Amazon.com Widgets
  • Right now, no. Eventually, yes.

    An extreme issue with previous communist systems that failed was the theory of communism in one country, specific to Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism. A communist nation operating under this idea is doomed, for one reason. They face the malicious intents of a largely capitalist world. During the Cold War, for the most part, communist countries engaged in trade with other communist countries, which tended to be undeveloped/poor/weak resource wise (as socialist revolutions were most enticing to places in this position). Communist states were persecuted and shunned from international trade. The Soviet Union basically kept the second world afloat, and stemming from a combination of incompetent leadership, and their own rapidly depleting resources, they fell, and with them went most other socialist nations. What we can take from this is the realization that while earth is dominated by capitalism, communism cannot survive. The original Marxist theory, that a transition to communism must be worldwide, has been proven.
    Other than this, communism leaves nothing to be desired. The claim that communism causes a lack of incentive to excel is absurd, and one look at the amount of innovation that came out of Soviet Russia will show this. What capitalists love to call "lack of incentive" is simply a shift to purer incentives, other than greed (gasp!). Is this not possible? Is it not possible for one to draw his motivation from a passion for his field? Not while American culture is around, I'll tell you that much. But culture and humanity progress, as they have throughout all of recorded history. Capitalism was a product of this progression, as someday communism will be as well. Did the world see capitalism coming at the peak of feudal times? Doubt it. As the social conscience of our race evolves more and more with every passing day, countries will move toward the transition together as mixed economies grow more socialistic. As the common men across the world gain awareness, they will overthrow the plutocracy in a more or less synchronized fashion, eliminating the current problems that communist states face. This is the direction of humanity, whether the currently passive, brainwashed masses know it or not. At the end of the day, the people are in control, not the crony-capitalist plutocracy which they have been taught to accept.

  • Yes, but it depends on what you mean by the question.

    Communism is the main economic system which was used by humans for most of their 400,000 years on Earth. That said, it really only works well for small societies; that is, groups numbering around 100 individuals. When populations grow larger than that, pure communism becomes extremely strained. Communism in industrial situations can be catastrophic because quotas do not capture and transmit data nearly as effectively as markets.

    That said, societies with heavily communist elements can likely flourish in a modern world. An example is the recent resurgence of China as an economic superpower. People often call them communist, and to an extent this is true. They certainly have a lot of communism written into their internal policy. However, there is a large element of capitalism in their international policy, and only time will tell if this hybridization will maintain its momentum in the long term.

  • Of course it could

    It is a perfectly reasonable and logical form of government, it's just never been properly applied. As a Canadian, I lack that natural hate for communism, and understand its principles, because I grew up with a more open point of view. Americans seem to think its just when the government controls and owns everything, but that really isn't much different than things are with laws and taxes. In a properly functioning communist country every whose a citizen one shares the money equally. So as long as the economy is strong and the government is just. Communism is not at all a bad idea and could certainly work.

    If a little kid can do 2+2 don't blame math.

  • With one condition.

    The reason communism fails is due to the massive amounts of greed which the elitist group has and uses to effectively cause the fall of communism because communism is designed to give equality to all individuals. When this is not followed, it collapses. The only way communism could work would be if there was a board individuals who were given the power of a leader (the 1%) which could decide how to distribute the wealth evenly while those not given power (the 99%) would make known to the board if the wealth was not being distributed evenly. By no means are the 1% allowed to increase their own wealth without increasing the wealth of the other 99%. Should such an accusation of greed arise, be it within the 1% the board member in question will be removed and a new one will be instated. There is no need to send them to a prison for such actions, because equality would not be present if someone is below the equality line. The key to a functioning communistic society is a leader who replaceable and lives exactly the same as the rest of his or her people.

  • It wouldn't work

    In a small environment, like a tiny village in the 1400s, Communism would definitely work. Villagers all do their job to survive and prosper, and everyone benefits, but in a large environment, say, an ENTIRE country, the system would crumble. Communism relies on every one citizen doing their job, and at the end of the day, if everyone did good and the economy was up, all would prosper. The problem is all about incentive, why work hard if you knowing that if other people work harder, you'll get the same reward. In this day and age, Communism just doesn't work.

  • Everyone will cooperate if they want a better place to live in.

    If everyone is fair and there is no racism and no sexuality, everyone would want to live there. They would have strict rules which everyone would follow. They would want to listen to the rules themselves because they would obviously want to live in a better place. They already kind of did it in Russia but Stalin came along and did everything he could in his power to stop it.

  • Only with extreme abundance; Think Star Trek Universe

    With enough abundance of resources and the mechanization of labor we could get to the point where we can abolish money let everyone live freely and comfortably and personal interest would be sufficient to get the small numbers of people to actually work that are needed.

    In fact that's basically the way Star Treks works.

    So maybe we'll get there in the future but in the meantime any attempt to create communism without a large amount of abundance and mechanization is going to be a disaster.

