English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-09-05 21:32:16 · 10 answers · asked by free thinker 1 in Social Science Sociology

10 answers

I've had a more than casual interest in Communism and related philosophies (Anarchism, Social Democracy etc) and it seems to me the essence of these movements is:

"To each according to need, from each according to ability".

Simply put: "Contribute to society as best you can, and society (represented by collectively-controlled industry) will look after your needs".

Varying levels of authority and coercion have been used in historical Communist-derived movements, from the heavy-handed and oppressive policies and actions of the Warsaw Pact governments, to the relatively free Anarchist/Socialist movements of Spain in the 1930s (for instance, property crimes were pretty much abolished, but rapists, murderers and kidnappers were often executed; while on the economic side, factories, farms etc were controlled and operated by the people who worked in these enterprises, to profit all of those workers - hardly the same as the system used in the Warsaw Pact countries, which simply substituted an all-powerful assembly of politicians for shareholders).

2006-09-06 00:40:56 · answer #1 · answered by Agent Beer Keg 1 · 0 0

Concept Of Communism

2016-10-15 23:29:37 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

The truth is there isn't really much difference between capitalism (by which I am assuming you mean 'corporate' capitalism rather than true 'free market' capitalism) and communism: they both have a collectivist ideology (i.e. what is good for the individual is bad for society and therefore we should give up our individual rights for the good of society as a whole), and both systems are controlled by a privileged elite who seek to dominate and control those below them. If you go far enough to the left you will meet yourself coming back round on the right! George Orwell summed it up well in his analogy 'Animal Farm', in which at the end the animals looked at the pigs and then at the humans and they could not tell the difference. The left/right paradigm is totally fake and totally funded and controlled by the same people at the top. I think it is time people realised that the true political paradigm that we are in is between slavery on the one hand and individual freedom on the other, i.e. collectivism versus individualism.

2016-03-17 09:06:31 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The concept of communism is that all are equal! WRONG!!
Why, well like Cuba, there are poor people. Castro or his brother or the other high ranking communist, don't live like them. They have new or better houses! So, is everybody equal? Or Russia, the heads of state, live like kings, while the workers are starving.
Is that being equal? Take a look at Nicaragua. When the Sandinistas won the revolution, Al the bigwigs, went around choosing the ranches they like.

2006-09-05 21:39:41 · answer #4 · answered by alfonso 5 · 0 1

Communism concept contains following characteristics--
-Strong and enthusiastic speeches
- equality among all
-Power frm bullet
-single decision making
-no innovation
-death to opponents
-harshness and objectivity
-no room for personal belongingness
-frustration for youths
-rigid policies,rules with harsh punishments
It is a better rule if Top leader is really dedicated for upliftment of Country. But then too others see it as a threat.Only people with strict descipline and conservative thoughts can match with it else it is deadliest rule if power comes in hand of a Super Villian like Hitler or Stalin.

2006-09-05 21:51:26 · answer #5 · answered by ankush_nautiyal2002 2 · 0 0

complex question, but in general the state controls everything and everyone. Everyone no matter regardless gets the same. There is no room for self improvement, ambition is diminished.

However party officials live above the rules and laws and off the sweat and backs of the people.

A giant welfare state where the Gov't takes care of everything and you need gov't permission for anything.

Kind of what the Liberals and Green Party wants for America.

2006-09-05 21:36:38 · answer #6 · answered by yager19 4 · 0 1

It's a GOOD concept that was POORLY executed by people like Mao and Stalin. It says that wealth should be shared and there shouldn't be overly wealthy people who think they're better than everyone else. I don't no how such a great idea turned into persecuting Christians and making nuclear weapons.

2006-09-08 15:34:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I think one concept of communism can be defined by the word: Union.

2006-09-05 21:35:10 · answer #8 · answered by What, what, what?? 6 · 0 0

For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/axbDC

I am unaware of the BNP understanding any form of basic concepts. "Mr Griffin said that the BNP’s lawyers were seeking redress against Unilever for clearly identifying the BNP as its Hate Party, as this was clear incitement to hate against BNP members". Irony at it's best!

2016-04-11 03:46:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm

"Karl Marx
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Private Property and Communism


By embracing this relation as a whole, communism is:

(1) In its first form only a generalisation and consummation of it [of this relation]. As such it appears in a two-fold form: on the one hand, the dominion of material property bulks so large that it wants to destroy everything which is not capable of being possessed by all as private property. It wants to disregard talent, etc., in an arbitrary manner. For it the sole purpose of life and existence is direct, physical possession. The category of the worker is not done away with, but extended to all men. The relationship of private property persists as the relationship of the community to the world of things.

Finally, this movement of opposing universal private property to private property finds expression in the brutish form of opposing to marriage (certainly a form of exclusive private property) the community of women, in which a woman becomes a piece of communal and common property. It may be said that this idea of the community of women gives away the secret of this as yet completely crude and thoughtless communism.[30] Just as woman passes from marriage to general prostitution, [Prostitution is only a specific expression of the general prostitution of the labourer, and since it is a relationship in which falls not the prostitute alone, but also the one who prostitutes – and the latter’s abomination is still greater – the capitalist, etc., also comes under this head. – Note by Marx [31]] so the entire world of wealth (that is, of man’s objective substance) passes from the relationship of exclusive marriage with the owner of private property to a state of universal prostitution with the community. This type of communism – since it negates the personality of man in every sphere – is but the logical expression of private property, which is this negation. "

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm

"— Historical Development of Communism —


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Primitive communism: The most ancient socio-economic formation of human society which existed until the emergence of class society.

Primitive human families were the center of their economic, religious and other activities, while symbiotic with the community as a whole. Primitive communism attained its peak of organizational development in the clan system, where productive relations were based on collective ownership of the means of production, while existing alongside of personal property (weapons, household articles, clothing, etc.).

In the old communistic household, which comprised many couples and their children, the task entrusted to the women of managing the household was as much a public and socially necessary industry as the procuring of food by the men. With the patriarchal family [after primitive communism], and still more with the single monogamous family, a change came. Household management lost its public character. It no longer concerned society. It became a private service; the wife became the head servant, excluded from all participation in social production.

A Marxist class conception begins here — class was not yet in existence; this period of time is instead the opposite of what would become class society. When both have run their course, primitive and class society; humanity can build a society that includes aspects of both class society and primitive society, while at the same time superseding them both: this society is called communism. "

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/o.htm#communism

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/o.htm

2006-09-07 15:36:31 · answer #10 · answered by Psyengine 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers