Communism

[Conscentia]

The whole "left-right" political spectrum is quite silly and antiquated, really. I wouldn't get too hung up on defining what "left wing" or "right wing" means, or which ideologies are left or right wing.

The left-right spectrum is not antiquated. It's misused.

[Lemanrussland]

The whole "left-right" political spectrum is quite silly and antiquated, really. I wouldn't get too hung up on defining what "left wing" or "right wing" means, or which ideologies are left or right wing.

The left-right spectrum is not antiquated. It's misused.

It is far too simplistic to accurately map people's ideological beliefs, in my opinion. The "political compass", though not perfect, does a much better job by separating the social and economic factors from each other.

Hitler and Ron Paul both being "right wing", and Gandhi and Stalin being "left wing" really makes no sense.

[Empire of Vlissingen]

The left-right spectrum is not antiquated. It's misused.

It is far too simplistic to accurately map people's ideological beliefs, in my opinion. The "political compass", though not perfect, does a much better job by separating the social and economic factors from each other.

Hitler and Ron Paul both being "right wing", and Gandhi and Stalin being "left wing" really makes no sense.

You could use government power slide on the extreme left there is total government like kings. On the extreme right there is no government.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

It is far too simplistic to accurately map people's ideological beliefs, in my opinion. The "political compass", though not perfect, does a much better job by separating the social and economic factors from each other.

Hitler and Ron Paul both being "right wing", and Gandhi and Stalin being "left wing" really makes no sense.

You could use government power slide on the extreme left there is total government like kings. On the extreme right there is no government.

Which would still put anarcho-capitalists and communists at the same point. It's clearly lacking.

[Threlizdun]

You could use government power slide on the extreme left there is total government like kings. On the extreme right there is no government.

Which would still put anarcho-capitalists and communists at the same point. It's clearly lacking.[/quote]Anarchism is the lack of social hierarchy, most notably the state. Governments would certainly still exist.

[Indira]

I'm against communism on the basis that in its purest form, it's unobtainable and in it's impure form, it only leads to tyrants

[Threlizdun]

I'm against communism on the basis that in its purest form, it's unobtainable

Revolutionary Catalonia, the Paris Commune, Ukrainian Free Territory, Israeli Kibbutz, Shinmin Autonomous Region, Twin Oaks Community, and numerous other communes throughout the world would like to have a word with you.

[CTALNH]

I'm against communism on the basis that in its purest form, it's unobtainable

Revolutionary Catalonia, the Paris Commune, Ukrainian Free Territory, Israeli Kibbutz, Shinmin Autonomous Region, Twin Oaks Community, and numerous other communes throughout the world would like to have a word with you.

That way of doing things is stupid.It never works.

[Threlizdun]

That way of doing things is stupid.It never works.

Yes, clearly it is far better to vastly increase the power of the state if we wish to remove it. I mean, it's not like the Party members will be just as corrupt and in many ways even more brutal than our previous oppressors right? If we ever want the people to be ready for communism, we also of course must make sure they have almost no influence in the political process, so that way they will be prepared to make informed decisions once they are given power.

[CTALNH]

That way of doing things is stupid.It never works.

Yes, clearly it is far better to vastly increase the power of the state if we wish to remove it. I mean, it's not like the Party members will be just as corrupt and in many ways even more brutal than our previous oppressors right? If we ever want the people to be ready for communism, we also of course must make sure they have almost no influence in the political process, so that way they will be prepared to make informed decisions once they are given power.

The people are stupid.

Vanguard party is best.You know people that actually have realized their place and class etc,etc

Not like mine is any better its just is more plausible.

[Carena]

I prefer Democratic Socialism then actual communism.

[Brition]

I'm glad to see that at least 46% of the people who voted have a bit of common sense.

[Communistic Belgium]

Communism is an ideology, you can believe in it or you don't believe in it. It isn't that hard.

In the poll 46 out of 100 have chosen for not liking or accepting Communism. 40 out of 100 have chosen to accept and even like Communism. You can see that both numbers are almost the same.

[Disserbia]

I'm glad to see that at least 46% of the people who voted have a bit of common sense.

