So, what're your views on Communism? Personally, I'm a strong anti-Communist, and by no means do I find it a good theory in political nor economic sense. I believe that it's the right of every man or women to achieve their goals of wealth and personal finance. However, I'm a strong anti-corporate and I don't believe in the mass companies and massive gains for pure financial issues. On a political sense, Communsim is probably the worst thing that has happened with many countries; pure totalitarian states where the cult of persona's upon the dictators rule, and which bears a strong resemblence of Nazi Germany. They may be two opposites, although neither of them are better than the other. Both of these extremes have their pro's, but the con's outweigh both.
Communism is awfully impractical. One can compare it to the hippie ideology of "peace and love"... pretty, pretty, yet so untrue on a global scale. Small communist communities can easily exist, and they can be a truly beautiful things... just like an individual can believe in peace and love, practicing it in his own life, and being a beautiful person... But neither work on a global scale. Am I anti communism? Depends on how universally it is applied. (That's my little intrusion into your isolated UK world).
I've put myself down as pro-communist on your poll, though of course I'd have to recognise the failings of communism over the course of the 20th century and the need to adapt approaches and adopt new approaches to the realisation of a more just society in the 21st century. I do believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and I do believe that challenging global capitalism where it creates the conditions of sweat shop labour, starvation pay, unfair trade and explicit exploitation is far more important than the rights of individual capitalists to achieve greater wealth. I would accept that the corrupt regimes in the former USSR and China for example utterly failed in this task, though I would not accept that they were communist states. That is to say, if you're judging the theory in its strictest sense, those states did not practice that theory. The failure is not of the redistributive state, but of the totalitarian state - a failure which has been acknowledged by modern socialists such as Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Chavez's 'socialism for the 21st century', whilst strongly criticised by the most hardline communists for not going far or fast enough, is a fine example of a democratic form of socialism that guarantees basic freedoms, whilst retaining a committment to the redistribution of wealth which, in third world countries suffering the effects of two decades of neo-liberalism and have enormous gaps between rich and poor, is, I would say, highly desireable. His reforms have taught 1.5 million illiterate Venezuelans to read, provided free health care to the poorest sections of society, raised minimum wages, redistributed unused land to peasant farmers and, rather than simply nationalising industries has, in a number of instances, brought them under direct control by workers co-operatives. Thus those who create the wealth, share the wealth they produce - there is no more direct way to individual and collective human betterment. The Venezuelan model has provided a rallying call across Latin America where various shades of lefty leaders, from pink to red, have emerged over the last couple of years to challenge the backyard policies of the US that have long exploited that continent for corporate gain. Oh, it's not perfect, but it's a start, and I think it provides a great example of how genuine socialism (though no one would call it communism) can work in practice....
nice idea but it doesnt work!!!i think any political ideology that only allows you one vote in your life is fucked!!!democracy is the only way to go
Actually communism would be most effective on a global scale. When applied in isolated countries it is much harder for it to survive. The Cuban people, for example, have one of the best health care systems in the world, free to all citizens, housing is provided by the government and homelessness is not a problem, but the country remains in abject poverty due to the US embargo....
Communism is not anti-democratic. It is not intrinsically communist to have single party rule. That's the Stalinist model which, unfortunately, became the dominant one. The trouble is Marx did not specify exactly what a communist society should look like. Much of his attention was given to an assessment of capitalism which, I would say, is to this day one of the most compelling critiques of capitalist society....
the cubans give me a break most cubans flee to the usa why????better standard of living and the chance to make some sort of life for themselves!!!i say to anyone who thinks communism is a good idea go LIVE in a communist country and see how great it works youd be back in a week!!!!
How about castro??????do people get to vote every 4 years for him ??? i dont think so and ya wanna know why coz if he did give them a vote he would have been out of power in 1970!!!fact
No, the rich conservative Cubans have fled to the US to avoid redistributive measures. It's not a general trend. The poorest sections of Cuban society are often very supportive of government measures, which work in their favour. In the US, millions live without health insurance and thus cannot afford vital treatment. In Cuba everyone has access to free health care. That's a real achievement. But Cuba is not an ideal model of a communist society, and it's not a democracy - these are indeed serious flaws. However the axis is not Communism versus Democracy. The axist is Communism versus Capitalism and Democracy versus Totalitarianism. There are plenty of examples of capitalist societies operating under dictatorships much more brutal than Cuba. Pinochet's Chile for example, who was strongly supported by Thatcher and Reagan....
yes the rich of cuba pulled out and they took their money with them!and when money leaves a country everything falls apart as we can see by the underdeveloped country that is cuba today and north korea and every other country communism laid a hand on!!! why should those rice people earn the same as someone who doesnt have the same education or skills thats not fair!! yes i know america has its problem but lets face FACTS any country where you dont have free speech and freedom of the media isnt a good society in my view!!!
