The idea of communism, in principle, is a good one, and it can be done with democratic elections, freedom of speech etc. However, the faults of man make it so that there is no freedom of speech, no vots, and so on. It will never work, because there is always someone out there who enjoys the power too much, and with no social hiarachy any more, there is no-one to stop them.
Your idea of communism is not based on the principle of communism, but on how humans have twisted it to their own uses. If the pure idea of communism was introduced, it would create a better world for us all, but humans will never be able to share equally, or give up the power they crave, making communism the feared mess it is today.
2007-06-19 03:00:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by Kit Fang 7
·
6⤊
0⤋
"Little or no crime, a job for every one, no junkies or over crowded prisons. Punishment fits the crime.
No out of control youths, inner city thugs with big guns.
Safe to walk the street at night without fear."
Communist Russia had NONE of that. Look at actual numbers rather than propaganda of the time.
Crime stats were hidden. Crime was rampant. Addiction was rampant. Undereage prostitution was and is common. Punishment didn't fit the crime, you were just shipped off to a Gulag where you commonly OVERSERVED your sentence because you were simply forgotten. How does THAT fit the crime.
And the Gulags were overcrowded beyond belief.
No inner city thugs with guns??? LOL. The Russian mob didn't just start when Yeltsin stood on the tank.
Safe to walk the streets???? Then you're a tougher bird than most.
Guranteed a job. Yes. Which has the unintended effect of making industry and farm production sluggish because you had no incentive. There was very little "getting ahead." Too lazy to meet your quota? No problem. Rather than reveal to the west our industry is crap, we'll just lower the quota.
You might actually sway someone if you had ANY facts at all.
2007-06-19 03:30:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by Atavacron 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Real communism is an equal distribution of wealth and resources. The secondary goal was to create a classless society. If wealth and resources are distributed equally, where is the incentive of the individual to progress in his/her life? I studied social stratification in graduate school a long time ago and I do remember one thing clearly. There is no class-less society. People need some authority figures and some law givers. The opposite is anarchy. Even the most primitive cultures have established some class structure. No society can exist without leaders. True communism could have free speech and could also have the societal evils you list in the first portion of your question. Communism, as it developed in the modern world, was nothing like the communism of philosophy--which Christ espoused in a purer form. Modern communism was fascism and dictatorships. There are almost no communist nations left, but North Korea is an example of corrupted communism. The military is well-fed while the people starve. Your question is good, but where you go wrong is when you don't distinguish real communism from the political communism we were all exposed to in the nations of Eastern Europe and the USSR.
2007-06-19 03:12:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by David M 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, it is. Granted, crime may be lower with the civilians, but that usually means it sky rockets with the people in power. These communist governments would have no hesitation to create groups that would ruthlessly deal with people, and because there is no freedom of speech the people don't have a say in their own treatment.
What's more is that the wages and jobs in communist nations are unreasonable. In a communist nation, it doesn't matter how hard you work or how much effort you put into what you do. You will always make the same amount of money as the person next to you who doesn't work anywhere near as hard as you (if at all). There is no initiative to work because you are likely assigned a job that is nothing of what you want and you have no room to build anything for yourself or your family.
Granted, I agree with you in the sense of if you don't work, you don't eat. I think here in the states that we have too many people trying to leech off of good financial assistance programs that were intended to help those with a legitimate need. Plus, prison shouldn't be a luxury. It's prison, not the Hilton.
Communism wouldn't fix those problems.. it would just move them from being rampant in the people to being rampant in the government. The problem (and therefore solution) does not lay in the type of government... it lays in the people. When people learn ethics, morals, and common sense, a lot of the so called "unsolvable problems" in society would take care of themselves.
2007-06-19 03:13:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by Mr_Masks99 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
There has been no communist regime in the world that has not employed terror.
Have a look at "The Lives of Others" (German film 2006).
You also do not understand that when Lenin took over, he put the normal people in the prisons and put the murderers and rapists in charge.
The freedom to have your own business is also an important freedom.
The East German government was running prisons where dissidents were tortured and raped right up until the Berlin Wall fell on 9th November 1989.
There were immense environmental problems caused by the discharge of horrible pollutants. Look at the radiation from Chernobyl.
If Communism is the answer, you asked the wrong question.
There was horrific poverty under Communism. That is what killed it.
2007-06-19 03:09:11
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Have you ever studied a country that has tried communism? USSR, Cuba, North Korea, China. Now, tell me if you really think there is/was no crime, and everyone had a job? If so, then why did the USSR implode, China is opening its market to a more capitalistic nature (while keeping the rule of totalitarian government) North Korea is a joke and one of the poorest countries in the world, and we all know about Cuba. Now tell me do you really think these are good things?
Now Communism would not be such a bad thing except it's theory leaves out one incredibly important thing. HUMAN NATURE! It is not natural for us to live in a commune type setting with one person leading the crowd and everyone else following blindly. We do not think that those who work less or work a lesser job deserve to earn as much money as me. We all want our own property. All of these things are the opposite of communist doctrine. It would be a nice thing if we lived in a perfect world, but because we live in a world of unknowns and of human nature, it is almost a worthless thing.
2007-06-19 03:01:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
On paper communism looks great. That's why so many countries give it a try. In practice it always turns into a dictatorship where the average citizen loses their rights, their motivation to excel and all freedom.
And no government has ever completely eliminated crime. It is just hides it from the eyes of outsiders so the worlsd thinks Communism has no crime. Did you know that the most prolific serial killer hid inside the USSR, taking over 234 lives of his comrades.
No, democracy has it's problems but there is no better system for the average person.
2007-06-19 03:02:08
·
answer #7
·
answered by morgan j 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Communism like socialism is one of those things that look good on paper, but like free enterprise tend to fail due to the human habit of placing personal gain above the law.
During its best days, the USSR's food production was 50% from communal fields and 50% from little private garden patches. People won't work for long just because they are threatened. Something that employers are finding out the hard way in the "free" world.
Working longer and longer for the glory of unskilled management has little appeal, none at all to a normal person. That is true no matter what the supposed political philosophy.
2007-06-19 03:04:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by Gaspode 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Communism is an ideal. It has never been realized and all the attempts have been fatally flawed. Karl Marx was clear in his analysis of economic systems and their interdependence (i.e., hunter-gatherer leads to feudalism leads to capitalism leads to socialism leads to communism). Each stage requires the previous stages. Throughout history, those countries claiming to be communist barely made it out of the feudal stage. They never developed the capitalist base necessary to support socialism. While socialism retains some remnants of governmental control (i.e., government by the people), government dissolves with the realization of communism.
I'd say that democracy increases with each stage. In capitalist society, democracy is subverted and perverted by money. It exists, but in a very warped condition. Socialism allows for greater exercise of democracy because, to a large extent, money is taken out of the equation. Communism is the realization of pure democracy where money has no influence over the political process at all.
Atavacron - You're right, russia had all of those things, what it didn't have was communism! Just because you call it communism does NOT make it so.
2007-06-19 03:27:00
·
answer #9
·
answered by Monk 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why bring up all the bad things perptrated by communist governments like banning of Religious expression. Oh what you're Muslim? Too bad. Oy vey you say your Hebrew? Not anymore you're not. No god but the Party Comrade.
How bout the fact that Russia spent themselves into a trainwreck?
How bout long lines for EVERYTHING. How bout food lines and toilet paper lines and gas lines and bread lines. Rationing of things that you take for granted in your day to day life. What you wanna listen to Biggie, 2Pac or the Cronic? Fat chance it's not happening.
You mean like that? If you don't have a problem with anythng that I listed then you would do well to rembember that when we come knocking on your door Comrade. Dah?
Sorry but my Cyrrilic keyboard is not working at the moment. Damn Ukranian PoS.
2007-06-19 03:13:33
·
answer #10
·
answered by C.A. G 2
·
0⤊
0⤋