Why is it the case though,without exception,that 100% of Communist countries,became tyrannies?
China is the only country existing today that is partially successful whilst not overthrowing it's former communist rulers,however China is communist in nothing but name.It's success arose from moving towards capitalism.
Countries where you can stand on a stall like you and call for change,are capitalist. How would you have fared doing the same in any of the communist countries that existed.Terribly.
But the one thing is that the "public" sector is run by the government, and as you can see with Medicare and Medicaid, they don't run those projects efficient at all. So for you to think that taking private sector companies and making them into public sector companies, your mad.
@soccerdawg17 Not all state enterprises are inefficient simply because some are (or are said to be). China has many efficient and/or successful state-owned giants. (banks, telecom companies, oil companies etc)
There is not a country in the world that has privatised its armed forces, this is not accidental!
The state intervenes when private banks go bust and when companies 'too big to fail' also go bust, so the issue is not a straightforward as you present it. Or the world is mad. :-)
@soccerdawg17 Yet nobody in America who is eligible refuses Medicaid or Medicare. I'd like to see anyone arguing against Government programs actually refuse them.
The real "problems" with such programs is that they are underfunded. To quote Martin Luther King Jr.:
"[W]e are dealing with issues that cannot be solved without the nation spending billions of dollars -- and undergoing a radical redistribution of economic power."
Next, the fact is capital is centralizing whether we like it or not and has been for the past 100 years. This is the core economic theory by Karl Marx. Capital will centralize because machinery and technology are more powerful then human labor, and hence give exponentially more power to the owners of such "Means of Production" then to people surviving on their human labor power.
Again, this is a Scientific Theory, not opinion, and all the empirical data verifies Marx's key economic prediction.
In other words, according to the laws of private property a factory owner has 100-1000 perhaps millions more times the economic power then a worker. This makes for an intrinsically undemocratic system. And it applies to ownership of companies, since that represents the technology/machinery/resources of the company.
The ONLY reasonable and practical solution to this is expropriation of the means of production by the working class. Otherwise you get de facto oligarchy/autocracy.
Also the State has a monopoly on Violence? Tell that to Union workers of Coca Cola companies in South America who had their houses burned down and their leadership, along with families of the leadership murdered.
As for the transition, it is Dialectical. Like a feedback loop, political orders-soviets-and class conscious proletariat arise together in opposition to capitalism and reinforce each other, accelerating the rise.
@davidrodgersNJ This is a perfectly reasonable question. The durability of the system based on public property dominating economy is verfiable in the USSR and Eastern Europe over a 40-70 year span, as regards China 60yrs and it continues. The question I ask is what was/is wrong with the system that operated/operates, and can it be improved?
I think there are two main explanations of the short duration for the USSR/East Europe, 1. too much public ownership 2 not enough democracy.
@TheForwardGaze That's because Americans who have had any contact with the real world realize that communism has been a monstrous, murderous failure in every single case of its actual application.
Also, Americans don't criminalize public political discourse of any sort short of treason, unlike the Europeans.
@davidrodgersNJ I think that the vast majority of americans haven't the slightest idea of what communism is. The few short lived examples of communism actually being implemented in France, Spain, the Ukraine and Israel are also probably unknown to most americans. What transpired in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea and Cuba, etc., had little to do with communism, unless, of course, you've internalized 100 years of western corporate and government propaganda.
@TheForwardGaze I disagree. What happened in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Viet Nam and Cuba are due to the flaws in communist theory that become apparent once one attempts to apply communism in practice. The fact that communism has never been successfuly implemented in the real world is compelling evidence that the theory is unworkable.
Also, please don't ride the old communist hobbyhorse that only the greedy, ignorant or deluded can oppose it. Its a cheap debating trick.
@davidrodgersNJ You've ignored the examples I gave of successful anarchist-communist societies existing in opposition to both marxism and capitalism. Marxism is a flawed form of communism/socialism proven unworkable by history, but it's not the only form of communism. Do you believe that fascism is the best form of government to be paired with capitalism? I'd guess that you don't. So why focus on only marxism?
@TheForwardGaze To which successful societies are you referring? If the "short lived" examples you give were successful, then why were they short lived?
By my definition of successful, the society has to be able to defend and sustain itself.
Thanks for your intelligent comments, it is a shame you are poor as I and many people in the west are too. I lived in East Germany before the Berlin Wall was opened and in the PRC in 1990-1992.
You have had 20 years of capitalism and I agree things are not looking like capitalism has served you much better than Stalinism in Poland.
Hey you fuck, no need to spread the "news" about communism. Everybody knows that communism is the bloodiest, most oppressive, most despotic ideology that only brought death, ecological and economic disasters where it reigned. Planned economy is the epitomacy of idiocy. What is good about communism?? What problem did communism effectively solve in history?? Name me only ONE country where communism did not end up in a rotten shithole? Can you do that, fucker???
