leibowde84
Veteran Member
I think I took this line the wrong way.
-
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!
Does Communism Have a Future?
- Thread starter Waterbearer
- Start date
leibowde84
Veteran Member
But, we didn't have to try and make our economy look better. It plainly was. Remember when Nixon made a fool out of them? Grocery stores?!
dust1n
Zindīq
Ah, well if that is the definition of stifling progress, than America, at least, spent more money to stifle progress. Taxpayer money mind you.
Augustus
…
It can work well in certain situations, mostly when the problem is known and the solution is, to some extent, also known.
Also, the idea that it stifles innovation doesn't mean that it prohibits innovation. Where a free market system works best is that it allows people to make their own decisions and take their own risks. It allows people to be individually wrong, but the system to work as a whole as it doesn't rely on any given individual to be correct.
The centralised system, to a much greater extent, relies on a given individual to be correct. The odds on me winning the lottery are tiny, but it is odds on that someone will win it.
In the long term, the centralised system is far less innovative, especially when there are harsh penalties for being wrong as there were under Soviet Communism.
Unless a communist system can remove its reliance on large bureaucracies to run the economy, it is doomed to long term problems and stagnation. The problem can be mitigated in theory, but perhaps not in practice due to human greed, corruption and incompetence. A system has to work despite these failings as they are a given, a system can't be based on the idea that these can be controlled or legislated against.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
What about China then?
I think people need to do some reading, even just on Wikipedia, to see that Marxism does not equal communism. Marxism is just a theory about how communism might come about. I'm a communist but I'm not a Marxist. I think Marxism is a failed and outdated theory.
Anyway, I think communism has a future and has always been with us in one way or another. People participate in communism and socialism through co-opts, file sharing (which involves hundreds of millions of people throughout the world) and many other examples.
Anyway, I think communism has a future and has always been with us in one way or another. People participate in communism and socialism through co-opts, file sharing (which involves hundreds of millions of people throughout the world) and many other examples.
Christians are pretty much supposed to be communists, anyway. Lol.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
We were already making progress, having grocery stores instead of rations, freedom of thought, etc. Can't exclude that.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Communism as we have known it is an extreme form of socialism.
Socialism is clearly not dead and has a role in the future of political thought.
The labour party has recently elected a new leader by overwhelming popular vote.
He is an extreme left wing idealist, and has engaged the minds and hopes of a largely young previously non political
electorate. This is much to the horror of the established senior labour party members, who now see themselves as leading a centerist party. And believe that a more socialist position to be unelectable.
However it is they who now find themselves sidelined.
Socialism clearly still has a large appeal to the young and idealistic.
Socialism is clearly not dead and has a role in the future of political thought.
The labour party has recently elected a new leader by overwhelming popular vote.
He is an extreme left wing idealist, and has engaged the minds and hopes of a largely young previously non political
electorate. This is much to the horror of the established senior labour party members, who now see themselves as leading a centerist party. And believe that a more socialist position to be unelectable.
However it is they who now find themselves sidelined.
Socialism clearly still has a large appeal to the young and idealistic.
Augustus
…
He is more of a traditional European left wing social democrat rather than an extreme left wing idealist. Big difference.
The left has moved so far to the centre that their traditional position is now seen as being 'extreme'.
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I don't know, the Taliban, maybe?
You seem to not realize, that much like every other political, social, and economic theory, there are left and right-wing versions of them. Soviet Russia and Communist China represent a very far-right form of communism. And when you look at the bigger picture, it's a given that any form of state, society, and economy that goes too far right doesn't work, because you eventually end up with too much centralized power and and too great of wealth distribution. Even things like social Darwinism, a part of far right Capitalism, is loosing favor because it doesn't work.
It reminds me of a disgusting irony during the Viet Nam war.
I'd hear that we're fighting godless commies.
So here I am....completely godless, & that old commie, Richard Nixon, thought I should go over there to do some killing.
(Nixon was a commie despite his excoriating them because he was an economic authoritarian...national wage & price controls.)
So only healthy hetero males with low draft lottery numbers were stuck fighting this war.
(Unless you had the right church or political connections, eg, Clinton, to get out of service.)
I was head'n to Canuckistan til he cancelled the draft in the nick of time.
dust1n
Zindīq
I don't. Progress is a blanket word that takes many forms.
dust1n
Zindīq
You talking Expo of '59?
dust1n
Zindīq
I have no particular apologizing to do on behalf of Soviet Russia. It went from naive and dangerous, to basically forever dangerous, especially with Stalin.
But even by your definition of what it means to stifle innovation, capitalism has an overwhelming amount of internal mechanisms and pressures that commonly stifle innovation. Some innovations have disastrous consequences.
Term limits are very nice aren't they? There are so many people who have a say in government that it prevents one megalomaniac from taking control of the entire state... which I guess works out sometimes, but mostly tends to be the basis for many of the most egregious states to ever exist (the single person way, I mean, if that wasn't clear).
dust1n
Zindīq
Talk about an uncomfortable moment in world history.
Either way, 2 years later, they sent a person to orbit the planet. That's not to say color TV isn't impressive, or that Khrushchev isn't a douche.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Here's one:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hostiletakeover.asp
DEFINITION of 'Hostile Takeover'
The acquisition of one company (called the target company) by another (called the acquirer) that is accomplished not by coming to an agreement with the target company's management, but by going directly to the company's shareholders or fighting to replace management in order to get the acquisition approved. A hostile takeover can be accomplished through either a tender offer or a proxy fight.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
the policies he is advocating are pre new labour. and have not been party policy since the 50's through 70's.
To say the left has moved to the centre is nonsense... the left are where they have always been.
The Party had moved to the centre
Atman
Member
How are we defining Communism? Socialism? Capitalism? Etc. These words are often so devoid of meaning it is hard to say whether or not one of them has an active future in public policy. At any rate as I see it, most developed countries are now a mix of free-enterprise capitalism, and government owned or provided services (often dubbed socialism). I see no obvious reason that this system of mixed-economics will give way to either full blown free-enterprise capitalism, or command-economy socialism (ex: communism). Rather the debate will be to what extent these mixed economies should embrace free-market policies, and to what extent they should embrace socialist policies.