|
Post by sciwriter on Oct 18, 2006 16:37:05 GMT -7
IMO Communism failed in Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, etc. mainly because it didn't provide the remuneration that most people wanted for their work.
Communism reduced the lowest levels of poverty, but could not advance the general material welfare. Internal violence was reduced, but not international violence.
The only societies that had successful communist economies were primitive native tribes, Such as American Indians where most goods were owned by the tribe and personal possessions were few. However, we know what happened to these peoples when confronted by Capitalism.
Where they failed, leftists and fascists ultimately failed to provide an adequate prescription for per capita income advancement, either by improving technologies or conquering other countries, or both. Additionally, all attempts by leftist governments to create classless societies, resulted in merely replacing the capitalist classes with bureaucratic classes, the general population remaining as poor as ever. This was certainly true of the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China, Cuba and North Korea.
Redistribution of wealth benefits the poor at the expense of the rich, but it does not promote increased incomes generally because of the lack of incentives. Therefore, it doesn't provide the capital and technology to increase incomes, Carl
|
|
nancy
European
Posts: 2,144
|
Post by nancy on Oct 18, 2006 19:36:48 GMT -7
I think that it is part of our human nature to want to either accrue material goods in exchange for our work, or, at the very least, to be recognized for such work. Communism provided neither, it did not provide a basic psychological need, while at the same time the leaders clearly did not live by the same standards.
|
|
|
Post by sciwriter on Oct 19, 2006 8:47:59 GMT -7
Nancy, good point! Also, people want freedom. Carl
|
|
piwo
Citizen of the World
Co Słychać?
Posts: 1,189
|
Post by piwo on Oct 19, 2006 9:03:38 GMT -7
My question is, What HOPE did/does communisim give to everyone?
I don't believe examples of native american tribes are valid. Young men were elevated in rank and stature by their good or brave deeds, there were womens societies that allowed hard work and deeds be both recognized and rewarded. They were HIGHLY religious, and their efforts and sacrifices would certainly be rewarded in the afterlife, which they all believed. This sounds like the opposite of communism. It was communal living, but not communism.
I believe communism is a system void of hope. What you see is what you get, and all you are likely to ever get. That appeals not in the human psyche I believe. It only survived by brutal tactics, complete state control over it's people and technology. Albania still practices, but has never been considered a hotbed of technology or education. China continues and their economy booms now. Though so does total state control, infusion of capitalism, and billions of cheap laborers keep it viable.
I just think it offers no hope of betterment, and I think fundamentally people want to better their condition for themselves and their children. Those who don't (and there are examples) live like zoo animals, going through the motions of life. Thats my un-learned take anyway.
|
|
|
Post by bescheid on Oct 19, 2006 9:52:25 GMT -7
Just a humble contribution to a very complex, but yet, simple form of government. No matter the system of government, all people are free. Every one is free. It is the matter of freedom that is different. Every one is free to think, to act, to speak within the confines of state requirements. For this is a requirement of each and every society. No matter the government system, all individuals are required to abide by the stated laws and by the expectations layed out by society as dictated to each individual.
Communism is a system of government that gives to the individual, one choice, to support the requirements of all power of one political structure that is of the state. The state will then assume all decisions for a now stateless and classless society of people. Property is assumed by the state as property of the state and a central command will then control all that is state property. Under state planning, all control is assumed by the state in regards to the economy, production of goods and services.
In return to the people of this stateless society, they are given freedom from in exchange for {the freedom of choice and freedom to}, for the exchange of working for the state, the individual is given certain guarantees as provided by the state.
As within any society and system, what is good or bad, is to the beholder and/or who has the most to gain. For a flag, is a flag, is a flag for what ever colour that it may have. For each day, we still must face our work, and that work is never done, until it is completed. For this will determine our worth under any system. And it is the value of our work as an individual that matters, for we are payed by our worth.
For how ever/what ever/ it is always best to always be, on the winning side.
Just a share of thought
Charles
|
|
|
Post by jimpres on Oct 19, 2006 11:28:07 GMT -7
Charles,
I agree losing is no fun and not the side to be on. And we must continue to toil to keep things moving and in perspective under any system. Then it's a matter of choice how much freedom you have or restrictions you can take.
