Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Other than taking some poster by the ear and sticking their nose into soviet area countries while telling them "bad poster, not communist, not communist, bad poster, bad" there is nothing else that can be done to try to make it clear that there have never been any real communist countries.

So evidently, communism only exists in someone's head?

When proponents can not claim - even slightly - any entity that did well under their regime, maybe there's a problem???

 Frazzled wrote:
So evidently, communism only exists in someone's head?

When proponents can not claim - even slightly - any entity that did well under their regime, maybe there's a problem???

We cannot say that communism has never worked, because there has never been communism.

Once you quit making the silly argument of "well, dictatorships/socialists/fascists/etc who claimed they were founded on communist principles never worked, so even though they were not communist it clearly means that communism could never work".

That's like me saying "I saw a German Shepard run against a wall once, which clearly means that Dachshunds are stupid."

 Frazzled wrote:

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:


Notice that most of these are dictatorships and therefor not communist to any stretch. They just say they are communst to help them get away with what they are doing, this gives people who are communist for the sake of the people a bad name as people stereotype the "bad" communists with the "good" communists.

Who are the "good" communists???

The reason i put "good" in inverted commas is because i couldn't think of another word.


good=communists for the people

bad=become a dictator and say it is communism.


As i said i put "good" because i couldn't think of a better way to put it, nothing behind it.

I'll restate his question. Show us a "good" communist in real life that had power.

Non as there has been no communist countries.

How many times has this been said on this thread alone.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
So evidently, communism only exists in someone's head?

When proponents can not claim - even slightly - any entity that did well under their regime, maybe there's a problem???

We cannot say that communism has never worked, because there has never been communism.

Once you quit making the silly argument of "well, dictatorships/socialists/fascists/etc who claimed they were founded on communist principles never worked, so even though they were not communist it clearly means that communism could never work".

That's like me saying "I saw a German Shepard run against a wall once, which clearly means that Dachshunds are stupid."

USSR has state run, centralized means of prorduction, and limited pay scales. How is that not an attempt at communism?
Warsaw Pact: same.
You can't exclude EVERY SINGLE entity that called itself communist because disctatorship was involved, because it, itself is a Marxian requirement.

Its weird you never see people defending Fascism as an economic system. Its always communists. Why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:


Notice that most of these are dictatorships and therefor not communist to any stretch. They just say they are communst to help them get away with what they are doing, this gives people who are communist for the sake of the people a bad name as people stereotype the "bad" communists with the "good" communists.

Who are the "good" communists???

The reason i put "good" in inverted commas is because i couldn't think of another word.


good=communists for the people

bad=become a dictator and say it is communism.


As i said i put "good" because i couldn't think of a better way to put it, nothing behind it.

I'll restate his question. Show us a "good" communist in real life that had power.

Non as there has been no communist countries.

How many times has this been said on this thread alone.

Ok flapjack, please define communism.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
So evidently, communism only exists in someone's head?

When proponents can not claim - even slightly - any entity that did well under their regime, maybe there's a problem???

We cannot say that communism has never worked, because there has never been communism.

Once you quit making the silly argument of "well, dictatorships/socialists/fascists/etc who claimed they were founded on communist principles never worked, so even though they were not communist it clearly means that communism could never work".

That's like me saying "I saw a German Shepard run against a wall once, which clearly means that Dachshunds are stupid."

USSR has state run, centralized means of prorduction, and limited pay scales. How is that not an attempt at communism?
Warsaw Pact: same.
You can't exclude EVERY SINGLE entity that called itself communist because disctatorship was involved, because it, itself is a Marxian requirement.

Its weird you never see people defending Fascism as an economic system. Its always communists. Why?

German Shepards clearly have fur and a tail, how are they not Dachshunds?

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
So evidently, communism only exists in someone's head?

When proponents can not claim - even slightly - any entity that did well under their regime, maybe there's a problem???

We cannot say that communism has never worked, because there has never been communism.

Once you quit making the silly argument of "well, dictatorships/socialists/fascists/etc who claimed they were founded on communist principles never worked, so even though they were not communist it clearly means that communism could never work".

