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.

So after watching this video I was pretty shocked and had to rethink my historical idea of saying Nazism is the one and only truly genocidal evil to ever haunt modern history.




That being said, the video left a message that Communism not only robs people of their liberties (which I agree), but as an idea it just does not work.

I was also watching some Vietnam War videos lately and thought to myself:

Look at Vietnam today. The "bad guys" won, and the country has been existing for over 3 decades with that form of government now, and hasnt broken down. No mass genocides have happened, it's a pretty safe and peaceful country today.

Same goes for Laos.

And Cuba...people are relatively chill there, arent they? Of course everyone is struggling to make ends meet, but you gotta take the US embargo's effects into that calculation.

And China...well China is only communist when it comes to preventing people from voting, media control and silencing any critics. But in all other economical aspects it's more capitalist than anything else.

So only North Korea remains as the only failed state like the ones presented in the video.

Makes you think, doesnt it? Communism can work.....at a great cost....but it can nevertheless work.

I dont think there has ever been a true communist state though...

From my limited knowledge im fairly sure all the communist countries are just branches of communism. Hence why they are called Maoism, or Stalinism etc.

I heard once that communism can only work if the world is communist (or something) and thats why the world revolution was trying to manifest itself all over the world through revolutions which happened in many countries. But since it failed in the vast majority of countries communism was doomed to fail and only branches were left and it just started dying slowly since.

So it cant really work if you take original communism and try implement it in a single country, it was made with the idea of a world revolution in mind.

But im no expert, I just remember from my brief history education years back etc. I could be very wrong.

There has never been a true Communist country.

There has also never been a successful country with Communist based Socialism(China was a failure who successfully transitioned to an Economically Capitalist/Politically Authoritarian state without experiencing total collapse)


Communism will never work because it works on the assumption that those who use the force needed to make the transition will relinquish the power once the system is attained. Nobody with the evil in their hearts to do what must be done would ever give up the total power that would be needed. Basically, it requires all people to be perfect. But if people were perfect, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

People who say it can work are using the optimal word can. And they say it absent the evidence or argument that it can. No state has ever been truely communist is just a no true scottsmen. The reality is that communism doesn't work. Communist states simple become dictatorships, with the distant ungiven promise of the true communism as the ideology that keeps the masses satiated.

Marx did a lot for history and sociology as fields, but his contributions were largely methodological. His interpretations of society and history on which he based communism were woefully inaccurate, and depended on the future developing in a way that it hasn't.

I view Marx's works the way they should. The ramblings of an angry and bitter person who was just a wee bit crazy.

That's a rather inaccurate view of Marx. He was a brilliant man. Very brilliant. But he lived in a time where the future was uncertain (like every time) and the past was certainly far more unclear than it is now (especially since modern history as a field didn't quite exist yet). He wasn't crazy (maybe a bit angry tho) . He just turned out to be wrong about a lot of things. Who in the 19th century didn't turn out to be wrong about a lot of things?

Marx was also living in a time where capitalism was at its worst (18 hour shifts; your relatives pay for cleaning up the mess from the cogwheels of a machine if your hand gets stuck in it etc.).

The insanity came when power hungry men abused his idealistic concepts 100 years later in a completely different world.

I don't believe any of the countries that we commonly refer to as 'communist' actually are communist in anything but name. They are almost universally tyrannies. It's also worth noting that many are/were reeling from the instability of revolution and civil war, so when a government does gain power they still have a lot of militarized enemies, which means the violence and paranoia of war gets carried forward and expressed as oppression.

If you look at a country like the UK (pre-Thatcher), many industries were state owned, and the trade unions were powerful. I think that's probably as close as any nation has ever got to arriving at socialism in a natural (culturally prepared) way, and it worked reasonably well.

I think there are pros and cons with all systems of government. It's foolish to say things like "communism doesn't work" or "capitalism always works" because these are generalizations, and it's no different to generalizing about a race of people. Capitalist democracies can be just as unpleasant as any other system if left unchecked.

I often like to think of governments and economic systems in terms of evolution versus design. Ironically, evolution is much better at creating working systems than any intelligent designer. This is why the free market has so many advocates, it's a naturally evolved system which is elegant and self correcting. Heavily regulated (read 'designed') economies tend to develop kinks and stagnate. But that doesn't mean the free-market is all good. If left unchecked we start to see the development of monopolies, and corporate super-predators that become so powerful they can start to influence government, manipulating things like legislation, taxes, wages and even interest rates to suit their own agenda.

