Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The transition from corruptive capitalism to generic socialism and eventual communism. What do you think of these philosophies?

the idea behind it is good, very jesusish.

The trouble with communism is that if everybody gets an equal share of money, then there is no motivation for anybody to work or try to get a better job than anybody else. The country then becomes lazy and the economy collapses

well but if everyone gets equal share of money there is no need to stive for better jobs.

But why would they do a difficult job if somebody else with an easy job gets as much money

yawn puke

thats what I think

Dont be silly - everyone here knows you cant think.

Your way of thinking here is of a capitalistic point of view. The ideology is that all jobs are just as important, that they are all just as much worth regardless if you are a doctor or a bossman. They all participate to make their society work......... now thats the theoretical idea behind it. How it worked in the real life is a different matter all togehter though.

Watch or read George Orwells "Animal farm" then you get a pretty good picture of how a good idea turned sour

Yip, communism is a great idea in theory, as is socialism, but it doesn't work in real life. Human nature tends to put a spanner in the works. In communism, power corrupts. It's been proven in real life applications. In socialist societies, you have problems like in England where 15 year old girls fall pregnant, on purpose, so they can go on the dohl (or however you spell that). Like so many theories, it just isn't practical. At this point in time, the only thing that can work is capitalism. Wallerstein reckons the only thing after this is socialism. I don't know.

socialism was originally an idea for standing up for the underdog, but the Labour Party has very long since abandoned any such motive!

an interisting quote

"In theory communism works ... in theory."

and you can take a guess who said that

Capitalism is still THE major form of government, they just made it a little more democratic and changed the name.

The man was a genious! One of the greatest philosophers of all time. There has always been debates about what was written by Marx and what was written by his close friend Engels. I, personally don't debate much on who wrote what because for me the message is the same.....this world belongs to the working class and eventually the proletariat will triumph over the opressor.

Now, it is very unfortunate that his ideas in the Manifesto were corrupted during the 20th century. From the Soviets to Castro they took what they liked from the Marx's ideas and used them for their own causes. I kinda see The Communist Manifesto as a religious book. Some people take what they want from it and turn it into their own agendas. What a pity indeed.

the idea was ok
but the system was just WRONG.

Homer Simpson said it once.

I've noticed that people who worship Marx and Lenin tend to steer clear of Stalin, but I have come across an exception before - someone advocating Stalin's system as being ideal!

Stalin was a paranoid butcher dictator, Lenin also went away from the theory the communism was built uppon. He created the leadership, the soviets, an elite group who had privilages beyond what the avarage man had. By doing so the idea of all is equal was gone

Trotsky was the only one that kept the ideas of Marx intact. A true marxist to the core.

nah he was a Leninist and a treath to Stalins plan as a heir to the Soviet Union so he had to "go"

He did "go"......to Mexico for a vacation.

he was in Norway ,but he smelled the Stalin boys comming and fled to Mexico for his permanent vacation

The one thing that realy gets to me when people try and debate about Marxism is how they cannot distinguish between Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism - all very different.

I think he had an awesome idea - he did undermine some things on the sociological part and excluded women complitely, but as a whole, his ideas were great.

ehh we are kind of in the middle of that distinguishing here lil

Yeah. You sort of made it clear - i sort of supported - it all fits nicely.

*in a Ace Ventura voice* AAAALLLRIGTHY THEN

I'm a full-blown supporter of capitalism myself. I don't even feel bad about admitting it. I've heard the arguments against, I've heard the arguments for, I've heard it all. But I honestly believe that in this day and age capitalism is the only thing that can work right now, in this space of time. It'll change later, but it's too soon yet.

I support capitalism myself. But the one thing that Marx makes clear that if capitalism can't be moderate it will cause a social outbalance. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Eventually the system will clash and progress won't go anywhere.

I think the idea behind it was good. But it sadly enough failed(It was a good solution for poor country's).

Exactly. Anyone that's not politically blind can see that Marx's ideas are coming true. Capitalism is making the rich richer, and it scares me.

Its very true anyway - Richer are becoming richer by making the poor poorer. Its how capitalism works.

Anyway, this is one of those rare threads where its actually a philosophical debate, so moving to philosophy forum.

Proletariat revolution could be on it's way?

Hopefully. I must say I am a supporter of the doctrine, as a political ideology that aims for equality and freedom, it is a terrible shame that it was bastardised and used as it was. This is due in part to the fact that the Manifesto, while a brilliant work, was not really a step by step plan for how to implement Marxism/Communism. It was the theory, laying out how Marx believed the world was developing, and what needed to be done. The groundwork's of the politics, as it were. That contributed in part to the eventual failure, as the human element always ended up twisting Marx ideals to suit their own end.

Dont forgett Friedrich Engles in all this

Indeed, Marx's close compatriot and equal. He seems to have been largely forgotten in every aspect, despite some historians wondering if he played a greater role then Marx in the ascent of Communism. Perhaps its because his name doesn't work as well with an -ism on the end.... Engelism?

