Communism in theory, has always displayed the best interests for the people overall, exterminating government in favor of small but interconnected collectives. But does communism truly work, and do you think that democracy, or s republic democracy would be dominant over such a form of government? Let's discuss this, I know there are many out there with very different opinions. Remember that when you hear the (D) democracy word or the (C) communism word, you don't catch a political bias. Think of it in historical terms, what civilizations practiced which and why did each rise and fall?
Communism removes reward from efforts. Being rewarded for ones efforts is the driving force behind excellence. Its no coincidence technology rapidly advanced when the capitalistic system in America beckoned the geniuses from around the world to come to the place where the effort/reward ratio was the most profitable.
The capitalistic system works like evolution is predicted to (but actually does not) by rewarding the successful to continue to do so, and penalizing the unsuccessful to prevent that continued behavior.
The ironic part of this is, most communists/socialists believe the effects evolution (rewarding the successful) is supposed to produce, yet attempt to dismantle an economic system that mimics what evolution predicts and has been proven to create excellence.
Of course communism would work without the constant aggressive pressure of capitalism.
However, history has shown that there is not one type of government that works properly yet invented.
Historically, the best government has shown itself to be a benign king or emporer with the major drawback being that the heir is usually a despotic tyrant.
It would work as well as any other system so far devised - none of them 'work' properly and communism is no more or less unworkable than any of them.
That wasn't the question though. We are not discussing a comparable here. You just cannot go around making up crap to suit your position. What you first wrote was pure theoretical nonsense. There is no worming your way out that one by posting more inquanisional factors.
Could a pure communism ever work?
It would only work in a society that is completely unaware of itself and those around them. Otherwise, no.
So hence it would never work like you said. The variables are too implausible.
A 'pure' communism is all about understanding your society and what is happening around you - so we will never know as there has never been a case of 'pure' communism so far. By 'pure' I assume it would be as described originally by Marx and Engels.
Hey Recommend, don't know those two individuals or their description of "communism". But, if you say so.
Marx came up with the idea of Capital and so 'named' Capitalism and suggested a counter to the mindless greed and slavery of his time under the Capitalism he described, as Communism. This was taken up by Engels who described a Communist society - and whose model the Chinese particularly followed.
Well I do and communism in any form isn't about knowing the people. It is quite the opposite. It is about control.
And in the 1950's China's so called leader devised a corporate farm plan. What was the number of deaths by starvation? Just what? A whopping 25+ million people starved that's what. Communism has nothing to do with knowing the people and understanding it's surroundings. It is about control and no it would never work.
So you don't want to take your theoretical nonsense line then?
And you like to throw out random and incorrect facts without any backing or source.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
I clearly don't know what I am talking about? This coming from someone who blabbers about how communism is about knowing your people. Give it a rest dude your nonsense is nothing more than a pile of worthless opinions, backed clearly by a grammar school level of thinking. If you would like to continue on this path of personal character smashing in order to wipe the theoretical muck off your profile face, oh please be my guest.
Keep your pathetic abuse in your trousers dude. You clearly mistake a discussion about communism as my support of it. You have no justification for this opinion except short-sightedness and an inability to read.
Who the f'cares whether or not you support something or not. Your pious inclinations has clouded your judgment. Support it all you like. It still does not make communism, as you claim it to be, about the knowing the people. Oh my bad dude it was, "understanding" society.
You know, now check this out people- here we have you panda man, spouting garbage about how communism would work if it wasn't for the "constant aggressive pressure of capitalism." In a factual context you write,"is all about understanding your society and what is happening around you." Are you a wedding planner or something? The romance, the imagery, your words so profound, profoundly dense. Then, oh and this gets good, then you ask, "What exactly was theoretical nonsense?" and if that wasn't enough, you blame me for having "no justification for this opinion except short-sightedness and an inability to read."
Your momma must be so proud.
Your source should have been your world history book. 1958-1961. Now run off and go play adult smart man somewhere else panda man.
Pure communism can't work because IIRC it recommends abolishing the medium of exchange (money, in plain English).
Without money, how on earth do you guarantee an efficient flow of goods from the people who produce them to the people who need/want them? Oh yes, that's right - you have state-appointed committees that decide who gets what and when, according to a hazy definition of "need".
Being committees, they're horribly inefficient at best, and downright corrupt at worst (I've sat on several committees in my time and I've got the stained T-shirt to prove that).
No system is ever perfect. But pure communism is a pipe dream.
The answer to that question is quite simple and doesn't require socio-politico-psychobabble. No, because it would require everyone to be of identical mindsets. We are all individuals.
Pure communism could only work on a small scale. Early Christian society came pretty close to a successful working model of communism (though they obviously didn't call it that!), but it only lasted as long as the Christian population stayed small and persecuted. Once they grew in numbers enough to start doing the persecuting themselves, it fell to pieces.
(Pure?) communism requires social robots,living rationed life, not free human beings.
You have to supress:
ability to live your own way,etc.
Lots of things that make some of us interesting human beings.
George Orwell showed it beter than I ever could.
After fall of USSR who in his sane mind could even think about communism? It's so dumb, sorry!
Pure communism would be a beautiful thing, but it is unattainable.
It would require everyone working together and always keeping their eye on the greater good. People are, by nature, selfish.
It would require people to not seek a position of power over others, and that is never going to happen. We can see the damage done by governments built on the model of communism.
Pure communism would actually be a utopia, which is probably why systems that attempt to implement it fail so miserably and end up enslaving their people. It's beyond our grasp, at this stage of our development.
by My Esoteric2 years ago
It just occurred to me, and I wanted to record it before it slipped away again, that there are two types of Capitalism; Theoretical and Practical (Duh!) What I also noticed is that the endless debates about...
by Josak4 years ago
About a hundred years ago there was not a single nation on earth that could not e called capitalist, today there is not a single major nation that could be called capitalist and certainly no first world ones, the US may...
by mrnasir4 years ago
Choose a name,you think is a better system and tell at least one reason of choosing.
by Audrevea6 years ago
Genuine question & one I haven't had time to read up on to find out. Sounds good in theory - why did it fail? Could it ever work?
by yellowstone87505 years ago
As A political historian I have debated this a lot in the classroom. I think there are four: 1. socio-democrcy 2. socialism 3. communism 4. Moaism/Stalinism. I am curious what, if any, differences you see. I am working...
by Sophia Angelique6 years ago
sm.Socialism are services provided by the state, e.g. medicare, social security, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, etc. Socialism can also include things like subsidized transport, subsidized electricity,...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.