I think the best governments are the ones that strike a balance, harnessing the power of evolved systems with ethical considerations of a human designer. That might be why democracies tend to be so effective. It isn't because everyone has a vote (usually you find yourself living in an area where your vote means bugger all). It's because it creates conditions for a lot of systems (economic and political) to evolve in a natural way, and this then leads to stability.

"Communism doesn't work" isn't a generalization. Its a fundamentally flawed idea that could never work in practice, you can objectively arrive at a conclusion that that specific method doesn't work.

Communism is a very specific type of system, a Utopia which never has or will exist.

Saying "Socialism" doesn't work would be a generalization.

Communism can work, it just seems to work better on the small scale. Things like communes. It has never worked as a country because of basic human greed, power-lust, ignorance, and stupidity.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Communism can work, it just seems to work better on the small scale. Things like communes. It has never worked as a country because of basic human greed, power-lust, ignorance, and stupidity.

Even that isn't really Communism(they like to think it is) but its really more of a regression back to a tribal state.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Communism can work, it just seems to work better on the small scale. Things like communes. It has never worked as a country because of basic human greed, power-lust, ignorance, and stupidity.

Even that isn't really Communism(they like to think it is) but its really more of a regression back to a tribal state.

How is it not communism?

The application of communist theory needs to be done very carefully - sweeping away the established system just leads to the dangerous elements at the fringes of society becoming the dangerous elements at the centre of power.

A slow transformation towards the ideal over many decades or even centuries is the most stable way to alter a system. The harder change is pushed through, the harder it is resisted and the harder it is to screen the changing elements to ensure that they are actually working for the greater good.

Saying it is a fundamentally flawed idea because the previous attempts have all been conducted in a flawed way by flawed people is disingenuous.

I would respond to that, Silver, by asking if you need literally centuries and generations to be more or less bred into the system, does that not indicate a flaw as well? It's a completely unprovable statement you just made.

And all the change that has happened to this point has happened instantly .

 Sir Arun wrote:
So after watching this video I was pretty shocked and had to rethink my historical idea of saying Nazism is the one and only truly genocidal evil to ever haunt modern history.




That being said, the video left a message that Communism not only robs people of their liberties (which I agree), but as an idea it just does not work.

I was also watching some Vietnam War videos lately and thought to myself:

Look at Vietnam today. The "bad guys" won, and the country has been existing for over 3 decades with that form of government now, and hasnt broken down. No mass genocides have happened, it's a pretty safe and peaceful country today.

Same goes for Laos.

And Cuba...people are relatively chill there, arent they? Of course everyone is struggling to make ends meet, but you gotta take the US embargo's effects into that calculation.

And China...well China is only communist when it comes to preventing people from voting, media control and silencing any critics. But in all other economical aspects it's more capitalist than anything else.

So only North Korea remains as the only failed state like the ones presented in the video.

Makes you think, doesnt it? Communism can work.....at a great cost....but it can nevertheless work.

Are you willing to pay that cost to see if it does work. By that I mean would you be willing to have been one of the millions purged in China, for example, up to and including what is happening in Hong Kong?

 Grey Templar wrote:
"Communism doesn't work" isn't a generalization. Its a fundamentally flawed idea that could never work in practice, you can objectively arrive at a conclusion that that specific method doesn't work.

Communism is a very specific type of system, a Utopia which never has or will exist.

Actually it isn't that specific. It comes in a whole multitude of flavors from Maoism to Anarchist. Since it isn't specific, there could be infinite variations that no one has tried yet. To say that you have proven, beyond all question, that none of them can or will ever work is quite an extraordinary claim. I don't see how you're going to be able to back that up.

All you can say with certainty is that communist states have failed in the past, and look at what went wrong on a case by case basis. But to then say it can't ever work is jumping the gun.

There are lots of things that people used to believe were impossible, flying, climbing Everest, going to the moon, even steam power. But these things are possible, and some have even been made very easy though improvements in technology. Technology could also be a huge factor with regards to communism. We have no idea how things like intelligent computers, virtual space, genetics etc... Might impact peoples lives in the future. A system that seems unworkable to us, might be a no brainier to to a society that has already solved the problems we struggle with today.

 Smacks wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
"Communism doesn't work" isn't a generalization. Its a fundamentally flawed idea that could never work in practice, you can objectively arrive at a conclusion that that specific method doesn't work.

Communism is a very specific type of system, a Utopia which never has or will exist.

