Bitcoin Forum

In some countries comunism is a threat to religions and government. What do you think of the growth of comunism in your country?

Communism itself does not pose much of a threat. Just as a rule in the countries that are building communism come to power dictators and populists who rely on the support of the most educated people. America has made the first step.

I think it worked well for the Soviet Union......

Its fundamental values are good and seem to appeal to many people, but communism is like cancer, it can't be sustained without draining the country and leading it to poverty.
What values are good? Absence of money and social classes of course, but that can't be achieved as not all people are the same and without money we'd have to barter.

I think that you are not right. The Soviet Union also was not good. Otherwise, he would not cease to exist and not building communism. It is a tale to fool the population. Communism is a religion based on a utopian science.

Communism does not work. It always fall apart given enough time. So I don't see it as a threat.

Do Communist countries always collapse, but how many people suffer from this! Look at North Korea the Communist country and is now trying to threaten the world. Putin also constantly voiced the idea of restoring the USSR.

Nowadays the word "Communism" is having a different meaning in different nations. For example in Moldova, the Communist Party and the Socialist Party are the most right-wing parties, while the opposition (Liberal Democrats) are leftists.

Maybe because of the communism in many countries in the world was/is a very shady phenomena because it makes people think differently, isolates them and it's not good for the community and its consequences are very big even after the communism time. Maybe communism can be goon in some aspects but from what we have seen in many countries in the world it is not good, at least my opinion.

I lived in the communist country, so I can share something ''first hand''.
Communist had good intention, that all people should be equal and paid equal for their work.
Unfortunately, they couldn't understand that people will misuse it and try to cheat system, work less and expect the same reward.
Also, nobody had inspiration or will to work more, if salary will be the same.
Because of this logic, communism failed.
Capitalism is not perfect but at least respect people more.

Currently China is doing good and mixing communism with capitalism this is currently ideal for many countries and they are growing fastest in the world with access for all in every field

There's never been a true communist society and never will be.

Human nature is fundamentally incapable of making it happen.

I think he was being sarcastic in his comment, my thoughts about communism are very simple it does not work so there is no point in trying it, but if for some reason the country where I live wanted to adopt it that is the day I will move out of the country.

I am not living in a communist country but in a Democratic country. There are no difference between communist country and a democratic country. What makes the difference is the attitude of the leader. If you are living in a communist country and your leader is respectful of the citizens then that country would be haven for the citizens but if you are living in a democratic country but your leaders are corrupt you will have no freedom and are living in hell.

Name one Communist country where the leaders are not corrupt. I don't know. But when the Communist country changes its path of development to capitalist standard of living of the population increases.

What do You call as "Communist country"?
The kibbutz?

As far as I know, the kibbutz is not a Communist organization, and a socialist. In addition, there is no persecution for faith in God. For me, the Communist countries were the Soviet Union , China, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and others.

China mixed communist ideology and politics with free market ideology, basically capitalism.
It seems to work now but in the long term, free market and exchange of ideas and people will transform Chinese society.
Eventually, communist party in China will loose their political monopoly and power.
It will happen gradually, of course but it can't be prevented.

China perhaps? China is not 100% corruption-free, but the levels are much lower when compared to most of the other third world nations. Also, the corrupt officials are severely punished in China, and some have been executed for taking bribes.

WOW
If so, why USSR is a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
All of cited are "socialists" and Venezuela is bolivar.

DPRK are lunatics, there is nothing that is about "comunism".

I wouldn't go as far as to say that China will cease to be an authoritarian state. It is very difficult to keep in subjection so many people. I think that in such countries it is difficult to do without a hard rule.

Someone have no idea about basics

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Communism is a sinister form of control and slavery.

Lenin/Stalin, Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro were all funded by international bankers to overthrow the established regimes in russia, china and cuba.

Communism is advertised as being a "revolution by the people" but in reality the only reason it exists is because globalist bankers back it with large sums of money.

South korea and north korea used to be the same country.

South korea has modern conveniences and a decently high standard of living under capitalism.

North korean's do not have electricity or a modern standard of living due to the oppression and regressiveness of communism/socialism.

The divide between north korea and south korea is possibly the best illustration of how capitalism is superior to socialism/communism.

In the final analysis, communism is a form of slavery instituted by elitist bankers to control entire countries, stagnate innovation/progress and maintain extreme low levels of status quo.

Fat cat, wealthy, elites at the top of the food chain fear hungry talent climbing the ladder and dethroning them. Someone starting a business in their garage and becoming the next google or apple is what bankers fear.

Under capitalism anyone can start a business and become the next apple or google if they work hard enough. This is the reason for bankers supporting communism/socialism and critizing capitalism as under those systems people lack the freedom to start a business.

Communism/socialism are regressive systems that cripple individual innovation and progress.

Both communism and socialism are designed to keep the poor--poor and the rich--rich.

The only reason people support socialism/communism is because bankers also throw money and influence behind schools misleading young people in order to indoctrinate them into having pro socialist/pro communist worldviews.

If it wasn't for bankers supporting communism with their big money, it wouldn't exist and no one would support it.

Says the guy behind his natural computer in a natural English language drinking his natural Coke

I'm so glad we're all so respectful of natural trends like fucking as many women as we can or killing neighboors that are physically weaker than us. Nature is always the best indeed!

Yeah!

Let's take one definition and one application of communism and make a whole generalization. I mean communism is easy to define: it's when Russian or Chinese men with big moustaches make propaganda.

I mean we can't imagine communism without totalitarism right? Or communism without the privation of right of ownership?

Could it be that you all have a very narrow-minded definition of communism faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar from the possibilities it offers?
Nah couldn't be that. You must be right.

Capitalism for the win!

Tell me the etnic origin of founders of Russian Social Democratic Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Social_Democratic_Labour_Party).

The Communists in all countries start with the policy of war communism. It always leads to civil war and as a consequence to the destruction of the country and the loss of entire generations. Russia today is a Communist country.

Communism puts everything in the hands of the Ruler, it makes the government all powerful and this will eventually give rise to Tyranny, But it all depends on the leader, if Power is shared equally among the arms of Government and when everyone is held accountable it will definitely check tyranny.

Show me a single example of a Communist leader, who was not a tyrant. Without the tyranny of communism is not possible to build. Who voluntarily wants to give up their property?

Lol all were tyrants. Absolute Power corrupts but not everyone. But i dont think The Royal Families of Saudi Arabia are not tyrants. Kings ruled in the ancient time where everything were in their hands, They ruled fairly and were not tyrants. I think it depends with the person who holds the power.

What are you talking about! The monarchy is always tyranny. Saudi Arabia is ruled by the Royal family and what you want to say that this is a democratic country? You obviously don't know what you're talking about!