Communism is an ideology, you can believe in it or you don't believe in it. It isn't that hard.

In the poll 46 out of 100 have chosen for not liking or accepting Communism. 40 out of 100 have chosen to accept and even like Communism. You can see that both numbers are almost the same.

Which is why exactly Communism will be unsuccessful.

[Conscentia]

The left-right spectrum is not antiquated. It's misused.

It is far too simplistic to accurately map people's ideological beliefs, in my opinion. The "political compass", though not perfect, does a much better job by separating the social and economic factors from each other.

Hitler and Ron Paul both being "right wing", and Gandhi and Stalin being "left wing" really makes no sense.

It's not supposed to map people's ideological beliefs. Using it for that, as most people do, is using it wrong.
Position on the scale reflects a person's attitude to equality.

[Conscentia]

Yes, clearly it is far better to vastly increase the power of the state if we wish to remove it. I mean, it's not like the Party members will be just as corrupt and in many ways even more brutal than our previous oppressors right? If we ever want the people to be ready for communism, we also of course must make sure they have almost no influence in the political process, so that way they will be prepared to make informed decisions once they are given power.

The people are stupid.

Vanguard party is best.You know people that actually have realized their place and class etc,etc

Not like mine is any better its just is more plausible.

This is why no one believes you when you call thyself a leftist.

[Riserland]

I'm glad to see that at least 46% of the people who voted have a bit of common sense.

To clarify, I did not make this to get a sample of what people in the world think- we're all complete nerds here with no hope of changing anything but I wanted to see if there was at least one response that would profoundly affect my world outlook and give me some new food for thought. Thus far what I've read has been very disappointing.

[Threlizdun]

The people are stupid.

Vanguard party is best.You know people that actually have realized their place and class etc,etc

Not like mine is any better its just is more plausible.

Ah, perhaps I can actually get some who opposes democracy to answer this question for once. Let's say that you are right, that the people are too stupid/greedy/etc. to be able to form a functioning society that serves their interests. If this is true, then where exactly are you getting your enlightened despots from to rule? Does the sky open up and the light of heaven shine upon a newborn child and they declare them suitable? You must have some process for which to select your leaders, and for this to even be worth listening to, it has to be one that is incorruptable and without error, otherwise we are just given the option between flawed liberty and flawed tyranny, to which the choice seems pretty obvious.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

I personally am entirely in favor of it and identify myself as a communist. My definition stems directly from the works of Marx and Engels: A WORLD* split up into interconnected communes in which there are no classes or private property and all people collectively own the means of production.

In what way would these communes be "interconnected"?

[Alekera]

The people are stupid.

Vanguard party is best.You know people that actually have realized their place and class etc,etc

Not like mine is any better its just is more plausible.

Ah, perhaps I can actually get some who opposes democracy to answer this question for once. Let's say that you are right, that the people are too stupid/greedy/etc. to be able to form a functioning society that serves their interests. If this is true, then where exactly are you getting your enlightened despots from to rule? Does the sky open up and the light of heaven shine upon a newborn child and they declare them suitable? You must have some process for which to select your leaders, and for this to even be worth listening to, it has to be one that is incorruptable and without error, otherwise we are just given the option between flawed liberty and flawed tyranny, to which the choice seems pretty obvious.

Why does this remind me of monty python and the search for the holy grail?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bqQ-C1PSE

"Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."

[The Realm of God]

Communism in the Manifesto sounds compelling.

In practice it sucks. Corruption, tyranny and oppression.

Although I disagree with Marx and Marxism as he treats classes as distinct and hostile to each other, while in practice classes are often joined by relationships and association, soft class cooperation is the state of normality, in a capitalist system workers and entrepreneurs cooperate to produce profit. However you can't fault the rhetoric, which makes you want to grab a pitchfork.

As for the OP

As a centrist I like several aspects of both left and right ideology. I would prefer to see a natural (non coerced) transition to cooperative businesses , such as the UK's CoOp supermarket were workers are allowed to participate in the running of stores through workplace democracy and shares of the profit. In matters of the state a transition through referendum to direct democracy should be made, at least on the local level. So you could call me a social democrat or 'softly leaning on the side of Syndicalism'. I think that this will be achieved naturally over a long period of time, as part of the growing trend of liberalisation that has been occurring since the enlightenment.

