Reviews for Communism
No Trust chapter 1 . 6/13/2005
People who don’t understand basic economics should NOT critique communism.
Arn-The-Silent-Scream chapter 6 . 5/27/2005
Flaws in communism.

A) economic equallity can never exist. Thier will always be scarcity of somthing that people want. Which by its nature means that some will get most or all of it. A good example of this is simple geographic location. Let us assume a purfect global economical society. There will always exist a place (using california as an example) where people will want to live. But the fact is that not everyone can live there. So some will an some won't.

B) Humans are incapable of acting as an organised group without some sort of unifying body to organize them. If you put ten people in a room and give them a complex task to preform they will invariably fall under the direction of a charizmatic or knowlagable person who will lead and organize their efforts to better effect. This fundemtally nuls any argument you have made for "rule by the masses" The masses are simply incapable of ruleing themselves in any real manner.

C) People are different. If we assume a village where their is economic equality. And in this village their are two blacksmiths. Now one blacksmith is much better than the other, making better products faster and cheaper than the other. Now why should the Worse blacksmith recieve as much "compensation" for his work when he isn't doing as good of a job?
NumblesTheAuthor chapter 1 . 5/5/2005
Communism was a pretty good idea when it was thought up, sure, but in reality, how can a government not use that to their advantage? It was inherently doomed to corruption, because too much power lies in the hands of the government. Also, where is the motivation to succeed without money, or some other asset? Personal growth? Please...no one would go for that. Why be a doctor when you could be paid the same amount to wash windows, right? Really, Communism was a good IDEALISTIC idea, but in reality, it's just not good enough.
No Trust chapter 6 . 4/27/2005
Disjointed, jarring, and mostly incoherent. As usual.

Y'know, there's this language called English. It kicks ass. You should learn it sometime.
Krismet chapter 6 . 4/26/2005
Augh. Once again we have the joys of misunderstood Darwinism. I really hate those who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest" to have the connotations it does. The phrase itself has absolutely nothing to do with what you've talked about and you're going into Social Darwinism to some extent which really was a misnomer and misinterpretation to begin with, but I won't talk about that right now.

"Survival of the fittest" simply means those that are best suited to their environment will survive to reproduce and pass their genes on to the next generation.

Now, the idea is not that everyone strives to be "the fittest" as you so put it, but that those that have the characteristics to make them successful are successful, and those that do not, are not. The fact is that it is the equality of opportunity that places human beings across the spectrum to be equal.

Now, I'm not going to get into a whole bunch of nit-picky details. but I wonder what century you are living in. I mean, unions are totally in effect today and they have considerable power. There are established organisations to help the lower classes. In fact, capitalism does not deny help to others, just that the help should be in varying degrees or through the charity of individuals.

Anyways, I hope I'm not misinterpreting what you're saying, but your writing is confusing to read with very little sense of flow, and your ideas seem blurred and unclear. Oh, and you must stop making randomized conclusions just because you said so through the use of generalizations on society.
holocaustpulp chapter 6 . 4/25/2005
C Shot: What type of anarchist?

I don't think you've studied communism enough to fully grasp it. For instance, you mention reading the Communist Manifesto, an over-hyped peice that gave reasons for socialist change but not the means by which to do it.

I only learned communist logistics when I read Lenin's "The State and Revolution". While it is important to study Lenin, it is also important to in the meantime know Russian history extensively, for theoretically Lenin was both a genius and had his overzealous failures.

And, if I'm not mistaken, the opposition (partially composed of communists) left the anarchists behind, no? Let it be known that Spain has represented on the best anarcho-syndicalist organizations in anarchist history, and that I am personally supportive of anarchists such as yourself. Our aims are the same - we should share this common cause, not bicker over it.

You go on to claim Fidel fought in the populist name of communism for his own means, when he was a fierce advocate of reform and a close friend to eminent revolutionary Che Guevera. He led the peasnts to topple the Batista regime through Marxist ideals, not selfishness. The ensuing government, like many other failed attempts, focused too much on centralized government power, a step away from socialism and the formula for dictatorship.

And no, not every attempt fails at communism. Did you not see mention of the Paris Commune in chapter 2? Also, something not in my essay, the Owenist societies were largely successful, and were also a pre-Marx socialist endeavor.

"...but, as I belief the borders will fall and people will make themself into a great Anarchist society."

Change without form? Spontaneity without prompting? People need organization, if not revolution, to instigate liberalization and the path toward toward communism. Anarchy tends too much to take a faceless form.

"however, I can feel that you are probably getting a load of shit for your beliefs. Win some, loose some?"

