Ok The other one got so messy and confussing I TRIED to catch all the relevant arguements and skipped the irrelevant ones. If I have missed something important please point it out as I am biased and may have left out somethings due to its offencive content
Skweeky -
Well, a quite interesting discussion started in the lounge about these topics.
My view:
Yes, Marx can be seen as father of all communism, but it was never his intention to create communism. There is a huge difference between marxism and communism. One can say that the idea of Marx put into practice can be called communism. The idea was good.....what people made of it isn't. Communism is most certainly NOT socialism. Those two things get mixed up very often, but are in reality quite different. Communism is about absolute equality, which doesn't work because there are always people who want more and have the means to get more. Socialism is about equality too, agreed, but not in the same way ; socialism says that the people who are most capable of leading a nation( for example) should do everything to make it as good as possible for everyone, they should live for the people so to speak.
mrcall1969 -
I totally agree...Socialism is more linked to Marxism than Communism..
Communism can work in theory..but in practice it's human nature for one person to want more and others suffer because of that. Socialism is quite different.
noname12 -
Hmmmm... interesting point, but in communism Equality goes as far as living some have over done it others belittled it.
Communism in its essence is Socialism with as you say more for the common man.
The socialist Views is of Islamic origin which if you look at it is indeed almost what communism is, equality for all, people live the same and have the same stuff and none are excluded due to there social class.
The main bulk of of it all is the fact that all facilities are public and shared by all those deemed as nationals of the state, you cannot purchase a better life you all have the same education the same hospital care the same protection.
As for the Marx I need to look into that a little bit more as I am not 100% on that particular subject.
But as for Socialism and Communism, they are in essence one and the same, with a few extra's either side.
And Marx is seen as the Father of Communism but I believe that later people saw Lenin to be the father.
A small note though in Lenins will he stated that Stalin should not have power for his psycotic tendancies.
mrcall1969 -
That's all very well but....Communism is very different to Socialism, true, they're on the same side of the political fence, but thats where the similarities end.
In an ideal world Communism is a great idea, but it just doesn't work, Socialism on the other hand is being proved to work throughout the world, except for perhaps here in Britain, where the ruling Socialist party are edging further and further to the right of centre of the spectrum.
Skweeky -
No, Marx is the creator of the idea, not of what other people made of it.
In a communist regime everyone should be equal, but they are not because people need leaders. Those leaders tell others how to live and in this world, in this reality, such a regime can only survive with very very low standards and there is no one who wants to live like that. In the Sovjet Union a very small percentage of the population had most of the money while the biggest part was starving or freezing to death out on the street, and that's when it's almost the same as fascism (ty m ).
Socialism accepts the idea that there should be leaders and offers people the choice to choose their own leaders. Everyone is given the same things, yes, but only the most necessary things. It is allowed to get more if you work harder, which is normal. That's why communism doesn't work. Some people don't work, other people work very hard but they all get the same thing, which isn't much. Socialism says that everyone has the RIGHT to have his basic needs satisfied, when someone wants more he/she has to work for it
noname12 in answer to mrcall1969 -
QUOTE (mrcall1969 @ 31 October 2003 - 21:37)
That's all very well but....Communism is very different to Socialism, true, they're on the same side of the political fence, but thats where the similarities end.
In an ideal world Communism is a great idea, but it just doesn't work, Socialism on the other hand is being proved to work throughout the world, except for perhaps here in Britain, where the ruling Socialist party are edging further and further to the right of centre of the spectrum.
Thats the thing though, Both are not true to the exact words, if both where true then you would be hard pressed to find differences.
People played with those two ideas and now it is distorted into something that is no longer recognized by the Original ideals that where set in place.
In the true sence of both words they should be very similiar, but we cannot control those who wish to change them and have the power to.
noname12 in answer to sweeky -
QUOTE (Skweeky @ 31 October 2003 - 21:42)
No, Marx is the creator of the idea, not of what other people made of it.
In a communist regime everyone should be equal, but they are not because people need leaders. Those leaders tell others how to live and in this world, in this reality, such a regime can only survive with very very low standards and there is no one who wants to live like that. In the Sovjet Union a very small percentage of the population had most of the money while the biggest part was starving or freezing to death out on the street, and that's when it's almost the same as fascism (ty m ).
Socialism accepts the idea that there should be leaders and offers people the choice to choose their own leaders. Everyone is given the same things, yes, but only the most necessary things. It is allowed to get more if you work harder, which is normal. That's why communism doesn't work. Some people don't work, other people work very hard but they all get the same thing, which isn't much. Socialism says that everyone has the RIGHT to have his basic needs satisfied, when someone wants more he/she has to work for it
If it was implimented to the truth, every one would be given sufficient funds, equality is not ment by the size of house but the quality in which you live.
Rich people ate while poor people starved, it was aiming to stop such things. To purchase things and so on that is upto the individual not the state.
It comes down to the implimentation of it and the person doing the implimentation.