That's like me saying "I saw a German Shepard run against a wall once, which clearly means that Dachshunds are stupid."

Then those who advocate it need to learn that it'll never happen... 'tis like it's Utopia. We all want it... but it just isn't humanly possible.

And other poster said that the principle of Communism is commonly used by dictators to as a tool to keep the population inline.

But still:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
So evidently, communism only exists in someone's head?

When proponents can not claim - even slightly - any entity that did well under their regime, maybe there's a problem???

We cannot say that communism has never worked, because there has never been communism.

Once you quit making the silly argument of "well, dictatorships/socialists/fascists/etc who claimed they were founded on communist principles never worked, so even though they were not communist it clearly means that communism could never work".

That's like me saying "I saw a German Shepard run against a wall once, which clearly means that Dachshunds are stupid."

USSR has state run, centralized means of prorduction, and limited pay scales. How is that not an attempt at communism?
Warsaw Pact: same.
You can't exclude EVERY SINGLE entity that called itself communist because disctatorship was involved, because it, itself is a Marxian requirement.

Its weird you never see people defending Fascism as an economic system. Its always communists. Why?

German Shepards clearly have fur and a tail, how are they not Dachshunds?

They're not mean enough. Lb for Lb a dachshund would murderize a german Shepherd.
But thats not relevant to the conversation. Define communism.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
So evidently, communism only exists in someone's head?

When proponents can not claim - even slightly - any entity that did well under their regime, maybe there's a problem???

We cannot say that communism has never worked, because there has never been communism.

Once you quit making the silly argument of "well, dictatorships/socialists/fascists/etc who claimed they were founded on communist principles never worked, so even though they were not communist it clearly means that communism could never work".

That's like me saying "I saw a German Shepard run against a wall once, which clearly means that Dachshunds are stupid."

USSR has state run, centralized means of prorduction, and limited pay scales. How is that not an attempt at communism?
Warsaw Pact: same.
You can't exclude EVERY SINGLE entity that called itself communist because disctatorship was involved, because it, itself is a Marxian requirement.

Its weird you never see people defending Fascism as an economic system. Its always communists. Why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:


Notice that most of these are dictatorships and therefor not communist to any stretch. They just say they are communst to help them get away with what they are doing, this gives people who are communist for the sake of the people a bad name as people stereotype the "bad" communists with the "good" communists.

Who are the "good" communists???

The reason i put "good" in inverted commas is because i couldn't think of another word.


good=communists for the people

bad=become a dictator and say it is communism.


As i said i put "good" because i couldn't think of a better way to put it, nothing behind it.

I'll restate his question. Show us a "good" communist in real life that had power.

Non as there has been no communist countries.

How many times has this been said on this thread alone.

Ok flapjack, please define communism.

Without resorting to a dictionary i would define communism as

"a country ran by a governmet of the far-left that has the support and backing of it's people and has the ability to maintain itself and it's people to a standard that is equal for all."


Now i will ask you 2 questions (without resorting to dictionary)


1. Define "fair"

2.Define "communism"

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:


Without resorting to a dictionary i would define communism as

"a country ran by a governmet of the far-left that has the support and backing of it's people and has the ability to maintain itself and it's people to a standard that is equal for all."


Now i will ask you 2 questions (without resorting to dictionary)


1. Define "fair"

2.Define "communism"

What you so eloquently described is humanly impossible... because there's not enough resources to do just that.

Well under that definition pretty much all the countries already cited were communist.

Fair: ew, you're good. I'll use the standard everyone cites now for minimum wage. Enough to raise a family one. Now mind you, thats what I define as fair for you. But as always some animals are more equal than others. Fair for me 85% of GDP.

communism: centralized control of the means of production including labor and physical commodities.

 whembly wrote:

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:


Without resorting to a dictionary i would define communism as

"a country ran by a governmet of the far-left that has the support and backing of it's people and has the ability to maintain itself and it's people to a standard that is equal for all."


Now i will ask you 2 questions (without resorting to dictionary)


1. Define "fair"

2.Define "communism"

What you so eloquently described is humanly impossible... because there's not enough resources to do just that.