WOW.
Explain the structure of such type of the state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_Council_(Russia)

in some countries they have the government which classify as communist. communisim has pros and cons. the pros  are the people will having a good governance as it requires the more on securities and such. this must be more secured country and the cons will be you should give up on your personal wants.

Look at
Russia is definitely not a communist Country but its definitely a dictatorship hiding behind the illusion of Democracy, It's a classic wolf under a sheep clothing saga.

Indonesia had suffered from civil war of treason by Indonesian Comunist Party in 1948 and 1965. And all the attempts were fail. Unfortunately, the generation of the comunists now want to regain the country. I can't imagine if there will be civil war again in Indonesia. I hope and I pray, there will not happen.

http://m.imgur.com/gallery/hlF3nKg

 ;D ;D

I think capitalist countries should rent out their flags to major corporations yearly but if that happens it means these wall street barons have taken over the world. I believe its going to happen one day.

Looks good on paper, shit in reality

Ideology that killed 3 times more people than fascism
And is treated as a good thing in some countries today

People in ex-communist countries still rule the new democracies and their mentality is prevailing in the general public
Terrible

We can see how North Korea performs and how South Korea performs

I believe communism needs to be put on the same page with fascism and forbid it's symbols to be shown in public

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P2f92E2SAk

What is Your problem?

I love communism, but believe that it's hated on a bit too much once the economies have been properly developed. It was a startup idea from back when the Chinese Silk Road introduced potential and allowed countries to learn what to move away from.

Communism is a long process and just like with the West having Democracy, it's not overnight and i'd be proud of further exchange between ecnomic development.

What thy fuck?

Is this real life  :D :D

Real DPRK, yes.

Even though the Saudi Arabia country isn't a communist country, Its one of the most tyrannical government ever. Its third in the list of executions, they follow other tyrannical countries like China and Iran. But with all this, The US Government is such close allies with them, why is a champion of democracy so in bed with tyrannical ruler. Only God knows.

Not only will The Communist States of America be pursuing protective policies to prevent the spread of world socialism in the Americas, but the American explicitly aims to destroy the heart of communism itself.

Uniforming societies is plain stupid. What Communism attempts to do is in all ways irrational, for it to work everyone would need to have exactly the same needs and value equally exactly the same things.

So there was never Communism, it was just a tool for work the poorly educated into Populism of a few.

The interests of the Greek people, the British people, of all the peoples of Europe must not be placed under a "false flag». They must not be placed under the flags of the bourgeoisie and its various sections, which determine their choices and international alliances according to their interests and on the basis of the greatest possible exploitation of the workers. 

I think Comunism is very bad for citizens of any country. People loses their freedom and become stupid zombified sheeps. Comunism in some sence is a sort of religion in my opinion. Examples are North Korea, China and USSR

It's not only what you think, it's a fact. They are the cause why people have a lack of independence to live free. Sadly, it is impossible to unleash 100% of them because they we armed and if ever some of them were killed, they can influnce others to go against the peace which is what their side.

Communism is a pipedream and most "communist" governments turn into totalitarian shit holes.

I think those who appreciate or advocate communism have given very little thought as to the practical application of this system, and think of only the promised gains; boy wouldn't it be great if everyone was even and wasn't self-interested, if everyone gave what they could and got what they needed--but these are humans we're talking about.

Everyone's looking out for themselves: it's how our ancestors made it, it's how their ancestor's made it, it's how every single chain of evolution down the line managed to make it: every altruistic being to have ever existed has perished as an individual entity, for those beings which were self-interested took more than those being which were not: the altruistic beings gave but did not get back, and the power gained by the self-interested organisms made it very easy to control the altruistic organisms.

Consider the history of communism: the idea, when it was first gaining traction, was that the communist society would be populated by the "new socialist man": this man, as described, would be the altruistic individual who, through cultural training, would be fully accepting of the gateway between capitalism and communism: socialism.  In the societies in which socialism was attempted, in the pursuit of communism, this "new socialist man" never sprouted: it was the same old self-interested genes which every living being needs to thrive.  The system was not designed for this manner of being, it was designed for some other non-existing creature, and as such problems arose: for example, in Soviet Russia--a failed socialist state--you were assigned by the state to perform a given job; people were not paid any more or less based on their performance, nor did they personally own any of the organizations they worked for (ironically), so wound up giving the absolute minimal effort required to get through the day.  Usually this was not a job you particularly enjoyed; the state was not interested in you as an individual, you were simply a cog in the collective.

Performance levels of farms and factories plummeted; necessary parts to make things worked were of terrible quality, as the quotas being met were technically fulfilled, just not very well.  Productivity plummets; all the capital gained from capitalism is drying up, and since people cannot simply go out in a market and fix what needed to be fixed--that was abolished, after all, along with money, and even if it wasn't abolished they were promised 'what they needed' anyway.  Without a price system, nobody knows what's worth what anymore--this makes it impossible to care for finite resources: normally as supply dwindles and demand rises the price rises with it, a natural deterrent to overconsumption, but no such indication existed, so those resources were often spent frivolously, and that's compounded with poor worker performance.

The economy suffered tremendously; people were dropping like flies: if they weren't dying from starvation, they were being killed by their own governments, dying in wars of desperation (http://www.scottmanning.com/content/communist-body-count/), and even being genocided just because the men in power could (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor).  Needless to say, they had to go back to some form of partial free market activity to survive, and thus the Soviet Union is no more, and "communist" China is not communist, though its head political party claims to be, and a whole list of other socialist nations stopped being socialist; one would think socialism would've finally died there, but with the magic wand of public education, the lesson was lost on resulting generations who are yet ignorant of the horrors born from the abandonment of capitalism and its principles.

Whatever the methodology is to achieving communism, it's certainly not going to be met politically; politicians necessary demand more power to run a communist society, and the power difference goes entirely against the communist principle of a classless egalitarian society.  The state isn't going to simply melt away, after all; once power is consolidated (i.e. monopolized) under one entity, why would they ever give it up?  Again, the altruist loses, and the self-interested thrive.  Just look at the political classes of North Korea and Venezuela: they thrive while their slaves perish.

But I'll be frank: even if communism were achievable by some other means--say, you create the "new socialist man" in a lab tube who is genetically programmed to act altruistically--they would be demolished by the self-interested people, just like the altruist's ancestors were before their lineage even got started.  Altruists will always be taken advantage of, and from an evolutionary standpoint, it's a quality of weakness.  A strong society is one which is full of self-interested individualists, as there is mutual respect between these "masters": a group of self-interested people create rules to help themselves--and thereby everyone else in the process.  For example, if everyone agrees to the respect of each person's private property, everyone has the incentive to improve their own lives, to keep what they have rightfully earned, which vastly improves their productivity over the notion that their earnings will be seized "for the greater good."  There is no stronger motivator for the base human brain than the notion that it will be overall improved.