Socialists or the left have agreed with some of my points, but this is indeed rare to the amount of arguments I get in reply to my ideals. At least some of the "load of shit" I receive is intellectual, and thus learning from debate ensues. So yes, win some, lose more.

But hey, I'm optimistic.

- Holocaustpulp
SrenRok chapter 6 . 4/25/2005
After all this reading, do mind; I did try with an open mind as possible is...

Well the rule of the community exist, the will of the indivisual is lost.

I am, just as you, are my own person and I don't exist for the Community. Call me selfish, call me greedy, call me Capitalistic pig, but I will have enough money to buy my kids food. AND not depend on a government to give me some.

-SR-
C Shot chapter 2 . 4/24/2005
Fidel only became a Communist once he realized his military wing would not get the people to help him oust the dictator ( I cant recall the name), once he established himself as a Communist, got the throne, the food and Soviet aid.. he's done very little.

Free health care? So his policies have led to famine. Just another failed attempted at Communism. Every attempt fails at Communism.

And from what I read from the Manifesto, Communism will come to it's own peacefully without a revolution. A natural answer to capitalism... but, as I belief the borders will fall and people will make themself into a great Anarchist society.

But than again, we don't see eye to eye. I doubt we will, I haven't looked at your reviews and I have no intentions onto. however, I can feel that you are probably getting a load of shit for your beliefs. Win some, loose some?

-Curtis
C Shot chapter 1 . 4/24/2005
First of all, I am an Anarchist... so the idea of communism both excites me and scares the shit out of me.

But I've read the Communist Manifesto, I've studied Lenon... and what the Communist did to the Anarchist during the Spanish Civil war.. and all I have to say...

..it looks good on paper.

-Curtis
angel24 chapter 1 . 2/8/2005
The ultimate goal of a communistic society is to establish equality for all people."

The Definition of a Capitalistic Society does not deny political equality ; it only denies economic equality. "All men are equal" is a statement in the Constituition and by the famous philosopher John Locke. Equality of oppourtunity and a voice in a government is not denied in a capitalistic society.

"Any harmful conditions imposed by tyrannical leaders in the oxymoronic "communist state" reflect personal, isolated failures of the leader, as well as a failure to properly win the populace."

Perhaps Communism cannot be attained without turning itself tyrannical?

"Last time I checked, it was the king in Napal that suspended all civil liberties and sacked the democracy, instituting his own rule over the people of Napal for the next three years."

Yes, He has. I never said the Government of Nepal was not guilty in its own part.

"This only strengthens the Maoists cause. It would be preferable is the opposition, a united communist and democratic front (only separated by the goverment-ordered shut down of communications, such as phone lines) could negotiate with the king in peace, something the Maoists have called for for years."

Maoists have called for years- where have you got that statement from? Nepal was a functioning constituitional monarchy until the 1990's when the royal family perished in a bizarre shooting massacre. The pro-democracy forces have called for negotiating with the king and restoring the constituition. The Maoists are the ones who are using force to obtain it instead of peaceful talks though the King is himself to blame for some of their behaviour.

" didn't know of the Naxalites, nor of the Napalese pact - I'm glad you informed me. But the overthrow of the Napal king would be ill-timed in the midst of peace talks."

I do not argue that the overthrow will be ill-timed.

"The true face of a communist is a well-intended idealist"

All Idealists are well intentioned - but it is their ideals that matter. Good ideals based on found principles make good idealists while Ideals that are made into state law and violent makes Bad Idealism.

For example, have you heard of Robespierre? Great Idealist of the French revolution. He was called the "Incooruptible" until he became part of the government. He became near tyrannical that the French have to depose and kill their own leader.

Or take for example, Gandhi. A Great Idealist precisely because he was able to inspire the masses and worked against the State. Gandhi was completely right in asserting the ideals of equality, sacrifice and the power of truth. He was also wrong in his economic ideas.

"The true communist is the best ally of all exploited, poor, suffering, and denied by their government."

Idealism is authoritarian by its nature. While Idealism is not necessarily bad if you are fighting for the powerless through nonviolent means, in the majority, it becomes near tyrannical.

"The Revolution, though not palpably international, is bound to occur in proper form."

The Revolution occured and it failed. Maybe it will occur again. Maybe the world will come to the end and the Last Judgement will pass in the next 20 years. Maybe we are living in a Matrix. Maybe.

