Do you believe in Communism or Socialism?

Question

What are your views?

Answer 1

Nope. I support neither of them. The best system is a capitalist system that does not allow huge monopolies to form and encourages competition. :)

Answer 2

No, I don't believe in either system of government. Government should be of the people, to the government. Communsim and socialism give too much power to the government, and power corrupts. The people lose their free will and motivation, allowing the government to run their lives.

Despite many people thinking that communism and/or socialism is a good form of government, history has proven that communism is a failure. Look at the former Soviet Union and the satellite countries in Eastern Europe. In spite of the propaganda, there are very few communist countries left in the world.

A fellow graduate school student recently wrote a paper about the "genius" of Karl Marx, ignoring that 18th century political theory rarely works in the modern world of reality. Even though ideas on communism, socialism, or even anarchy are gaining a few converts, those ideas are ridiculous.

Democracy may not be perfect, but it is the best form of government.

Answer 3

Socialism bleeds a country until it is no longer productive and has tapped all it's resources. Then the poor become even poorer.

Communism steals from every person, rich or poor, and institutes a one-party military regime, and allows a police state. Both forces are at work in this nation, and are the cause of all of America's problems.

The Republican/Democrat monopoly acts like a one-party state. They cooperate on all their criminal activities and put on an impressive propaganda show to make us believe they are enemies. They both act to increase central power and reduce the liberties of civilians. They both are crippling our economy and selling out to globalism.

Answer 4

Of course I believe in them. I have seen the damage they do in many parts of the world. Communism of course is much worse and always leaves it's victims poor if not dead. Socialism just takes a little longer to accomplish disaster. It causes a paralysis that leaves the host alive, but unable to realize the fate in store for it

Answer 5

I don't believe that they WORK, no. I believe that they exist as theories, but they are rooted in some kind of idea that man can become perfect, and will behave like an angel, if only the gov't was better. That's hogwash.

Give me a free society with free markets anyday.

Answer 6

both are good theories. not good to practice

I believe in mixed economy.
half socialist and half capitalist. we currently have about 80% capitalism and 20% socialism.
all things are better in moderation and nothing works well in full.
we need taxes, we should have universal healthcare, social security is a great thing as well, and its nice to make some things in our own nation and sell them to our own people.
but
we should also be able to have our own bussinesses and spend our money how we please. trade is also a good thing.

Answer 7

Nope, neither one!!!

Socialism and Communism was tried in Germany, Did'nt work, they both ultiamtely lead to genocide!!

Socialism and Communism are both the result of the "choice" me me.

Choice is a bad thing, and has lead to more death than any other practice.

JR

Answer 8

Communism, no.

Some aspects of socialism, yes.

Answer 9

If you read The Communist Manifesto, you will see that many of its predicitons have come true, however, they have come to pass in slightly subtler ways than Marx and Engles predicted.

We have aspects of our economy in the US that could be called communist, but no one ever really says so. Both Republicans and Democrats support communist economic agendas, but do not call them such outright.

The most obvious is insurance. Car, home, and medical, we have insurance against all sorts of things. Republicans are in tight with the insurance industry, because it is an extremely powerful force in the economy, and a tremendous source of investment capital.

Any money that insurance companies take from you that does not get paid out to claimants goes into their investment portfolios. You're essentially giving your insurance company money for them to invest with -no- return to you, every year you don't ever file a claim. It is a hidden tax franchise that has been granted to the insurance company. I'll explain my reasoning below.

The Democrats view what is basically a communist health coverage system as a key way to sway votes in their favor. No surprise there.

Insurance is effectively, a kind of communal support system. Everyone purchasing insurance is guaranteeing to the other members of their community that they will provide the necessity that is being insured.

If your car gets damaged, the group provides replacement. If you get sick, your insurance group provides funds to restore your health.

Of course, health insurance is collapsing, and auto insurance rates are skyrocketing, because human beings have infinite wants, and finite resources, resulting in failure when the system tries to meet all of the demands.

Notice how car insurance is now -required- in most states. It is really a hidden tax franchise granted by our political "leaders" to insurance companies. It handles the health costs and property damages of thousands of car-related injuries and accidents, and helps keep the supply of workers and goods in the US mobile and moving along our highway system.

To build a safe public transit system that provided good geographic coverage would require the government to raise taxes, and the public would never support it. The public can always be counted on to ignore the long term benefits of the taxes they pay, and has actively been taught that collective effort, guided by good leadership, will not produce better results than a free market.

So instead, we have the hidden tax of "insurance" that keeps society functioning, but does nothing to improve our transportation system, or health system. Indeed, insurance companies want things to remain the same so they are as predictable as possible, so they have better knowledge of what their operating margins will be.

You insurance company would say, "Why make public transportation a viable alternative in the cites? That would make people stop buying insurance! No more free money for us!"

Any candiate who offered a public transportation platform would never get the corporate contributions needed to appear on TV, and hence would be unelectable.

As I said, people belive collective efforts are inherently inferior to free market development. However, most great projects in human history have been guided by governments with visionary leaders using the combined resources of the people, not private companies.

In American history, we have examples of this. Teddy Rooseveldt's Panama Canal. FDR's numerous public works projects to bring electricity and telephone service to rural America. Kennedy's Apollo Project. Eisenhower's national highway system.

All of these projects kick-started private enterprise in areas from transport to telecommunications in areas of the US that would have remained undeveloped and backward for decades for one simple reason:

Free-market actors more risk-aware, than reward-aware.

Another reason that motivated some of Marx's predictions to come true is sitting in front of you. Computer technology has changed the way capital can be managed. Most people hold ownership in public companies. That is, they have partial ownership in the means of production. Click your mouse, and you can own a piece of the means of production yourself.

And by buying in or cashing out stock, you can exert your proportional share of managerial control over that company.
Even if you are making 1000 times less than the CEO. Which incidentally, is another indicator of the correctness of Marx's predictions, because that multiplier in Marx's time was much bigger.

This is radically different from what existed in Marx's day, when only the elite held stocks or bonds. So there is a visible downward movement of power over capital as a whole from the few to the many.

Marx's other central prediction was that of violent struggle against the capital-holding class. In America, the transition has been mostly nonviolent and evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. This is because -political- power in American government is diffused among many institutions, who interact and struggle -bureaucratically- rather than in the streets (Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue excepted). Marx lived in Europe, where political power was usually vested in a monarchical dynasty that kept their authority by armed force.

The national revolutions that swept France, Germany, and so many other European countries in 1848 are pointed to as Marxist in character. That's debatable. But not nearly as interesting as looking at -how- the social changes Marx expected to happen actually played out.

Answer 10

I believe they are both evil and destroy the human spirit.

Hope that answers your "question", if that is in fact what you were seeking.