Given this, why do people turn to communism in the first place?  It is the exact same motivator: the individual believes they will gain from the promises made by communism; perhaps they envy the rich, and wish to partake in some of their wealth, their "deserved" slice of the pie--such payment will be enough motivation to make the communist system work, they imagine before ever having been through it.  The individual, if short-sighted and ignorant enough, will believe there is everything to gain and nothing to lose, but the individual who is well-informed and who thinks far enough into the future will realize that there is nothing to gain and everything to lose.

As a post-script: there are many ideas on how to democratically implement a public-ownership system.  The only ones I've seen which stood a chance at working out were those limited in scope to a single community (max 300-400 people.)  A small, homogeneous community may very well perform better in a system of local public ownership, but this is very far from the Marxist-Leninist interpretation of a global communist system, which is usually what people refer to when talking about some kind of nationally-implemented socialist system (a stepping stone to the global communism)...one could say such individuals were...national socialists...what was the nickname for national socialists again?  Well it seems they don't like the term Nazi and prefer to call themselves "democratic socialists" instead these days, but the ideas are all the same: tried and tired and beaten but still hanging on.  Perhaps the Internet will help us put the idea to death once and for all.

I think communism takes grip mostly on countries that have an unstable government. People need strong leaders who can both be respected and feared and for countries that don't have these kind of governments, people may rally behind and support communists.

Well in my country the growth of comunism is really good for all. I have to agree with that commusim is really a threat to religion and goverment they have taken away from the people that has property owned but they really don't pay according to our abilities they just give it with no question ask for that matter growth of communism is really slow here in my country because the government is focusing on something else aside from the people that are needed help

So far, this year, communist in where I live are only few in numbers and they are on the mountains, but their leader is in the other country, having a good time there while all his comrades are dying to fight for their ideology...

Actually I do not see them as a threat now, their strength is not that strong anymore, unlike during the past...  :)

You are not right. Communist ideology is like a religion. It offers a Paradise on earth already but in the future, it was impossible to check. People who have poor education and do not want to work but want to live like rich people believe it always leads to blood.

That is why Authorities are now reaching out to locals, so it can be prevented... What those uneducated people wants is the attention from the government... With new infrastructures, and increased opportunities, those can be prevented from being recruited by those communist who are  who are spreading their propaganda and inculcating into their mind the doctrine with whatsoever promise...  :)

Communism is hostile to the doctrine which is easier to prevent than to win. People should know that. Communists always agitate against the government and have a chance to hand them to the authorities first.

Well so far the communism in my country is good and peaceful. Communism is important to the people because it is the way to have unity, peace in the country and well organized by the government.

But is communism still the reason why all the people in your/my country are in peace? Live with no harm? Or not?

Communism is a horrible concept, but it must be thought about of what you're referring to when you speak about communism. Most people who support communism support Marxism communism without any type of corruption within the government which usually runs rampant along with a communist government like in Russia under Stalin. The idea is great and all, though I don't really see a point for innovation and change in a communist government / economy as people aren't going to get more / gain anything from doing more then they're required to do.

I know the system is usually you get paid for what you work, but in communism isn't everyone supposed to be equal. (Saying supposed to due to the greed of people leading to this NEVER being followed, and it never will)

The Communists thought that people will with the same diligence to work on different jobs without money. It is a utopia. The main goal of the Communists is to take everything from the rich and divide among themselves.

Comunism is a disease, it's a plague. It brings corruption and poverty (2 classes are defining, the very poor ones and the very rich(corrupted) ones) and the more corrupted people are, the more powerful comunism n that country is.
Corruption spreads like a disease and people will do anything for some extra money.
Even if the comunism is over in a country due to mass revolt and that country turns democratic with free elections, still the bad habits, corruption, will exist for decades (few generations) .
And what is most dangerous is the corrupted ones will try to take over the power and bring a new form of comunism with fake election results.
I live for years in a comunist country (now ex-comunist Romania ) so nobody can tell me how the comunism is or would be theoretically  :'( unless he lives in a comunist or ex-comunist country.
Comunism ideology is to take from everyone or from rich ones and share it to everyone so everyone become equal but in fact comunism brings corruption . Comunism ideology is seems just the ants or the bees kingdoms where the ant-queen or the bee-queen take the work from everyone and gives order to kill who doesn't obey.
In comunism you are not allowed to own lands , you are not allowed to speak bad and you are not allowed to make fortune unless you are involved directly to serve the comunism by being a secret agent or work in politics.
Comunism is the worst invention of the human kind, besides money.
I could write 10 pages of bitcointalk forum about comunism and still won't be enough.

here : winter 2016-2017 : huge protests against corruption , after 27 years since comunism has fallen. Since 27 years , same party PSD  under different names rules Romania country sinking it into darkness literally ,corruption, comunism, poverty which brings low rate of alphabetization and diseases.
http://media.hotnews.ro/media_server1/image-2017-02-5-21588542-0-piata-plina-fata-guvernului.jpg

It's a fail system that looks good on the paper but it's terrible in practise, and as we all know, always ends up in totalitarism and leads up to poverty and destruction of a country.

Comunism is bad ideology

Name me one prosperous country which tried to build communism. Moreover, all States are unable to overcome the consequences of the construction of communism until now. Communism is a plague!

I agree that we no see prosperous country that could stand as comunist country. Is China said prosperous country? I don't think China Citizens  are  more prosperous than Americans.

Of course the Chinese are living worse than the Americans. But you do not forget that the ruling party in Communist China, and the device state is not communism. Besides, China's economy is not as powerful as it seems.

i think some chinese living worse than american but some maybe live more fun if we differentiate them with americans. same vice versa. it depends on which category they belongs to. if they are poor then they will live miserable life but if they have money to live in they will probably live fun.

The idea behind communism is that everything is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs,but it is really hard to make that into reality in a real world situation and so is the reason you see the majority of the communist countries fail in the long term.

countries that practice communism do not allow freedom of speech and the right to some basic things in life.if the people likes it so be it,the government dectate so many things and they dont have privacy

Communism is a fairy tale for adults. No one has ever not build communism. Another thing is that under the pretext of building communism Ludi who can not and do not want to work taken the property from the rich and destroy the economy.

Funny how everyone is spitting on an economic system that was implement only in dictatorships and say that it can't work because it failed everytime...

Like a totalitarian State can succeed.

Communism is an interesting ideology that has much more sense than what all the brainwashed Americans seem to believe. The main idea of communism is that we produce far too much compare to our needs, and hence that people should be allowed to own their tools of production in order to spread in an equal way the wealth produced.
People simplify it by "everyone owns nothing and they all have the same wage" while it's incredibly more complex than that!
Communism means true democracy, share of powers and responsibilities. It doesn't mean people will stop working! It's a different project of society in which the word "working" has a completely different meaning than in capitalism!!!