-Angel24

PS:My opinion is that you know a lot about Communism and little about Communists around the you are that astonished by Naxalites, the violent barbaric communists then you should also check out Kerala, a communist state that is elected in a democracy,with 99% Literacy, good environment and one of the lowest GDP ever. Tourism is its backbone. Kerala is a state in India.
Arn-The-Silent-Scream chapter 5 . 2/5/2005
You make all kinds of statments like, "... a man is not entitled to his entire labor." and "employees don't recieve full compensation [for their labor]." and you use the phrase "surplus labor" what exactly is "surplus labor"? Now you make all these self satisfying and highly political remarks, certaitly no one wants to think that they are being cheated but you have completly failed to give a satisfactory example of this in action. Secondly, could you give a reasonable explanation for why a Doctor and a farm hand should be paid the same wage? Also it is important to remember that wage is not neccesarily determined by the amount labor, it is determined by usfullness and rareness of a skill. This is why a basketball player makes more than a steel worker but less than a hightly educated buisnessman. NOW I MAY AS WELL DEFEND MY OF REVIEW: Your an idiot! NOTHING IS STOPPING THE WORKER FORM GOING AND WORKING ON A FARM TO GROW HIS FOOD, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING”

Except for the lack of education, his need in the factory (even under communism), and money (he needs to pay the land owners), and if not owing to a landlord, then state taxes. HOW MUCH EDUCATION DO YOU NEED TO WORK A SUPSISTENCE FARM, BUT EVIDENTLY THIS ISN"T WHAT YOU MENT BY "SUSTINENCE" SO THIS ARGUMENT CNA BE IGNORED, HOWEVER YOU SAY THAT EVEN I COMMUNISM THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE IN THE FACTORY ARE YOU ABONDONING YOUR SUGGESTED FREEDOM FOR THE NEED OF THE SATE BECAUSE THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT COMMUNISM IS THE NEED OF THE STATE ARE PUT ABOVE THE NEED OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO EXACTLY CAN HAPPINESS EXIST IN A SYSTEM WHO'S UNDERLYING PRINCIBLE IS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL? “The most disgusting hting is that you present communism under false pretenses of perfect condition of freedom and peace among men, and you present capitalism in hte worst conditions possible and then call the compareion fair.”

The whole capitalist system is corrupt; to acknowledge the beneficial side, i.e. the benefits of the bourgeoisie is to further demonstrate its corruption. Communism is presented without flaws because elementarily it wouldn’t have any. Socialism, however, would have flaws. AGAIN YOU ARE DOING THE SAME THING, PRESENTING COMMUNISM IN ITS PUREST FORM AND ADMITING NONE IN CAPITALISM. IN CAPITALISM A PERSON IS TREATED BY THEIR PERSONAL MERITS AND GAIN WHAT THEY EARN THAT AT THE LAST IS A GOOD THING, IN ITS ELEMENTARY FORM. What if a farmer found a better way to grow crops and produced more than his neighbor. He then uses the excess crop to have a larger family and can then have larger fields, his family eventually has a large enough field to do other things besides grow crops. Suddenly his life is better then his neighbor. Has he commited a crime in producing a better harvest and improving where his neighbor could not.”

No, he’s not wrong, he’s just conceived a better technique that, in turn, can be applied to all crops and thus benefit the entire society. If the farmer wishes to use this crop for his own personal means, so be it – however, under a socialist system the citizens would hopefully generally accept the standards of sharing. YOU ARE BEING A COMPLETE HYPOCRITE, THE FARMER WORKS HARDER THEN OTHERS (SUPPLIES SURPLUS LABOR) AND EARNS A RESULT, IF HE IS THEN FORCED TO SHARE THE RESULT OF HIS WORK WITH OTHER PEOPLE THEN ISN'T HIS EXCESS LARBOR BEING USURPED BY SOMEONE ELSE? AND IF YOUR GOING TO ROLL IT UP IN THE GUISE OF SHARING THEN I FAIL TOSEE YOUR PROBLEM WITH THE WORKERS RECIEVING A LOWER WAGE IF IT HELPS THE COMPANY AS A WHOLE (WHICH IS WHERE MOST OF THE EXCESS GOES, NOT TO THE OWNER BUT BACK INTO THE COMPANY SO THAT IT CAN GROW AND SUPPLY MORE JOBS AND BETTER BENEFITS TO ITS WORKERS).

“Now in a purfect capitalist system you have the employer you must pay the workler a fair wage so that the worker with A) be able to aford the product so that the employer has someone to sell it to, and B) so that he can keep the best, most skilled workers and be better then his competition. Everyong is happy, the employer brings the workers together and supplys everything they need to work, the worker producing a good product for a fair wage. Everyone wins because EVERYONE has more, even if the employer has the most.”

