Yes I realize this is a very broad topic and for that I apologize.

While this thread may become a discussion (and perhaps even a far-reaching one), it's primary purpose is to gauge the general sentiments of the community here on the topic of communism. So with that said, I'll divide my inquiry into two parts:

1) What are your views on communism as an idea? For example, is communism a goal you see as desirable? Is it achievable? And so on.

2) What are your views on communism as a theory? Namely, what is your opinion of the five main schools of communism out there: anarchist communism, religious communism, primitivism, Marxism, and Kimilsungism?

You can sum up your views on these topics briefly or not-so-briefly, your pick.

They had cool tanks and the Cult of the Expert was kind of interesting. That pretty much is the extent of my interest in Communism in practice.

In theory it seems like a solid idea, but we know how it worked out.

I fall in line with Arquinsel. I think communism (with a lower case "c") is a good idea in theory, but then when it shifts into Communism (capital "C") then it kinda goes downhill.

Forgive me, since I can't really go indepth with this topic. But that's just how I feel.

When it comes to any form of communism, I'm firmly in the Ayn Rand camp.

-- Nephele

My ideal economic arrangement is something similar to Participatory Economics or Anarcho-syndicalism, where everyone collectively decides how much to produce and consume of any given thing.

I don't think it's in our nature to be completely individualistic and competitive. We're perfectly capable of theorizing about such systems, realizing them can't be impossible. There are many promising developments around the world that show we're on the correct evolutionary path.

However, the nitty-gritty practical mechanisms of such systems are where I get a little fuzzy.

First of all, thanks to all who have replied so far!

But, I was kind of hoping for a slightly deeper analysis than has thus far been provided by any respondent, with the noteworthy exception of viscus, whose commentary I'll highlight as an example to all. As such, I'm now adding a new requirement: You must provide some explanation as to why you take the position you do. For example, this...



...and this...



...are insufficient explanations of one's position.

Why do you fall into the Ayn Rand camp, Nephele? Moreover, self-identified libertarians seem to fall into a fairly wide range stretching from the likes of Mike Gravel on the "left" all the way over to the likes of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin on the far right. In that connection, I'm curious as to how much or how little we have in common in the political sense.

Why and how didn't socialist systems "work out" in the past in your view, Arquinsiel? (Rest assured I have my own explanations. I would point out, moreover, that socialist systems aren't a past-tense phenomena. There are five socialist countries in the world today.)

To make a very complex topic very simple, for the purposes of a paragraph, anyway, I believe that "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" would be truly a fine thing. But there are too many variations in human motivations and behavior for it to succeed without coercion. And in coercion lies the seeds of the demise.

It's hard to imagine an ideology MORE hostile to EVERYthing the Goth culture stands for than Marxism in any form:

It is oppressively, crushingly conformist, beyond anything anyone in the democratic capitalist world can imagine.

The concept that a human being must exist for the sake of the State is not only abhorrent to me, but I also view it as being immoral.

I not only find the altruistic ideals of Communism to be both impractical and naïve, I consider altruism itself to be immoral.

When I talk of "altruism" I'm talking of the cult of self-sacrifice, the doctrine that a human being has no right to existence or the possession of the fruits of his labor except to serve others -- which is an entirely different thing from treating others with kindness and decency of one's one volition, without any form of physical or emotional coercion.

-- Nephele

Socialist != Communist. There are more than five countries with high degrees of Socialist government, last I checked.

lost is correct saying the seeds of demise lie in coercian

It's true that democratic capitalism can and has occasionally been responsible for poverty whn bad decisions are made, but poverty and suffering are essential aspects of human existence, and not in and of itself dependent upon how you arrange your economic and political affairs.

However, the shortcomings of a democratic capitalist society pale into insignificance compared to the horrors--and even the mere discomforts--of the big socialist experiments over the past century.

40 million in the Soviet Union. 70 million in China. 3.5 million in Cambodia. etc etc etc.


Even democratic socialist countries like Sweden would be intolerable to most Americans: it came as a shock to them that the standard of living for Black americans was considerably higher than THEIR standard of living!

The government is NOT our master. They do not own us, and they ought not to own what we earn.

The question is this: who's the one defining people's needs? and how are they defined? People aren't necessarily going to agree on needs from one person to another.

Also, aren't the problems of capitalism from scenarios where a few big companies hold monopolies? how would that differ from the government having a monopoly? although in true communism, does anyone have a monopoly there either?

And also on incentives. Would a person want to work harder if they're not compensated more for it? will a person necessarily work harder out of the kindness of their heart for others' needs only?

This is pre-1970 isn't it? Sweden is doing pretty damn well these days and is still Socialist.

Actually, the late-90s to the early 'noughts'.


http://mises.org/story/955

Don't know what the absolutely most recent data is. But the EU countries are beginning to crumble economically because their governments are HUGE. Greece, Spain and Ireland are just the beginning. This collapse is going to spread everywhere. they can no longer afford their nanny-state 'goodies'.

Government is not our mommy and our daddy. I already HAVE a mommy and a daddy!