Yes I have read this. Unfortunately his concept in State and Revolution was based upon the belief that such a revolution would have the most advanced forms of material means at its disposal. The fact that the revolution was incapable of resolving this problem meant the concepts of democratic control by the workers was rapidly abandoned and was unrealisible in the USSR.
If I have a company, then I make sure that idiots lilke you don't work there. What you are talking has not sense whatsoever. Communism is the worst cancer, anyhow. Economic idiocy leading to ecological, economic and human disasters.
Hey fucker, communist measures never worked and led to economic disaster, both in the priavte of publich sector. Don't say anything about efficiency, or productivity. A fuck like you does not understand these words.
Hey fuckhead, to the large extent capitalism is a mere success story and created wealth for the majority in a population. The future is always uncertain and a bet can always go wrong. But history has indoubtedly shown that it always was the better bet to leave economic decision in the private sector. If you are interested in facts, then you also will see that the miserable social conditions of workers in the 19th cent. was finally improved by the increase of productivity which was the result of
... which was the result of competition and free market structures. How many example does one need to finally understand that communist planned economy systems always resulted in economic disasters, with China's "great leap forward" being the most prominent example.
Communist New Zealand... get out of my country. Godamn how can any person who has any knowledge of basic economics trifle with communism for a single second..
Why is it the case though,without exception,that 100% of Communist countries,became tyrannies?
China is the only country existing today that is partially successful whilst not overthrowing it's former communist rulers,however China is communist in nothing but name.It's success arose from moving towards capitalism.
Countries where you can stand on a stall like you and call for change,are capitalist. How would you have fared doing the same in any of the communist countries that existed.Terribly.
yington 4 months ago
But the one thing is that the "public" sector is run by the government, and as you can see with Medicare and Medicaid, they don't run those projects efficient at all. So for you to think that taking private sector companies and making them into public sector companies, your mad.
soccerdawg17 1 year ago
@soccerdawg17 Not all state enterprises are inefficient simply because some are (or are said to be). China has many efficient and/or successful state-owned giants. (banks, telecom companies, oil companies etc)
There is not a country in the world that has privatised its armed forces, this is not accidental!
The state intervenes when private banks go bust and when companies 'too big to fail' also go bust, so the issue is not a straightforward as you present it. Or the world is mad. :-)
heikokhoo 1 year ago
@soccerdawg17 Medicare and Medicaid are inefficient? How so? You make assertions without evidence.
ipwnorcs 1 year ago
@ipwnorcs My evidence is looking at the debt that Medicare and Medicaid are in. Last I saw it, the debt was 400 million.
soccerdawg17 1 year ago
@soccerdawg17 Yet nobody in America who is eligible refuses Medicaid or Medicare. I'd like to see anyone arguing against Government programs actually refuse them.
The real "problems" with such programs is that they are underfunded. To quote Martin Luther King Jr.:
"[W]e are dealing with issues that cannot be solved without the nation spending billions of dollars -- and undergoing a radical redistribution of economic power."
TechoMarxist 8 months ago
Next, the fact is capital is centralizing whether we like it or not and has been for the past 100 years. This is the core economic theory by Karl Marx. Capital will centralize because machinery and technology are more powerful then human labor, and hence give exponentially more power to the owners of such "Means of Production" then to people surviving on their human labor power.
Again, this is a Scientific Theory, not opinion, and all the empirical data verifies Marx's key economic prediction.
TechoMarxist 8 months ago
In other words, according to the laws of private property a factory owner has 100-1000 perhaps millions more times the economic power then a worker. This makes for an intrinsically undemocratic system. And it applies to ownership of companies, since that represents the technology/machinery/resources of the company.
The ONLY reasonable and practical solution to this is expropriation of the means of production by the working class. Otherwise you get de facto oligarchy/autocracy.
TechoMarxist 8 months ago
Also the State has a monopoly on Violence? Tell that to Union workers of Coca Cola companies in South America who had their houses burned down and their leadership, along with families of the leadership murdered.
As for the transition, it is Dialectical. Like a feedback loop, political orders-soviets-and class conscious proletariat arise together in opposition to capitalism and reinforce each other, accelerating the rise.
TechoMarxist 8 months ago
To which successful societies are you referring? If the "short lived" examples you give were successful, then why were they short lived?
By my definition of successful, the society has to be able to defend and sustain itself.
davidrodgersNJ 1 year ago
@davidrodgersNJ This is a perfectly reasonable question. The durability of the system based on public property dominating economy is verfiable in the USSR and Eastern Europe over a 40-70 year span, as regards China 60yrs and it continues. The question I ask is what was/is wrong with the system that operated/operates, and can it be improved?
I think there are two main explanations of the short duration for the USSR/East Europe, 1. too much public ownership 2 not enough democracy.
heikokhoo 1 year ago
A public conversation about communism at this level wouldn't happen in most of the US outside of a university political science course.
TheForwardGaze 1 year ago
@TheForwardGaze That's because Americans who have had any contact with the real world realize that communism has been a monstrous, murderous failure in every single case of its actual application.