Capitalistic utopianism never fails to amuse me. A perfect capitalist system would mean defying capitalism. That is, for everyone to have an equal opportunity, they’d need to have equal education and funding before competing. You tell the people in developing countries that they’re happy working for a low-paying corporation, and I’ll be damned if they agree (they can barely live). Everyone does not have more; the bourgeois have more, the proletariat less.

i FIND THIS REMARK PERSONALLY INSULTING, MY FATHER IMMEGRATED HERE WHEN HE WAS 10, HE CAME FORM A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY, MY GRANDMATHER WAS THE FIRST IN HER SMALL RURAL VILLAGE TO GO TO HIGHSCHOOL, SHE BECAME A MICRO-PALIENTOLOGIST, BY GRANDFATHER CAME FROM AN EQUALLY HARD BACKGROUND AND BECAME A DOCTOR. MY FATHER IS NOW VERY SUCCESSFUL AND WAS ABLE TO PAY FOR MY COLLEGE EDUCATION SO THAT I CAN GET AHEAD. SO DON'T GIVE ME ANY B.S. ABOUT THIRD WORLD PEOPLE BEING OPRESSED BY THE CAPITALIST PIGS, PEOPLE COME HERE TO GET A BETTER LIFE, NOT THE OTHERWAY AROUND, OBVIOUSLY WE ARE DOING SOMTHING RIGHT.
holocaustpulp chapter 5 . 2/3/2005
Angel24: Capitalism does work - it also has an extensive number of faults that make it an operating system, but the least desirable and dividing one that can exist.

The ultimate goal of a communistic society is to establish equality for all people. Any harmful conditions imposed by tyrannical leaders in the oxymoronic "communist state" reflect personal, isolated failures of the leader, as well as a failure to properly win the populace.

"Communist insurgents are taking over Nepal and battling Government authorities. Nepal is in civil war and sliding to the status of a "failed" state. "

Last time I checked, it was the king in Napal that suspended all civil liberties and sacked the democracy, instituting his own rule over the people of Napal for the next three years. This only strengthens the Maoists cause. It would be preferable is the opposition, a united communist and democratic front (only separated by the goverment-ordered shut down of communications, such as phone lines) could negotiate with the king in peace, something the Maosists have called for for years.

I didn't know of the Naxalites, nor of the Napalese pact - I'm glad you informed me. But the overthrow of the Napal king would be ill-timed in the midst of peace talks.

The true face of a communist is a well-intended idealist, who does not compromise his ethics to uphold a dictatorial state and national oppression. The true communist is the best ally of all exploited, poor, suffering, and denied by their government.

The Revolution, though not palpably international, is bound to occur in proper form.
angel24 chapter 5 . 2/2/2005
I am just tired of defending Capitalism.

Capitalism works. India knows it. China knows it. Russia realized it.

Communism is just an irky unpleasant subject in the United States but ask the people of "developing" countries and it is a life and death situation.

Have you heard about Nepal. Yes, the tiny country with Mt. Everest. Well, you will not be seeing it any longer.

Communist insurgents are taking over Nepal and battling Government authorities. Nepal is in civil war and sliding to the status of a "failed" state.

See Economist Global Agenda in the Economist website for Feb. 2nd.

Naxalites (Communists) in India are forming a pact with the Nepalese Communist to overthrow the government. Bet you did not know who the Naxalites are. There are people who harass the peasants and take money from them as "taxes." People known for their "off-with-their head" radicalism. Terrorists. Communists.

Really Nice People, u know.

They just make me sick. I am just sick of Communism, sick of Marx and Engels, sick of Mao, sick of Stalin - I wish that all these leaders were shot before they ever became anything. Along the way, shoot Hitler as well.

Fascists, Communists - They both are the same. They both are violent and they both give tyrannical power to the government.

Now, I am watching South Asia spiral into chaos and anarchy because of bad idealism. Communism.

Thank you Marx for everything.

Holocaustpulp, these are the true faces of communists. Marx might write aristocratic high-nosed writings, but the implications of his writing spell diaster.

If the "Communist Revolution" ever took place everywhere, it is Hell on Earth.

- Angel24
Spider-Matt chapter 1 . 2/2/2005
Well, it seems you're well informed on Marxist theory. Congradulations. I'd now like to recommend further reading to help you gain a more accurate conception of human nature: Adam Smith, John Locke, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand. These are just a few who understood human nature and what it takes to harness man's "energy" and make it most effecient and beneficial.
Lucifer Laffing chapter 1 . 2/2/2005
Thank You. You have written something which I have been trying to explain to family, teachers, friends,and priciples, for over a year now. I know that many people get the wrong idea on communism because that's what they're taught to believe. And I believe that it's not wrong. Thank you for writing this.
47 | Page 1 2 3 .. Last Next »