I find communism too sudden and different from the status quo for a people to accept in this age, change has to be gradual rather than sudden and extreme.

[New Rogernomics]

I am an anarchist-communist, so don't abscribe myself to forms of state communism. But if capitalism collapsed I would be sure to celebrate it's demise.

[Jassysworth 1]

I'm against communism on the basis that in its purest form, it's unobtainable

Revolutionary Catalonia, the Paris Commune, Ukrainian Free Territory, Israeli Kibbutz, Shinmin Autonomous Region, Twin Oaks Community, and numerous other communes throughout the world would like to have a word with you.

About how most of them didn't last very long, some of them still use money, some of them were in fact still states, ,many of them relied on larger functional states to exist, and all of them were very small?

Yeah no thanks...

[Jassysworth 1]

Yes. Yes I am in favor of communism. Not batshit nuts Stalinism, but communism.

except Stalinism is a part of communism...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism

Stalinism is the ideology that Joseph Stalin conceived and implemented in the Soviet Union, and is generally considered a branch of Marxist–Leninist ideology but considered by some historians to be a significant deviation from this philosophy.

GENERALLY (by most people) Stalinism is considered a form of Marxism-Leninism (which is part of the communist ideology/movement).

Only SOME historians (not all and not most) would consider an alternative position (where it isn't communism).



Plus look on the right of the link at the red box. Stalinism is under the series of articles known as Communism and it is also under the series of Marxism-Leninism. Therefore, my source clearly sees Stalinism as part of the communist movement under the Marxist-Leninist umbrella.



Thus, while you can say the Soviet Union never actually REACHED the final stage of communism, you have to recognize it as a thoroughly communist project that failed miserably. While you can say that Stalinism is a disgrace, what you cannot say is that it is not a part of communism (as it refers to the communist movement/communist theories/communist thought).

And by the way... everything Stalin did could be justified by Marx's writings because that old man was just THAT vague on what he wrote and the book was full of incitements to violence.

A vanguard party overthrowing the existing capitalist state with violence to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat to EVENTUALLY transition to communism or wait for the state to wither away as it practically becomes irrelevant/necessary IS COMMUNISM.

Everything that Stalin fits into that narrative. In fact, the Communist Manifesto talks about strengthening the state before the final hitting of communism.

''Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels (by the state or communist rebels)...Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. ... Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan...''

So yes, Marx himself believed that strengthening a new socialist state first was a realistic way to eventually get to statelessness. Hence where Stalinism fits here...

Again... don't get TOUCHY here.... I didn't say a real country followed Stalinism and actually REACHED communism... I'm only saying that people who follow Stalinism believe it is the most realistic/practical way to eventually reach communism in the end AND that this position has at least some backing from Marx's quotes while he was alive and from his writings.

This is why a very good argument can be made that Stalinism is a part of the communist movement and WHY as wikipedia has stated, MOST PEOPLE consider it a form of Marxist-Leninist communism.



From World English Dictionary...

''Stalinism...the theory and form of government associated with Stalin: a variant of Marxism-Leninism characterized by totalitarianism, rigid bureaucracy, and loyalty to the state''

From Cultural Dictionary...

''The form of Marxism associated with Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. Stalinism emphasizes the repression of all dissent, often by brutal means; a rigid adherence to government management of economic life; and the domination of all communist movements worldwide by the Soviet Union. In holding to these beliefs, Stalin opposed Leon Trotsky.''

[Pragia]

I'm glad to see that at least 46% of the people who voted have a bit of common sense.

To clarify, I did not make this to get a sample of what people in the world think- we're all complete nerds here with no hope of changing anything but I wanted to see if there was at least one response that would profoundly affect my world outlook and give me some new food for thought. Thus far what I've read has been very disappointing.

Alright, so what do you want to see, more huge holes being shot into the failed idea of a utopia? It's impractical, as pointed out over and over. If you wanted a shift, I would've had one if I were pro-communist and I saw all these counterpoints, perhaps you're to dug in, perhaps we are?