• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Communism

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
What Is Communism?
In theory it is the exact opposite of democracy. In pure democracy the people elect their government and the government works for the people. In pure communism everyone is a part of the government. The government controls everything. Neither are practiced in true form.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
In theory it is the exact opposite of democracy. In pure democracy the people elect their government and the government works for the people. In pure communism everyone is a part of the government. The government controls everything. Neither are practiced in true form.
Not wishing to be overly semantic, but what you describe as "pure democracy" is technically a republic, isn't it? "Pure" democracy would be a direct vote by all the people on every issue, wouldn't it?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
What Is Communism?
Communism is a social arrangement wherein the members share ownership of all essential properties and responsibilities. Communism is NOT A FORM OF GOVERNMENT. A communal society can be governed however the members choose, or government can be forced upon it from outside it.

"Communism" as a term has often been used in relation to forced communal societies governed by totalitarian dictatorships, but these were never true communes as the members didn't really 'own' anything. As true ownership implies control, and the members had very little actual control of essential properties and responsibilities.
 
Last edited:
In theory it is the exact opposite of democracy. In pure democracy the people elect their government and the government works for the people. In pure communism everyone is a part of the government. The government controls everything. Neither are practiced in true form.

In 'pure communism' there generally isn't a government.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
No, if you think about it, the top people love money, have the money, keep the money, don't give the money to the poor people. They also take control, keep control, tell the poor people how to live and that they need to work but for limited wages. It is the highest form of capitalism. If capitalism did not include greed, it would be a good thing. People should be able to excel based on their abilities but many people are held back by little things like poverty, lack of education, having to go to work because they have to try to survive, etc. We are not so different from the communists. I hope that we will be one day and that everyone will have a chance in life.
I believe you are describing some problems of capitalism and the free market, but these problems do not make it the same as communism. No system is without problems.

While I prefer the capitalist/free market economy, admittedly, wealth being sequestered by a minority is a problem that is on a similar order to the totalitarianism that has reduced most communist states to dictatorships. Despite this problem, I still see greater opportunity available for the citizens in a free market/capitalist economy than are available for a fully communist economy.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
It was an old number from years ago. But here is an updated list.

Communist state - Wikipedia

Scroll down to list of former communist states and compare it to current states.

Only 5 successful compared to the vast majority that have failed.
You could say that Nazism was successful if you just look at the German economy under Hitler. What is successful? Certainly not the abomination that is communism.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
You could say that Nazism was successful if you just look at the German economy under Hitler. What is successful? Certainly not the abomination that is communism.

Only reason I used successful is because they are still going. Though China and Cuba won't be much longer so that'll be 2 more down. One can hope we can reunite Korea one day, that would be another communist state down.

It's just not a sustainable system, history is proof.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
Only reason I used successful is because they are still going. Though China and Cuba won't be much longer so that'll be 2 more down. One can hope we can reunite Korea one day, that would be another communist state down.

It's just not a sustainable system, history is proof.
I think it is because the centralization of control that makes it easy for a person or group to take over.
 

Neutral Name

Active Member
I believe you are describing some problems of capitalism and the free market, but these problems do not make it the same as communism. No system is without problems.

While I prefer the capitalist/free market economy, admittedly, wealth being sequestered by a minority is a problem that is on a similar order to the totalitarianism that has reduced most communist states to dictatorships. Despite this problem, I still see greater opportunity available for the citizens in a free market/capitalist economy than are available for a fully communist economy.

I agree.
 

Neutral Name

Active Member
As one of the few Marxists on the forum, most of the answers in this thread are misconceptions, in Engels words:

Question 1 : What is Communism?
Answer : Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.

Question 2 : What is the proletariat?
Answer : The proletariat is that class in society which draws its means of livelihood wholly and solely from the sale of its labour and not from the profit from any kind of capital;[2] whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose whole existence depends on the demand for labour, hence, on the alternations of good times and bad in business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the nineteenth century.
Question 3 : Proletarians, then, have not always existed?
Answer : No. Poor folk and working classes have always existed, and the working classes have mostly been poor. But there have not always been workers and poor people living under the conditions just stated; in other words, there have not always been proletarians any more than there has always been free and unbridled competition.
...
Question 5 : Under what conditions does this sale of the labour of the proletarians to the bourgeoisie take place?
Answer: Labor is a commodity, like any other, and its price is therefore determined by exactly the same laws that apply to other commodities. In a regime of big industry or of free competition – as we shall see, the two come to the same thing – the price of a commodity is, on the average, always equal to its cost of production. Hence, the price of labor is also equal to the cost of production of labor.

But, the costs of production of labor consist of precisely the quantity of means of subsistence necessary to enable the worker to continue working, and to prevent the working class from dying out. The worker will therefore get no more for his labor than is necessary for this purpose; the price of labor, or the wage, will, in other words, be the lowest, the minimum, required for the maintenance of life.

However, since business is sometimes better and sometimes worse, it follows that the worker sometimes gets more and sometimes gets less for his commodities. But, again, just as the industrialist, on the average of good times and bad, gets no more and no less for his commodities than what they cost, similarly on the average the worker gets no more and no less than his minimum.

This economic law of wages operates the more strictly the greater the degree to which big industry has taken possession of all branches of production.

...

Question 7 : In what way does the proletarian differ from the slave?
Answer : The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly. The individual slave, the property of a single master, is already assured an existence, however wretched it may be, because of the master's interest. The individual proletarian, the property, as it were, of the whole bourgeois class, which buys his labour only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the proletarian class as a whole. The slave is outside competition, the proletarian is in it and experiences all its vagaries. The slave counts as a thing, not as a member of civil society; the proletarian is recognized as a person, as a member of civil society. Thus, the slave can have a better existence than the proletarian, but the proletarian belongs to a higher stage of social development and himself stands on a higher level than the slave. The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian himself; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.

Question 8 : In what way does the proletarian differ from the serf?
Answer : The serf enjoys the possession and use of an instrument of production, a piece of land, in exchange for which he hands over a part of his product or performs labour. The proletarian works with the instruments of production of another for the account of this other, in exchange for a part of the product. The serf gives up, the proletarian receives. The serf has an assured existence, the proletarian has not. The serf is outside competition, the proletarian is in it. The serf frees himself either by running away to the town and there becoming a handicraftsman or by giving his landlord money instead of labour and products, thereby becoming a free tenant; or by driving his feudal lord away and himself becoming a proprietor, in short, by entering in one way or another into the owning class and into competition. The proletarian frees himself by abolishing competition, private property and all class differences.

full text

In shorter term's the definition used in the Communist DIR of this forum is :

“Communism is the ideology and movement advocating for a socio-economic system characterised by the common ownership of the means of production. All Communists therefore ultimately agree that private property, the division of society into classes and the existence of states as a mechanism of class rule are not the “natural” condition of mankind. "

That's good if it is properly administered. The kibbutzes of Israel are and the communal living of hippies in the 1970s were good ideas. When people come together in a positive way and share, it is not a bad idea. It is when it is usurped by greedy people that it becomes a problem. Russia still is a problem. China might not be so bad now. Many people have become wealthy, not just a few. North Korea is bad. Cuba is bad but maybe getting better. In these countries the ruler keeps the people in poverty. Communism is not one thing. There is a dictatorial aspect in many communistic societies. Not that we don't have the same thing in the U.S. right now without communism but communism may be involved in our leadership as well.
 
Top