Written by [user id=20090] on 13.06.2007 at 10:46

before making decisions about humans, one might consider that environment where they have grown up might have strong influence on them. So if someone grows up in a society, where all have every-man-for-himself attitude, he might not suit in an anarchistic or communistic society, while people grown up in a different environment are not like that(for example level of sharing and mutual aid is very high in some african tribes).

Written by Konrad on 16.06.2007 at 12:48

http://www.worldreports.org/

This website does not discuss Communism in THEORY, but it deals heavily with analzying soviet tactics.

Written by Anton Alcolust on 16.07.2007 at 13:49

communism = fascism ! death to all

Written by Anton Alcolust on 16.07.2007 at 13:49

communism = fascism ! death to all

Written by [user id=24632] on 17.07.2007 at 04:13

Written by Anton Alcolust on 16.07.2007 at 13:49

communism = fascism ! death to all

Their are capitalist dictator that are ten times more brutal then what their have been communist ones. So capitalism = fascism too.

Written by Anton Alcolust on 19.07.2007 at 10:35

Written by [user id=24632] on 17.07.2007 at 04:13

Written by Anton Alcolust on 16.07.2007 at 13:49

communism = fascism ! death to all

Their are capitalist dictator that are ten times more brutal then what their have been communist ones. So capitalism = fascism too.

like your president ?

Written by Anton Alcolust on 16.07.2007 at 13:49

communism = fascism ! death to all

Written by Taktsekte on 26.07.2007 at 19:01

Written by Anton Alcolust on 16.07.2007 at 13:49

communism = fascism ! death to all

You are completely wrong. Neither in theory nor in practice do these ideologies look a bit like each other. First of all, while Communism has a philosophical background (Historical Materialism, Hegel, Marx, Adorno...), Fascism is just a mixture of (mostly discriminating) unfounded theories with the sole goal to unite society in the belief of a powerful nation under a strong leader, with a well-defined social and military hierarchy, and of fighting actual criminals and potential ones. Second, while Communism can only be defined as Totalitarian (which means that the Party has the right and duty to interfere in practically every aspect of life, especially in those where politics should have no place in: sports, education, social meetings...), Fascism might be Totalitarian (like German National Socialism or Afghan Talibanism) but also Authoritarian (i.e. a society with no freedom of the press or freedom of speech where the leader always decides what to do and treats his population like slaves, but where some social aspects like business or sports are left alone by the ruling party). This is the case, for example, of Iberian and South American Fascism (Franco, Salazar, Pinochet, Videla...) or Horthy's Hungary: those were inhuman tyrannies with a free market and mostly a lack of political control in the influence of external agents (for example: in the 70's, Spanish people usually crossed the French border to watch porn movies in Perpignan, lol, and Latin American Marxists were able to gather revolutionary information and meet outside the borders of their respective Fascist countries like Chile or Paraguay), unlike the Third Reich, North Korea or East Germany.

You cannot name any similarities between Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, Salazar etc. and Stalin or Pol Pot as an argument to remark how close Fascists and Communists (Stalinists) are to each other. All of them were no dictators but tyrants. Communism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, not a newborn tyranny: Stalinism is another form of Fascism, where the people are now exploited by a new ruling class: the Party officials, who now accumulate capital in the name of the State and further impoverish the workers. Stalinism is not an extreme form of Socialism (that's Anarchism, which I do not support either by the way) but a tyranny under state capitalism.

As far as I am concerned, I am a Leninist. I support the workers' revolution and the ending of capitalism in the whole world.

Written by Taktsekte on 27.07.2007 at 17:39

But you cannot say "in practice, Fascism and Communism are the same" because Communism has never been largely applied except, to some extent, in certain small communities (agrarian cooperatives, kibbutzim, hippy communes...); by the way, they do not really need any democratic structures to work properly, and torture methods are used in countries that nowadays want to sell themselves as paladins for democracy like the USA (Guantanamo anyone?) or the Russian Federation (ask those Chechnyan mutilated children and raped women about the Russian "peacekeeping" soldiers). Anyway, these have nothing to do with the former Eastern Bloc. Stalin's Soviet Union was Stalinist, period.

Written by Anthem on 30.06.2007 at 07:50

Comrade..... youve been at this a while, your disertation on how communism has never been tried in practice and works best in theory. The same could be said for the opposite .. Capitalism. It too has never been tried purely in practice. This leaves us with "Reality". Reality has proven time and time again that a people of lesser govt react more positive than a people of more govt. I shall site irrifutable examples.

