Reviews for The Greatest Experiment of the 20th Century
Silver Phantom 2 chapter 1 . 7/15/2005
Good work. I agree completely. I just think that you said "Communism doesn't work" too much. Yes, we know that, tell us why and stop delaying. But, you did a good job.
Matryoshka chapter 1 . 1/29/2005
Hm...not bad. Communism, has, in fact, "failed" in the countries you mentioned-but this does not seem to be the fault of the system, but rather the fault of the people in the system. After all, Hitler was dead-set against Communism and his government, though perhaps one that wouldn't have "failed" if not for WWII, is considered as despotic and "evil". Adding to that, the former USSR, Cuba, China, etc. never reached "true Communism" (if it is, indeed, possible, which is way too controversial and philosophic to get into, so I won't); they only called themselves Communist nations. Also, your essay seemed a little...let's say...one-sided? Like you didn't mention nations/societies in which a form of Communism/socialism has worked-which has, indeed addition, even if Communism (which is supposed to be "perfect") isn't QUITE perfect (As in, not everyone is happy but 30 million people aren't dying either), it would still be okay. No system is perfect. America is not perfect. Humans aren't perfect.
holocaustpulp chapter 1 . 12/12/2004
How stupid you are. You somehow managed to use Russia, along with other countries, that you admitted weren't theoretically communist or socialist, but mere corruptions of Marxism, and then disprove Marxism with those inaccurate examples. There is democracy in socialism, and technically there should be no need for it in communism, where there is no longer a government. I leave the rest of your stupidity to be pointed out by former viewers. The Revolution nor Communism is dead.
JohnnyGodfather chapter 1 . 8/27/2004
What a propaganda essay! When you talk of communism being "a tried system of rule, one that failed the test," you distinctly ignore the communist countries that have worked over the decades. You mention China, Russia, Cuba, and North Korea: all the communist countries that failed. That's great, but what of the democratic communists that worked?
Yugoslavia was peacful and prosporous, until capitalism came in and then civil war broke out among ethnic groups that were previously all equal. Vietnam, after we left, became demo-comm and it works great to this day. Funny how you didn't mention those, but, after all, it would hurt your stupid opinion, so why would you?
"In the countries it has been installed, Communism has ruined their economies, oppressed the indigenous people, destroyed religious and non-communist cultural achievements and turned them into a military state. To debate the merits of Communism is to debate the merits of absolute rule."
Wow, you bigot.
1. In yugoslavia, ancient greece (another demo-comm), and vietnam, communism did not ruin their economies; war did. War, which in yourother essays, you say people like I am un-american to oppose. Yugoslavia on becoming demo-capitalist, broke into civil war, greece went up against sparta, and we slaughtered about 4 million vietnamese, according to Amnesty International, which is a perfectly non-partisan source, by the way.
2. communism has been oppressive only in the areas you mentioned. The other communist countries have not been like that. You are a propagandaist, only showing one side of the story.
of religion is usable in many communist countries. And there have been democracies that have squashed religious freedom as well.
4."To debate the merits of Communism is to debate the merits of absolute rule." Oh, that's so mature, considering that your piece did exactly that! Your piece was designed to debate the merits (or lack thereof) of communism! Very hypocritical, like yourself, actually. Absolute rule did not exist in Ancient Greece, did not exist in pre-capitalist demo-comm yugoslavia, and does not exist in the peacful present day demo-comm nation of Vietnam. You presented only one side of the story and shame on you for doing so.
Also, you forgot to distinguish between economic and govenmental systems. Communism is not a form of government in and of itself, but merely an economic system, like capitalism. There are communist democracies and communist dictatorships. You only present the dictatorships, and then brand the whole ideal of communism as "good on paper, bad in testing."
Also, have you even read the communist manifesto? Don't you know that with a few exceptions (ancient Greece) the Marxist ideal of communism has never been fully reached? And if it has not been fully reached, which is the case, how can you ever say it has "failed in testing?"
This was a stupid propaganda piece spawned by a right-wing fear-monger who holds an obviously bigoted view of the "reds," without actually researching his topic thorougly.
The bottom line is that communism as an economic ideal, when placed under the governmental system of democracy, works just as well, if not better, than capitalism.
Capitalism, by its stead-fast embrace of competition has left us with greedy corporation who hold money-making as their only religion, money as their only God.
You failed, in your entire essay, to even mention the ideal of capitalism, and some of its flaws, adding more to the propaganda style of the piece. This is a shame to fictionpress. And to the other essays on the site, yours "shouldn't even be on the same page."
Pastbyer chapter 1 . 5/23/2004
Humans are greedy - perhaps some more than others - so in the end perfect communism can never be achieved. Not because there's something wrong with the idea itself, it's the fact that the idea cannot be applied to human society, because humans are not all the same (equal, yes, but not the same.
But then, if we were all the same, life would be boring and pointless. I mean, why bother doing anything or being anyone? You're all the same. Why bother creating anything? There's no point in change, so there'd be no change and no variety, and I'm sure no sane and thinking person would want that. :)
(Just so you know, I'm Chinese, I was born in China and lived there for the first 9 years of my life. I have also been back to China almost every year since I emigrated from there. It's a growing country, and it's growing away from communism, although it will take a while because changes to an entire country takes time - you just wait and see.)
Genius-Ben chapter 1 . 5/20/2004
I believe your essay has a flaw. You suggest that the Communist governments of Russia and China didn't work out either because the leaders were using the wrong kind of communism, or because communism itself is wrong. While both points are true, you leave out the most important part. You have forgotten to mention our sinful nature. That is the real reason that no matter what form of government you have, it WILL fail. Whether it is a Monarchy, a Democracy, or Communism, no earthly form of government will ever stand the test of time. All will fall away like so much grass...
Stalin and Mao and all the others made a fatal mistake. They set themselves up to be the supreme rulers over all the people. Accountable to no one. In their corrupt reasoning they forgot that we are all accountable to God. The first sin was that of excessive pride.
If you wish to find the perfect form of government, then you must stop looking at the fallen race of Man. The only perfect form of government is a dictatorship, under the perfect rule of Jesus Christ, The Prince of Peace.
SpawnMeister666 chapter 1 . 10/3/2003
This is pretty good. Although it seemed to take a lot of words to get to the meat of the matter, and even then you only really skirted around it.