We've had a proletariat revolution here already (10 years ago to be exact). Enter corruption and deceipt. No-one winse. The rich still get richer, the poor poorer. And they get exploited. Nothing changes because Marxism did not take human nature into account.

Before I set myself up for major disaster here, we had a proletariat revolution as such with communism as a major stance. Since then, the now ruling party has revoked it's ideals and so we're back to square one, with even more problems and more poor people. No-one wins it was meant to say.

If only it were possible to remove human fallibility from the implementation of the system, it could work...... of course thats quite impossible. A terrible shame that a theory that promised so much could evolve in such a twisted way.

Communism, as envisioned by Marx, was a viable solution to the social and economical problems experienced by the middle class. However when the idea was implemented by Lenin, the ability of the people to have a system of checks and balances was done away with. The only part of communism that has yet to be fully thought out and realized is the right of those who subscribe to it to maintain a system of checks and balances for those they place in power.

Also, I believe that communism, while sound in theory, can not operate on a scale large enough to cater to the needs of an entire nation. Too many people='s too many problems.

Marx and Engles had a great idea. Lenin failed to realize it's potential, and Stalin came along and totally ****ed it up. Let's not forget that Lenin, before he died, made it public within the party, that he didn't want Stalin to be his successor. Lenin knew what kind of man Stalin was. But, by that point, Lenin was little more than a vegitable. So, he became the focal point of his own vision and it ended up suffocating him in the process.

very much so, a good idea corrupted by its follower who actually didnt manage to change the class system they loathed so much.

An idea that failed in basically every way: it didn't take hold in the industrialized nations like Marx and Engles envisioned, it didn't improve the lives of people under the system, etc.

Marx had the ideas, Engles financed him.

Your partially correct there...
Marx thought that governemnt was a progression. Capatalism WOULD occur and communism would come after because the factory workers would revolt. Stalin tryed to shortcut this process. He eventually failed as we know

The bottom line is that Maxism/Communism can only exist as an ideal. Wether you want to admit it or not, it is human nature to always strive to be better than his nieghbor. Humans are selfish, greedy, ignorant, and stupid, and so the ideal that Communism needs to work shall never exist, therefore true Communism will never exist and prevail.

And dont mention China, because they have a Capitalist economy.

Exactly.....

The closest thing you got to the ideals of communism was Albania, it was a more or less closed society. Then came the Perestroika wind sweeping over the East Block countries and the shit hit the fan there as well, now it one of the most corrupted and criminalized countries in Europe

That's not true communism you're describing, though. TRUE communism has never existed for any long period of time. Communism in its purest form is a society which has no money system. The government that exists is only there to regulate trade and to ensure that nobody is getting more than their fair share of resources. For example, in a capitalist society, farmers grow food to be sold. In a communist society, farmers would grow food to be eaten. Everybody has to accept that each person does a job, and each person gets what they need to stay alive. Jobs that nobody wants to do would either be done away with altogether somehow, or everybody would spend a small amount of time doing that job. The incentive for being more educated or working harder than other people is that you are more respected in the community. People who are able to work, but choose not to, are not given charity.

That being said, I don't think a communist society could work, at least not in the forseeable future. Some people are honest, but others are naturally greedy and would probably find a way to get around the government and take advantage of the system. Another problem is that the government doesn't have enough power. Nobody likes the feds nosing around in their personal lives, but they need SOME power, because there will always be people who won't accept their responsibility to the society.

Wow, I agree with you again....What is the world coming too.

Communism was one of the greatest dangers in the history of the world

elaborate that please

Yeah, how is that?

No, Stalin's ideals were. Big difference.

I consider myself a Libertarian Socialist (if you know that phrase, you know what I am )

but I would gladly embrace the ideal (ideal, not necessarily the historic practices) of communism, should it ever be tested with any degree of devotion. I don't like the idea of a state lording over the people, but communism is up front with the connection between industry and the government, whereas capitalism is sort of a sugar-coated oligarchy of the corporate leaders.

Should I post information about Cuba's health system?

They're all lousy...capitalism being the least lousiest.

I think socialism wanted to solve some "injustices" of capitalism, but perhaps they did it in the wrong way.

Marx? Of course a genius.

People don't understand that communism requires society to evolve to a point where people do 'harder' jobs because they need to be done, for job satisfaction, reputation and merit, not for personal material gain.
Obviously that won't happen overnight, but I think it will happen, one day. The american empire will fall and the world will be free!
(here i am guilty of gross oversimplification. don't poke me!)

(edit)

Communism failed because it was not TRUE communism. True communism is good for everyone living within it. Really though, the only way to have real communism is for the whole world to go along with it.
Capitalism seems to be based on the principal of survival of the fittest (or possibly fattest). Though is grossly unfair because it involves a small elite of rich people (most of whom haven't worked a day in theri lives) dominating a large class of poor people (who work very, very hard every single day).

The oddest part to me is that "christians" tend to prefer capitalism, even though communism is so much closer to the christian ideal as portrayed in the bible. Love all equally, etc.