Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is communism as bad as people say

Options
1235710

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 245 ✭✭Perseverance The Second


    Like a lot of political theories it's nice on paper but does not stand up to scrutiny when you look at how many strong men have managed to exploit these systems.

    Stalin being the classic example. The Kim family in North Korea being the most prominent example of how these systems can easily be reshaped into regimes that embody the notion that "some people are more equal than others".



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,334 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Again, one must look at who is using Communism.

    If we take Stalinist Russia and the U.S.S.R of the 20th Century, you can see that it easily fails the test of what Communism is supposed to be. It's a dictatorship for a start, and has no power derived from the people, which is one of the central points to its theoretical origins. The so called "Communism" of Russia under Stalin looks nothing like what Communism, or Communists, espouse. At nearly every turn, Stalinism rejects Communism as it's primary goal was to keep Stalin in a position of power and to subject nations outside of Russia to rule.

    Absolutely none of that is Communism and both Marx and Lenin would have balked at what Russia would become after 1924, as it resembled nothing remotely coincident to their beliefs.

    Stalin merely used the idea of Communism to hold onto power and constantly trumpeted its verbal touchstones while practising something else entirely. His rule bared little resemblance to Communism and probably mirrored that of Tsarist Russia more closely. But, as understand it, Lenin's idea for the future of Russia was for control "by the people", with the party members voted for to implement that control, which is nowhere to be seen under Stalin who appointed his own yes men to positions favourable to his ultimate goals, which entirely centred around his lust for power.

    In the end, though, Stalinism was the power of one individual through fear, not power by the people. Few folk, if any, who would consider themselves well disposed to the ideas of Communism would ever consider Stalinist Russia to be any kind of example of those ideas.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,066 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    Communism was never based in conservationist ideology. Communism isn't some green utopian ideology.

    If we're concerned about saving the planet neither capitalism or communism are the way to go.

    Glazers Out!



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,066 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    All of that can be directed back to communism always falling foul of human nature.

    It's a nice idea, but it has to be implemented by humans, and humans are b*stards so it's doomed to failure by definition.

    Glazers Out!



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,389 ✭✭✭dublin49


    I am not a fan of greed or capitalism so cant help you with that one.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,334 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Well, maybe you're selfish and the people you know are selfish. But that doesn't mean that "people" are selfish.

    If we were just purely selfish beings we wouldn't have made it out of our caves.



  • Posts: 13,688 ✭✭✭✭ Luis Long Sax


    Mankind hasn't seen communism in practice since pre-Ice Age days.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,334 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Well, there's an argument to be made that Capitalism has never truly existed, just like the argument that's made for Communism.

    Like Communism, the basic tenets of Capitalism sound fine, too, when they are uncorrupted by individuals. A system where successful entities do well and the poorer entities have to leave the marketplace is ok...in theory. The problem with it though is that, in practice, it is destroyed by the likes of the biggest fish in the pond devouring all the competition to become monopolies and some entities being deemed "to big to fail" and being kept artificially afloat. Cronyism is absolutely rife in such a system, even when the checks and balances are put in place to try and combat it.

    One could say that we are where we are with Capitalism because, like Communism, it has been regularly been warped by people to suit their own end games. So much so, that were are now in the realm of Boom and Bust Capitalism that only benefits the very few in society. That's not what Capitalist theory was supposed to be about. The "Capitalism" of today is largely about getting as much in as possible by rampant inflation, before the whole deck of cards comes crashing down.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,128 ✭✭✭Fattybojangles


    Communism is simply the greatest most progressive and highest achieving ideology on earth.

    Simply look at the advancements made in the Soviet Union under Communism and Comrade Stalin in 30 years they went from a back water of illiterate peasants to the second super power on the planet within 40 years they were in space.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,614 ✭✭✭WrenBoy


    Was the juice worth the squeeze in your opinion ?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,128 ✭✭✭Fattybojangles


    You don't get juice without squeezing. The advancements in education healthcare life expectancy etc were astronomical under communism.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,334 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    It falls back to the individuals who choose to use a political theory that appeals to a broad array of people for their own ends. That's not necessarily "human nature". That's the nature of that particular individual.

    One could hardly call the likes of Joseph Stalin a general example of "human nature", and I would be genuinely worried about anyone who would consider him as such.

    However, it's not just Communism that can be subject to the corruption of the individual. Political theories of all shades can be warped into the personal ideologies of those who find themselves at the top of the tree.

    This is why all power must be reckoned with, no matter where that power comes from, which I believe was one of Marx's foundations for his belief in the first place. Unfettered power, whether in the form of Communism or Capitalism (and everything in-between), will always be a bad thing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,492 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    They were in space while their economy and wellbeing of their citizens collapsed..



  • Posts: 533 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I find all of these debates tend to reduce things to binary arguments. We don't live in a purely capitalist or socialist society, it's a mixture of elements of both, within the framework of a pretty sophisticated representative democracy that sits inside a structure of a constitution and legal system that places emphasis on individual rights. That's true of most modern democracies.

    Pure communism largely failed. You can't really go against human nature and there's a desire to own things, be able to accumulate wealth and have a lot of control and autonomy over many aspects of life. Pure, unregulated capitalism is also a failure as it just leads to nasty oligarchies and societies that are so divided that you get extreme inequality, lack of social mobility, lack of opportunity and grinding poverty.

