|
Yes. In many communist nations, they adopt some capitalist principles to survive, and many in power
horde what they can from the poor. Bourgeoisie vs Proletarians. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It is ultimately evil because it pulls freedom from the individual and gives it to the collective.
If justice and aspirations for individual growth is considered good, then communism (which
diminishes that for the individual in favor of the collective) is evil. It by nature detracts from
freedom and gives to equality. If freedom is a greater good, then evil logically is found in the
communist model. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Communism is bad in the sense it is an inaccurate representation of reality. The notion the all
evil in the world is due to oppression of one group over another is not the whole story of mankind
and his woes. Today we see "communism type thinking" in more acceptable forms such as men
oppressing women or majorities oppressing minorities and so forth. Marxism is attractive because it
seems to represent the "little" guy, the underdog; so there is certainly an attraction to it.
However, as we have seen historically, communism has led to more oppression and totalitarianism |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
There is no need for me to add too much because Mack has said it all far more eloquently than I
could ever do. Another big problem that makes it impossible in practice aside from human nature is
it's inability to compete on a global scale. The greatest asset that exists in western society is
the fact that we get rewarded for hard work. To reward people regardless of effort results in
society stagnating. Why would someone seek to do a better job, to be more creative etc if they
received no reward for doing so. That is not to say we cannot adopt some of the ideologies of
Marxism (USA especially), We do and are better off as a society as a result. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The basic social justice principles behind Communism and the importance of the collective good over
pure individualism may sound nice on paper, but no country has ever been able to create a Communist
society in the orthodox Marxist sense of the term. Communism is considered to be the final stage of
human historic development, after both bourgeois democracy and socialism have given way to a world
that is no longer based on class divisions. Yet even in countries once under the monopolistic rule
of Communist parties, class divisions persisted and, in most cases, were strengthened during these
regimes. For example, it was far easier for someone deemed to be of peasant or working class origins
to gain university admission, while those seen to have aristocratic or otherwise upper-class roots
faced massive discrimination when it came to higher education and were usually outright banned from
attending school. Additionally, a new class--usually referred to in former Communist Eastern Europe
as the "Nomenklatura"--was created, comprised of high-ranking politicians, civil servants, party
functionaries and military leaders.
The problem with Communism is that even as an ideology, it does not tolerate any dissent whatsoever.
The notion that history progresses inevitably in one direction, ultimately leading to Communism, is
seen as an absolute truth, and so is the belief in the dictatorship of the proletariat. Acting in a
manner that may be seen to slow down this process, or going against the dictatorship of the
proletariat is unacceptable in the eyes of communists and one is automatically labelled as a class
enemy.
Any ideology that does not tolerate dissent is very negative and Communism certainly fits the bill.
In absolutely all countries that experienced one-party Communist rule, dissent and opposition was
brutally crushed, and societies based on what nearly everyone silently recognized to be pure
deception were created. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
See comment above, i disapprove of communism |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Communism In It's Simplest Form Isn't Bad
I Have To Admit Hidell Has Some Excellent Points |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Nope sorry communism is not bad it just bad for certain people in certain societies. But other
countries love it. Of course any system can be bad if ran by bad people |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
What would an American know about communism given that you've never had a socialist government and
are, in general, utterly ignorant of what happens outside your borders?
Communism and socialism can and have worked in some places, just not everywhere: Canada, England,
Australia, Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, Czech Republic, India (the communists are third
biggest), Mongolia (twice elected as a majority after 1990), Argentina, Chile, Greece, Brazil,
Venezuela, and Nicaragua (where constant rightwing corruption caused most rightwingers to start
supporting the Sandanistas).
Corruption and bureaucracy are its biggest weaknesses, the same as any other system. Even the issue
of "individual achievemen" isn't an issue since all the countries I listed above are
democracies...except, of course, the ones where the US has tried to stop the countries from being
democracies. |
| |
 K9  20 Apr 2008 12:34
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Communism isn't bad... It is unrealistic because it is susceptible to failure and poor leadership...
Very easy to get thrown around as a communist... You might argue communists get short-sticked too,
unless done properly in which case everyone is supported on the top tiers of their respective
scenarios |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No system is bad its just the success which counts and due to this failure in competing the free
market economy that communism failed. But communism failed also due to the political side of it and
the economic side suffered due to failed designs of the political communist leaders. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boiled down to its essentials, communism is simply the belief that property should be owned
communally rather than by private persons or organisations. It's hard to see how that could be
characterised as "bad". Insofar as there is often a moral motivation behind the organisation of
societies along these lines, it could be said, on the contrary, to be good, that is to be motivated
by compassion and conscious benevolence. Western capitalism, for example, has no similar moral
component driving it.
The question of whether it is good or bad is completely separate from the question of whether it is
effective in producing economic growth, however. Clearly, wherever it was applied, the large
communist systems failed to bring about the high standard of living expected of the most advances
societies for their citizens. Most people would agree that the "dark, satanic mills" which
Wordsworth spoke of, and in which workers toiled for 16 hours a day, were more effective at
producing economic growth than the agrarian economy which they replaced. But would we call them
"good"?
Some things could be said in defence of the communist experiments' failure to match the living
standards of the West. For one thing, the countries which pursued the experiment were much poorer
than Western countries to begin with. Most of them lived in quasi-medieval societies dominated by
agriculture. Yet the social systems they adopted allowed them to make dramatic technological
advances and compete with the most advanced countries of the West in many spheres, including, for
example, the space race.
The paranoid hostility exhibited by Western countries to those pursuing the communist experiment
also compelled them to devote an inordinate amount of their resources to national security purposes.
In the end, however, it is virtually certain that a communist economic system could not match the
economic achievements of the Western capitalist countries. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
There are tribes of primitive people who live perfectly happily with communal property arrangements.
It's certainly possible to conceive of the possibility that a society could be content without the
technological gew-gaws we have in the West, and some Western ecologists would argue that this is
indeed the model we should all be aspiring to. However, if people do wish to pursue consumerist
aspirations, undoubtedly the Western model would be more to their liking. It is not morally
superior, however. It is simply more effective. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
