Is communism possible?

I am not talking about soviet style totalitarian socialism, or Chinese style capital socialism. According to Marx, communism is a form of society where there is no class, no government, people are self restrained, no one wants more than he needs, the lazy starve, the hard working gets the fruit of his labor in full.
Do you think it is possible for this to somehow occur?

 

Interesting question. Many states have experienced this , but all have failed to achieve the pefect society. Worse: it often ended in totalitarian governments (USSR, DDR, North Korea) wars (Vietnam, African States revolutions and uprisals (Eastern Europe) etc. There has always been a quest for a better life. From a theoritical point of view, communism would be posible and even seem attractive. The state would take care of many of your worries, there would be no unemployment, no competion between the poor and the rich etc.. Yet The Soviet Union collapsed and not only because this doctrine is an utopy. Those who don't owe anything will be happy to share, but those who own will want to keep their privileges. Hence many communist states, turned their so called paradise into hell because they tried to force everybody to share their ideas. From a political point of view, they barely reached a socialist fascist level. Yet, it is interesting to notice that many ex DDR citizens regret the "good old time" with their "social progress". Their are still many communist parties in eastern Europe and even in western Europe. Some people stil believe in this alternative. We should however make a difference between Stalinists who are nostalgic of the former Soviet Union and its influence, Nostalgics of the former Eastern European countries who claim they had a "better life" before the collapse of Socialist Europe and protesters who vote communists because they are fed up with their local governments.

 

I agree with Skipper. In the first place communism in it's original Marxist form never existed so the discussion is really pointless, but if we want to broaden the subject we might say that Communism - or whatever it was that was called so - was a failed experiment, still extant in vestigial form in Cuba and N. Korea (again, those are not Communist states per the Marx definition) that went on for 70 years until everybody gave up the idea.

Those nostalgical Eastern Europe people long only for the certainties of a planned economy and society, where jobs were secure and you knew what was going to happen. It didn't leave you any leeway of freedom, but at least you were certain of something.

At the time the joke was "What is Communism? Communism is the shining horizon of mankind. What is the horizon? It is an imaginary line far away that as we approach it recedes farther into the distance."

Communism was another good idea in social engineering, but in practice it did not even come close to be allowed to work, as the early implementers were people like Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, who completely subverted the idea. ANd if it were not these then others would take their place in turning a rosy utopia into a dark shape.

 

Marx claimed that since people needed something "superior" communism could be an alternative to religion, "the opium of the people" . But even by acting this way, he was still impregnated with Christianity. The New Testament says for instance "It is more difficult for a rich person to reach Paradise than for a camel to go through the hole of a needle" (sorry I don't have the proper English translation). Communists thought they could erase religion from their society. This was a major mistake. Solidarnosc in Poland and fundamentalism in central Asian Republics are some examples that show that communism could not replace century old religions, even by force.

 

Personally I think just the fact that you´d get all you need whether you work hard or not spoils it all. There will always be those who work hard no matter what but those who start taking advantage of the situation spoil it all. Selfishness is a major part of human nature and breaking it to pieces seems a bit too tough although ideologically sounds great. I do think some small communities have managed in this but on a larger scale don´t think it has.

 

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

 

Marxist Communism basically calls for a "perfect" society. A perfect society in turn calls for "perfect" people. I don't see the human race nearing perfection any time soon.

Later

 

As opposed to Za's first post where he states that this topic/conversation is pointless, i think it is a rather interesting idea. Like in previous examples already stated, Marxist Communism only works in Theory or on paper. In practice it can not exist. Human nature prevents it from existing.

Part of the reason why i dont think it has ever worked is that both the USSR and China were never able to produce enough goods to satisfy their own people. Well, i retract that statement. I'm not sure if the USSR could, but i am pretty sure that China had to import food to feed its people and a bad crop would lead to starvation.

However, in a country like the US, i think such a thing might be possible (in theory) as the US is very capable of producing what it needs. Still, i dont think it could ever work. It seems to apply to the public - the people - and not the Government. Just having a Government that rules the country seems anti-Marxist in the first place.

