What are you opinions of communism?

Question

~ Why has communism never been attained by any country?

~Why do you think nations experiementing with communist governments have to be so repressive (no migration, censorship) to have their ideology accepted?

~ Can communism exist without authoritarianism, or is it a flaw built into the theory?

~What are the three greatest strengths of communist ideology?

Well Cuba is a Socialist Communist country and China has been opening up to a global economy. No country has attained TRUE communism

Answer 1

My answer at the same questions are at "critcisms of communism" question:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjEjsoODuu5E4mX54KvMvsHsy6IX?qid=20070215121257AAg5REy&show=7#profile-info-dc6f03711d96638409e00d94cac901e4aa

The answers from "criticisms of communism" are:

~ Why has communism never been attained by any country?
* No Communist country existed so far.
In Marxist theory, the state is the repressive tool of the capitalist system, and when the people share all the wealth, the state is needed to be abolished.
The so called "Communist states" (former USSR, Vietnam,and others) are in fact the exact opposite of the Communist society.
Capitalism is stronger than ever in these countries, because this is state-capitalism, the power of the state, of the repressive machine (as Marx described the state).
In these countries, a few group of opportunists take advantage of the Communist ideology, and control the people, at their own interest.
This small group of people (the biggest capitalists) are called The "Nomenklatura" acting in the name of the working class.
Milovan Djilas (a true Yogoslavian Communist jailed by Tito) wrote of the nomenklatura as the new class in his book New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System.
"...And that it was widely seen (and resented) by ordinary citizens as a bureaucratic élite that enjoyed special privileges and had simply supplanted the earlier wealthy capitalist élites."-Wikipedia
As I sad, this is wild capitalism, and NOT COMMUNISM, because Communism has no classes (like now : lower,middle, upper).
When these anti-Communist regimes claiming to be Communist become brutal and opressive, it is Stalinism.
These states claim to be "Marxist-Leninist" states.This is a fake term created by Stalin to make a justification for his murders.
"Stalinism is the political and economic system named after Joseph Stalin, who implemented it in the Soviet Union. It includes an extensive use of propaganda to establish a personality cult around an absolute dictator, extensive use of the secret police to maintain social submission."-Wikipedia.
Stalinism is clear anti-Communism, and I don't want to waste time the real Communist heroes detained by Stalinist regimes including my grandfather.For example, when a few French communists immigrated to the USSR hoping to find a real workers paradise (when Stalin was the dictator), they were killed, because they could saw that this is capitalism, and not Communism. The exploitation of men by men.
So in these countries the Nomenklatura is the rulling class , and in Communist theory they are no classes.
Cuba - state-capitalism.
China - pure capitalism.
Vietnam - state-capitalism.
North Korea - Stalinism and Juche (extreme right nationalist ideology created by Kim Jong-Il.).

The term "Communist state" is a product of corporate media, discrediting the word "Communist".
This term is TOTALLY INCORRECT, because Communism is a society without any state and without any class.

~Why do you think nations experimenting with communist governments have to be so repressive (no migration, censorship) to have their ideology accepted?

Because the Nomenklatura (rulling class) is fearing of the people which know that what they do is neither socialism, or Communism.
Their ideology is Stalinism.
And I have to add that Stalin was national-socialist (nazi) in fact.
In a December 1, 1952 Politburo session, Stalin announced: "Every Jewish nationalist is a potential agent of the American intelligence. Jewish nationalists think that their nation was saved by the USA."
More on Stalin's antisemitism:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/stalin%27s_...

~ Can communism exist without authoritarianism, or is it a flaw built into the theory?

"Democracy, is the road to socialism." - Karl Marx.

"Freedom only for the members of the government, only for the members of the Party — though they are quite numerous — is no freedom at all. FREEDOM IS ALWAYS THE FREEDOM OF DISSENTERS. The essence of political freedom depends not on the fanatics of "justice", but rather on all the invigorating, beneficial, and detergent effects of dissenters. If "freedom" becomes "privilege", the workings of political freedom are broken."
-Rosa Luxemburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rosa_luxemb...

Yes.Communism is not authoritarian in theory, but Stalinism is
(or Marxism-Leninism).
Marx wanted a transition (socialism is the transition to the Communist society) to Communism that would be "the dictatorship of the proletariat", but Communism it can be only democratic.
Dictatorship of the proletariat refers to workers power (workers Democracy), not to single-party dictatorship.
When Marx lived, the multi-party democracy was a real dictatorship, because only male rich people could vote (and where only a few republics that time).
It is very important to mention that Communism is hardly anti-monarchic (Communists are always against a king or a quenn).

