1. Post #241
    Antdawg's Avatar
    July 2010
    5,276 Posts
    Communism made Russia and China what it is today. Those two are one of the more current successful countries in the world. As for North Korea,I have nothing to say about them though.
    No, capitalism did. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, what is now Russia has become increasingly capitalist, and China's (relative) prosperity today is because of free market policies adopted in the 70's. Before then, only the elite were able to eat things such as meats but today such things are available to the Chinese population at large. China could not be further away from the definition of communism than what it is now. In fact it never was, both the Soviet Union and China before the 70's were skewed interpretations of communism and neither actually achieved it. You also wouldn't have wanted to live in those societies, especially China when Mao thought his "Great Leap Forward" would bring his country to prosperity.

  2. Post #242
    soccerskyman's Avatar
    October 2009
    4,278 Posts
    Anarchists believe social order arises without social control, not that the community or its 'representatives' should be able to control society. That's not anarchism.
    Alright, let me rephrase my statement:
    I personally believe that Anarchist Communism (see above) is the best form of social order ever theorized.
    Theft from whom?
    Theft from the community as a whole.

  3. Post #243
    Dennab
    June 2013
    31 Posts
    assuming that you can neatly divide society

  4. Post #244
    Gold Member
    JustExtreme's Avatar
    April 2007
    7,157 Posts
    Alright, let me rephrase my statement:
    I personally believe that Anarchist Communism (see above) is the best form of social order ever theorized.

    Theft from the community as a whole.
    When it comes to community or "representatives" of said community controlling society it is important to point out the differences between delegation and representation.

    Delegates are recallable to the community they act for and have no policy making or power of their own instead putting forth what the community they are a part of agrees they are to be put forth. If executed properly the power structure is very decentralised and spread amongst free associations such as communities, self-managed workplaces, and federated groups of the aforementioned.

    This does a pretty good job of differentiating the two: http://punkerslut.com/articles/deleg...sentation.html
    Delegation not Representation posted:
    Delegation and Representation are rarely ever presented as opposing theories of social organization. In fact, the phrase "delegate" and the phrase "representative" are often used interchangeably, as though one is essentially the other. The technical definitions, however, give them the same role, while doing so within different limitations.

    Both hold the responsibility of presenting the interests of the people that they are said to "represent." But, the delegate has no essential power, can make no agreements, can give no orders, can pass no laws, and can be recalled by the voters of the group at any time for no reason at all. The representative, on the other hand, does have power: to pass laws, to give orders, and to ignore the public's demand for their removal.

    Delegation is a system of social organizing where a single person, or more likely a group of people, are chosen to represent their interests. These delegates present the demands of their people to those whom they interact with. After working out a contract through one-on-one with the representatives of another organization, it must be ratified by a majority vote before being accepted by their group. This style of organizing has often existed throughout labor unions: they have chosen workers as delegates to temporarily represent their interests in collective bargaining; they did not give them the authority to make any decisions for the whole.

    Representation, however, is quite an opposite system. The similarity of the two can easily be seen in its form: by picking out some person to "represent" the group, with or without authority, that group is essentially picking out a leader, even if their leadership is just with words and not coercion. This is where the similarities end, however, as the representative acts like a king elected for a term. They do not need to ask for the will of the people when making any decision, whether it's a declaration of war or a submission of the land and its inhabitants as slaves to another power. This is a typical style of social organizing found within politics, whether in the political party or in congress: it is organized from the top to bottom, with power at the top, as opposed to delegation, organized in the reverse manner.
    Sorry for the confusion, this was more of a reply to the guy you quoted than to yourself.

  5. Post #245
    Caboose176's Avatar
    June 2013
    172 Posts
    See I support communism believing that having a small percentage of rich people is unfair n the working class and the homeless. the thing with communism is that you have to work and what happens when a society works? it eliminates homelessness now if that communist government isn't corrupted the system could in fact work creating a country which is strong and is bonded by hardship and in the cold war the soviet union was the best country in the olympic games. My dad had grown up in Yugoslavia(ex communist state) and had told me education was taught at high standards as well for sports and the military so that they could lead the country forwards and famine had not been high it was rare to see as well as unemployment and my dad was raised from the working class family. many people said that communism didn't work yes and no lenin had made it work but stalin had changed it from a socialist government into a stalinist government in which he ruled with fear and just ruined the whole of the ussr.

  6. Post #246
    Jamsponge's Avatar
    October 2009
    4,647 Posts
    The trouble with communism is that the only type that can really be executed unless 100% of the people agree to it is state communism, and state communism is a very small step away from totalitarianism if the values of a socialist nation are corrupted. Even Lenin's early USSR was still a fledgling socialist state, and he died before he could fully execute all his goals, which were swiftly perverted by Stalin into an authoritarian dictatorship. Unless those in power are truly willing to do everything they can for the proletariat, a communist nation is doomed.

  7. Post #247
    Caboose176's Avatar
    June 2013
    172 Posts
    The trouble with communism is that the only type that can really be executed unless 100% of the people agree to it is state communism, and state communism is a very small step away from totalitarianism if the values of a socialist nation are corrupted. Even Lenin's early USSR was still a fledgling socialist state, and he died before he could fully execute all his goals, which were swiftly perverted by Stalin into an authoritarian dictatorship. Unless those in power are truly willing to do everything they can for the proletariat, a communist nation is doomed.
    yes the trouble is stalin was a evil man with a mind corrupted with greed and anyone that opposed him got sent to labor camps or was executed. He used fear to keep himself in power and he really was the downside of the USSR . although communism can work it can yes but if the leader and his party is corrupted the system simply cannot work.

  8. Post #248
    Gold Member
    sgman91's Avatar
    July 2006
    4,301 Posts
    yes the trouble is stalin was a evil man with a mind corrupted with greed and anyone that opposed him got sent to labor camps or was executed. He used fear to keep himself in power and he really was the downside of the USSR . although communism can work it can yes but if the leader and his party is corrupted the system simply cannot work.
    Now the question is whether it's simply a coincidence that so called communistic states have also inevitably lead to oppressive dictators and many of the biggest mass murderers of all time. I would argue that communism is only possible if opposition is violently suppressed.

  9. Post #249
    soccerskyman's Avatar
    October 2009
    4,278 Posts
    The trouble with communism is that the only type that can really be executed unless 100% of the people agree to it is state communism.
    Care to elaborate?

  10. Post #250
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    The trouble with communism is that the only type that can really be executed unless 100% of the people agree to it is state communism, and state communism is a very small step away from totalitarianism if the values of a socialist nation are corrupted. Even Lenin's early USSR was still a fledgling socialist state, and he died before he could fully execute all his goals, which were swiftly perverted by Stalin into an authoritarian dictatorship. Unless those in power are truly willing to do everything they can for the proletariat, a communist nation is doomed.
    you can really say the same about capitalism, democracy, fascism, or whatever form of society you can envision. communism and anarchism are not based upon everyone having unwavering commitment to the system, they rely mostly on people being conscious of what they want in life, and being willing to act in accordance with those values. that is actually the biggest challenge anarchism as a whole faces. if we snapped our fingers and the state/capitalism fell overnight, it would probably degenerate into totalitarianism or authoritarianism fairly quickly since most workers are not conscious and are not trained to take on self-management.

    the question with leftist ideology is not whether it can work, but how you create a working class able to take on the management role that has been traditionally left to the state and bourgeois. marxists tend to believe in a socialist state that can spur the collectivization and self-management of society. anarcho-communists/syndicalists generally believe in militant labor unions and direct mobilization of the working class to create a population capable of making the current power system obsolete.