Has communism ever been successfully used to it's original intention? For that matter has capitalism ever been successfully used to it's original intentions, and by that I mean Adam Smith wealth of nations capitalism. You will find out no it hasn't, and for that matter this argument for and against capitalism is an argument on which system is less of a failure. History would show societies that tried to use communism have more often than not lead to poverty and societies that try Capitalism fail to less often. Sometimes someones failure triumphs past others successes.
You can't simply cherry pick and say Adam Smith was the father of all capitalism. Capitalism was born out of the objective development of the productive forces. Feudalism was incompatible with the new socialized productive forces, and only stood in the way of it's development, so the aristocracy was overthrown and the capitalists took power. It wasn't an ideology, and at the time capitalists around the world were constantly debating what capitalism even was. It was Marx who observed the tendencies with capitalism, and developed a theory about it, the good and the bad. He theorized that capitalism would spread all over the globe, forcing every country to adopt capitalism, and how it would eventually decay to the point where economic depressions and world wars would break out. He even coined the term capitalism. Adam Smith simply explained the free-enterprise system, one aspect of capitalism. Such a structure was historically progressive, but unsustainable in the long-run. A free-market system with limited government interference, and the "invisible hand of the market" creating peace and prosperity for all, is a utopia, and backs no scientific understanding. Communism is not a belief, it's not some kind of religion. It's a science. It separates itself from other utopian-socialist 'beliefs'. Marx and Engels fought against such claims. It's based on the scientific understanding of capitalism and class-society, and opens the door to the next step in human evolution. Communism has never existed, the conditions weren't right, the world wasn't integrated enough or ready for it. Individuals and isolated factors lead to its failure, not communism itself. Capitalism, however, has always been and will always be capitalism. Despite individuals, despite isolated factors, it has inherent and internal contradictions that make it obsolete, and makes socialism necessary.
If I can't use Adam Smith for Capitalism, you aren't allowed to use Karl Marx for Communism, not trying to be that way but your argument is flawed. If you can sit there and tell me communism has never existed, listen up, capitalism has never existed. They both are so flawed that they cannot work as intended, what is left is to competing failed systems. What really never happened was Marxism, no country has ever endorsed marxism. Communism has been apart of many countries, just not the communism you speak of, just as the Adam Smith type of capitalism has never been successfully done by any country, but capitalism is all over the globe. Your arguing for something that will never exist, there are factors effecting things that almighty Adam Smith and Karl Marx were not able to fully express, even though they both made convincing arguements.
But capitalism does exist, whether it's free market capitalism, or fascism, it's capitalism. Communism, by any means, has never existed because it's a system based on specific features. It's when the working class owns the means of production collectively. That hasn't happened yet. However, the private ownership of the means of production by capitalists does exist, and thus capitalism exists. This isn't based on opinions, you can't say "well both sides of the argument are right", because there is a right answer, and that answer is communism.
eminent domain, entitlements, bailouts, etc. All these are not capitalist ideas, promoted in a society that you feel is capitalist, and furthermore this recession should show you how anti-capitalist America and the rest of the world is. Why is it no country can stay capitalist, or try communism? Because it does not work, and what has been shown is a balance of the systems must be met if a society truly wants to excel at anything. There is a difference between what works in real life and what works in these books written by men like Marx and Smith. I love both of them, but true intellectuals have been disproving both there theories for years now. It really is quite redundant to argue this. It is all about balance, you take what works with communism, what works with capitalism and you fill in the grey areas. That is the only way to go about doing things in a realistic world.
I agree with you here. I disagree with your classification of communism as a science. The only balance between what we have (statism) and what some advocate (libertarianism) would be a slow fading of ideology. Until then, too little yin and too much yang will riddle our politics.