In 1918 in Hungary, when Communists were in power for only 1 year (after the Austro-Hungarian empire collapsed), workers were elected DEMOCRATIC WAY to the council (kind of parliament).
That was the "Council Republic" and it was defeated after Romanian army entered Budapest. This was true democracy.More democracy than in USA , because in USA that time womens could note vote.In the Council Republic, ALL THE ADULT POPULATION COULD VOTE, INCLUDING WOMEN!!! An extremly rare thing that time.I would also like to say that Communists always wanted to liberate womens.

Communism was easy to be betrayed for the Nomenklatura, because of the Lenin's theory in the book "What is to be done?".
He wanted only 1 big revolutionary party in the transition to Communism (socialism).
This was speculeted by Stalin to develop a dictatorship, and than extending the dictatorship to other East-European countries.
Lenin's theory about the revolutionary party was not completly democratic, but rejected personal dictatorship (Party democracy).
No East-European country respected this, and every party was controlled by the nomenklatura in fact (without fair elections in party).
Lenin also wanted that the country to be controlled by soviets (councils) in socialism, AND NOT THE PARTY.
Rosa Luxemburg had condemned the revolutionary party theory developed by Lenin, saying correctly, that this would produce a dictatorship and not a democracy (even in Leninist sense).

While Lenin lived, the country was controlled by soviets (councils), and not the party.
After Lenin died, Stalin toked the control, invented Marxism-Leninism, made a new constitution transfering the power TO THE PARTY, and took control of the party (this was the end of internal party democracy).
Than in USSR there was Stalinism and not socialism.
Stalin killed millions of people, including many Communists.
The leader of Hungarian council republic (Kun Bela) was killed also by Stalin.
And he killed his rival Trotsky too, paying a professional killer to kill him in Mexico (he was in exile).
Trotsky said in his book "Revolution Betrayed" that USSR is a "degenerated workers state", and publicly blamed Stalin and the USSR, and said that USSR is not socialist.
From a text of the fourth international (Trotsky's international organization):

"The Soviet state of that period was held to be a workers' state because the bourgeoisie had been politically overthrown and the economic basis of that state lay in nationalized property. The Soviet state was degenerated because the working class was politically dispossessed. The ruling stratum of the Soviet Union was held to be a bureaucratic caste, and not a new ruling class, despite their political control. The theory that the Soviet Union was a degenerated workers' state is closely connected to Trotsky's call for a political revolution in the USSR, as well as Trotsky's call for defense of the USSR against capitalist restoration."

"The term "degenerated workers' state" is commonly used to refer only to the Soviet Union. The term deformed workers' state was coined by the Fourth International to describe states other than the Soviet Union which are or were based upon nationalized property, but in which the working class never held direct political power."-Wikipedia.

More about Trotsky : http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/trotsky... .

Lenin send a letter to the party which said Stalin is a criminal and he can not be putted in charge.The letter was censored by the orders of Stalin.
After this, a lot of non-Socialist "Communist states" appeared, which were all dictatorships, in every sense (Marxist and Leninist too).
Examples are : Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Cuba, and others.

These states never wanted Communism, but they talk always about the "Road to Communism".
China is having a 70% private economy and it is not socialist.

There was also an anti-Stalinist revolution in Hungary led by the Communist Imre Nagy in 1956(a socialist revolution, but Hungarian right don't recognize that).

There was a democraticly elected Marxist leader of Chile, but who was removed by an US led coop.He's name was Salvador Allende.
For more information : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/salvador_al... .


I think that your definition of democracy is the multi-party democracy.
But there are forms of socialism and Communism compatible whit this too.

Whit Communism :
Eurocommunism.
A theory of Western European Communists developed in 1970's to distance their parties from USSR type dictatorships and theories (Stalinism).
These include:
* Non-revolutionary transformation of the society (to a Communist society)
* Multi-party free elections
* feminism
* Gay and lesbian liberation (Marx was anti-gay)
* free press, freedom of speech, AND ALL NON-ECONOMIC INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS.
* and other things existing in a liberal society but not regarding economic things.

Today there are many Eurocommunist parties, which include: The Communist Refoundation Party (Italy), Party of Italian Communists, French Communist Party (PCF), and many others.
But if you see a party describing itself as Marxist-Leninist, you have to know that is a anti-democratic Stalinist party (for example the Communist Party of the Russian Federation).

For more information about Eurocommunism please go to :
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subjec...

And about Marxism in general, to www.marxists.org .

For socialism:

-- Democratic socialism:

Very similar to Eurocommunism, but trying to achieve only a socialist society, and not a Communist society.
Many Eurocommunist parties describe itselfs Democratic Socialists, because most people think Communism is a dictatorial theory, an example is Party Of Democratic Socialism from Germany, which is Eurocommunist in fact, but wishes to not irritate the former East-Germany population whit the term "Communist".