Not saying it's a perfect system, but stop using bullshit arguments like those ones, it's a complex idea that might be a good way to follow or at least to inspire more projects.

Nothing interesting in the communism there. You argue because I have never encountered communism in the flesh. View the consequences of the construction of communism in North Korea, the Soviet Union.

Do you even read what I wrote or you're just spamming for your sig campaign?
I'm well aware of the effects in North Korea and USSR. But that's completely irrelevant! That's like accusing capitalism of the atrocities of third Reich! Those two are totalitarian states, whatever the economic system you put in place the consequences will be disastrous!!!

No, you're wrong. What do you know about communism? This is the reason not in a totalitarian state, and the state becomes totalitarian due to the fact that professed by Communist ideology. And what is the dictatorship of the proletariat, you know?

What you're saying is a complete nonsense...
Dictatorship of the proletariat... That's democracy idiot xD
Proletariat is the vast majority of the population. The dictatorship of the vast majority of population? That's the very definition of true democracy.

And those 2 communist states are (were for USSR) totalitarian states, the proletariat has no power here.

Are you talking about what you don't understand. Dictatorship is always violence. The proletariat is only a part of society, what is not the best and educated. The dictatorship of the proletariat is terror beggar the illiterate population.

You're not even writing in English now...
Stop spamming for your signature, either shut up or start bringing real arguments.

Proletariat is the opposite of the capitalistic bourgeoisie. It means proletariat is all the WORKERS who actually PRODUCE things.
Proletariat is thus the whole working population, it's like 95% of the population.
So dictatorship of proletariat is democracy... The exact definition of democracy.

Never democracy is not based on dictatorship. Moreover the proletariat is that part of society that does not want to receive a serious education, and always envied people who have achieved great success in life.

I ignore you and stop answering.
You're just spamming your signature and polluting the thread.
Here is a definition of proletariat in case someone doubts you're saying pure shit: "The proletariat (/ˌproʊlᵻˈtɛəri.ət/ from Latin proletarius) is a term for the class of wage-earners, in a capitalist society, whose only possession of significant material value is their labor-power (their ability to work); a member of such a class is a proletarian."

Proletarians are workers. They're the vast majority.
The dictatorship of proletarian means that the people impose their will.
That's what democracy is, the rule of the will of the majority.

You are spam this thread. You're obviously Russian and was a bad student in school. Read the writings of your idol Lenin and read the story to what led to the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia. Salaried people in offices is the proletariat? Stop your Communist propaganda.

...
Proletariat is a latin word...
That's not propaganda that's etymology...
And Russia has NEVER been in a dictatorship of proletarians, that was Staline's dictatorship nothing else...

It seems that contrary to you I had latin, history and philosophical classes at school...
Ignored too

Let's start with the fact that neither Latin nor philosophy in schools do not study. You do not speak the truth. I am also sure that you're from Russia and you few years. When I lived in Russia and I want to tell you learn the history of your country. Under Lenin, the dictatorship of the proletariat, while Stalin's repressions were.

I know this is a controversial topic so I'll keep it inoffensive and just make some clarifications based on my (biased) views.  Most of the countries mentioned were not communist.  I do not believe that their aim was communism either, except maybe the USSR pre-Stalin.  The reason that these countries call themselves communist is because the idea is so positive - the idea of total equality, in which selfishness is not rewarded like in capitalism but accepted as a negative asset.

Communism and democracy are not mutually exclusive.  Communism advocates a workers' uprising which is achieved by the working class (proletariat) and in modern society I would argue that this includes the parts of the middle class who do not run businesses.  This accounts for the vast majority of people in a country and is therefore in itself democratic.  Furthermore, communism advocates a form of economic democracy in which workers decide who leads and manages them, which could never happen universally in capitalism due to the private sector.

The arguments that communism "doesn't work" appear to be unnecessary, because if you believe the USSR was communist you believe that communism worked for 70 years, which is easily long enough to show that it is a sustainable system, even though the USSR was terribly authoritarian and arguably resulted in many deaths.

I'd also like to say that capitalism has taken the better part of 200 years to get where it is today.  In the early days of capitalism and even today in many areas of the world there were corrupt leaders, deaths caused by excessive consumption, and the inherent flaws of regulation being impossible for all business at once.

If you want to respond to these arguments please read carefully and don't insult me because you think I don't understand.

Argument No. 1. In the USSR under communism, the peasants were driven by force into collective farms. They almost kept up on the reservation and all the products were selected. In 1974 the rural inhabitants of the Soviet Union finally decided to issue passports, forbidding, however, to take them to the cities to work. What to do with democracy?

Whatever its intentions were, communism in the USSR created an economy noted for long lines, massive shortages, and a complete inability to obtain consumer goods outside of the black market

Want to disappoint you. The Soviet economy was built by the Germans and the Americans. Brains and technology was there. Some companies are still running equipment 1920s-1930s. Political repression helped to create millions of free slaves for the construction work.

It is true that the peasants had no choice but to work in the public sector.  When capitalism replaced feudalism in many countries, peasants were forced to work in the private sector.  In both cases, some were supportive and some not, and I would argue that revolutions for communism are inherently democratic as it is the people with less power (the majority) who overthrow those with power (in this case the Russian monarchy, who, tragically, were killed).  However revolutions for capitalism would naturally be less likely to be democratic.  Why? Because people have financial incentives and use their money for power.

As for your second point, I agree.  That was a poor decision from the (overly concentrated) authorities of the USSR.  However I don't necessarily believe that this relates to democracy - people can have few freedoms and still have processes of democracy which affect their lives.

Under the guise of beautiful promises of the Communists always death. During the revolution, the Communists relied on the lower class people who are not only uneducated but also very greedy. The main incentive for them was the slogan "take Away and divide". This is not democracy.

Thank you for being a member taking the time to develop his idea with real arguments. We should have a system to ban the spammers that surround posts like yours.

I think all I can say is: I perfectly agree with you.
I'd even say that communism can only be democratic. If it is not, it means it's not communism.

And an important point would also be adding that it's not because communism failed once or twice that it's internally broken!

Before you argue that communism is democracy show me at least one example of a successful Communist country. For the beautiful words and slogans lurks the hellish entity. As the Bible says "paved with good intentions the road to hell"

If the Bible says so I guess it must be true xD
Show us one example of a successful Capitalist country jsut so we can laugh a bit ^^

South Korea, Japan, USA, Geramny, Austria, Netherlands, Norway, UAE,etc... so, what about those communist countries? North Korea? Cuba? Vietnam? cmon dude...

None of them are communist, Cuba could some kind of exception but it's still not a real communist state. Or else let's say it's a small communist state that has been at war since its creation...

And you wanna compare the life condition of Cuba to all the countries you've given?
Poverty rate? Access to healthcare?