The basic idea of Communism is 'by the people, for the people'. Everyone is equal, everyone puts the same effort in, for the same reward.

Now is it just me, or is that not a great idea? What a wonderful way to live. So why does it fail?

Basically, because you still need someone in charge. Someone to make the decisions about which crops to plant in which fields, when to harvest, and so on and so on.

And as soon as you have one person tell someone else to do something a certain way, you have a boss figure. And the whole idea of Communism is that there are no boss figures.

Because the boss, naturally, should be paid more than his staff. Suddenly, you have a 2 tier system, bosses and workers, and Communism has failed.

The only mystery as far as I'm concerned anyway, is why the hell it took so long for people to figure it all out?

Spawny
Guin chapter 1 . 8/12/2003
Looks great on paper but does it work in practise? no. Communes work, Communizm doesn't. Damm human nature. Good essay.
Glastonbury chapter 1 . 8/6/2003
Is communism no longer innocent? i suppose it is there to be debaited. I enjoyed reading the views here, although im sure you'll get many opinions.

Great finishing line, you put accross your point quite superbly.

Glastonbury
PhiloNysh chapter 1 . 7/13/2003
Failure to point out that, Communism does great wonders to small areas, Kerela for example, under a communist local government, has the least amount of pverty, and is one of the cleanest areas of India.
SnowyForest chapter 1 . 7/9/2003
Actually, Communism could work if applied in the right way. It has never been applied in the right way, except maybe in the start in Russia.
chocoholic chapter 1 . 7/7/2003
Well written. Stalin just wasn't very good at the whole communism thing was he? I'm looking forward to studying communism and capitalism in more detail in September when I do A-Leval sociology, the whole thing seems interesting, like this essay.
James Jago chapter 1 . 7/7/2003
Well said. Unfortunately, whilst a fine idea on paper, Communism requires far more faith in human nature than I've got to adhere to.

On the other hand, capitalism can create it's fair share of nutters as well; all the European fascists, Margaret Thatcher (of whom even Bush Sr was scared), the members of the current US administration who voted AGAINST desegregation...
willetts chapter 1 . 7/5/2003
Can communism really be said to have failed and Democracy succeeded? in any society those in power will only attempt to subvert their power into absolute rule. Weimar Germany was democratic in teh extremes yet Hitler still managed to use teh constitution to destroy it. George Busg, the most powerful man in teh world is believed (true or not, people believe) to have stolen his power from the hands of teh rightful victor Al Gore. If democracy means stealing power and not being electedthen it has not really won? has it?

id be interested in any comments you have on this. i cant say that your point of view is wrong, what Stalin and Mao did and what is still going on in Communist countries is barbaric but any system is corruptible. Any peoples party will go for power not for them but for teh people. Not just in communist states but in America, Britain or anywhere.

.w.
Radyn chapter 1 . 7/5/2003
The reason Lenin created an elite group of revolutionaries to rule the people is because he did not believe that the mass public had the will to generate an entire revolution by themselves. It's all explained in his book "What is to be Done?"

The Marxist ideal of Communism is inherently flawed because it assumes that people are willing to cooperate together and create an equal society...one that sounds perfect in theory but will never work in practice. Lenin realized that the proletariat could not sustain more than a "trade-union mentality" if they even were to rebel. He figured that they needed a strong leadership to overthrow and establish their Communist government. Unfortunately, in the end it became nothing more than a glorified oligarchy.
16 | Page 1 2 Next »