What do you think of Comunism?

[craked5]

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

[1713941400]

1713941400

[1713941400]

1713941400

[1713941400]

1713941400

[1713941400]

1713941400

[1713941400]

1713941400

[beafheart]

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.

[LittleBitFunny]

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.

[btvlGainer]

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?

[TrumpD]

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

[wowanstrong]

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.

[LittleBitFunny]

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?

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.

[birareru1988]

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?

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.

[craked5]

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.

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!

[ovvidiy]

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.

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"

[yugo23]

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 ^^

[Tyrantt]

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...

[yugo23]

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...

[Hazir]

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.

[mainpmf]

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

[craked5]

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"

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!

[Papski]

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

[daronch]

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

[craked5]

Most communists do not recognize themselves in the politics of Stalin or Mao.

As I have already said, even if there is not as much communism as communist, the definition that each communist makes of his ideology varies greatly according to the individual.

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.

[Tyrantt]

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...

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.

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.

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.