    I mean, look at what's being proposed by elements in the US and the UK on the libertarian fringes that have gone mainstream in the Tories and GOP - it looks like a retreat to Victorian values. All very nice and cozy, until you read Dickens or the fact that several million Irish (and Scots) who were citizens of what was then the most wealthy country on the planet, fled as economic migrants to the US and elsewhere to escape famine and girding poverty. Something was severely wrong with that...

    There's a sweet spot, and most of the post WWII democracies achieved that to some degree. Even the US which is an outlier in many ways, has a lot of social safety nets and social spending, they just have become paranoid and lost in some weird culture war where it has to be red or blue and there's no grey, which has led to things like an inability to provide anything resembling functional public health care and so on.

    Ireland's system actually quite effectively redistributes wealth, but we (along with others) would want to watch that we don't just drift into 'socialism = bad' simplistic American style debates. They achieve nothing and they misrepresent reality.

    If you listen to debates in Ireland, they're often about perceived lack of public services, not about dismantling the state or abolishing tax for example,. There's a general desire for a fair and equitable society, that does not imply that there's a desire for communism or extremes.

    Portraying socialism as Eastern Bloc, Soviet or Chinese socialist totalitarian dictatorships is a complete misrepresentation of what it is in the context of a functioning liberal democracy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,614 ✭✭✭WrenBoy


    Ya the wilful killing of 20million+ people and grinding down of citizens is worth it to you. To me its monstrous and objectively worse than what the Nazi's ever did but you go ahead and cheerlead. The hammer and sickle is no better than the swastika.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,389 ✭✭✭dublin49


    an alien reading about Democracy ,might suspect its operating system would be closer to Communism than Capitalism.Same goes for Christianity even more so.



  • Registered Users Posts: 232 ✭✭monkeyactive


    I wonder what Alexander Solzhenitsyn might have to say here.

    I will say one thing though , I don't think communism has ever been done right yet. There has always been psychopathic dictators or personality cults in the background and other stuff going on. Id be curious to see how it might have played out if it was worked by non lunatics especially in a modern technological society.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,492 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    Look at the socialist positives in country.

    Free Healthcare...

    about one third of people living here are medical card holders I think about 32% of the population last I read.

    Free Travel...

    over 25% of the population have a travel pass to enable them travel free on public transport.

    Free Education...

    Primary, secondary and most third level... FREE... or close.

    in terms of pensions Ireland is rated I think 14th or 16th in the world for most generous old age pensions.

    the only danger to the above is our population increasing...



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,555 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    ....theres clearly another country called ireland, cause virtually none of that is actually true for our country!



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,492 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    All documented my friend... all true...you can research too.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 29,555 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    ...so these citizens pay no taxes?

    by any chance are you a parent? free school????

    do you need to check your facts?



  • Registered Users Posts: 41,072 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Thats not evidence that people are innately selfish 😅

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,492 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    It’s free at the point of delivery, nobody is deprived an education because they cannot afford one...

    what are you charged for aside from uniform, books... the delivery of the education is free..

    taxes obviously fund the running of the country and paid into a pot... you won’t be billed or invoiced for your education so therefore it’s free, you are not charged. They are just the facts...



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,066 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    Whatever you say. No point arguing with someone who's got their head in the sand.

    Glazers Out!



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,849 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    I'm not arguing for communism. Just pointing out that your scenario does not contradict communism in theory.

    Even if you remove the wealth component, you will have other factors there. If you meet a girl, do you take interest in what she does based on her earning capacity or on her intellect/looks/other factors?

    Who would you be more likely to be attracted to as a partner currently - a hooker who makes 1000 a night or a relatively poorly paid academic who is an expert on say, etymology of European languages (i.e. some random topic)? Some otherwise untrained and unqualified young wan who makes 5k a week getting her kit off on onlyfans or her twin sister who is training to be a doctor?

    Under communism, your own skills and ability would be your only distinguishing characteristic. Which might not make it worthwhile for those in the middle, but the top will still be the top.



  • Registered Users Posts: 303 ✭✭.42.


    Communism is good for some and bad for others.

    Many people in the ex Soviet Union countries admit life was a lot better under Communism then how they have it today living in complete poverty and living in run down flats.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,759 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Don't forget human nature too. Leaders of such regimes wouldn't feel they deserve to be equal for long!

    Which is why it invariably results in dictatorship.

    The masses keep equality though - equality in abject poverty.



  • Registered Users Posts: 98 ✭✭bmwfan


    communism always leads to greed

    east germany was a perfect example the people in control had everything and the working people had an idea of a socialist model that didn't work that's why they needed the wall



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,260 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Communism and capitalism are complex topics both in theories and practical applications. To muddy the definitions frequently used to separate them, how about these? There were 20th century Catholic Communists in Brazil (read Paulo Freire).

    Combined with the early historic origins of the Catholic Church, where communalism was practiced before the Church gained power (almost like Marx in reverse, with the Catholic state growing in power rather than withering away).

    Jacques Derrida cautioned us about the limitations and potential distortions of dichotomies, like making nominal, mutually exclusive categories between communism vs capitalism. Such phenomena are more complex and sometimes need fuzzy logic to review them. Like a friend of mine once observed, praxis, or the application of theories to practice can be a bit messy in reality, and where either/or distinctions may suffer in terms of utility.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,389 ✭✭✭dublin49


    a pampered elite is communism gone wrong,its capitalism working perfectly,



Advertisement