Then how are people existing today if there's not enough resources, surely we'd all be starving and/or clothesless


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well under that definition pretty much all the countries already cited were communist.

Fair: ew, you're good. I'll use the standard everyone cites now for minimum wage. Enough to raise a family one. Now mind you, thats what I define as fair for you. But as always some animals are more equal than others. Fair for me 85% of GDP.

communism: centralized control of the means of production including labor and physical commodities.

1.Pretty good answer

2.Your definition isn't "for the people" it's "to the people, wheather they like it or not"


As for my definition all those countries are dictatorships and thus are not "for the people".

So again, in the real world, you're expressing the view that communism can't exist. Therefore, as a model its, as Mr. Rogers would say, a mountain sized pile of unworkable gak and pee.

 Frazzled wrote:
So again, in the real world, you're expressing the view that communism can't exist. Therefore, as a model its, as Mr. Rogers would say, a mountain sized pile of unworkable gak and pee.

So far in the real world, however as i have already posted if people tried it would be possible.

Communism is not impossible, just highly fragile, it needs 100% dedication.

2 Things


1.I'm not trying to start a revolution here, it is just my humble opinion

2.HURRAY its my 200th post.

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
So again, in the real world, you're expressing the view that communism can't exist. Therefore, as a model its, as Mr. Rogers would say, a mountain sized pile of unworkable gak and pee.

So far in the real world, however as i have already posted if people tried it would be possible.

Communism is not impossible, just highly fragile, it needs 100% dedication.

2 Things


1.I'm not trying to start a revolution here, it is just my humble opinion

2.HURRAY its my 200th post.

1. Congrats on 200th post.
2. If it requires 100% dedication, then as a model its horrifically flawed and unworkable outside of Heaven/Paradise/The Great Kennel and isn't actually worthy of discussion outside of those contexts.

People tried communism, it failed /thread.

Frazzled wrote:communism: centralized control of the means of production including labor and physical commodities.

I would swap the word centralised for collective, centralised control would just be socialism surely.

Cheesecat wrote:People tried communism, it failed /thread.

As has been said repeatedly nobody has tried communism, anywhere, ever.

 dæl wrote:

Frazzled wrote:communism: centralized control of the means of production including labor and physical commodities.

I would swap the word centralised for collective, centralised control would just be socialism surely.

Cheesecat wrote:People tried communism, it failed /thread.

As has been said repeatedly nobody has tried communism, anywhere, ever.

Um, Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, China, East-Germany, etc.

 Cheesecat wrote:

Um, Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, China, East-Germany, etc.

All of which had governments and state control, two things which are not part of communism in any way.

It's probably wrong to say that communism has never been tried, it is quite likely that something similar was in some small communities in the days before recorded history, but it has never been documented. So any claim that communism has failed is like saying that our manned mission to Alpha Centuri has failed.

 dæl wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Um, Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, China, East-Germany, etc.

All of which had governments and state control, two things which are not part of communism in any way.

It's probably wrong to say that communism has never been tried, it is quite likely that something similar was in some small communities in the days before recorded history, but it has never been documented. So any claim that communism has failed is like saying that our manned mission to Alpha Centuri has failed.

What I mean is they attempted to apply Marxist theories to their countries but in the end they failed to become the classless and stateless society that Marx envisioned.

 Cheesecat wrote:

What I mean is they attempted to apply Marxist theories to their countries but in the end they failed to become the classless and stateless society that Marx envisioned.

That is true, and makes more sense than saying "people tried communism. failed" which implies they actually tried communism and it didn't work, rather than they tried to get to communism and never managed it . The hard part of communism will be the getting there, hence why I think it necessary for us to first create an almost Godlike AI to handle the transition.

 dæl wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

What I mean is they attempted to apply Marxist theories to their countries but in the end they failed to become the classless and stateless society that Marx envisioned.

That is true, and makes more sense than saying "people tried communism. failed" which implies they actually tried communism and it didn't work, rather than they tried to get to communism and never managed it . The hard part of communism will be the getting there, hence why I think it necessary for us to first create an almost Godlike AI to handle the transition.

