Can Communism actually work?

Question

I mean historically there never has been a particulary effective communist country. China is communist politcially but has a more western econmy, north korea isn't communist but nationalist and Russia was oppressed to stay communist.

Answer 1

Capitalism is the real problem. So many people equate capitalism with democracy. But they are NOT synonymous. Democracy can thrive without capitalism. Capitalism gives corporations more power than the people and results in oligarchies (governments ruled by a few- i.e. big business and those whose pockets they line). This is precisely why the U.S., for example, is stuck in a two-party so-called ''democracy''. (Influence obviously rests within the hands of the powerful.) It (capitalism) can't provide equal opportunity-- The impoverished will never have the same chances as the rich to acquire wealth. Capitalism perpetuates greed. It's the reason why there are children in third world countries working in sweatshops for .20 cents.

So, then, why is there a middle class? It's just there to constantly ensure that the poor remain exactly where they are- POOR. But, eventually, capitalism eliminates the middle class. It (the middle class) can't last since it's function is to maintain the wealthy. I'll illustrate-- To produce and deliver a finished product, several costs are involved: production, labor, maintenance, transportation, packaging, advertising, and so on... In a capitalist economy, all of these costs are increased due to profit motive. But consumers are the only people who actually pay these costs. For example-- If, to make a profit, a transportation company charges a manufacturer extra money then the manufacturer simply charges the packaging company more money to cover costs (and then adds even more money for a profit). This continues until the retailer raises it's prices to cover costs (which are actually the cumulative costs of the profits of all the other companies) and then adds it's own profit. This price is paid by the consumer who has no one to charge to cover his/her costs. So this is what's happening-- The poor cannot afford to ''donate'' their money. (Some do it regardless. But, since they're so limited, it's certainly no where remotely close to being on a grand scale.).... The rich are definitely able- and they do so regularly- which is simply a matter of rich people passing their money around to each other. But the middle class is a different story. The middle class is ''funneling'' their money in two directions- one being to programs such as welfare, for the sake of maintaining poverty, and the other to the rich by embracing consumerism. With their money endlessly going in two different directions, the middle class can't last, which is precisely why the middle class is shrinking in this country.

The rich would love nothing more than for the middle class to remain. The middle class helps to keep the population of rich people at a minimum. (Fewer rich people = more money for rich people.) They (the middle class) pay the highest taxes. This helps the rich in three ways: 1) It's money that rich people don't have to pay. 2) It greatly decreases the chance of middle class persons ever hitting the rich mark, as they have to struggle just to remain in the middle class bracket. 3) Some of that tax revenue assists in keeping the poor impoverished by providing government assistance with no incentives for people to make improvements. (Damn, I'm starting to repeat myself. Sorry.)

The middle class also serves as blinders. In other words, the presence of a middle class causes many citizens to believe the lies that are spoon fed to us by the politicians, big business, etc... They (the citizens) are blinded by the existence of a middle class and can't see the true motives of people in power (allowing those in power to remain as they are without making any changes that would make things better for all of us).

So, yup, the rich loooove the middle class. But, as I said, it can't last.

Capitalism leads to misery and destruction.

"We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order." --Adolph Hitler

"You don't need a totalitarian dictatorship like Hitler's to get by with murder ... you can do it in a democracy as long as the Congress and the people Congress is supposed to represent don't give a damn." --William Shirer, author, 1973

Answer 2

Communism and Socialism aren't the same. The muhajideen (islamist extremists) won the war when they were the major contributors in the fall of the former soviet union. The US funded them, so I guess they were on the winning side. Socialism is better than communism, its more capitalist still with all the moral high ground. However, there has never been a fully socialist state in existence. - Oh and just read pdooma's post. I live in Europe. Europe has got a LOT of socialist principles. These principles (some of which the EU put forward) helped development into the powerhouse Europe is today.

Answer 3

I am Italian and I am pleased to answer this question because in italy communist movements were very strong, especially in
years 60 ' and 70', even for contrasts with neofascist movements.
Communism as you said not work, at least not in europe, circulated in italy because he does infer best in a rich country where people fight for their rights and their independence communism becomes a movement in which many people are working to make fat one, while in less developed countries such a system leads to the sacrifice of the people to bring to power the country (like in the URSS).
I am fascist (NOT nazi), and fascism and communism have much more in common than we want to admit, enough to think the fascism was born from socialist ideals by Carl Marx and nationalist ideals.
At the origins what was really different was that fascism was extremely nationalistic unlike communism, and the fact that communism was opposed to private ownership, while both fought for the lower social classes.
Damage of communism are easily identifiable in Italy:
After April 25 (date of the italian "liberation") in Italy have returned problems as the big gap between social classes, the Mafia, freemasonry and other problems.
However, I prefer the Soviet communism rather than American capitalism.
Sorry for grammatical errors and lack lexical but for me it is very difficult to express my ideals in a language different from mine

Answer 4

As well as any pure system, so not at all.