North south Korea.... Who is more prosporus??
North or South Vietnam ?
China or Tiawan
East West Germany?
United States or Canada

All examples have countries with simular natural Resources and yet the govt of choice is the determining factor!!

Sorry my friend but reality trumps ideals!!

Written by [user id=5381] on 14.10.2007 at 14:14

Comrade Comrade Frosty i salute you and send you my regards....
Communism is actually a ... how can i express it.... more like a medium and a way of living, a style which will make humans become humans, and not the opposite as some may think.
It aids the world's progression to become more humane, forces equality, and demolishes greed creating a better world. The big problem is that humans are not ready to face such excellent regime and cannot keep up with its way of thinking. The problem in communism lies in its idealism for our time... It just came just very early. But the time will come, and the world will wake, and i believe sooner or later, communism will prevail

Written by Anthem on 19.10.2007 at 06:22

It pains me to see that since my June post not a single communist supporter has retorted my points about different countries that prospur and which ones dont.

example.... north south korea, East West Germany, etc. In each of these examples capitalsim exceeds social"ism".

please a response. Which system is superior in practice??

Written by Bulletdodger on 18.10.2007 at 16:18

I totaly agree.To change a whole society will take years , maybe centuries , but it will be worth it .Every man should try live like that.Call me crazy but I hate it when I see a dady's boy getting everything on a silver plate , while others work their whole lives just to have for food and a place to sleep."Kojto ne raboti , ne trjabva da jade"(Who doesn't work , shouldn't eat) - It's an old Bulgarian saying that I think makes my point. Also i have a good example what should be communism: If you have 2 breads and only need one and see someone who has none you give him one bread. In the case of capitalism you would just continue on your way. The reason that communism failed is that the people on top got greedy and that you had no freedom of speech nor any kind of art. People think that Tibet was a paradise before China , but they're so wrong. Those who weren't of blue blood or monks were treated like in the medieval ages. They were illiterate , exploited and had brutal punishment for disobeying ( their hands were cut off for stealing or their eyes were gouged off). With the coming of communism they were given basic education , the laws were the same for everyone and the standard of living was improved.The greatest bullshit nowadays is that a country is considered communistic if it doesn't do as the world powers say. Now in Serbia everything is done by the will of the EU. Everyone says that privatisation is the best choice , but in Serbia's case it's worse.Many people are unemployed or doing jobs far worse than they should be (college graduates clean toilets and work in bars while those with "connections" have better jobs. The goverment is always blackmailed for the war crimes 1991-95 and this goverment had nothing to do with it. Both capitalism and communism have their flaws and virtues.
P.S. Smrt fasizmu- sloboda narodu( death to fascism - freedom to the people )

Written by Anthem on 19.10.2007 at 06:22

It pains me to see that since my June post not a single communist supporter has retorted my points about different countries that prospur and which ones dont.

example.... north south korea, East West Germany, etc. In each of these examples capitalsim exceeds social"ism".

please a response. Which system is superior in practice??

Written by [user id=20090] on 21.10.2007 at 23:28

Written by Anthem on 19.10.2007 at 06:22

It pains me to see that since my June post not a single communist supporter has retorted my points about different countries that prospur and which ones dont.

example.... north south korea, East West Germany, etc. In each of these examples capitalsim exceeds social"ism".

please a response. Which system is superior in practice??

I'm not sure I'd call myself a communist but I can offer a short response, if it's okay. As has been said in the first post, communism hasn't actually been tried in practice on a big scale. Of course countries like North Korea and USSR have labeled themselves as striving towards communism but in reality they have little to do with it. In communism there would be no state, common ownership and life would be coordinated by workers themselves, sharing all the goods gained from production. As you can probably see, countries you mentioned are/were quite far from this path(at least in my opinion) and are/were just shallow dictatorships of some people with lust for power.

It is true though that usually the richest countries are with the most capitalist politics, however, often such countries also have bigger differences between rich and poor than others and actually quite high amount of people who live in below average conditions. Also as there are limited amount of resources on earth it is inevitable that if a lot is concentrated into hands of few, little is left for others, so I don't think that all will be rich in capitalist communities or even above the poverty level, because it seems to favor less equal division of wealth more. Of course I can't say for sure, because I haven't researched it extensively but that's how it seems to me now at least.