You call them successful counties? I say you have your own criteria... When you got more than 10% of your population under poverty rate I don't call that "successful"!!!
It's easy to consider a country is successful if you don't care about the 20% poorer...

Can we stop argue about communism? It is not some hellish system. Communism is good on paper but is unfit for the people.
Communism is worse to implement because of flawed human nature. We can't have ideal system equally good for everyone since humans are flawed.
Humans are greedy, jealousy driven and mostly self-centered individuals. Sooner of later there is always who thing he/she should be the king.

The idea of communism is that we can fight this defaults by grouping people together.
When you've got one individual you have all the defaults and qualities possible.
But when you have a global organisation you can chose to focus on some qualities and enhance them :)

Human nature is also to get above its natural desires. That's why our species has evolved ;)

There is no example BECAUSE THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A COMMUNIST COUNTRY!
Is that so hard to understand??
Give me an example of a communist country -> There is none.
That's freaking easy to understand for god's sake!

Communism needs to die, all that have been touched with communism will never be develop this idea only brings dictatorship

Capitalism seems to be the better economic system. Communism just doesn't work

Indeed but the main principle remain the same.
Giving to the proletarians (which means the workers) the control and the possession of their own means of production. Thus taking away the absolute power of the capitalists, power that they currently have.
People all cry shit against communism but still complain about the establishment...
That's the damn same problem communism is trying to get rid of.

oh so you're that kind of person:" Real communism hasn't been tried yet" well sorry, but it is...

"And you wanna compare the life condition of Cuba to all the countries you've given?
Poverty rate? Access to healthcare?" and why is that? Maybe because of communism/dictatorship?

haha because it's worse to have 10% who are living in poverty than a whole country living in poverty. lol
And why are they poor? I know why some people in Serbia, that's not that rich of a country, are in povery... and that's because they've dropped out of school, are alcoholics, drug addicts, gamblers,etc... maybe 1-2% are in poverty because of someone elses fault.


Here's a comment that best describes communism. Good on paper but because not all people are the same and think the same, and that's why communism doesn't/CAN'T work.

Yeah the kind of person who actually studied a bit the meaning of words like "communism" or "marxism" and didn't sleep in history classes, and thus I'm fully aware that no, communism hasn't been tried yet. When you have a country in which the dictator owns everything, that's not communism, that's just dictatorship. Even if the guy is a Russian and the new national colour is red ;)
It would be far too long to explain you how wrong you are here :/
I can only suggest you to try reading some important books concerning the actual way our society works. like Bourdieu at first, read Marx too as it's damn interesting even if a bit outdated (Internet changed lots of things).

But mainly I'd invite you to reconsider two things:
-First when nearly 20% of your society is poor and doesn't manage to live correctly, it's not because of human defaults, it's a social problem. It's because of how the society is built, it can't be random!
-Second, try to stop thinking that YOUR vision of the world is absolute. You're saying Cuban people are all living in poverty? Well they all had a home, electricity, food and access to one of the best healthcare of the continent (so good that Cuban doctors actually went in south america to help other countries). There is no homeless in Cuba. There is no famine, no one dies in the street because of the cold..

In Cuba no one dies of cold because there is warm climate. Look closely what the Communists did in Cuba. The Internet is now just appears, the Cubans only recently allowed to have a microwave and a mobile phone. Private businesses were allowed to engage but still is a very strict control. And much more.

You explain me how you're expecting Cuba to have internet or microwave while having a strict embargo thanks to USA?
Of course they had trouble with technological development, USA forbid ANY EXCHANGE with the rest of the world including technological ones!

When we consider communism is the concept or utopia of a classless society, social equality and freedom of all, then there was never communism in the countries so far. The Soviet Union or China were ruled by Communist Party, yes. But to the original definition it does not really fit, I think.
And when we consider communism as a Rulership system as so far in the countries mentioned then it does not work in the long run, because the people somehow resist it.

And what does the President of the United States forbade the Cubans have a microwave? No did Fidel! Same thing with mobile phones. This is an attempt to control their citizens. Communism of course was not there. There was socialism, but that does not help. The doctrine that promotes communism is a utopia. And the methods they use generally a dictatorship.

Hi there, it's kinda my first post on this site, and it's strange to start from such a topic, but I would really like to discuss it with people interested in decentralized economies, for reasons that will become apparent if you read what I'll write.
First of all, I'll quote the only analytic comment I've read so far here, since it didn't seem to get the attention it deserved.
Now, what we are doing here, is not advocating for past real governments who at some point clamed themselves to be socialist, we're not talking history here, but an ideology, witch, in Marx 's own terms, means an ''ideological struture'' in the people (the ''new man'', witch is at the end the same concept as Nietzsche) and an ''organic infrastructure'', witch is not only the economical distribution of the wealth, but the way we decide to handle production and even resources from a higher strandpoint.
Now, if you really want to talk about ''Communism'', you need to look at the context. Firstly, of a 19th century philosopher, who wrote about the emergent working class that was being grossly exploited, and divide his philosophical views  from his political solution.
Than, you need to look at the situation of the so-called ''communist countries'' at the start of the 20th century.  Young bourgeois in Russia direct the masses with an ideology that talks about them. In China it even really came from the masses themselves. They readapted what they believed communism to be and basically said ''this is what we need, these are the resources we have, let's sync all the efforts to reach the objective'', hence the 5 year plan. And it actually worked pretty well, if you consider that they managed to give something to eat to billions (literally, in China) of people, despite having 2 world wars and a couple of civil ones inbetween in their early stages, at the cost of killing millions of workers in the process. Then the situation in Russia escalated and it just became a dictatorship being at war with the US (not at all communist).
China is different. As a Chinese guy once explained to me, Liu Shaoqi second president of the Republic of China, said at the start of the '60s ''in order to make everyone rich, we need to make some people rich first, so that they can make others rich''. So, capitalism. You may know about the great migration of ''workers'' from the farmland to the cities that happens in China every year, about 300 million people, something that wouldn't have happened without a collective extreme cooperation, and a strong dictatorship to push people trough it. But I do believe they are still planning, someday, somehow, on redistributing that wealth.
After all, both countries took a large amount of dispersed people across a large country and made them ''productive'' in the most capitalistic way you can imagine, passing from a situation where both economy (mostly farmers in a poor land) and politics (aged absolute monarchies) were stagnating, filled the gap of a century of industrialization in 20 years or so, and they're now both competing supereconomies (again, in a purely capitalistic sense).
Cuba is its own little thing instead, it went from 40 years of US guaranteed dictatorship to 70 years of complete embargo. They do with what they have, but they have the highest alphabetization rate in the world.