    When it works there won't even be any resistance because if we can suddenly have endless abundance and mechanization of labor then the rich stay rich even getting more wealth and everyone else gets to be rich too so it would require no sacrifices from the upper classes.

  • Communism (here the ultimate coal of Socialism) doesn not mean absolute equalism

    No society is or will ever bee completely equal. Absolute equality is not mandated by communism, eventhough most americans think so. In a Communist society income inequality is restricted but it still is there. There is a difference between different jobs and those working tougher jobs (mentally or fysically) are rewarded. However, it is rewarded in a more rational way, as no one will not be that much richer than the others. Thus the lack of competition and reward between different jobs doesnt destroy communism as an idea. It can work in societies where the consept of fairness is a common value!

  • Communism can work

    It can work because it is Communism




    ok, time to meet the minnimum word count:
    e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e ee e e e e e e e e e e e
    thank you

  • Communism is da wae

    If you do not think that communism is da wae for da world den you are da devil and I will spit on you non beleivers because you be disrespecting da queen in ma monarchy but screw the queen because I tink dat da wae is communsim beacause Stalin was moist and he was a communist so yeah I will eat you yum

  • People like reward

    For communism to work every one would have to be the same, the same background, the same education, the same job type. If one of these were to change then people would feel that they should get more then another person. For example lets say person x who only went to no college and is a dump truck driver gets the same amount of money as person y who is a neurosurgeon who went to 8+ years of schooling. Now both jobs are important in society, however one of the persons worked more and should there for be rewarded for working harder. Another example is what a professor did, he took a class of students and told them no matter what your individual grade will be on a test, he would average them together and that would be the score they would get. The first test the people who tried hard got A's, and the people that didn't care got F's. This meant that the average grade of the class became a C. The people who worked hard did not see the point if they would only get a C, and the people who did not study were happy because they got a better grade then they thought they were going to get. This continued until ALL the students failed the class. As you can see people need reward and want to feel different they others. That is why if you asked an educated person in a communistic country (if you can find one) they would tell you that they would gladly move to a republic country like the USA of UK.

    Posted by: Rxan
  • There's no reason for Ambition

    Mailman goes to work everyday, and works for a few hours. Then he goes home to his family and relaxes. Mailman is happy.

    Coal Miner goes to work everyday, and works for 10 hours. Coal Miner goes home but is too tired to do anything but sleep. Coal Miner wants to quit his awful job, but can't, because the Nation needs coal, and can't afford him gone. Coal Miner eventually gets sick from breathing in the dusty mines, and gets reassigned to be a Mailman. Coal Miner is now Mailman, and is happy, but still sick, his lungs ruined forever.

    Scientist goes to work in the laboratory, trying to develop new energy sources so that the Nation does not need to rely so much on coal. Scientist develops an ingenious new power system for the Nation. Scientist is briefly applauded, but does not receive any bonuses or grants or prizes, because doing so would put Scientist above everyone else. Scientist no longer has anything to work for, because the research he has worked on for 20 years no longer needs him. Scientist has no money to fall back on, because he gets paid the same amount as everyone else, so Scientist gets a new job. Scientist is now Mailman, and although he appreciates his easy living, he feels unfulfilled.

    Soldier goes to work at the battlefield. Soldier is proud of the Nation, and fights honorably to defend his homeland. Soldier gets shot at the battlefront, and never returns home. Back in the nation, Soldier is not missed. No memorials are held in his honor, no one mourns his death. There can be no Heroes in the Nation, because everyone is equal. Soldier is just a piece of the Nation, and once he is gone, a new Soldier takes his place. Eventually the new Soldier survives, but is paralyzed, and sent home. Soldier is too broken and weak to work hard for the Nation anymore, but everyone in the Nation must do their part. Soldier is now Mailman, and has become disillusioned with the Nation.

    Politician goes to work at the capital. Politician is smart, he is hardworking, and he is ambitious. He knows better than to slog away in dirty coal mines or cramped office buildings. He works hard for the Nation, to keep it running and keep it powerful. Politician tries his best to be fair and judicious, but secretly he knows himself to be superior. How else could he become the Politician? One day Mailmen begin to arrive, and none are happy. Politician assures the Mailmen that the Nation will take care of them all, and that everyone must make sacrifices for the good of the Nation. But Mailmen refuse to listen to the Politician. He doesn't know. He isn't one of them. He is not equal. Politician is killed by the Mailmen. But the Mailmen do not know what to do once the Politician is gone. After all, they are just Mailmen. All of them.

  • Perfect equality doesn't exist.

    Perfect equality doesn't exist. People like to be rewarded for what they do. If someone goes to work early and finishes late, and another person shows up late and leaves early, I don't think they should get paid the same amount. It's ridiculous. People would stop working, because there is no incentive to work. If you're getting paid the same amount regardless, why work harder? There are many problems with communism.