Actually it isn't that specific. It comes in a whole multitude of flavors from Maoism to Anarchist. Since it isn't specific, there could be infinite variations that no one has tried yet. To say that you have proven, beyond all question, that none of them can or will ever work is quite an extraordinary claim. I don't see how you're going to be able to back that up.

All you can say with certainty is that communist states have failed in the past, and look at what went wrong on a case by case basis. But to then say it can't ever work is jumping the gun.

There are lots of things that people used to believe were impossible, flying, climbing Everest, going to the moon, even steam power. But these things are possible, and some have even been made very easy though improvements in technology. Technology could also be a huge factor with regards to communism. We have no idea how things like intelligent computers, virtual space, genetics etc... Might impact peoples lives in the future. A system that seems unworkable to us, might be a no brainier to to a society that has already solved the problems we struggle with today.

Maoism isn't Communism. Its Socialism(which there are many flavors)

The USSR wasn't Communist, it was a Socialist Dictatorship.

There is only one Communism, and thats the government-less and class-less collective Utopia that Marx envisioned as the end result.

North Korea doesn't even hide behind the veil of being a people's state anymore. They removed any instance of the word Communism from their party manifesto and just went the way of other dictatorships and called themselves a cult of personality. I'm surprised that the mainland Chinese still call themselves Communist as well, but I guess they do that just as a front (mainland as opposed to the Republic of China and Hong Kong, though the mainland's pretty happy to put both of them under the boot too). So like has been said, how can you judge a successful communist country when one has never existed, at least not to Marx's utopian ideals? A lot of political ideologies aren't realistic when they're applied to a large society, but certainly Communism is one of the less viable ones (perhaps not so much on getting the people on board, rather its so open to corruption, or rather where corruption happens it breaks down the central motives of the idealogy).

To me the biggest problem that communism has, is the simple fact, that it expects everybody to be diligent and kind, while the human nature is the opposite.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Maoism isn't Communism. Its Socialism(which there are many flavors)

The USSR wasn't Communist, it was a Socialist Dictatorship.

There is only one Communism, and thats the government-less and class-less collective Utopia that Marx envisioned as the end result.

That's just semantics. Many books and definitions also include the pursuit of that goal (and related goals) as communist. Many also prefer that term. And many states self identify as communist. Also, some people refer to the end goal as Utopian Socialism so meh.

I see the point you are trying to make. Even if you we weren't talking at cross purposes, I don't know if I would agree.

 Sienisoturi wrote:
To me the biggest problem that communism has, is the simple fact, that it expects everybody to be diligent and kind, while the human nature is the opposite.

"The basic teachings of Jesus are quite wonderful. So, by the way, is the original intention of Karl Marx, okay? Hey, what can be bad? Everybody should share equally, do unto others, democracy, government by the people. All great ideas. These are all great ideas, but they all suffer from one fatal flaw, which is they're all based on the fallacious notion that people are fundamentally decent. That if you give them a chance to do right they'll take it."
- Boris Yellnikoff, Whatever Works

 Aesop the God Awful wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
To me the biggest problem that communism has, is the simple fact, that it expects everybody to be diligent and kind, while the human nature is the opposite.

"The basic teachings of Jesus are quite wonderful. So, by the way, is the original intention of Karl Marx, okay? Hey, what can be bad? Everybody should share equally, do unto others, democracy, government by the people. All great ideas. These are all great ideas, but they all suffer from one fatal flaw, which is they're all based on the fallacious notion that people are fundamentally decent. That if you give them a chance to do right they'll take it."
- Boris Yellnikoff, Whatever Works

Decent kind people vastly outnumber bad people (they just don't get as much attention). You only have to look at open source projects, charities and volunteer groups to see that people do want to help and contribute. I remember after the riots/looting in London in 2011, a huge number of people managed to organize themselves quite spontaneously into a cleanup crew, and everything they needed was quickly made available, for free, by more people who wanted to help.

All people really need is an incentive. Money is an okay intensive but it's actually much weaker than feeling you are doing something that matters.

 curran12 wrote:
I would respond to that, Silver, by asking if you need literally centuries and generations to be more or less bred into the system, does that not indicate a flaw as well? It's a completely unprovable statement you just made.

A flaw would be something which makes something bad or not work. Requiring a slow transition to achieve a goal isn't a flaw.

When talking about an almost fundamental societal shift, any change should occur at a measured pace. We see again and again when new disruptive technologies and social attitudes come into society that their negative impacts (mass job losses, population migrations, etc) are often not managed or planned well, magnifying their negative impact.