Also, Americans don't criminalize public political discourse of any sort short of treason, unlike the Europeans.
davidrodgersNJ 1 year ago
@davidrodgersNJ I think that the vast majority of americans haven't the slightest idea of what communism is. The few short lived examples of communism actually being implemented in France, Spain, the Ukraine and Israel are also probably unknown to most americans. What transpired in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea and Cuba, etc., had little to do with communism, unless, of course, you've internalized 100 years of western corporate and government propaganda.
TheForwardGaze 1 year ago
@TheForwardGaze I disagree. What happened in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Viet Nam and Cuba are due to the flaws in communist theory that become apparent once one attempts to apply communism in practice. The fact that communism has never been successfuly implemented in the real world is compelling evidence that the theory is unworkable.
Also, please don't ride the old communist hobbyhorse that only the greedy, ignorant or deluded can oppose it. Its a cheap debating trick.
davidrodgersNJ 1 year ago
@davidrodgersNJ You've ignored the examples I gave of successful anarchist-communist societies existing in opposition to both marxism and capitalism. Marxism is a flawed form of communism/socialism proven unworkable by history, but it's not the only form of communism. Do you believe that fascism is the best form of government to be paired with capitalism? I'd guess that you don't. So why focus on only marxism?
TheForwardGaze 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheForwardGaze To which successful societies are you referring? If the "short lived" examples you give were successful, then why were they short lived?
By my definition of successful, the society has to be able to defend and sustain itself.
davidrodgersNJ 1 year ago
@davidrodgersNJ This is completely ahistorical and thus dishonest.
ButherLi55ett 1 year ago
@davidrodgersNJ Every state criminalizes much more than "public political discourse" to varying degrees. Your last comment is simply nationalism.
ButherLi55ett 1 year ago
Man that guy should have lived in the USSR..... what a silly man
chorizo1337 1 year ago
are you even a Communist or a Marxist, your Berlin wall vid is highly suspicious
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 1 year ago
Who is this brain-amputated fucker???
shanghaikidx 2 years ago
Thanks for your intelligent comments, it is a shame you are poor as I and many people in the west are too. I lived in East Germany before the Berlin Wall was opened and in the PRC in 1990-1992.
You have had 20 years of capitalism and I agree things are not looking like capitalism has served you much better than Stalinism in Poland.
heikokhoo 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey you fuck, no need to spread the "news" about communism. Everybody knows that communism is the bloodiest, most oppressive, most despotic ideology that only brought death, ecological and economic disasters where it reigned. Planned economy is the epitomacy of idiocy. What is good about communism?? What problem did communism effectively solve in history?? Name me only ONE country where communism did not end up in a rotten shithole? Can you do that, fucker???
shanghaikidx 2 years ago 2
This is not so much about whether or not Communism is Utopian as it is about the Socialist economy and the out competition of Capitalism.
chrisolaf530 2 years ago
Why not just drop both Capitolism and Communism and return to the old Monarichal Order that existed snce before the So-Called enlightenment?
ZARIYL 2 years ago
i like that guy
sauron170 2 years ago
Yes I have read this. Unfortunately his concept in State and Revolution was based upon the belief that such a revolution would have the most advanced forms of material means at its disposal. The fact that the revolution was incapable of resolving this problem meant the concepts of democratic control by the workers was rapidly abandoned and was unrealisible in the USSR.
heikokhoo 2 years ago
If I have a company, then I make sure that idiots lilke you don't work there. What you are talking has not sense whatsoever. Communism is the worst cancer, anyhow. Economic idiocy leading to ecological, economic and human disasters.
shanghaikidx 2 years ago
Hey fucker, communist measures never worked and led to economic disaster, both in the priavte of publich sector. Don't say anything about efficiency, or productivity. A fuck like you does not understand these words.
shanghaikidx 2 years ago
an capitalism works as we can see ? meathead
gertschus 2 years ago
Hey fuckhead, to the large extent capitalism is a mere success story and created wealth for the majority in a population. The future is always uncertain and a bet can always go wrong. But history has indoubtedly shown that it always was the better bet to leave economic decision in the private sector. If you are interested in facts, then you also will see that the miserable social conditions of workers in the 19th cent. was finally improved by the increase of productivity which was the result of
joaquinveyron 2 years ago
... which was the result of competition and free market structures. How many example does one need to finally understand that communist planned economy systems always resulted in economic disasters, with China's "great leap forward" being the most prominent example.
joaquinveyron 2 years ago
Read VI Lenin's "The State and Revolution"
(1918)
He addresses the transitional phases.
CommunistNewZealand 2 years ago
Communist New Zealand... get out of my country. Godamn how can any person who has any knowledge of basic economics trifle with communism for a single second..
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
you sad arrogant chappy. you are an economic inferior. Marx was an intellectual giant
CommunistNewZealand 2 years ago
Bastiat>Menger>Smith>Keynes>Ricardo>>>>Marx
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago