[Temoin la Nuit]

These aren't two parallel comparisons, but which would you rather be in? If you had to choose, at least..

1. A communist world where everything is shared and no individual property rights exist. People's jobs, etc. are all determined by how they can best serve the greater good at what they are best in.

2. A facist world where individual liberties are second to enforcing the security of the state. However, the economy is run using a capitalist free market system. Economics/business is left largely to its own accord.

I'm curious since there seem to be a lot of socialists on the forum.. for me, I would fight and die before I let myself be consigned to an environment where there was no individual achievement and property/wealth. If that means there has to be winners and losers, then that's fate.. better work smarter and not be a loser.

[BishieAddict]

For me it's "true" communism, where people can work for the common good, without having selfish desires.
People work in what's their strengths .... not driven by greed. But I think it's very hard to implement - what the Stalin and Mao created wasn't communism. however individuality would be sacrificed.

[blue_shoe]

NONE, idealized world doesn't exist cause humans are far from ideal.

[nKat]

You cannot function as a fruitful country through idealized beliefs.

Fascism. Communism. It's detrimental to our natural instinct to be free.

[McChicken]

i swear i reckon communism works. it's a beautiful idea. however humans, are humans. we destroy ourselves.

[MarineGreen]

These aren't two parallel comparisons, but which would you rather be in? If you had to choose, at least..

1. A communist world where everything is shared and no individual property rights exist. People's jobs, etc. are all determined by how they can best serve the greater good at what they are best in.

2. A facist world where individual liberties are second to enforcing the security of the state. However, the economy is run using a capitalist free market system. Economics/business is left largely to its own accord.

I'm curious since there seem to be a lot of socialists on the forum.. for me, I would fight and die before I let myself be consigned to an environment where there was no individual achievement and property/wealth. If that means there has to be winners and losers, then that's fate.. better work smarter and not be a loser.

Your definition of Communism is ok.
Personally i define Communism like this
An egalitarian classless society in which maximum liberty is granted to the individual as long as it is not detrimental to society as a whole, A society in which private property will be abolished and the means of production and the fruits there off pooled for the use of the community.

Why would you need property and wealth when you can get anything you want or need for free? Do you really need a Yacht, Porsche and Mansion? As far as individual achievement not existing in a Communist society i don't understand how you come to this conclusion? Do you only feel good when you make money? You do not feel a sense of achievement when you do well at what you do? You dont feel a sense of achievement when you excel at your hobby? If anything a Communist society will allow you more chances for personal achievement by allowing you to do basically what you want for a job and a couple of hours of community service a week. You will also have more time to pursue leisure activities than people.

[dottywine]

Definitely would rather have communism. Your rights are not taken away as long as you aren't detracting from the world. Sure, nothing is truely yours, but you are thereby free and not bound by material things.

[Phaze5ive]

Communism does not work because it goes against the nature of people. I can name several countries that flourished under communism, I just can't name people that enjoyed flourishing under them.

[MarineGreen]

Communism does not work because it goes against the nature of people. I can name several countries that flourished under communism, I just can't name people that enjoyed flourishing under them.

Name one? Are you confusing Communism with Socialism? To my knowledge we have only seen Authoritarian Socialism which is basically the Lenninsts, Maoists, and Trotskyists and the schools of socialism which have major influences taken from those three. If you are talking about the the Spanish or the Asian Anarchist movement which happened in Manchuria then those were in difficult times and were only around for a short while. Also i think its all a paradigm to think that communism is against our nature. It takes time to for communism its a gradual process. You cant expect it to happen over night.

[Phaze5ive]

Name one? Are you confusing Communism with Socialism? To my knowledge we have only seen Authoritarian Socialism which is basically the Lenninsts, Maoists, and Trotskyists and the schools of socialism which have major influences taken from those three. If you are talking about the the Spanish or the Asian Anarchist movement which happened in Manchuria then those were in difficult times and were only around for a short while. Also i think its all a paradigm to think that communism is against our nature. It takes time to for communism its a gradual process. You cant expect it to happen over night.

I was talking more of applied communism, not what true communism should be. Countries that tend to be more "red" don't fare that well, hence the reason I'm here in the US.

[MarineGreen]

I was talking more of applied communism, not what true communism should be. Countries that tend to be more "red" don't fare that well, hence the reason I'm here in the US.