 Smacks wrote:

 Aesop the God Awful wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
To me the biggest problem that communism has, is the simple fact, that it expects everybody to be diligent and kind, while the human nature is the opposite.

"The basic teachings of Jesus are quite wonderful. So, by the way, is the original intention of Karl Marx, okay? Hey, what can be bad? Everybody should share equally, do unto others, democracy, government by the people. All great ideas. These are all great ideas, but they all suffer from one fatal flaw, which is they're all based on the fallacious notion that people are fundamentally decent. That if you give them a chance to do right they'll take it."
- Boris Yellnikoff, Whatever Works

Decent kind people vastly outnumber bad people (they just don't get as much attention). You only have to look at open source projects, charities and volunteer groups to see that people do want to help and contribute. I remember after the riots/looting in London in 2011, a huge number of people managed to organize themselves quite spontaneously into a cleanup crew, and everything they needed was quickly made available, for free, by more people who wanted to help.

All people really need is an incentive. Money is an okay intensive but it's actually much weaker than feeling you are doing something that matters.

If you need an incentive to do the right thing, it isn't doing the right thing. Most people are not good and decent. Neither are they evil. Most people are just lazy. The true rarity is the person with the drive to be exceptional, either as a greedy self serving villain or as an altruistic do-gooder.

 Jimsolo wrote:
If you need an incentive to do the right thing, it isn't doing the right thing. Most people are not good and decent. Neither are they evil. Most people are just lazy. The true rarity is the person with the drive to be exceptional, either as a greedy self serving villain or as an altruistic do-gooder.

The incentive is not needed to 'do the right thing' it is to not be lazy. People are lazy when they feel that what they do doesn't matter, or won't make a difference. They become disheartened. Providing people aren't forced to worry about their physiological needs or their future, then doing the right thing is a strong motivator in itself.

Yugoslavia worked so well, the US used commercial pressure, and covert funding of dissident groups to split it up.
The same way they use sanctions to stifle Cuba.. Heaven forbid people should see communism working, and capitalism for what it is.

Toward accomplishing this goal, one year before the dissolution of the Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia—specifically, on November 5, 1990—the Congress of the United States passed bill 101-513 concerning “appropriation of funds for operations abroad.” A paragraph in this bill specifically devoted to Yugoslavia initiated that country's dissolution. In a single order, completely without forewarning, the United States cut off all forms of credit and loans to Yugoslavia in the event that within six months separate elections did not take place in each state of the federation.

 LordofHats wrote:
That's a rather inaccurate view of Marx. He was a brilliant man. Very brilliant. But he lived in a time where the future was uncertain (like every time) and the past was certainly far more unclear than it is now (especially since modern history as a field didn't quite exist yet). He wasn't crazy (maybe a bit angry tho) . He just turned out to be wrong about a lot of things. Who in the 19th century didn't turn out to be wrong about a lot of things?

Well as brillent as a drop out college student who free loaded off his friends and father for the rest of his life. Yes he was that, explains why college students flock to his teachings anyway.

 Commissar-Danno wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
That's a rather inaccurate view of Marx. He was a brilliant man. Very brilliant. But he lived in a time where the future was uncertain (like every time) and the past was certainly far more unclear than it is now (especially since modern history as a field didn't quite exist yet). He wasn't crazy (maybe a bit angry tho) . He just turned out to be wrong about a lot of things. Who in the 19th century didn't turn out to be wrong about a lot of things?

Well as brillent as a drop out college student who free loaded off his friends and father for the rest of his life. Yes he was that, explains why college students flock to his teachings anyway.

Are you suggesting dropping out of college is a clear indicator of not being brilliant? Quite a few dullards have post graduate studies under their belt.

You spelled brilliant wrong.

 Commissar-Danno wrote:


Well as brillent as a drop out college student who free loaded off his friends and father for the rest of his life. Yes he was that, explains why college students flock to his teachings anyway.

Bill Gates is a college drop out. One of the richest men in the world.

There were lots of College drop outs in the 19th century, seeing as college was a lot less regular back then. Further, Marx did not drop out. The University of Berlin thought him too radical, and wouldn't accept his doctoral thesis. He submitted it to a different university, Jena, and they awarded him his PHD, and a lot of college grads back then ended up freeloading of friends and family. Especially when the German monarchy draws issue with your radical political ideas that monarchy is a bad thing and bars you from working.