Skweeky -
Are you saying communism was aimed at stopping people from starving?
Tsaristic (sp?) Russia created a huge problem, and there was a lot of poverty, all Lenin did was look at the problem, saw the genious of it and manipulated the system to his own advantage....THAT is communism. You are confusing two different things
noname12 in answer to skweeky -
QUOTE (Skweeky @ 31 October 2003 - 21:56)
Are you saying communism was aimed at stopping people from starving?
Tsaristic (sp?) Russia created a huge problem, and there was a lot of poverty, all Lenin did was look at the problem, saw the genious of it and manipulated the system to his own advantage....THAT is communism. You are confusing two different things
Trotski saw the advantage, Lenin saw the advantage, these minds where aiming to use the resources of Russia to benifit all.
The communists aim was just that for all to benifit from the rewards of mother russia.
You cannot blaim the failing of it on the idea, but you can blame it on the man.
Biggles -
The idea that resources could be held for a common good is not new. I think Acts chapter 4 verses 32-35 are relevant here. I simply throw it in as an indication that the idea of a simple communism has old historical roots. Well ok .. I am being a tad contentious, sorry.
Marx took the whole thing much further and suggested, using a form of Hegelian dialectical materialism, that such a society would be the inevitable result of dynamic interaction between interested parties. That is, feudalism gave way to the power of the merchants because ultimately the feudal Lords became reliant on the wealth created by the urban merchants. In turn, the urban merchants could function better with free labour and all the tensions that would bring etc., etc.,
Whilst certain elements of the process are self evident there was perhaps an overly simplistic assumption that the end result would be a utopian workers paradise. One could, with the advantage of hindsight, argue that there could many loops and dynamic interactions before any such state is reached. In a sense Trotsky could see this and said sod it lets foster revolution everywhere and nip it all in the bud. Stalin, on the other hand, was quite happy shooting those he was convinced were trying to usurp power at home.
Lenin was somewhere between the two with the added gift of actually inspiring devotion (rather than fear) in those who heard him deliver his message. Quite where Russia and the revolution would have gone had he lived is anyone's guess.
Skweeky -
Trotski and Lenin saw the advantages of MARXISM and turned it into COMMUNISM by putting the idea into practice.
I do not blame the idea, I already said Marxism isn't a bad idea. You're not being consistent in your arguments.
noname12 -
The essence of communism is socialism. socialism is the essence of a political system created 1400 years ago. both have been distorted in a way.
Trotski and Lenin saw the advantages, they had a mathmatical mind, money, resources = strength and power (from what I have read) Stalin pops in makes it pretty much a Police state and ruins every thing.
Skweeky -
no no no
MARXISM is the essence of SOCIALISM
The essence of COMMUNISM is FASCISM....
Communism is not the same thing as marxism
noname12 -
My research shows that socialism is actually the Islamic political system put in place by non other then Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) him self.
A few hundred years later, things where made, then communism pops up.
Communism is aimed at equality, same as the original socialism.
Communism allows all service to be available to all men, again Socialism.
Communism does not base quality of life on riches, each man can have what is available to the next, same as socialism.
chalice answering to Skweeky -
That does beg the question, though, Skweeky...
Why would Marx And Engels put their names to The Communist Manifesto?
biggles -
The big problem, as I see it, is the concept, which Trotsky exemplified, that change can only be achieved through revolution. As someone pointed out a long time ago, "the trouble with revolutions is that the people who like shooting people get to the top".
Organic change in which people vote with their feet for a more equitable system is I guess what Skweeky is refering to as Socialism. I have some sympathy with this position.
nonanme 12 - I spoke to a friend of mine who is a expert in this field and I must say I am rather wrong in this case.
Communism - Everything is state run, everything is given out equally to all, there is no room to fall back but no room to move forward.
Socialism - The bulk is state run but there is room for free enterprise, you can move forward but no one falls behind.
Islamic Politics - Socialism but with a religious emphasis.
Not that much difference.
noname12 -
Carl Marx - Thinker, came up the the communist Idea, so he is the father. Student of Marx said that Communism is not Implementable, Socialism is a better route.
Theories of Marx being a Fraud released, accusations of him trying to further jewish economic beliefs rose.
Trotski - Fellow communist, His ideals was that communism had to be introduced in steps, first socialism then Communism. When communism gained more power he was ousted and he fled to America.
Lenin - Shared the idea's of Trotski but could not wait and pushed for the Communist state to be implimented as he saw it as the natural Evolution of polotics.
noname12 -
Trotski - He saw the plight of the Russian people under the tzar, after needlessly going into the 1st world war and the suffering of people and the huge gap between the ruling class and the working class, he felt something needed to be done. He and Lenin saw the natural step forward is Communism to bring stability and prosperaty to the Provinces. There idea was the utilize Russia's rich resources for the State which inturn will give power back to the people. The power of russia was in its economy.
Lenin - shared the same views.
Bookmarks