Tell me of these countries please?

[Temoin la Nuit]

Name one? Are you confusing Communism with Socialism? To my knowledge we have only seen Authoritarian Socialism which is basically the Lenninsts, Maoists, and Trotskyists and the schools of socialism which have major influences taken from those three. If you are talking about the the Spanish or the Asian Anarchist movement which happened in Manchuria then those were in difficult times and were only around for a short while. Also i think its all a paradigm to think that communism is against our nature. It takes time to for communism its a gradual process. You cant expect it to happen over night.

Saying that communism can't be criticized because it hasn't been achieved in its true form is a cop-out, don't you think?

Why would you need property and wealth when you can get anything you want or need for free? Do you really need a Yacht, Porsche and Mansion? As far as individual achievement not existing in a Communist society i don't understand how you come to this conclusion? Do you only feel good when you make money? You do not feel a sense of achievement when you do well at what you do? You dont feel a sense of achievement when you excel at your hobby? If anything a Communist society will allow you more chances for personal achievement by allowing you to do basically what you want for a job and a couple of hours of community service a week. You will also have more time to pursue leisure activities than people.

I wouldn't need it at all. I mean, heck, I don't need it now.

I want it. That's the difference. Luxury and wealth is relative. If everyone has a car, then everyone has a car. But if everyone else has a Yugo and you have a Porsche... that's luxury. And you really don't need luxury. But heck, it's a lot of fun.

And anyways, I don't just feel good when I make money.. I feel great. I mean, really.. there's all different sorts of people. And I think communism is a poor system to take account of that.

[SleepingForest]

In politics, extremism NEVER works. Whether it be capitalism, communism, theocracy, autocracy, monarchy, or whatever. Choosing one or the other had no practical use other than serving as a seed for an intellectual debate and dreamers. The key would be to implement aspect of all the 'good' parts and leave out the 'bad'. Unfortunately, people as a whole will never understand that and hence we'll continue to have periodic recessions as people 'flip-flop' back and forth between different models.

I just realized something that makes my above statements inaccurate, though not wrong. Communism and facism aren't really something that can be compared since Communism is really an economic model (with some politics mixed in it) and fascism purely a political. If that's not clear, then consider a democratic state with a socialist economic policy as opposed to a capitalistic economy. The old Soviet Union was basically a Communist Fascist nation as is the current North Korean regime. So you can't really compare the two since you can have both. China I think is the same as well with a good mix of capitalism.

[Temoin la Nuit]

In politics, extremism NEVER works. Whether it be capitalism, communism, theocracy, autocracy, monarchy, or whatever. Choosing one or the other had no practical use other than serving as a seed for an intellectual debate and dreamers. The key would be to implement aspect of all the 'good' parts and leave out the 'bad'. Unfortunately, people as a whole will never understand that and hence we'll continue to have periodic recessions as people 'flip-flop' back and forth between different models.

I just realized something that makes my above statements inaccurate, though not wrong. Communism and facism aren't really something that can be compared since Communism is really an economic model (with some politics mixed in it) and fascism purely a political. If that's not clear, then consider a democratic state with a socialist economic policy as opposed to a capitalistic economy. The old Soviet Union was basically a Communist Fascist nation as is the current North Korean regime. So you can't really compare the two since you can have both. China I think is the same as well with a good mix of capitalism.

Yeah, I'm aware that one is an economic model, and the other one a political one.. that's why I put in the first post that they can't really be directly compared. Still.. you can still have people choose between two alternatives. Let's say I offer to give you a hundred bucks, or three days of unpaid vacation. Different things (money vs. free time), but you still like one better, right? One has more utility/value to you.

[SleepingForest]

Yeah, I'm aware that one is an economic model, and the other one a political one.. that's why I put in the first post that they can't really be directly compared. Still.. you can still have people choose between two alternatives. Let's say I offer to give you a hundred bucks, or three days of unpaid vacation. Different things (money vs. free time), but you still like one better, right? One has more utility/value to you.

I don't know how Vietnam has their communist system set up but most of the communist states have been fascist. Communism in a democratic state won't work because there'll be people who want more money or prefer to control how their money is spent rather than the government (through charities that are tax write-offs).