Jim
|
|
nancy
European
Posts: 2,144
|
Post by nancy on Oct 19, 2006 11:41:14 GMT -7
For each day, we still must face our work, and that work is never done, until it is completed. For this will determine our worth under any system. And it is the value of our work as an individual that matters, for we are payed by our worth. I am surely paid much less than I am worth!
|
|
|
Post by bescheid on Oct 19, 2006 12:01:51 GMT -7
For each day, we still must face our work, and that work is never done, until it is completed. For this will determine our worth under any system. And it is the value of our work as an individual that matters, for we are payed by our worth. I am surely paid much less than I am worth! Nancy I was so laughing at your response, {with you} yes.. Your work is not appreciated until you are not there to do it. For as the lady of the house, you work at your profession, come to the home, and work at your other work. And where is the renumeration for this? appreciation is very absent with the toilet being clean at all times, the dishes done and put away, the house is cleaned, the house accounting is completed on and of every month. The beds are made and the laundry is always completed. The shopping is conducted as expected. Yes, yes, you are not paid for what you are worth. To hire this all out as an business expense? {there is a basic premise of capitalism that is a constant; goods and services are purchased for less then actual worth, then resold for more then what it is actually worth, then value is set} Charles
|
|
|
Post by leslie on Oct 19, 2006 12:11:33 GMT -7
Charles wrote:
Charles Where does one find this paragon of of virtue and ability? Let me know her address and I will pay her fare to come and look after me - two wives didn't come up to that level! Perhaps Nancy has come across such a person she could recommend?
Lonely Leslie
|
|
|
Post by bescheid on Oct 19, 2006 17:07:49 GMT -7
Charles wrote: Charles Where does one find this paragon of of virtue and ability? Let me know her address and I will pay her fare to come and look after me - two wives didn't come up to that level! Perhaps Nancy has come across such a person she could recommend?Lonely Leslie Ha ha Leslie, You never fail to disappoint. For I was waiting for your reply. And it does not pay to be lonely for there is no reason. In as much as to locating such a life partner, I simply do not know what to say, or how should I answer. I may only speak for my self. For I have enjoyed many blessings for which I do not deserve. For I have lived a life of lies and deceit for what ever reason, is not enough of justification. I will in time face my maker and be judged for my conduct. I am not handsome, rich or with a sparkling personality, or particularly good sense of humour. I have very poor taste in clothing and with a preference to be simply left alone. I think perhaps though, for my saving grace, I do like people,and I have faith in the ultimate goodness of others. because I think of circumstances of life whilst a child, I do not trust easily. For at that time, I should of died on two occasions, but was spared for reasons unbeknownst to me. My early life was in time of violence, uncertainties, and other situations not to be mentioned. But never was I mistreated or suffered hunger as a child. For what leslie should I offer for advice? I have not a clue, for that of which I do not know. For I make mention of my self only as a foundation of understanding between the two of us. For I am not important, you are the one that is important and as it should be. For you have all of that for which to be admired for. You are a very handsome man that I am sure, many ladies would admire. You are a professional man with many hard earned skills commensurate with your status in life. You have the blessings of a wonderful family that reflect that of your love and attention to your family of loved ones. Your family is a direct reflection of your inner self and out look, your convictions, all that is you. Life is a learning experience {remember that maturation begins at birth and ends at death?} and for lifes experience, you are very well learnt. Perhaps of some thing though to think of; what do you think and consider of your self? Are you truly as you pretend as you will to others? To a woman, do you consider her as an equal person that you love and think more of, then say, that of your self. If the choice were to arrive {and heavens forbid under the blue sky} Would you take the choice to die for her, so as she would live? The above is brutal I know, but it places into prospective the meaning of your attachment to that woman and the depth of commitment. This is the risk of love. It is a high risk and the result of mismanagement of your affections is one big disaster of long time proportions. But, it is a risk that must be taken, for it is not just for your self, but for the woman that of mutual selection. She takes the similar risk in her choice of you. For will she later be mistreated? Will she be looked after as a house maid to cook, wash, be a chattel? Also have I been married and divorced on 2 occasions. This is what it took to get it right for the 3rd marriage. But, this is not about my self. For I sense of frustration and loneliness with your self, and this should not be so. What I would perceive as to your earlier marriages, is simple a situation that grew out of proportions to the extent of becoming unmanageable. It happens to the best of people, and this is what I think of you leslie, I think of you as the best of people. Well there goes my big blabber mouth once again, sorry. It is only because I care for my friends. Charles
|
|
|
Post by rdywenur on Oct 19, 2006 18:21:51 GMT -7
Leslie...I have to add my two cents and that is that before you move on you must get past those speed bumps you keep putting in that path of yours. Chalk the two wives to experience and let go of the anger. The only person feeling it is you and preventing you from going forward and possibly meeeting someone new. Think of all your blessings and consider your self a lucky man. You will meet someone if you allow it (and closer to yourself if you know what I mean)
Chris...aka (Dear Blabby)
|
|
bujno
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 648
|
Post by bujno on Oct 20, 2006 3:20:37 GMT -7
My two cents. There are three ways communism was metioned here. First – the ideology. Second – the form of running the state politically. Third – the form of economy.