On the matter of ''culturally imprinting people to be altruistic'', of course all communist regimes had their way of imposing the ''ideology'' that they thought was the most profitable in terms of PRODUCTION (Gulags, Chinese Cultural revolution). What they were dealing with, in the wrong way of course, was the problem of heavily changing either the infrastructure or the common ideology without having an appropriate counterweight in both.
I strongly believe that, if a more equally structured economy (in the broadest sense of the world possible) was enstablished, and people started living in there as a clean slate (in animal psychology, you would say, from the second generation of people who were born and only lived in that condition) they would be really quick to adapt, but, considering it from a politically pragmatic standpoint, you can phrase this point as ''should you change the structure to change the people or should you change the people to change the structure''?
Some of the modern implementations of communist-like ideas rely on smaller communities, just because it's easier to 1. group up people that believe the same as you do and 2. to create a new system with its own rules, witch gives you infinite possibilities (remember America?).
I for one think that a strong changement should come from the people, and now the world is dynamic enough for good ideas to be caught up and developed at massive scales, we should consider opening our views.
Communism is not about making the country a big industry so that we are all the most productive, and it does not need to negate individualism.
There is a pyramid in biology, witch I studied but I've never been able to recall the name of to find it again. It puts every animal species into orders of ''altruism'', and most importantly, of the relational sphere they altruistically behave to. It can go from the individual, to mother-child (even excluding the father), to a small group of competing individuals in a group or different groups cooperating against each other, or there are cases in witch every exemplar of that species will cooperate with everyone else. Some even with other species.
The point is, for me, to abstract this concept to a point in witch you don't need to have a political struggle between classes and ideologies to redistribute wealth arbitrarily, but rather a functioning ecosystem in witch people consider their options (within complete freedom of choice, greater of the one you have with capitalism) working to enrich a more and more large community of people (you < your family < your relatives < your sphere of friends < your district < your city < your region etc...). And, from a political point of view, we should just try to enable this by creating a fair but meritocratic system in witch you do get your bigger part if you're better, but none is deprived of their ''margin'', to put it in trader words.


But this is all history, (and some psychology with it).
What we should talk about is the very IDEA of the communist/socialist way of thinking, and propose implementations instead of judging past ones.
In particular, I'd like to make you think about ''decentralized communism'', a term that I just invented myself.
In my opinion, the only reason politics need to exist is to mediate between economy and society. If you want to think about it purely economically, it's to keep real and economical value close. But, to take it further, it's about making sure everyone, even the poorest people, have what they need to survive.
I won't be talking about the ethics behind this a lot, but just think of this: how free is someone who needs to work at Mc Donalds to pay his rent, and (at least if he doesn't find a way to go around the system), live to work? Think about how many people's lives are controlled by money, the same thing you trade everyday to grow more and then go on to do your own thing.
Now, I don't believe that the solution can come solely from a monetary redistribution. What we need is a system that produces and provides basic products automatically, and sets the ''standard'' for people to grow on.
The basic problem with communist governments is that they were forcefully centralized. In order to coordinate the country, they needed to have it in their hands. Now the situation is different. Think, as an example, at how automation could be implemented stately to reduce wealth gap.
The same jobs I was referring before, the Mc Donalds cashier, the mechanical worker, could now be fully automatized. I always here the complain ''don't you think a manual job is respectable as anyone else?'', but I personally think working a job that a machine could do is even more demeaning.
The reason we can't implement automation right now is because it would take over those same jobs, creating an incredible social crisis in the present situation. These jobs need to exist only for someone to do them and get paid just what they need to survive. China is going around this, funding billions into automation, but they're just cheating by putting all of that production into export, with no real gain for the individual.



And this is where it gets interesting, and where I would like an opinion out of you, to the point in which if this post gets ignored I will be creating a new topic about it.

What I think we should be looking at is a decentralized resource based economy, in which we have a definite supply of primal resources, a ''blockchain'' of ways to turn them into products, and an expected trend of REAL demand of the product themselves. I'm now looking into ways to structure a monetary economy around (and beyond) the original ideological standpoint of ''creating an infrastructure that provides people their basic needs'', which is something you can only do industrially.
Talking it from a cryptocurrency perspective (since I'm also looking for real means to achive this in a restricted setting), I would consider making a whole submarket of coins, each one with their own tie with a real product, their own trendlines and economical structures. This way, you could for example arbitrage the price of food to stay low, while maintaining the robotical field as a competitive investing market. What you would sell, at this point, wouldn't be the product itself, as much as the idea, the blueprint of real product you are trying to ''replicate on the blockchain''. The producing tools are automatized and free for everyone on the blockchain to use (with limits due to facts real resources are finite), like a big net of 3D printers witch get inputs from the blockchain itself.

I will not start talking now about the distribution systems, but I think you can see how ''communism'', as far as people who define themselves as communist right now, can be far more actual than the 18th century revolutionary ideology you're referring to.
Please lead the argument over to the future instead of the past.
As a friend of mine once told me, ''Capitalism is the best way to thrive in scarcity, communism is the best way to handle a wealthy nation''.

What?
No... Are you dumb? People don't have a microwave not because Castro forbid it but because the US blocus prevent any microwave to reach the island!!!

That's like so obvious I don't even understand how some people can not understand xD

To me its a great theory, maybe some day people become ready to live truly united and unselfish, but for the time being it cannot be implemented. Whereever left sides prevailed people lived in worse conditions, thats the truth. We live in a world where capitalism rules.

Communism goes hand in hand with dictatorship. In a system where the central government controls everything it gives rise to corrupt and influential people in high positions. They trample on human rights of their citizens with no care at all.

Unless the government is controlled directly by the people
In this case you can't have heavy corruption!

Communism is a rigid vertical of power. This leads to mutual responsibility and breeds corruption. Moreover cruelly destroyed any dissent. Dictatorship is the inevitable companion of the builders of communism.

"Unless" and we all know such a thing doesn't exist and can't exist. Communism and Marxism look good on paper, but don't work in practise because of those same people.

What do I think of Communism? You spelled it wrong.     ;D

Doesn't exist but why couldn't it exist?
How do you know that something like this which is just a rather logical idea IMHO can't exist?

Communism is a genocidal ideology which covers his designs with beautiful words. Communism is an example of biblical wisdom, "Good intentions pave the road to hell." I don't know of any country which flourished under the rule of the Communist government.

Because people have better things to do than be a 24/7 politician, and will have to delegate their "vigilante powers" into someone, and that someone will become the corrupted...
Don't think politics are or have the solution for everything, pretty often it's more part of the problem than of the solution!

indeed  :D
for 2 weeks romanians had to go out on streets this winter . But i'm glad that i was on streets too to defend our poor democracy  ;D
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/opinion/romanians-against-corruption.html

http://media.hotnews.ro/media_server1/image-2017-02-5-21588542-0-piata-plina-fata-guvernului.jpg

Of course we can do it.

It's just that it helps people in power to tell us "we're more skilled, you don't have the knowledge nor the time"
While believe me, we have both!