I argue we have to much Yin, right now America is not living within it's means. All these unproductive banks, unproductive companies and overall entitlements are what is plaguing this system, and that is what they all look like. Sometimes you got to tell the cute puppy no. You take citibank for example, for every dollar someone had in there bank, they were loaning 43 dollars out. That means when a loan goes bad, that is a loan that went bad 43 times over, that is a unrealistic overoptimistic way of going about loans. Same can be said for car companies, they are unrealistic overoptimistic way of doing business and now that they failed they expect us to bail them out. We need more Yang in our politics.
Those arguments are due to a lack of understanding. You can't simply mix the two systems up, they're opposites. Communism is a classless society. Capitalism is a class society. How can you "take the best from both systems"? They already tried doing that, and it failed, because of the internal contradictions within capitalism. Look. The working class will become class conscious, and violently overthrow society. That's all there is too it.
What will a wolf do when it finds it's foot is stuck in a bear trap? It will eat away it's own leg than allow itself to die of starvation. This is because it is better to take a loss of a leg, than die of starvation. This analogy is true to this, we could continue to donate large sums to failed banks and failed companies, or we could cut our losses and move on. History and nature will show you cutting your losses is better in the long run. I might argue that asking for a classless society is impossible, every organism on this planet has subclasses for there organism, because no one is the same. I think asking for non class system is immoral because it is not natural or realistic. I think when technology can facilitate a higher standard of living, that is the only time you might MIGHT see this revolution. Don't hold your breath is all I am saying, I doubt even that system would look like what Marx said it would. Your arguing something that has not existed yet, sorry buddy.
Interesting metaphor... you remind me of a friend of mine. Anyway, I'd say that sometimes the government of a bordered and sovereign state is that leg in the trap. The trap is human and the trapped is also human. Kasu... you are wrong about the violence. We disagree there as well. I know you think it's science, I think you have to believe in science.
Are you talking of borders with America and Mexico? I mean you live in California, if you look at the rate of immigrant population increase with the increase in industry the rates mirror each other. This means that California has become the 8 largest economy in the world, on the backs of the immigrant population. I think one could argue that California would not be where it was if it's borders were better. If that is not what you mean, I am sorry I misunderstood.
I'm talking of physical abstractions (borders, for example) and the egotistic labels that "secularize" the world for the sake of profit; a short-term and long-term power game played randomly for nothing other than our own ambition. Because we have nothing else. And the ambition keeps us alive but at the same time places us in positions of danger. It would be incredible to see this energy suddenly released to fulfill more positive and all-inclusive rather than violent and Hobbesian existence. Not like we're too dumb to make the choice: our minds are just numbed. For the S&P blades, this was posted at 11:11 PST.
i honestly can't believe people are even debating with you when you're too naive to think that people are greedy no matter WHAT the circumstances
But you're not thinking about what you're saying. Where does greed factor into all aspects of production and distribution being democratically controlled? Keep in mind that "class" is determined by your relationship to the means of production. Those who own the means of production are of a different class, than those who sell themselves hourly to make a living. Class is not determined by disagreements, nationality, religion, race, or other petty differences that will all be overcome after the revolution. A "Classless society" is simply the result of when the working class reverses the class dictatorship, putting themselves in the ruling class position and putting the capitalist class into the oppressed position, until the capitalists no longer exist. Then there will only be one 'class', the workers. The term class is only relevant when there are multiple classes, with one dominating over the other. By taking power and liquidating the bourgeoisie into the proletariat, the proletariat would have swept away its own supremacy as a class. The very meaning of the word class itself will become meaningless, and it will truly be a classless society.
ok anyway like i was saying people are going to look out for themselves before anyone else honestly, HONESTLY you expect everyone to share with one another? the millions and millions of citizens? lol ok THAT is why communism only works in theory
That's honestly not a very good argument. A revolution is brought on by everyone recognizing that workers around the world have exactly the same interests. It would be in everyone's best interests to cooperate and make decisions democratically. If everyone looked out for themselves, they'd have less of a chance surviving, it'd be irrational. Humans are social animals.
How do you expect billions of social animals to all come to that conclusion at the same time? Theorizing about something that can't even get that far is not going to change anything.