I agree, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and democracy should be fundamental rights, and are important prerequisites for just societies. What I would say, however, is that communism does not preclude these things, and capitalist societies in the third world are equally liable to restrict such freedoms. The problem here is not an issue of communism versus capitalism. The problem of democracy is, in part, the problem of the legacy of colonialism, where young states, generally in the third world, have not established the institutions of representative democracies, where corruption is much more prevalent, where governments are more unstable and where coups are commonplace. Pinochet, who came to power by overthrowing a democratically elected socialist government, promoted free markets, but not a free society - rather thousands of his opponents 'disappeared'. Moreover, communism is not about everyone earning the same wage regardless of their level of education. Rather it is about who produces the wealth in society, and who benefits from that wealth. It is the workers who are the producers, but it is small groups of capitalists and large shareholders who benefit from that wealth. Communism, under Marxist theory, is a system by which the workers own the means of production, cutting out the capitalists, and allowing the producers of the wealth to benefit from that wealth. In Britain, it has been estimated that if you take all the wealth and divided it equally, every person, including children, would earn around £30,000 a year. That's actually very luxurious, and more than most families earn. Now of course, one has to accept the failings of Marxist theory in relation to the modern world. It's no longer possible simply to take a Marxist blueprint and stamp it on today's society. What I would say, however, is that you can adapt the theory to make it applicable to modern societies which ensure freedoms of speech, of the press and of democratic rights. Venezuela is a prime example of modern socialism in action....
have you been to venezuela?? not exactly a dominant 1st world country is it???? i mean is the average person in venezuela earning enough to live comfortably on?? lets stop being so naive communism doesnt work lets get over it already!!!!north korea have to have an army around their borders to stop the people fleeing to south korea away from famine and death!!!any country that puts limits on people of any kind isnt somewhere that is a healthy happy country working well and in step with the rest of the 21st century!!!
Actually Venezuela has a thriving oil economy, has vast reserves of natural resources, is a dominant economic power in the region, has established an advanced continental media network to rival CNN, has paid off Argentina's debts to the IMF and has helped set up a Bank of the South to reduce the disastrous impact of IMF structural adjustment programmes on the continent. I've studied Venezuela in great detail, so I don't think telling me to get over it is really going to trump my in-depth knowledge of the country and its politics. And I have been to Latin America, have you? As I've said before, however, Venezuela is not, nor has ever claimed to be, a communist country. As I've also said, the application of a Marxist blueprint on a modern society is not particularly feasible, and I agree with you on North Korea. But my point is that Marxist ideas can and have been altered and adapted successfully to fit modern liberal democracies with hugely positive benefits....
Honestly, Peace_Phoenix... have you ever been to Cuba? Best healthcare and education in Central America... yet they don't even have shampoo in the supermarkets... these people have to sacrifice way too much for good education and pretty hospitals. (Even though, the education will be very helpful whenever Cuba turns to capitalism).
That was precisely my point. But it is not their system of government that has brought about these sacrifices, much of it is owed to the US embargo. Do you really think Cuba would be in the same situation if the embargo didn't exist? I think the economic evidence is ample to suggest that it would not. I'm assuming you've been to Cuba, did you have to fly from Canada? Also, two very important points I'm going to make here. One, I am not a huge Castro supporter, I've used Cuba here as a limited example, and I've already acknowledged the flaws to its system. Two, I do wish people would stop basing their arguments on whether I've been somewhere or not. I do actually have quite a few friends who've been to Cuba. But, this is a point I can't stress highly enough, experience is not the sole basis of knowledge and to assume that it is is a serious error in logic. I never lived in apartheid South Africa, but I can still oppose an apartheid system of government....
That was EXACTLY the example I was thinking of as I was reading your post, even before I got to this sentence.
The trouble with all economic systems is that they never work to their perfet potential. Capitalism can tolerate flaws much better than what communism can. If that makes any sense at all.
Yes, I agree... it was because of the embargo, but what led to the embargo... Communism (no matter how irrational the US was with its fear of commies)... You must realise that communism's worth is not only based on how it affects a country, it is also based on how this country now functions within the world.