However, when I last read Marx (a really long time, mind) he basically flat out stated that the Revolution would happen, where the workers would get all pissy about their conditions, rise up, install a leader/government and eventually that government would work towards its own downfall because now each person is taken care of by all the other people, and the whole country no longer needs a government....


When the USSR tried to do exactly that, they completely and utterly failed at dissolving the government, which to me points to Communism never working on this planet; as it would turn out there are things that the USSR folks tried to suppress which only drove those activities underground (like religion, and Levi's jeans) where they thrived even better than they had previously, and some people would argue that some things, such as religion are essential to human survival in large group settings (I'm using the term religion fairly loosely, as I don't think this necessarily applies to theism, I feel that there are those who can/have replaced those feelings with scientific, sporting, or other pursuits)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

What I mean is they attempted to apply Marxist theories to their countries but in the end they failed to become the classless and stateless society that Marx envisioned.

That is true, and makes more sense than saying "people tried communism. failed" which implies they actually tried communism and it didn't work, rather than they tried to get to communism and never managed it . The hard part of communism will be the getting there, hence why I think it necessary for us to first create an almost Godlike AI to handle the transition.

However, when I last read Marx (a really long time, mind) he basically flat out stated that the Revolution would happen, where the workers would get all pissy about their conditions, rise up, install a leader/government and eventually that government would work towards its own downfall because now each person is taken care of by all the other people, and the whole country no longer needs a government....


When the USSR tried to do exactly that, they completely and utterly failed at dissolving the government, which to me points to Communism never working on this planet; as it would turn out there are things that the USSR folks tried to suppress which only drove those activities underground (like religion, and Levi's jeans) where they thrived even better than they had previously, and some people would argue that some things, such as religion are essential to human survival in large group settings (I'm using the term religion fairly loosely, as I don't think this necessarily applies to theism, I feel that there are those who can/have replaced those feelings with scientific, sporting, or other pursuits)

I was going to say something similar but I think I'll save myself the effort and quote you instead.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

When the USSR tried to do exactly that...

This is where you lost me. Stalinism =/= Marxism.

 dæl wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

When the USSR tried to do exactly that...

This is where you lost me. Stalinism =/= Marxism.

It's not that they're the same it's USSR's failed attempt at communism that's the concern, because if so many countries failed to apply Marxist concepts maybe it wasn't such a good ideology in the first place.

 Frazzled wrote:
So evidently, communism only exists in someone's head?

Communist society is an idea that only exists in someone's head. Communism is the belief that the best way to establish a communist society is by the revolutionary action of the working class and the progressive elimination of private ownership.

Oh, I get it now. Communism is basically time travel. Awesome in theory, impossible in reality, and and thought about too much by guys who need more sun.

*sigh*

What people are arguing:
"Communism was attempted in the past, but it failed, therefore it will always fail."

What I am arguing:
"Communism has failed in the past because certain things were wrong e.g. having a corrupt government. As soon as we can sort these things out communism could work."

People who think they're arguing against my point haven't actually supplied a valid reason yet. Until then, I'm going to quite happily tell people that in the future communism could work, and I'd like to see a reason why it shouldn't.

 Seaward wrote:
Oh, I get it now. Communism is basically time travel. Awesome in theory, impossible in reality, and and thought about too much by guys who need more sun.

Marx was really HG Wells!

 p_gray99 wrote:
*sigh*

What people are arguing:
"Communism was attempted in the past, but it failed, therefore it will always fail."

What I am arguing:
"Communism has failed in the past because certain things were wrong e.g. having a corrupt government. As soon as we can sort these things out communism could work."

People who think they're arguing against my point haven't actually supplied a valid reason yet. Until then, I'm going to quite happily tell people that in the future communism could work, and I'd like to see a reason why it shouldn't.

When will the basic human nature of wanting more be overcome? I think it could easily be argued that it's hard coded into us. An evolutionary tool we gained to help us survive.

As long as we have that, Communism will never work. So, Communism will never work.