! I don't understand how giving politicians more influence (who, by nature of being politicians, have to "play the game" to succeed, so they are inevitably going to be somewhat corrupt by the time they're in power) is going to improve things. I'm all for capitalism in the West. It's the best system we have thus far. Yes, I agree that we need to keep looking: but there are only so many variants of the same thing. And I believe the last time people were fed up with Communism AND Capitalism, Fascism was created (which I would argue is considerably worse than both.)

I believe that generally, Capitalism is the best system (of the three mentioned).
On a different note, something that hasn’t been brought up yet in this thread, is that every society is different. In my opinion, Capitalism is the worst possible system for China. But it’s working quite well in western nations. I think there is something inherently wrong in picking one system, and calling it the best one. Each system has a different set of strengths and weaknesses, and every nation has different needs. Just as imposed democracy rarely works, I think that every country has a different history, social structure, value system…and just because Capitalism is working in our neck of the woods, doesn’t mean that we should pressure the rest of the world to become Capitalist.
I don’t personally agree with all of the values of any of the systems, so in an ideal world, I would tend to combine the systems to some extent, but I would propose a different system for every region.

[Mitch]

Well said, well said.
Each system has it's strength and weaknesses and it's a matter of finding a good combination of strength and weaknesses for a country.
A country as large as China, I don't imagine a representative democracy would be ideal. Neither would a capitalist system, 1 Billion people could sway the economy one way one week, and another the next.
However, I don't think the other options would fit China quite well. Communism would be VERY difficult, and has been. There was constant famine when China was communist, quite like North Korea today.
I think it will take some thinking before China gets going and I think that the US should STFU about their "Democracy and Capitalism is better than you!" crap. Look at Cuba, the US completely cut them off, and they're doing quite well. A communist regime works very well in Cuba and the US should just leave them alone.

[Coll]

Fascinating. If I understand your post correctly, you believe that in a Capitalist system, the leaders are corrupt and they're destroying our lives. And we, the people, need to do something about it! Excellent idea. However, WAIT… if we switched to a different system of government (Socialist or Communist) we'd be giving these leaders MORE POWER!!!!! I don't understand how giving politicians more influence (who, by nature of being politicians, have to "play the game" to succeed, so they are inevitably going to be somewhat corrupt by the time they're in power) is going to improve things. I'm all for capitalism in the West. It's the best system we have thus far. Yes, I agree that we need to keep looking: but there are only so many variants of the same thing. And I believe the last time people were fed up with Communism AND Capitalism, Fascism was created (which I would argue is considerably worse than both.)

I believe that generally, Capitalism is the best system (of the three mentioned).
On a different note, something that hasn’t been brought up yet in this thread, is that every society is different. In my opinion, Capitalism is the worst possible system for China. But it’s working quite well in western nations. I think there is something inherently wrong in picking one system, and calling it the best one. Each system has a different set of strengths and weaknesses, and every nation has different needs. Just as imposed democracy rarely works, I think that every country has a different history, social structure, value system…and just because Capitalism is working in our neck of the woods, doesn’t mean that we should pressure the rest of the world to become Capitalist.
I don’t personally agree with all of the values of any of the systems, so in an ideal world, I would tend to combine the systems to some extent, but I would propose a different system for every region.


Wait, what's wrong with fascism?

[Cattraknoff]

Wait, what's wrong with fascism?

I'm sure you could find a few things, if you tried hard enough. However I think it's completely unfair and baseless to say that communism is better than fascism.

Fascism is at least a little more realistic.

Well said, well said.
Each system has it's strength and weaknesses and it's a matter of finding a good combination of strength and weaknesses for a country.
A country as large as China, I don't imagine a representative democracy would be ideal. Neither would a capitalist system, 1 Billion people could sway the economy one way one week, and another the next.
However, I don't think the other options would fit China quite well. Communism would be VERY difficult, and has been. There was constant famine when China was communist, quite like North Korea today.
I think it will take some thinking before China gets going and I think that the US should STFU about their "Democracy and Capitalism is better than you!" crap. Look at Cuba, the US completely cut them off, and they're doing quite well. A communist regime works very well in Cuba and the US should just leave them alone.

Indeed. At any rate, Fascism or something similar would probably work best for China, at least until they finish developing; Democracy could work if and when the populace is educated enough to actually be informed. However since that's failing epicly in what are supposedly the best educated countries in the world (the west), I'd say it'll probably never work anyway; barring some drastic change of course.

[Coll]

The West has the most educated people in the world? Perhaps you're forgetting the scholarly monks of Micronesia...

There isn't really a clear definition of what "Fascism" is. The few cases of countries that were labeled as fascists were pretty different ideologically, but share a few aspects. The merits of fascism can't really be debated since nobody knows exactly what it is, bar a few countries in the 20th century who advocated nationalism and strong dictators. This of course, wouldn't work in a country like the USA which is full of different cultures who couldn't really share a goal of national unity and order.

However, I do think it's much more likely to have a benevolent ruler manage a "fascist" country effectively than a true communist country functioning ideally.

[Ed Jones]

The West has the most educated people in the world? Perhaps you're forgetting the scholarly monks of Micronesia...

Micronesia is a tiny group of islands. Kids in the west have far more chance of succeeding in education than a child from Guam.

[Locke]

However, I do think it's much more likely to have a benevolent ruler manage a "fascist" country effectively than a true communist country functioning ideally.

True; fascism appeals to the individual's inherent ignorance.
I do agree with you on the contention that there is no clear definition of fascism. Most people seem to have collected their concept of it from 1984 or the like.

[Cattraknoff]

True; fascism appeals to the individual's inherent ignorance.
I do agree with you on the contention that there is no clear definition of fascism. Most people seem to have collected their concept of it from 1984 or the like.

I'd say the masses would think of Nazi Germany as their example, rather than 1984.

Of course National Socialism and Nazism are completely different ideologies in reality; however one must consider that the average person always chooses the easiest option over what is right or "real".

[Coll]

Micronesia is a tiny group of islands. Kids in the west have far more chance of succeeding in education than a child from Guam.

More chance than the Guamese? Madness.

[Spartacus]

We often hear the line that Capitalism " works. " While I agree with the statement it could also be said that slavery " works " , is that an arguement for the reintroduction of slavery ?

If we consider that the Soviets went from peasant nation to a world power within a few decades it could be argued , from a developmental view , that Communism works.

Feudalism is the same , it works.

So in my view it is not so much whether things work or not it is what is the best way to organize society. Obviously people will have/hold radically differing views of what their ideal societal structure would be.

But some things to consider..................

The Western Capitalism we know today is not pure Capitalism , imo. It is Capitalism that has been softened/pacified by the popular struggles of people who were the hardest hit by its development.
These struggles led to Trade Unions , a Welfare System , Pensions schemes , Healthcare etc etc.......... all accepted by most people today as part of the Western Capitalist system. But the truth is none of these things were benevolent gifts from the elites of the Capitalist system , they were all won by popular struggle from below. And as we can see today , all are in constant danger of revision by Capitalist ruling elites.

Whenever Communism is mentioned we are subjected to the usual...... What about the massacres of Mao Zedong , Stalin..... ( I don't know how people fitted Castro into the same group earlier in this thread ) It has more to do with Dictatorships than with the Communist ideology

Whilst I don't deny the crimes of Stalin et al we in the West are , and have been , fed very sanitized versions of our own massacres and crimes . Or we have massacred by proxy ( Western supported oligarchies , Despots, ) If we were to consider how many people have died through starvation , poverty , disease etc caused by Western capitalism around the globe we would dwarf the figures achieved by the Communist dictatorships by some distance I,m sure.
A better example imo of how a Communist State would function is Cuba. We can only guess as to what they might have achieved without the rabid sanctions imposed on them by the West for nearly 50 years. They are a remarkable and resourceful people.

Socialism has always been a hard one to judge seeing as the fear of a good example by the rich and powerful capitalist nations has historically condemned any attempt to implement it. There are so many examples to give I won't even attempt a full list. But for the sake of analysis Venezuela under Chavez is a contemporary example. The knives are out for Chavez and so another example of Socialism in action will meet the same fate as every other attempt, bloody suppression.

Fascism has also been mentioned here. Mussolini actually thought that Fascism was not the best term to describe his from of government/dictatorship. He prefered the term Corporatism because he thought his project was the perfect union between big business ( corporations) and the State. Americans here may well see some similarities in their own form of government of late.

Whatever choice/preferences people may have about political ideologies there are two major points ,imo. Firstly , whatever system is in place it will never satisfy everybody. And secondly , I can only thank the anarchists for this , whatever system is in place there should be the bare minimum amount of power ceded to whoever is in charge of it and accountability in the use of that power to the people is a must.

What a minefield political ideologies can be :p

[Locke]

Whenever Communism is mentioned we are subjected to the usual...... What about the massacres of Mao Zedong , Stalin..... ( I don't know how people fitted Castro into the same group earlier in this thread ) It has more to do with Dictatorships than with the Communist ideology.

The Communist theory is particularily conducive to dictatorships. One could assume based on past experiments that there is a positive correlation between the two. I'm not an ardent dichotomizer, nor do I believe that Communism will never be successful, but it will likely keep manifesting with the same autocracy if newer forms and different forms are not considered.

[Spartacus]

The Communist theory is particularily conducive to dictatorships. One could assume based on past experiments that there is a positive correlation between the two. I'm not an ardent dichotomizer, nor do I believe that Communism will never be successful, but it will likely keep manifesting with the same autocracy if newer forms and different forms are not considered.

