Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:39 pm**

A diverse topic; however I have been researching much into Stalin, Lenin, Mao’s regimes and have pondered on their innate failings to acknowledge the key principle of Marxism.
Many people often make the presumption that regimes such as Stalinism and Maoism do indeed embody the ideology of true communism. The lines must be draw however, when analysing their respective regimes. What was christened Stalinism is naught more than a grotesque form of Marxism.
Because of such men as Stalin and Mao, communism has been inevitably tainted. Looking at history though, could Communism have exerted itself in a successful manner? Say someone other than Stalin taken over the Soviet Union (Leon Trotsky for one example), could the countries communist beliefs have been saved from disintegration?

If it could, what improvements could have been made? If it was always doomed to fail, why?

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:58 pm**

I believe real Communism would have a chance but only if those that would seek to implement it would have the commitment to murder absolutely everyone that would be bold enough to offer a dissenting voice. The Communist purges of the past simply didn’t go far enough. You would certainly have to also include anyone that could not adapt their thoughts, feelings, beliefs and lifestyle to one of total self sacrifice and brotherhood. Damn it. If it weren’t for those pesky, flawed emotional humans we’d have a really cool world. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” Sounds like the motto a most superheroes. What could be wrong with that?

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:00 pm**

What LFB said. No way it'll ever work.

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:14 pm**

Darth wrote:Many people often make the presumption that regimes such as Stalinism and Maoism do indeed embody the ideology of true communism.

indeed every regime has it own way of implementing it's version. After the two specials I've seen on North Korea, it's almost a joke that they, actually, call themselves 'communist'. It's more like a crazy, tyrannical dork and his petrified, starving, brainwashed slaves...

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:25 pm**

I think that under the right circumstances it could have worked. Though Stalin’s and Mao's regimes, and many other so called "Communist" regimes have detached themselves from the original Marxist ideology; they’ve all acquitted themselves and their regimes with certain aspects of Communism. And while these regimes have generally been embedded in oppression, the economic system has worked, for a short time. If the right resources were available, then it might indeed be possible to create a successful Communist society.

The failing is, of course, humans are too quick to see personal gain. Though I say this is a failing, I merely only in it’s applicability to Communism. The desire to obtain more brings out the most creative sides in human nature.

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:42 pm**

Prodigal Knight Revan wrote:I think that under the right circumstances it could have worked.
The failing is, of course, humans are too quick to see personal gain. Though I say this is a failing, I merely only in it’s applicability to Communism. The desire to obtain more brings out the most creative sides in human nature.

Well that is really the point isn't it? Under the right circumstances. Let's say you take a few thousand really dedicated communists and transport them to another planet. At the onset chances are their idealism would probably endure for a time but the fly in the ointment are the human beings themselves. If at some point some of the original settlers didn't begin to yearn for individuality and personal freedom, their offspring would almost certainly. Then you'd have to implement oppression to maintain control of your population and revolution would begin to rear its ugly head. My point is that there are NO circumstances in which Communism can survive so long as human nature prevails.

PS. Isn't this more of a THINK TANK topic?

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:48 pm**

This American Liberal-to-the-Left-of-Trotsky would probably thrive on a kibbutz...

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:49 pm**

Communism had the opportunity to work in Portugal, after the Revolution of '74. Unfortunately the 'proletariat' didn't really know how to run the internal structure after they took over (sic) and their problems in Africa didn't help matters-thus opening the early doors for the Arabs to take over a bulk of the country's economy. (but this is very debatable and a topic unto itself...)

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:53 pm**

We've kind of diverged from the original topic; which is, could they have worked in Stalin’s and Mao’s time.

My point is that there are NO circumstances in which Communism can survive so long as human nature prevails.

I disagree with this. While this point certainly has validity (certainly more in capitalist nations) Human nature is a complex thing. For example, survival is a driving force in human nature – yet suicide bombers and kamikazes willingly give their lives; in the name of belief. So I think if a set of people believe in an ideal strongly enough; the type of thinking it takes for communism to succeed may be possible.

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:03 pm**

But how do you get a big enough group to believe in the same thing that strongly, and sustain such belief over time? It just seems incredibly unlikely--improbable--thatit could be achieved. It either wouldn't work in the first place or it wouldn't last.

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:03 pm**

Darth wrote:Looking at history though, could Communism have exerted itself in a successful manner?

sorry, I took this as a generalisation, thanks for clarifying the topic.

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:03 pm**

Prodigal Knight Revan wrote:We've kind of diverged from the original topic; which is, could they have worked in Stalin’s and Mao’s time.

I must be misreading the original post then. I thought the question was could it have worked, period, if others implemented it other than Stalin and Mao.

danlo wrote:
Darth wrote:Looking at history though, could Communism have exerted itself in a successful manner?
sorry, I took this as a generalisation, thanks for clarifying the topic.

:::whew:::

Glad I wasn't the only one...

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:09 pm**

Menolly wrote:
Prodigal Knight Revan wrote:We've kind of diverged from the original topic; which is, could they have worked in Stalin’s and Mao’s time.
I must be misreading the original post then. I thought the question was could it have worked, period, if others implemented it other than Stalin and Mao.