Are you a teenager?

Ahahah! You'd love that yeah? ;D

Well problem is I'm a full grown-up engineer, and after meeting hundreds of people that made various studies I'm pretty much convince they have no specific skills.
They learn a bit more than us that's true, but most of it is pure bureaucracy junk. Add 200 hours of philosophy and economy to Highschool (at least in France) and I guarantee you anyone will be as skilled as they are.

Even more, most of them are remotely unskilled on the subject they have to work on. While if the people had the power, we could all focus on policies we're competent on. For example I'd just LOVE to kick the ass of current French state secretary of energy, because as an engineer working in that field me and my colleagues would be MUCH MORE suited for those questions.

Usually teenagers are the ones who think they are supermen able to change the world and work 48h/day...  ::)

Politics is mostly bureaucratic junk, it resumes to it. We can't afford to have our workers, engineers, farmers and so on wasting their precious time with bureaucratic junk. Plain and simple.
The best way is to reduce the politicians powers to its essentials and let people take care of the rest on their own; this way people will do their own "politics" and without wasting their time.

The utopian communism compared to capitalism, because capitalism at this stage of development of mankind can in any way solve the problem of limited resources and infinite needs. Therefore communism could be built only with a significant increase in the number of available resources (cold fusion for example) + the ideal system of distribution is possible only with the development of information technology.

That's also the case of educated people knowing what they talk about.

In France a total of 130 laws are deposited every year. Not passed, only DEPOSITED.
That's a law every 3 days.
That means that to be able to vote on every law proposed, a citizen should have to do that twice a week. You think we can't handle that?

Well you don't even have to read and vote every law, only the ones your concerned by. If it's not in your field of expertise, you don't even have to look at it.

But don't tell me that direct democracy is impossible, 2 laws a week IS NOT so much. Especially as you will have to look at only a third of them, the others being not in your field.

Now you're diminishing the meaning of governing. It's not just vote laws. The whole State machine is way bigger to manage.

And no, direct democracy doesn't work at all. You won't get the ones within the field of expertize to vote, but an assortment of useless people waiting to get some profit out of something, the usual politic and those who have time for it. Out of all democracy variants, direct is the worse of them, go read Plato...

Then I wouldn't go a using France as an example, it's probably the most medieval-aged public system I know. Even an ATM is a rare event there, everything goes around "rendez-vous" and overwhelming bureaucratic.

No one said we should get rid of the whole government!
Direct democracy means you have the ACTUAL POWER. Not that you can't delegate it to a government.
Difference is you still have the important power (laws) and you can actually get rid of corrupted bastards.
Now... That's some hard pessimism here...
What you're saying is in short "people skilled won't take the time to vote and other people will just vote for their own profit".
Well if you think that way... Why do humanity still exists?
You're in short saying that humans is deeply selfish and won't be able to do anything for the long run, he'll only think about himself and the present. That's a philosophical statement that got more and more popular those years...

Fact is that we have made scientific demonstration of the deep human capacity for empathy and collaboration. Humans are NOT competitive animals. They're cooperating ones.
Our race is made for cooperation and groups of humans are more likely to go in the right direction than a lonely one.
Lol, ok so two important things here:
1/ First you're talking about someone who was deeply convinced about the natural necessity for some men to be slaves, that they are even happy to have masters and couldn't live without having someone to obey. Hard to take seriously someone like that on subjects like autonomy and political rights no?
2/ Plato wasn't against direct democracy. He was against democracy and in general all kind of government that was existing. He wanted something else, something that has yet to be invented.

I don't exactly understand why you're saying that. France isn't especially "old aged public system". Got one of the best health system in the world, and in general a nearly digitalized system (it has yet to be achieved but for example taxes will now be taken at source so no longer the usual tax sheets to fill by hand on paper).
Moreover I don't know what ATM means, for me it's the machine giving out cash in the street xD
(sorry not English native speaker here)

Unfortunately, every state is a bureaucracy of violence. The bureaucrats are looking for different pretexts in order to confirm their significance. Many of them thus to extort bribes. It seems to me that to deal with this phenomenon is possible only through simplification of the legislation.

We had a revolution here back in 74 it was bouncing towards a sort of communism. One day I got hold on the resumes of a bankrupted factory from such time, it was a time when all meetings were attended by workers as "working commissions" to govern the factory. It was pure non-sense what was going on: the production engineer said it would be best to produce some sort of wood that France was interested on, but a guy that was cutting boards at the back of the factory said it would be better to produce something else; the factory voted with this last guy.

The problem isn't if the skilled will vote or not, the problem is that they will be overruled by unskilled. Got the difference?

About the French public service:
- Here - at the winning side of Euro 2016  ;D - sending your tax report over the internet is possible since 2004, no longer accepted on paper form since 2011 and now is even automatic, you don't need to fill anything, unless you want or have other income to declare...  ::)
Yes, an ATM stands for "Automatic Teller Machine" or a "machine that gives money in the streets". Just for an example, Le Louvre is at the center of Paris, right? Which is the capital of France, so a big city... I was looking for an ATM, from there I'd to go over the river, walk across several small roads for nearly 2km to find one.
Then to take care of something with the public services it all have to go through someone, who is always in Monday mood and took a dozen of lemons for breakfast, and isn't because I'm foreigner, they don't seam any different with natives.
Paris in particular look like had a good infrastructure, at the 70's or 80's, now looks old. And love those plates saying something like "Road under repair, we're sorry for the inconvenience - We must finish before August 2010"... seeing these at 2016, and the working still going on, really warms you up, doesn't it?

I understand that France is a bit big so things may take some more time, but yes, from the countries I'd to deal with is one of the most outdated. Spain is pretty much as big, but way more up-to-date.

I got the problem but could give you opposite examples. There is a library that went bankrupt in my city, called "les volcans". The workers actually decided to buy it back for the 1€ symbolic price and managed to make it back on its feet. Now it's the biggest library in the city and you can get whatever you want from here.

Overall, studies showed that collective intelligence is more efficient than individual skill in most situations. It's untrue in very technical subject but on more general decisions it's the case.
Though I would be interested in studies you might object me.

And if your population isn't able to take the right decision, then at least it should suffer the consequences of its own choices. And please tell me how the people could screw it more than our current governments xD
Sorry I don't follow football :3
But it seems we're late yeah, but 6 years late isn't "middle aged" man, it's just a bit late ^^
Lol! I mean here you're just unlucky or really not good at finding things xD
I live in France and never had any problem with ATMs, you're just taking a very specific example and generalizing it :3
(and maybe you're the one a bit blind because I don't think there is a circle of 2km without an ATM in Paris ^^)
That's very different, that's linked with the status of people working for the state, status which is a bit outdated I give you that.
Well seems you had a general bad impression ^^

Though I'd have to say it's difficult to counter argument you because... Well because it's just an impression you had. You're not pointing out specific problems so hard to give you any figure.

Anyway I think France is also a bit late in lots of things. Contrary to other countries we've always worked by steps. We don't evolve and then BOOM REVOLUTION BITCH and we go ahead of our times by 30 years at least. But last revolution was some time ago. Might be just the right moment for a new one... I hope.

Total Communism will fail..
For human life to do well we need all 3   socialism capitalism communism all mixed together..

Any one on their own will fail..

Total socialism no good

Total capitalism no good

Total communism no good

Mix the 3 in a blender and we have a nice soup ;)..

I do spend a lot of time at France (mostly waiting on endless queues - if I'm lucky, otherwise I've to fly back due to some strike - or really unlucky and even the airport got to strike meanwhile  ;D ). I just took a few practical examples from my experience, I would have much more.
Don't get me wrong, it doesn't mean I don't like France or have a general bad impression of it, but the system is outdated and too bureaucratic, mainly faulty at public services.

Communism failed. Our private lives will never be "equal", which is the basis to communism.  

The only way to achieve a more equal society is through great parks, wonderful streets, fantastic sidewalks, bicycles, health, education and opportunity.  We need to look at equity and how we treat our most vulnerable populations. I believe socialism, not communism, achieves these aims because the State is not in control of production and we live better lives.  Places like Denmark, Norway and Netherlands are great examples.

That sounds expensive to implement. 

Probably.
Let's take the entrepreneurship of capitalism.
The wealth redistribution of socialism.
The production means collectivism for necessary fields.
Mix them up through direct democracy.
I'd be proud to live in such society.

Will not work. Why do you think that those who produce the goods I want somebody redistributed? Why do you think people will want to go to work in the farm if the rest will work in the office? No it is a utopia. I am sure that communism is not feasible.

Do you even read bro?
Where do you see complete communism and redistribution?
That's why we're talking about a mix...

I think communism is good, but now it's impossible. Now the majority live on the principles of profit and income at any cost.

My country Islamic countries, the applicable law is the law of Islam, the most common view is the view of Islam. So most people here regard communism is not that good. Communism does not believe in the existence of God. And here is God's presence is highly recognized. In Islam explained that all that exists in the world is God's creation, except God himself. the Quran is explained that God does not give birth and was not born, but God does exist.

Yes, in Islamic countries or countries with majority Islamic population would be very opposed to communism because it did not consider God, they are atheistic ideology. Sometimes communists deny that their ideology atheist, but I'm sure it's just their way to get sympathy. Seeing communism always do in any way to achieve the goal (including violence). In my country until now strongly opposed to communism, my country has a dark history with the communists. But now in my country, communism began to appear little by little, and began to indoctrinate young people to join with communism. This is very evident in my country.

Communism a ideology very intelligent, full of scathing criticism, many great figures who inspired by communism. Ir.Soekarno example even though he was not a communist, but his thinking is inspired by Marx as the founding father of communism. knife to dissect the thought of a bureaucracy and social class by Marxism. Michael Bakunin as anarcho also inspired by the thought of Marx, although there is a conflict as well. the collapse of the feudal system in Russia is also not out of the revolution that made Marx. This might be the same when viewed in the French revolution.

All religions in fact were communist in the beginning as protest against elites. Judaism - against egyptian nobility, christianity - against jewish, islam - against tribal nobility.
In their origins most of the religions are socialistic.
I was living in USSR with communism, in Russia with wild capitalism (unlimited) and in Norway (welfare state as golden middle). In communism smartes and most professional people have no motivation. In wild capitalism it looks very much like a lottery - someone gets all and someone nothing.
I can say Norway and overall Scandinavian models are the most wise and well balanced.
The poorest people are supported through progressive taxation of rich people, but  capitalism and private property are not prohibited. So, no people dying from hunger and no people pissing to golden lavatory (at least not showing it publicly). So there are rich people in Norway and basically no poor people. System is very efficient and therefore is very stable. Some families control industrial and city-based business for 100-200 years, while in outside of the cities - many control large plots of lands and forests since vikings.

Communism is a pipe dream...it is based on the premise that all the people are perfect and will follow all the laws established for the good of the society. The problem is that we are not perfect and humans are still greedy and selfish even if the government system is changed. When communism tried to erase religions from the face of the planet...they committed the biggest mistake...and that mistake was replacing religion with communism's ideals and vision of a godless society. Communism failed and any variations will fail. Though we can adopt some aspects of communism that can be considered to be good and use them for the improvement of democracy. There is no perfect form of government and democracy is never perfect but nothing is better.

It's an acceptable idea in theory but as with any system when there is people involved chances will always remain it will fail.

It's not so much the system as it is the people that get corrupted by power.

Communism breeds only one thing and that is dictatorship and the violation of human rights

Couldn't agree with you at all buddy, I will have to say that the system that was developed by Marx was something that looks wonderful and all on paper but didn't really account for how human nature is and how people really on when they gain power.

I'd say one of the biggest things I've learned all around life is going to have to be that once people obtain power, even a little bit of it, they change and will abuse this power in order to help themselves and only themselves.

Communism in actual affect (to what we've seen to this day) allows for an elite to arise that is going to be above everyone else, which is usually the Communist party in government. This replaces the 1 percent or whatever they call them in Capitalism and the amount of abuse that happens with the government officials is disgusting.

Checks and balances are almost never seen in this type of government (which is usually seen in Democratic governments)

So in the end, it looks good on paper but will never work due to human greed.

For communism to work we all would need to like the same things, have the same priorities, think the very same...
So, because that's not how we are, communism is just another ridiculous and pathetic excuse of a bloody dictatorship.

I think communism is come kind of religion and both are bad for intelligent people

Communism itself is impractical.

Communism emphasizes a classless society which is ruled by direct democracy, instead of governments. No borders should be drawn by the so- called “governments” to classify a certain populaion as a “country”. This is, in other words, anarchy. Without governments and laws, it is impossible for egalitairanism to be carried out at all.

Communism requires a full abundance of resources such that egalitarianism can be practised. Without such, communism cannot work at all, especially in the present world, where there is a scarcity of resources, which is unable to achieve the unlimited wants and needs of contemporary humanity. Communism also emphasizes social ownership of the means of production. However, there will be no incentive for people to work hard for the community.

Communism requires the total annihilation of human nature. Communism needs its participants to neglect self- interest and only think about the interests of the community. This is against human’s natural instincts for survival. Egalitarianism also goes against the current belief of gaining what you have worked for.

Communism emphasizes no religion. As Christendom has had a firm foundation in history, it is impossible to be wiped out. Furthermore, many people view religion as a kind of spiritual support. Basically, communism goes against basic human rights.

communism is good ideology, they want to they want to remove oppression, but misused by many dictators.