The ideology is extremely entailing, but failed because it is at the same time utopian and opposes the human nature. The idea of communism could work only in a society of very good.altruistic people. Or rather angels, but these the communism despised. The real societies are composed just as the whole world is – the mix of the good and the bad guys.
The form of running the state is refuting democracy and introducing the dictate of one social class. For those who highly esteem their liberty any dictate is unbearable. The dictate of working class very soon turned into the dictate of oligarchic political bureau and ended up with totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is the control of the state of every possible part of citizen’s life. The most tragic result of that control was the toll of some 100 000 000 human lives.
The state economy – immobile, inefficient centrally planned, with state owning the means of production. It failed because the humans working were treated as machines. The good workers and the bad workers received the same reward – no reward. Or even worse than machines since the good machine is cared for. It was not the good work that made the living better, that created better future for one’s family. It was becoming a party member, a secret police member and so on and so on that were the means of one’s life betterment.
The communism and fascim compared earlier were alike in yet one more way. The final fall of both imperiums went together with the fall of philosophical doctrines - something that never happened in history before. Although the fall of nasism history is different since the country 'bearing' the philisophy underewent military defeat, the alikeness exists. And the analogy is in the doctrine that in both sytems stood behind totalitarianism, which was named already, and particularism, which is often ovelooked. The systemic particularism means that the moral or scientific (and even esthetic) value of work was made dependent on the author's or worker's background. In German nazism - the criterion was ethnic and national, in Russian communism - the social class and later the party membership. For example - Albert Einstein's theory was initially traeted as unscientific and wrong both in Germany and Soviet Union. In Germany because it was 'Jewish', in Soviet Union because it was 'burgeois'.
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Oct 20, 2006 4:44:54 GMT -7
My two cents. There are three ways communism was metioned here. First – the ideology. Second – the form of running the state politically. Third – the form of economy. The ideology is extremely entailing, but failed because it is at the same time utopian and opposes the human nature. The idea of communism could work only in a society of very good.altruistic people. Or rather angels, but these the communism despised. The real societies are composed just as the whole world is – the mix of the good and the bad guys. The form of running the state is refuting democracy and introducing the dictate of one social class. For those who highly esteem their liberty any dictate is unbearable. The dictate of working class very soon turned into the dictate of oligarchic political bureau and ended up with totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is the control of the state of every possible part of citizen’s life. The most tragic result of that control was the toll of some 100 000 000 human lives. The state economy – immobile, inefficient centrally planned, with state owning the means of production. It failed because the humans working were treated as machines. The good workers and the bad workers received the same reward – no reward. Or even worse than machines since the good machine is cared for. It was not the good work that made the living better, that created better future for one’s family. It was becoming a party member, a secret police member and so on and so on that were the means of one’s life betterment. The communism and fascim compared earlier were alike in yet one more way. The final fall of both imperiums went together with the fall of philosophical doctrines - something that never happened in history before. Although the fall of nasism history is different since the country 'bearing' the philisophy underewent military defeat, the alikeness exists. And the analogy is in the doctrine that in both sytems stood behind totalitarianism, which was named already, and particularism, which is often ovelooked. The systemic particularism means that the moral or scientific (and even esthetic) value of work was made dependent on the author's or worker's background. In German nazism - the criterion was ethnic and national, in Russian communism - the social class and later the party membership. For example - Albert Einstein's theory was initially traeted as unscientific and wrong both in Germany and Soviet Union. In Germany because it was 'Jewish', in Soviet Union because it was 'burgeois'. With great satisfaction and interest I read your exellent analysis of Communism Wojtek, just exellent. I notice that you speak from your own experiance, being born in a Communist Peoples republic in 1960, and experiancing Communism for 19 years. In that perspective you could call you an expert! Pieter