Which took place in Stalin and Mao's time.

Could they have been functioned in such a way to be more successful?

Sorry for the lack of clarity in my topic. discussion such has this has a variety of alternating paths to discuss; so I wasn't too clear.

Let us consider this; say Stalin had not been in charge, and whoever was would be more concerned over keeping communism in tact with his own country than international power. All that money wasted on the Cold War, proxy wars, space and arms race - could have been used to improve the living standards of the Communist people in the Soviet Union.

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:15 pm**

OK, I need a second cup of coffee,

Darth wrote:say Stalin had not been in charge, and whoever was would be more concerned over keeping communism in tact with his own country than international power. All that money wasted on the Cold War, proxy wars, space and arms race - could have been used to improve the living standards of the Communist people in the Soviet Union.

Yes, that would hold true with Marx's vision...in a perfect world, without other international pressures (beginning with WW2)...certainly could have given it a better chance to work, as intended.

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:22 pm**

Prodigal Knight Revan wrote:
Menolly wrote:
Prodigal Knight Revan wrote:We've kind of diverged from the original topic; which is, could they have worked in Stalin’s and Mao’s time.
Which took place in Stalin and Mao's time. Could they have been functioned in such a way to be more successful.

Let us consider this; say Stalin had not been in charge, and whoever was would be more concerned over keeping communism in tact with his own country than international power. All that money wasted on the Cold War, proxy wars, space and arms race - could have been used to improve the living standards of the Communist people in the Soviet Union.
Well then consider this. Is it even possible for Communism to have begun in Russia without the implementation of bloody revolution and following that countrywide oppression? Normal people kind of resent being murdered by the millions so I'm guessing an Iron Fisted leader like Stalin was an integral ingredient. If the Russians of that era had had a peaceful vote on the adoption of Communism for their country and had an overwhelmingly positive response from the people then perhaps it would have had a snowball's chance of lasting. If you have to wipe out an alarming percentage of a population to achieve your goals and then force people to adopt your way of thinking with an iron boot chances are what you want is probably unatural.

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:24 pm**

LORD FOUL'S BRAIN wrote:
Prodigal Knight Revan wrote:
Menolly wrote: Which took place in Stalin and Mao's time. Could they have been functioned in such a way to be more successful.

Let us consider this; say Stalin had not been in charge, and whoever was would be more concerned over keeping communism in tact with his own country than international power. All that money wasted on the Cold War, proxy wars, space and arms race - could have been used to improve the living standards of the Communist people in the Soviet Union.
Well then consider this. Is it even possible for Communism to have begun in Russia without the implementation of bloody revolution and following that countrywide oppression? Normal people kind of resent being murdered by the millions so I'm guessing an Iron Fisted leader like Stalin was an integral ingredient. If the Russians of that era had had a peaceful vote on the adoption of Communism for their country and had an overwhelmingly positive response from the people then perhaps it would have had a snowball's chance of lasting. If you have to wipe out an alarming percentage of a population to achieve your goals and then force people to adopt your way of thinking with an iron boot chances are what you want it probably unatural.
Good post. Yes, Mao had the same faults as well; on an even larger scale to Stalin - shockingly.

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:33 pm**

danlo wrote:...in a perfect world, without other international pressures (beginning with WW2)...certainly could have given it a better chance to work, as intended.

In a perfect world, Communism would not be necessary, due to the simple fact that the world is already perfect. Besides, I have no real desire to help Rev assemble his History project, and when you combine that with the fact that I believe Communism is inherently evil, and could only succeed by keeping all the little people ignorant and uneducated, much like the Religious leaders of the world in the 4th-8th centuries tried to do, then my desire to NOT help Rev with his History homework could be seen as evidence that I am indeed all for communism, after all.

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:48 pm**

Murrin wrote:But how do you get a big enough group to believe in the same thing that strongly, and sustain such belief over time? It just seems incredibly unlikely--improbable--thatit could be achieved. It either wouldn't work in the first place or it wouldn't last.

Not as impossible as you would think. It is no coincidence that many people in the same culture tend to have the same beliefs. I suppose in order for this theory to be placed into action; there would have to be indoctrinate the people who would carry out such an ideology.

Another fact to remember is; tens of millions in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba etc believed in the system and complied with it. Millions more were made to comply; but there were believers.

dANdeLION wrote:I believe Communism is inherently evil

I believe that as an ideology and personal belief; Communism is a wonderful concept. However it is often darkened by Stalinism and other malignant regimes that called themselves "Communists", but in fact are not.

In the practical world, however, Communism is a very hard thing to achieve. This is where it fails. All men can't be equal because a small minority must take the place of the state - therefore creating inequality through power.

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:57 pm**

Unfortunately for you, I am right and you are wrong.

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:58 pm**

Yeah, that's your opinion--which might be best left in the Tank. The extended argument of Marx's original vision has been interperated to suppose (I'm sure people have heard this many times before) that one day a utopian nexus will be achieved where machines do all the work and everyone can live a life of ease...so what you're infering is that I better get off my evil fat ass, stop playing on the computer all the time and get a JOB?!!

Thanks alot!

Kevin's Watch

Could Communism have worked?

Could Communism have worked?