  • Personal gain in communism

    Personal gain is in built into the human mind, its how we evolved and cannot go ignored we are not ants and when equality is made a few individuals often exploit this. An example of this being Joseph Stalin (General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) this man used the idea of communism for his own gain and got rid of those in his way in the name of communism, this led to millions of deaths and a regime that terrorized the world. Similar situations like this can be see in any use of communism most recently being Argentina which is now in A downward spiral since its use of socialism and communism.

  • There will never be perfect communism.

    Due to the fact that humans are naturally flawed, communism turns into a unjust system ran by a power-hungry government. The citizens will not have any motivation to work hard because no matter how much they work they will get the same reward as the rest of the world. Students won't study to become doctors and lawyers, they instead choose an easier career.

  • No, just no

    No, just no. Communism could work with such beings as ants, but not humans. The greed of the human race cannot function as not selfish and equal. Ants would work fine since they operate to do a their jobs on a slave like level. + communism doesn't even equal to equality as many people think

  • Because it sucks

    Because north Korea is stupid and i think it should die with the rest of the communist leaders who failed at up holding communism even though the system itself is very flawed as communism only works in small groups because people are sinful and can never follow through with something perfectly

  • Communism can't work in a modern world.

    Communism. Such a good theory on paper; however, the Communism system does not take into consideration human nature. For it to work, as stated in the columns of this website, everyone would have to come from the same background. Furthermore, the US of A has lots of negative propaganda against Communism, making people slightly less willing to try it. Before I end this, I must also say that human greed can play a key role, making communism a crippled and failed system by modern decree.

  • Its already killed 100 million people......

    Communism must function on the natural goodwill and selflessness of humans who are always willing to reach their full potential without incentive or reward. However human beings are hardwired from the beginning (biology) to seek reward and dominance over one another. Hierarchies are so ingrained into our evolutionary history that it dates back millions of years and we share this attribute with many common ancestors (apes & lobsters etc). These hierarchies only function if there is upward and downward mobility within a socioeconomic system. Without the element of incentive and economic mobility, the desire to be productive and to prosper is nullified. This test was painfully conducted in the Soviet Union during the 1930's. The ignorant claim that the 100 million who died of communism were all lined up and shot is completely false. The dekulakization and collectivization in the Soviet Union resulted in a massive food shortage and famine. This was caused by the deportation and persecution of Russia's most productive farmers (who were also the richest), and as a result 15 million people starved to death. In China the same result occurred during Mao's "Great Leap Forward" and between 30-50 million people died as a result of famine. Its simple really, with no incentives to produce, everyone stands around looking at one another to see who will. Then (coincidentally) the famine crises stopped in the Soviet Union when they implemented the gulag system which enslaved millions of political criminals and forced them to perform labor for the state. Then on the backs of slaves the Soviet Union endured for a while until its complete inability to keep pace with western technological advances brought it to its inevitable end. When it was all said and done over 100 million people died around the world from Communist regimes. The idea that this is even being debated with such contention is shocking and historically ignorant. I will concede this argument if anyone reading this and disagrees will: start a business, grow it into a massive multi million dollar corporation, produce a large amount of the world's products that we consume, and do it all for a $15,000 annual salary.

  • Its already killed 100 million people......

    Communism must function on the natural goodwill and selflessness of humans who are always willing to reach their full potential without incentive or reward. However human beings are hardwired from the beginning (biology) to seek reward and dominance over one another. Hierarchies are so ingrained into our evolutionary history that it dates back millions of years and we share this attribute with many common ancestors (apes & lobsters etc). These hierarchies only function if there is upward and downward mobility within a socioeconomic system. Without the element of incentive and economic mobility, the desire to be productive and to prosper is nullified. This test was painfully conducted in the Soviet Union during the 1930's. The ignorant claim that the 100 million who died of communism were all lined up and shot is completely false. The dekulakization and collectivization in the Soviet Union resulted in a massive food shortage and famine. This was caused by the deportation and persecution of Russia's most productive farmers (who were also the richest), and as a result 15 million people starved to death. In China the same result occurred during Mao's "Great Leap Forward" and between 30-50 million people died as a result of famine. Its simple really, with no incentives to produce, everyone stands around looking at one another to see who will. Then (coincidentally) the famine crises stopped in the Soviet Union when they implemented the gulag system which enslaved millions of political criminals and forced them to perform labor for the state. Then on the backs of slaves the Soviet Union endured for a while until its complete inability to keep pace with western technological advances brought it to its inevitable end. When it was all said and done over 100 million people died around the world from Communist regimes. The idea that this is even being debated with such contention is shocking and historically ignorant. I will concede this argument if anyone reading this and disagrees will: start a business, grow it into a massive multi million dollar corporation, produce a large amount of the world's products that we consume, and do it all for a $15,000 annual salary.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.
>