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Oct 20, 2006 4:47:17 GMT -7
Charles wrote: Charles Where does one find this paragon of of virtue and ability? Let me know her address and I will pay her fare to come and look after me - two wives didn't come up to that level! Perhaps Nancy has come across such a person she could recommend?Lonely Leslie Ha ha Leslie, You never fail to disappoint. For I was waiting for your reply. And it does not pay to be lonely for there is no reason. In as much as to locating such a life partner, I simply do not know what to say, or how should I answer. I may only speak for my self. For I have enjoyed many blessings for which I do not deserve. For I have lived a life of lies and deceit for what ever reason, is not enough of justification. I will in time face my maker and be judged for my conduct. I am not handsome, rich or with a sparkling personality, or particularly good sense of humour. I have very poor taste in clothing and with a preference to be simply left alone. I think perhaps though, for my saving grace, I do like people,and I have faith in the ultimate goodness of others. because I think of circumstances of life whilst a child, I do not trust easily. For at that time, I should of died on two occasions, but was spared for reasons unbeknownst to me. My early life was in time of violence, uncertainties, and other situations not to be mentioned. But never was I mistreated or suffered hunger as a child. For what leslie should I offer for advice? I have not a clue, for that of which I do not know. For I make mention of my self only as a foundation of understanding between the two of us. For I am not important, you are the one that is important and as it should be. For you have all of that for which to be admired for. You are a very handsome man that I am sure, many ladies would admire. You are a professional man with many hard earned skills commensurate with your status in life. You have the blessings of a wonderful family that reflect that of your love and attention to your family of loved ones. Your family is a direct reflection of your inner self and out look, your convictions, all that is you. Life is a learning experience {remember that maturation begins at birth and ends at death?} and for lifes experience, you are very well learnt. Perhaps of some thing though to think of; what do you think and consider of your self? Are you truly as you pretend as you will to others? To a woman, do you consider her as an equal person that you love and think more of, then say, that of your self. If the choice were to arrive {and heavens forbid under the blue sky} Would you take the choice to die for her, so as she would live? The above is brutal I know, but it places into prospective the meaning of your attachment to that woman and the depth of commitment. This is the risk of love. It is a high risk and the result of mismanagement of your affections is one big disaster of long time proportions. But, it is a risk that must be taken, for it is not just for your self, but for the woman that of mutual selection. She takes the similar risk in her choice of you. For will she later be mistreated? Will she be looked after as a house maid to cook, wash, be a chattel? Also have I been married and divorced on 2 occasions. This is what it took to get it right for the 3rd marriage. But, this is not about my self. For I sense of frustration and loneliness with your self, and this should not be so. What I would perceive as to your earlier marriages, is simple a situation that grew out of proportions to the extent of becoming unmanageable. It happens to the best of people, and this is what I think of you leslie, I think of you as the best of people. Well there goes my big blabber mouth once again, sorry. It is only because I care for my friends. Charles Sympathetic story, and I am curious about leslies answer to you and Chris posts, Charles! Pieter
|
|
|
Post by sciwriter on Oct 20, 2006 11:26:40 GMT -7
People wanted true freedom. Under Communism, Orwellian freedom=slavery. Moreover, except for Romania, Communism in USSR and East Europe ended with less violence compared to commonly occurring coups in Latin America & Mideast unrelated to Communism.
|
|