I am a communist

[norm-from-cheers]

Are you?

Why or why not?

[volmer]

What the hell? This seems like spam to me. You can't write only 6 words and call it a thread. Explain this, what do you mean by that, why do you even post something like this and so on.. I'm confused.

[Raven]

I have to agree...

Norm, expand on your post. How are you a communist? Are you a member of the party??

Rob

[soma616]

am i a communist? no.

why? because while communism looks great on paper it can never be properly executed without some type of corruption destroying the ideal. this is why a democratic republic is, and may always be, the best form of functioning government.

[Sever]

Soma summed it up. How is everyone supposed to be equal when we are naturally trying to be the best? Someone would have to be in charge anyway. It would be a monarchy or a dictatorship after a week, honestly.

[White-Pinnacle]

No, else I would loose my security clearance!!!! No clearance = no job!

White Pinnacle

[Jihad]

Originally Posted by White-Pinnacle

No, else I would loose my security clearance!!!! No clearance = no job!

White Pinnacle

did labec make you chop your name?

[Raven]

Classic saying: -

"All men are equal. It's just some are more equal than others"......

That about sums up communism for me

[Bobson]

Way to keep it real, Norm.

I used to insist Communism is the ideal way of life, but I realized the same thing Soma said. There's always going to be corruption in the world. In theory, Communism is ideal, but the world doesn't work off of theories. =P

[weaver]

If people were perfect I would support communism.

[Serov]

Originally Posted by weaver

If people were perfect I would support communism.

agreed with weaver on this one.

[XTR3M3]

corrupt and human nature is why communism will never last.

[dwinx]

The other problem is that in a world where national markets compete against each other, a society based on communism will ultimately fail over the long haul versus capitalism. A major contributing factor in this is that if everyone is equal, the drive to innovate is dampened and so those markets will fall behind financially and technologically. This is a major detriment if you are taking bows into battle versus rifles...

[norm-from-cheers]

Ah interesting variety of responses. Allow me to reply:

For starters, communism is an extremely broad ideology that generally means the abolition of class society (class being defined along property lines). Personally I subscribe to the specific ideology of communism known as Marxism.

What Marxism attempted to do to the communist movement in Europe was to emphasize a scientific basis such a societal shift. Historical Materialism, one of the most important tenets of Marxist thought (and which heavily influences political scientists, historians, et al. to this day), is the idea that human history passes through certain epochs. These epochs are defined by property and class relationships. In other words: economics.

Because multiple classes co-exist within an economy, there is an inevitable clash and conflict between these classes. These conflicts progress until their is a significant social revolution that discards the old order for an epoch that serves the new dominant class.

The perfect example of this is the rise of capitalism in Europe. Feudalism served an economy that was dominated by landed gentry (i.e.: rich people with land) whose economic might came simply from their land holdings. But private trade began increasing as Europe's manufacturing capacity increased. This created a rift within Europe -- Feudal lords in conflict with a new class of capitalists. There were many social revolutions, and eventually there was a historical shift from feudalism to capitalism.

Communism is therefore the theoretical society which will develop following the inevitable conflict between labor and capitalists. To be a Marxists is to acknowledge that this conflict is inevitable (and as the 20th century has shown, it is already occurring).

Incidentally, communism does not look good on paper, because most people do not write about the future theoretical communist society. China, the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam -- NONE of these countries has EVER claimed to be communist, because they never were. Marx never wrote about the future communist society because it is in the new dominant classes interest to develop a political theory naturally when one becomes necessary.

Asking for what communism should look like in the future is like asking a 17th century French blacksmith what capitalism should look like today.

[norm-from-cheers]

The other problem is that in a world where national markets compete against each other, a society based on communism will ultimately fail over the long haul versus capitalism. A major contributing factor in this is that if everyone is equal, the drive to innovate is dampened and so those markets will fall behind financially and technologically. This is a major detriment if you are taking bows into battle versus rifles...

I think this is the most interesting reply yet.

I agree, but I don't think this is a deterrent that will exist forever. Currently we are living within a moment of a capitalist epoch that thrives on imperialism -- which is countries with strong economies utilizing countries with weaker economies for their advantage. This can be shown in the exportation of cheap labor, importing raw materials, etc.

IMO, as underdeveloped economies continue to industrialize, the "first worlds" ability to exploit the other countries will significantly drop, forcing themselves to look inward for any necessary labor. This will of course then create a stratified economy similar to what the United States saw in the early 20th century.