Menu
Forums
All threads
Latest threads
New posts
Trending threads
New posts
Search forums
Trending
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Upgrades
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
All threads
Latest threads
New posts
Trending threads
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Community
Debate
Does Communism work?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jared" data-source="post: 205568" data-attributes="member: 445"><p>I think it is too hasty to draw any of those conclusions that communism "does not work", as "does not work" is unknown within an economic/political ideology structured upon common ownership of the means of production by the proletariat, as one can easily argue the same thing about capitalism and liberalism. I would like to object to the claim that communism is not compatible and conflicts with our human nature; on the contrary, it conflicts with our current power systems and interests of the elite. Our nature is so complex that no scientific research that has been conducted and will be conducted, will not arrive at an answer. There will only be speculations, and this question has been tackled by philosophers ever since Plato's days. It is hard enough by cognitive scientists to investigate an insect and how it functions, etc, whether we have an innate biological nature or if we are products of external factors. </p><p></p><p>The reason liberalness has gained so much ground and seems to be beyond criticism is precisely because of its inherent protectionism and the prevailing propaganda; a filter of anti-communism, anti-socialism that permeates the media and educational system. There has existed and still exists socialist societies built up from grassroots levels with a democratic participation, involving both collectivization and communization, some which got a foothold in the history but were unfortunately dismantled by the U.S. and the West, particularly in South America and Asia, Vietnam par excellency. Another example is Catalonia, Spain, in the 1930s which had a decentralized anchor-syndicalism/communism. A society in which factories were run by the workers themselves and working councils, all which came to an end due to Francois Fascism. Another model, very similar to anarchism with socialist roots, significant for both federalists and anti-federalists in the old US, were the native Americans who created highly sophisticated and democratic federations for self-governing units. In contrast to our system, the native Americans had the ability to remove corrupt people, and even women had a significant role in decision making. They were often small units sometimes extending to 40-45.000 people operating on mutual respect derived from experience. Equality was important, they were exceedingly collaborative but also individual, elders were honored but everybody had their say. It was largely a participatory society, if you had a large number of people they would be in a federation, each village would decide for itself, but they elected one from each village to represent the village. When the representatives would meet, they had the consensus from the common people of their village. By and large, you had a much more functioning democracy. These people who are and were ironically refereed to as primitive and savage, had created a far more democratic system of self governance than any "civilized" nation of history.</p><p></p><p>I am not much in favor of Trotsky school of thought, but his analysis of the bureaucratic affairs in the CCCP, which blossomed into Stalinist and which a few "communist" states later adopted thereafter, is very readable. The collectivization in these pseudo-communist societies happened violently which was forced upon proletarians in undemocratic manners by a class which had adopted bourgeoisie mentality, a system more commonly known as Bolshevism. The final end cannot be reached by new classes of governance substituting themselves for the bourgeoisie, on the contrary, it can only be realized by the proletarians and workers themselves controlling the production, which is not unthinkable at all if we take a look at the history.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jared, post: 205568, member: 445"] I think it is too hasty to draw any of those conclusions that communism "does not work", as "does not work" is unknown within an economic/political ideology structured upon common ownership of the means of production by the proletariat, as one can easily argue the same thing about capitalism and liberalism. I would like to object to the claim that communism is not compatible and conflicts with our human nature; on the contrary, it conflicts with our current power systems and interests of the elite. Our nature is so complex that no scientific research that has been conducted and will be conducted, will not arrive at an answer. There will only be speculations, and this question has been tackled by philosophers ever since Plato's days. It is hard enough by cognitive scientists to investigate an insect and how it functions, etc, whether we have an innate biological nature or if we are products of external factors. The reason liberalness has gained so much ground and seems to be beyond criticism is precisely because of its inherent protectionism and the prevailing propaganda; a filter of anti-communism, anti-socialism that permeates the media and educational system. There has existed and still exists socialist societies built up from grassroots levels with a democratic participation, involving both collectivization and communization, some which got a foothold in the history but were unfortunately dismantled by the U.S. and the West, particularly in South America and Asia, Vietnam par excellency. Another example is Catalonia, Spain, in the 1930s which had a decentralized anchor-syndicalism/communism. A society in which factories were run by the workers themselves and working councils, all which came to an end due to Francois Fascism. Another model, very similar to anarchism with socialist roots, significant for both federalists and anti-federalists in the old US, were the native Americans who created highly sophisticated and democratic federations for self-governing units. In contrast to our system, the native Americans had the ability to remove corrupt people, and even women had a significant role in decision making. They were often small units sometimes extending to 40-45.000 people operating on mutual respect derived from experience. Equality was important, they were exceedingly collaborative but also individual, elders were honored but everybody had their say. It was largely a participatory society, if you had a large number of people they would be in a federation, each village would decide for itself, but they elected one from each village to represent the village. When the representatives would meet, they had the consensus from the common people of their village. By and large, you had a much more functioning democracy. These people who are and were ironically refereed to as primitive and savage, had created a far more democratic system of self governance than any "civilized" nation of history. I am not much in favor of Trotsky school of thought, but his analysis of the bureaucratic affairs in the CCCP, which blossomed into Stalinist and which a few "communist" states later adopted thereafter, is very readable. The collectivization in these pseudo-communist societies happened violently which was forced upon proletarians in undemocratic manners by a class which had adopted bourgeoisie mentality, a system more commonly known as Bolshevism. The final end cannot be reached by new classes of governance substituting themselves for the bourgeoisie, on the contrary, it can only be realized by the proletarians and workers themselves controlling the production, which is not unthinkable at all if we take a look at the history. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Community
Debate
Does Communism work?
Top