 

I agree and I don't think Communism would be possible in any large society . There are still a few Socialists attempts in Nepal or South America, but the hardcore Communism is now an outdated philosophy. However there are some small experiences than can be positivily related to it (at least to a certain extend). For instance the Kibbouts in Israel. It is true that those who went there were mostly hard workers and people knew they could rely on each other.

 

I think commune type living goes against human nature as KP said there are always those who will work and there are always those who will lay back and let them work. (such as myself )

Where my aunt and uncle live, there was a Fourieute association from the mid 1800's and I have read about them. They had a Phalanx in the area with about 100 members from 1844-1846 and it failed because the people could not get along. After this a Spiritualistic community took over in 1847 and it was run by a guy named John O. Wattles. A flood came along and wiped out everything. The community was on the Ohio River and despite the locals telling them not to build near the banks, they did anyway.

Anouther failure in recent times was the Jim Jones commune in Guneia South America. If memory serves me correctly, over 800 died in that experiment. :kenny:

Even on a small scale such as husband, wife and kids a commune only works about 50% of the time or less.

Great thread idea though !

 

You misunderstand me, I meant that as pure communism never existed and most likely never will, discussion on that subject has no base. "but if we want to broaden the subject we might say...". See?

 

Sometimes not even within yourself.

 

In a world where resources are in limited supply and there is a need for human labor to produce more than basic needs, no, communism will not work. It is simple economics at play in this not the system in which those economics occurs. So, it is not a question of capitalism or socialism as alternatives but, simply that human nature (which at least at this point is involute) will not allow it to occur in a setting of limited resources.

 

Ever seen Star Trek? I reckon they make an interesting point. If we found a way to deal with the limited resources then there is no reason why communism might not work. It would take massive re-education and technology waaaaaaay in advance of our own but if we ever managed that then sure.

 

Yeah, but I do think it also requires that there would be no jealousy, envy, total laziness, people lost to drugs abuse etc because those are things that break the backbone of the communism. SImply getting the material things together does not mean we are free from our character´s deficiencies which could ruin the rest.

 

I think Communism is impossible. It is another Utopian idea that would never work. It is human nature to desire wealth, power, and high social status. Most people want to be individuals these days and I think they would reject the idea of Communism.

 

Sound a bit like 1984, Big Brother is in charge and is not a government and Inner party members do well and live off the hard work of the outer party members who know there place. The bulk of the population are the pros who are lazy and all the rest, but as most folk here know it's a pipe dream.

 

Of all the governments that China and Cuba have had in history, Communism has been the most stable and overall given the people the best standard of living. If you had a choice between Cuba and Haiti to live, I am sure most would choose Cuba. It faired better with Russian aid but despite the best efforts of the USA it is alive and well.

 

I think the society progresses by individuals struggle for their own well being. The reason why people formed societies is because they couldn’t survive along in the ancient world. So their survival depends on their partners’ survival. By this bond of interest, they would help each other to survive for their own sake. This was communism in my opinion. When your wife or son is hungry, you would feed him/her without condition. That is because you love them. When your comrade is hungry, you would share your food with him, because you need him. If we can educate people to love others, or construct a society in which people needs others. Communism might be possible.
So my point is: If the idea is not suitable for the world, then make the world suitable for the idea.

 

I believe the utopian idea is that everything is shared equally.
What about those with say...catastrophic medical expenses just to be alive.
Wouldn't others be jealous of the expense and expect compensation?
I'm not saying this is right/correct behavior, but I believe this situation (and others) would come up.
Many types of people are "bean" counters for various reasons. Such situations would not sit well with these types.
As I tried to imply before, even within yourself communism is hard pressed.
If you need winter clothes and do not have the money for good ones (over the entire body)...would you make do with cra__y ones, or get a good pair of boots, wait.....then get a good coat, wait....and then get a good hat?
I would prefer this method to having substandard/poor everywhere all at once.
The idea is for a re-election campaign, something like a "flat-tax"....sounds goods, but is all but impossible to implement.