Pure capitalism is doomed to failure as well (the closest the US got was in the 1920's and that led to the Depression).

Pure democracy fails inherently--we forced it all over in Africa and all that happened was constant civil war and revolution.

Any pure system of economics or gov't requires the people to be perfect and always think of the whole rather than just themselves. In practice this doesnt happen, so you have to create a system with elements from every system to have anything even remotely stable.

Answer 5

Get rich quick schemes in the capitalist business world, (buyouts, IPOs, conglomerates, acquisitions, mergers, and the stock market), do not actually work. Remaining solvent does not actually exist within false economics capitalism.

Profit existing in the capitalist business world, or millionaires existing within capitalism, is pathological deception committed by the 21 organizations spying on the population with plain clothes agents, (with covert fake names and fake backgrounds).

Actual economics is the persons paying the monthly business loan payments of companies voting at work in order to control the property they are paying for.

Capitalism is the psychology of imaginary parents, false economics, and the criminal deception of employees that are paying the bills (including the stocks and bonds, or shares) of companies.

Anti-democracy republicanism is the psychology of imaginary parents, and false government.

Answer 6

Yes and no. Communism works on the small scale of a community, consisting of no more then a few hundred people. This is a called a commune, and there are many successful examples of this around the world.

On the scale of a nation, no it doesn't work. Communism works, but it doesn't scale. Hell, I'm not even too sure democracy scales that well. The non-scaling nature of democracy was certainly a serious worry of the drafters of the US constitution.

Answer 7

Communist does not work. That is why you see communist nations taking capitalist economic systems or becoming very isolationistic. Communism is based on the idea that people will work for nothing, (complete rubbish), and as such, all the communist nations have found out that it is unsustainable. As a result, the countries have turned to isolationism (North Korea), or Capitalism (China) as people aren't they foolishly learn people aren't machines. People work for their own benefit and that of people who are important to them (family, highly regarded public figures, etc.) Communism fails to recognize this and as a result is a continuous failure to the buffoons who support its existence.

Answer 8

Marksist communisme is only a little over 100 years old,,,capitalism id thousands of years old and within that there have to be losers to be able to prop up the winners,,not all can be winners in a capitalist state,,true communism has rarely been used,,In hundreds of small communities communism exists,from Amazon rain forrest tribes to places like the Findhorn Society in Scotland,,,

Answer 9

Communism failed all over the world.This is because the change in ownership pattern of capital which Marx failed to see.He sam one man(capitalist) owning big industries and exploiting large number of wage earners.The big companies based on share capital held by millions of share holders was unthinkable in his times.The birth of Joint Stock companies with millions of shareholders is as good (even better) than communism which offered common ownership under stricter terms.

Answer 10

under capitalism...

- half the world lives on less than 2 dollars a day
- 2% of the world's population has over 50% of the wealth
- 18 million people DIE every year due to completely preventable things like lack of food

if that is your idea of a successful system then you're a fool.

FIRST - ignore dead marxist. he's a moron. if he thinks capitalism doesn't kill people he should read this...

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

the soviet union wasnt communism - it was bolshevism, a gross distortion of communism.

karl marx predicted that communism would arise AFTER capitalism has eaten itself. in russia, there was no capitalism, and so that's why bolshevism ultimately failed, because it was violently imposed on societies which hadn't experienced capitalism.

BUT - the soviet union would NEVER have achieved the same success under capitalism, you can be sure of that.

anyone who disagrees, answer me this - why, in times of war, do governments take control of production?

also, russia is a far worse place now than when it was under soviet rule - the place is awash with poverty and alcoholism

read "the ragged trousered philanthropist" by robert tressell.

it convinced me of 2 things.

1. capitalism is bad for most people

2. only a fool would oppose communism

Answer 11

It's the Political System of the future..

The world is not ready for it yet.

The US has demonstrated to the World that Democracy doesn't work.

There must be a hell of a lot of Stupid Americans to elect Bush twice..It's the equivalent of the Brits electing an evil Mr.Bean