For more information about Democratic socialism : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/democratic_... .


~What are the three greatest strengths of communist ideology?

* freedom from capitalist exploitation
* No classes
* No poverty, the same wealth for everybody.
* Workers power
* No imperialism (exploitation of a nation by another, creating colonies, for example India, where people worked for the British people for no money).
* Women liberation, non-discrimination of women.
* The republic, anti-monarhism
* Anti-clericalism, anti-religion, but respecting the religious freedom.
* Separation of State and Church.
* Many other things for more info go to www.marxists.org.

I hope you understood this.
ekbalazs222.

P.S: (later edit):
To those who say USSR was socialist:
“the earnings of the highest paid Soviet worker were more than 28.3 times the earnings of the lowest paid worker at that time.”
( http://www.marxists.org/archive/shachtma...
-that was the equal distribution of wealth in the USSR....

Answer 2

* Why has communism never been attained by any country?

Because Communism doesn't work. It's a flawed theory that doesn't factor in human nature.

* Why do you think nations experiementing with communist governments have to be so repressive (no migration, censorship) to have their ideology accepted?

Because you don't want people seeing that your system can't compete with capitalism. That their life would be better without communism.

* Can communism exist without authoritarianism, or is it a flaw built into the theory?

No. You need something to motivate people to work, and since communism eliminates personal gain, it is all that is left to motivate with.

* What are the three greatest strengths of communist ideology?

1) It sounds good on paper.
2) umm.. it sounds good on paper?
3) See #1

Answer 3

Communism is a philosophy that assumes all people are exactly alike. People are different. We have different needs, different interests, different likes and dislikes, we have different levels of ambition. Some are lazy some workaholics. So, while PURE Communism may look lie utopia it is not workable with human beings. It assumes everyone is equal but we are not. Some of us, by virtue of how we conduct our lives, our background and our circumstance fair better than others. Human nature is that some are better than others.

A Communist economy to exist for any lenghth of time must be under an authoritarian government. People who don't care, who just put in their time and go home are ideal candidates for Communism. But some folks take pride in what they do, they want more and will do what is necessary to get a little more. Authoriatarian government is necessary to keep those people from becoming leaders or becoming wealthy of their own making by selling something extra or doing more than others.

One of the reasons the Soviet Union is no longer in existance is that small pockets of capitalism sprung up and people were getting more but the corrupt officials looked the other way and soon there were people in leadership positions that saw the value in a Capitalist vs. Communist world.

Freedom and individuality will find a way out. It took about 80 years for Russia to break the grip. With all the business in China, right now, they will soon begin to see the light too. Then only small countries (who cares) will embrace Communism. Without support from a big brother small countries will fail to keep Communism too. Viet nam now has capitalism starting up. Give them a few more decades and Communism will die there too.

In North Korea something is going to give in the next decade as people cannot continue to live in poverty. Their economy may be a type of Communism but their government is totalitarian dictatorship by one person. (Communism is dictatorship by committe).

Communism, on the surface may seem like a great idea but it doesn't work.

Answer 4

Generally, my opinion of communism is that it's evil. More people died in the 20th century due to communist regimes than died due to abortion, the holocaust, and terrorism combined. No joke. You also asked some more specific questions, so here is my answer to those.

Communism doesn't work because of human nature. The moment someone realizes that there is no incentive for him or her to work hard is the moment where they begin to do just enough to get by. That incentive is what built America into the economic behemoth that it is.

Their ideology is not accepted by those they repress. They repress others so that they can obtain power. A free people would never willingly accede to this sort of rule.

No, communism cannot exist without authoritarianism, once again due to human nature.

The communist ideology does not have any strengths when put into practice.

Answer 5

1) not true as far a communism can be applied China, Vietnam, and Cuba come to mind
2) all that is hype veitnam no one is leaving, many people are moving to China in the region
3) yes it can but people are inherently driven toward adopting strong leaders. Strong leaders are authoritarian. why is Carter not see as a good president and Reagan was?? Carter was a nice guy but way nice in many way whereas reagan was a nice guy but a brutal leader not afraid to trade some drugs for guns or whatever to get the job done.
4) appeals to idealists
it made alot of sense when religion was failing people so very badly at the time of its inception
gives democracies something to fight against and an excuse for wars since humans are inherently warlike because of limited resources.

Answer 6

Because communism is diametrically opposed to freedom.

There are no three strengths of communism. It has absolutely failed as an ideology; cost millions of people their lives. Yet, go to a university and see the dinosaur commies that still exist. They all have the same spin. It hasn't been done correctly, it hasn't truly been tried, etc etc. And they all hate Bush.

Answer 7

I don't believe in worshipping 'the beast' (government) and communism makes people do just that.