Can someone give me a layman's breakdown of Communism? Thanks.?

Answer 1

simple ... the Party, as custodians of all state assets -- which means essentially all assets of every description -- makes all decisions of every stripe ... what will be built, who may have what job, what you will be paid, what prices will be for everything, all government policies, and who may be a Party member.

As you see, controlling who can be a member and thus who decides who can vote, effectively means that the Party is a collective dictator and all non-members are, in effect, peons, serfs, or outright slaves.

Since all communist regimes practice 'democratic centrism' [see the Constitution of China for controlling authority, for example], in effect, the head Party honchos are the dictator(s).

{"Democratic centrism" means that discussion of alternatives occurs only within the Party, to the extent Party rules permit, and that after a central (dictatorial) decision is made, everyone hews to that decision.}

***
In practical effect, the two generation experiment of the two Germanies showed that communist decision making results in economic stagnation instead of economic growth with an eventual revolution of the non-Party members against their 'own' government despite that said government has a monopoly of all military force.

[After two generations, communist East Germany had 1/4th the per capita economic output, and therefore per capita income, of West Germany. The East German people revolted and toppled the government despite having no guns at all.]


clear enough??

Answer 2

Communism is where the state owns everything and everyone. It is a system where the individual is subordinate to the whole.

The phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is an explanation of how the state intends to distribute, and setting aside the fact that it never quite works out that way, here's the problem with that: Who decides what another's ability is? Who decides what they need? What career would a committee have chosen for Tom Cruise? What job would have been assigned to Bill Gates? Who needs medical resources more, a heart patient who builds houses for a living, or an actress needing breast augmentation? Would you really want someone doing a heart transplant on you that was thinking about how to justify to a committee the expense of a box of new scalpels? Want to ride in an elevator serviced by someone that would prefer to do something else for a living, and doesn't really care about elevator safety and maintenance?

Answer 3

Communism is actually where the people work for the greater good of the government and the collective. In a communist government, you work where the governement wants you to work. You do not get a paycheck from work though. Instead the governemnt pays everyone equally. Goods and services are not bought, instead the government issues them. In a perfect world, communism is a good and sound form of government in which everyone is equal. You do not have the clashes between those who have and those who have not. Unfortuanely, communism only looks good on paper and doesn't truly hold up. Man is naturally greedy and politics end up playing a role outside of the communistic ideal.

Answer 4

Okay, lets try a non-biased concept.... Communism is the idea that if there's enough for everybody, nobody should be without. The dilemna is that people who are in charge usually become rich off the work of everybody else. On the other hand, there is also the problem that if everybody's getting the same amount, why work? So some people are working harder than others because in the end, they won't get credit for what they do anyway.

Answer 5

Its supposed to be all about the "collective". The collective is pretty much like a small town or village kind of thing and everyone works for the good of the collective thus enabling everyone to have plenty in terms of food, clothing, and shelter. In a strict communist society a wealthy person doesn't exist because everyone works for everyone else. I know that sounds simplistic but I will refer you to a good book. Its called "Animal Farm". You will see why communism will never work. I read this book back in the eighth grade and it made a big impression on my understanding of world events.

Answer 6

Whoa, Bonny, you are getting some awful definitions. Except for Smellyfeet, all the answers sound like pamphlets written by J. Edgar Hoover. I guess it's still about building straw men and tearing them to pieces.
I suppose the simplest way of defining communism that old principle: "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need". Which is, of course, impractical if taken literally, but principles should never become dogma.
Another common definition of communism holds that it is achieved when the "workers" take control if the "means of production". Which is unavoidably a terrific idea, you know, since it ends the separation between effort and privilege that is so common to the west.
If you read Capital, (a task i must admit is not very easy, but so far it's been quite rewarding) you will see that Marx's intention was not so much to set up a rigid system of governance or administration but rather to point out the basic flaws of the capitalist system and indicate the existential needs of the individual that cannot be met by a society driven by private capital.
The basic premise is that money, rather than being a thing-in-it-self is the crystallization of labor. The value added by the capitalist is called surplus and it reflects no labor whatsoever. Therefore surplus, or profit, is an adulteration of the value of money.
In other words, people ought to be equally rewarded for equal effort. A system that extract different amounts of labor for different rewards is an unfair system. I do not believe that rigid price structures are inherent to communism and so far i have found no indication that a limited free market is inimical to socialist/communist systems.
As for existing systems, I can say that so far no nation has called itself "communist". That is because communism is the final stage of successful socialism in the disrepute Marxist historical model. Dogmatic adherence to marxism demanded that such distinction be made.
For all practical purposes, existing and past models of socialism have developed within a spectrum of executive authoritarianism that has most to do with the security needs of the said territory. So that relatively secure countries like modern Spain and France can take less than moderate swings into Social Democracy while a small nation besieged by a superpower, as is the case of Cuba, has little choice but to stick to its strongman. A similar case can be made for Stalin's rise during a period of realistic paranoia over "capitalist encirclement". After all, the US and the UK unsuccessfully battled the young Republic in 1919 and the threat of fascism was more than conspicuous by the time of Lenin's death.
I guess, what i am trying to say is that the existing forms of Marxism-Leninism and Maoism differ vastly from theoretical Marxism and its many branches. So that, while some elemental principles of Marxism can be easily defined in layman's terms, an understanding of the practical socialism requires a long historical explanation that i believe you are not looking for.
In short, communism (or Marxism) is reflexive of the flaws of 19th century industrialism (capitalism is as much theoretical as Marxism). The theory abounds in descriptions of the workings of so-called capitalism and its cultural by-products. I believe it is a rich critique and that it deserves the attention of all who are unfulfilled by the promises of modern mercantilism.
Despite what some answerers say, Marxism is a more appropriate means of establishing a meritocratic system of privilege than our present societal model. Remember the chances of remaining rich if you are born rich and think about all the talent lost in the undereducated poor.
In short, the principles which seek to tie effort to privilege and which posit the responsibility for taking care of the weak on the state are the basic tenets of Marxism. Communism, as far as Marx goes, could be anything the dictatorship of the proletariat desires it to be.... in other words, ideally, communism is a direct democracy.

Answer 7

Communism its like private limited company, you work there for low salary with lots guidelines to follow.
Democracy like Public limited who promise for shares which you never get.

So it doesn't matter the victim's are always us.

Answer 8

The basic premise is that everyone works for the common good. The problem is that it doesn't work. The theory seems OK but folks just are not motivated to work hard for the common good.

Answer 9

It is the idea of a classless society. The organization of society is based on common ownership of the "means of production" - everyone owns the land, and everyone benefits from the crop. Ideally, everyone is equal. If you have needs, they are met.

Answer 10

"Classless" society where the government garauntees you a job and a wage. Not all bad in theory but in application it is pretty terrible, mass proganda, censureship, and murder.