I agree with your post Locke. The dangers of dictatorship within the Communist ideology were pointed out long before the Russian Revolution most noticeably by Bakunin , Rosa Luxemberg , etc.
It took a few years for the Bolsheviks to suppress the libertarian elements within the Russian people......... Kronstadt being probably the most well known.

Having said that it could be argued that our own system ( western society ) has inherent dangers of a dictatorship albeit a more silent less obvious form .
We have , imo , succumbed to the Corporate dictatorship of our societies.

If we take the USA as an example , people can vote Republican or Democrat but they will ultimately be governed by the Business party. Dictatorship is so much more subtle in the West :)

[Cattraknoff]

I agree with your post Locke. The dangers of dictatorship within the Communist ideology were pointed out long before the Russian Revolution most noticeably by Bakunin , Rosa Luxemberg , etc.
It took a few years for the Bolsheviks to suppress the libertarian elements within the Russian people......... Kronstadt being probably the most well known.

Having said that it could be argued that our own system ( western society ) has inherent dangers of a dictatorship albeit a more silent less obvious form .
We have , imo , succumbed to the Corporate dictatorship of our societies.

If we take the USA as an example , people can vote Republican or Democrat but they will ultimately be governed by the Business party. Dictatorship is so much more subtle in the West :)

Which is what makes them superior in the west. The people actually believe they have a say; consequently the chance of revolution is (almost) non-existent.

[Coll]

Russia was a peasant nation before they were communist and not afterwards?

I would assume a "peasant" country would be a country which is heavily laden by peasants, which Russia was under communist rule. Have you been to Russia recently? They're not all millionaires, but they're better off than they were under the bolsheviks.

[Cattraknoff]

Russia was a peasant nation before they were communist and not afterwards?

I would assume a "peasant" country would be a country which is heavily laden by peasants, which Russia was under communist rule. Have you been to Russia recently? They're not all millionaires, but they're better off than they were under the bolsheviks.

To be fair any semi-intelligent leader could've brought about the same prosperity. Oil provided a nice economic boom. Now they're more fascist than anything, I'd say. Probably to their benefit, Russians don't seem to mind being under a dictatorship.

[Coll]

Russia's got a strange situation with the oligarchs and Putin.

[Spartacus]

Which is what makes them superior in the west. The people actually believe they have a say; consequently the chance of revolution is (almost) non-existent.

Most Westerners would be horrified at that the suggestion that they live under a dictatorship. Which shows how much of a good job the silent dictators ( the business parties ) of the West have performed.

It does have an eerie side to it .

Under Russian dictatorship the people were allowed to believe what they liked so long as they didn't try to do anything about it. Restriction of actions. They also largely believed that the Communist Party media ( Pravda etc ) was crammed with propaganda , a view which I wouldn't disagree with.

The difference with Western dictatorship is that people are much more free to act on their thoughts/passions/beliefs whatever you want to call them , so the opportunites for control by ruling elites are more limited.
The result is , imo , that the Western dictatorships need a lot more control over what the people actually think to instill compliance. Hence the myth of the Western " liberal media " , we simply don't tend to see the propaganda in our own media system. ( which shows little difference from the likes of Pravda due to its corporate ownership )
An ex Russian Afghanistan veteran ( whos name escapes me ) conducted a remarkable study of Russian propaganda during its Afghan campaign and compared it to the media coverage of the recent Western invasion of Afghanistan. The results were almost identical. Both claimed to be fighting extremists for the benefit of the vast majority of Afghans. Both aiming to " stabilize " the country so that the people could live and develop in a fairer and freer society etc etc


I would assume a "peasant" country would be a country which is heavily laden by peasants, which Russia was under communist rule. Have you been to Russia recently? They're not all millionaires, but they're better off than they were under the bolsheviks.

Well pre soviet Russia was very much a peasant nation. You must have heard of Stalins famous 5 year plans aimed at industrializing the soviet economy. Under the Communists the rate of industrial growth was quite outstanding. Unemployment was largely unheard of. They were not subjected to the same crass consumerism we see in our own societies which is the cause of the rapid rise in depression rates here

I don't necessarily agree that the Russians are " better off " now than they were under Communism , especially post Stalin . Since they opened up to the West the people of Russia have witnessed two calamitous collapses of their economy with the loss of all their savings. The gap between rich and poor has skyrocketed and drink and drug abuse ( usual signs of poverty induced despair ) are rampant. Western military threats ( missile bases etc ) are getting ever closer to the Russians who now have large western forces in countries right next to their territory

When Gorbachev tried to end the cold war with the West and open up trade , reduce weapons and so on he was shunned by them. They would sooner deal with gangsters than communists it would appear. Hence the Russia of today , as has already been mentioned here , is run by an oligarchy with Putin at its helm. The promotion of oligarchies is very much in keeping with western economic culture at an international level. Modern day Russia is no exception to that rule.