The communists were corrupted

[Tenth Speed Writer]

But I mourn Marx's dream.

No matter how twisted things became.




Humans cannot live in that society now.
We don't yet deserve it.

But we have to try.
We'll trip over our own feet, just like we have so may times before.
But like humans, we can't simply forgo trying.



We could grow into that world.

We could start now, just helping others, teaching them what it means to be a help and not a burden when you can, and graciously accepting the help of others when you do need it.

We could help people.
And at the same time, we could teach people why we help people.

Lenin, the reds and the whites, they wanted a revolution. They got their revolution.
But they never got their dream. They got a corrupt republic.

The change the face of the world, but as for changing its spirit, they only skimmed the surface. Corrupt people. Power hungry people. Zealous people. They were still there, and the people thirsted for their dream so, that they followed them, blindly and with all their heart.

And the Soviet Union was born.

Our spirit is still too young. Too childish.
We want, without knowing what to want.
We fight, without knowing what we fight.
We want a cause, often, if only just to have a cause,
so that we can sate that thirst for the dream,
the dream of a better world.

Finding the cause must, in this step, become the cause.

After that...
I'm still working on that.
I'm thinking it'll be one more change, maybe two, before we start down the path to a better world in earnest.  

[Tenth Speed Writer]

And, well...

Like I said in the poll, not exactly "utopian socialism."

Putting that concept into practice would involve limiting or removing almost all personal freedoms that we enjoy in society right now. The world I'm imaging would permit all the social and creative freedoms an ethical society would allow, but the people who enjoy those freedoms would have sense enough not to abuse them.  

[alpha male tayo]

how about Islamist utopia  

[Ninyaruto]

Communism would be perfect, if not for human nature. Ants pull it off pretty well, ironically. People just don't have a hive mentality; there will always be many of us who think of themselves before the community. And then strict laws would have to be set so that they'd follow the order of things, power would need to be centralized, and then it would inevitably fall into the wrong hands and you have instant dictatorship.  

[Lux7]

I believe in communism but your right, the world isn't ready for communism and probably never will be. If done right we could live in a Eutopia but sadly the world we live in right now is to corrupted for it. I still have hope though, socialist countrys are some of the healthiest countrys in the world so in time it might be possible. mrgreen  

[SkeletonPhoenix]

I think Socialism could work but with america's views the Idea is now that of no freedom. But that's a narrow point of view it can exist andpeople can still be free. The problem is that it could easily get corrupted. Now I think that humans should face their nature and not just hide it( like the christians way). That is the only way we will ever become a speices that cares for all not just them selfs.  

[Redem]

Meh. Communism we never properly tried.
And the anarcho-capitalist alternatives hardly have a better track record. The only reason current rich nations are cpitalist is by raping the poor world, and by simply having so many tries to get a stable-ish version running. The most stable being thanks to strong socialist leanings in the people legislating to restrict the actions of the capitalists.
Communism has had no real chance.  

[Kiyrugoji]

Tenth Speed Writer

But I mourn Marx's dream.

No matter how twisted things became.




Humans cannot live in that society now.
We don't yet deserve it.

But we have to try.
We'll trip over our own feet, just like we have so may times before.
But like humans, we can't simply forgo trying.



We could grow into that world.

We could start now, just helping others, teaching them what it means to be a help and not a burden when you can, and graciously accepting the help of others when you do need it.

We could help people.
And at the same time, we could teach people why we help people.

Lenin, the reds and the whites, they wanted a revolution. They got their revolution.
But they never got their dream. They got a corrupt republic.

The change the face of the world, but as for changing its spirit, they only skimmed the surface. Corrupt people. Power hungry people. Zealous people. They were still there, and the people thirsted for their dream so, that they followed them, blindly and with all their heart.

And the Soviet Union was born.

Our spirit is still too young. Too childish.
We want, without knowing what to want.
We fight, without knowing what we fight.
We want a cause, often, if only just to have a cause,
so that we can sate that thirst for the dream,
the dream of a better world.

Finding the cause must, in this step, become the cause.

After that...
I'm still working on that.
I'm thinking it'll be one more change, maybe two, before we start down the path to a better world in earnest.

Allow me to put this in Limerick form -

There once was a man named Marx,
who though we'd love with all of our hearts,
but he dream failed to work
because people are jerks
and now no-one likes the old fart.  

[Mideval]

Well, at least someone finally acknowledges that Communism ISN'T bad, just done wrong
In the year or so Ive been a Communist, I haven't met a single other Communist
Saddens me how our views are tainted by conformity and greed
I could go on a whole rant about it, but seeing as no one will read this, I don't think I will

 

[Le Pere Duchesne]

First, Medeval, check out the NCS guild, now onto the other posts:
In fact, for a better understanding of communism, please check out the NCS. Although I would ask you to apply to join only if you actually think of yourself as communist.

Quote:

Humans cannot live in that society now.
We don't yet deserve it.

Actually, witht he productive forces available now, it is more feasable than ever, in the 1st world countries anyway.
The question is not whether we 'deserve it' or not, but whether we are able to actually achieve it. I say yes. This will be made more clear further on in the post.

Quote:

We could start now, just helping others, teaching them what it means to be a help and not a burden when you can, and graciously accepting the help of others when you do need it.

Communism, or at least Marxism which is what has been specified here, is not about 'helping' people, but rather through rational economic organisation to achieve a surplus such that not only will there be enough for everyone, but there will be enough for everyone to live comfortably, more so than now in the most advanced countries.

But this is not possible under capitalism, the only way to make communism is through expropriating the capitalists, that is, taking businesses and factories and the large industrial style farms away from their owners and having the state run them. But the government will not do this, it is tied to the capitalist class through its wallet or because the individuals who make up the government are themselves capitalists.
The only way to do it is for the working-class to take state power.

Quote:

[1]Lenin, the reds and the whites, they wanted a revolution. They got their revolution.
[2]But they never got their dream. They got a corrupt republic.

my numbers

Historical innacuracy in the first part: the Whites were counter-revolutionary, that is, they wanted to stop the revolution, either keep the republic from february 1917, or go back to the monarchy.
The second part is an over simplification: The Soviet Federation (later Union) was not corrupt in the begining. Early on the workers had complete control of the soviets, but the most politicaly concious workers went to fight in the civil war or had to organise food and fuel provisions. As the workers who went to fight died and the workers who became administrators and bureaucrats became more conservative and more concious of the position as bureaucrats, no longer as workers more power was taken by the bureaucracy. This is to be expected in a country with such little industry as Russia had. In a country like the US, Germany, Japan, or even Russia today, this move toward bureaucratism would be harder (though the tendency would still exist).

Quote:

Putting that concept into practice would involve limiting or removing almost all personal freedoms that we enjoy in society right now. The world I'm imaging would permit all the social and creative freedoms an ethical society would allow, but the people who enjoy those freedoms would have sense enough not to abuse them.

This is a common misinderstanding. The only freedoms to be lost are the same as those lost in any war: freedom of the press(insofar as it preaches insubordination and treachery to the communist government). Apart from that, look at the freedoms gained: Homosexual marriage, free abortion on demand, free quality contraception, communal living and eating services and free 24 hour childcare.

Quote:

Communism would be perfect, if not for human nature.

Please explain this further, people say it so much it is an empty cliche.  

[Vedun]

Sorry to put this to you, but Russia was never communist. While it was built on communistic ideals, it quickly became a corrupt autocracy with the coming of Stalin.  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

As anybody with a rather decent grounding in Marxist theory will tell you, the SU was not communist, not could it be communist. As far as you went, you are correct.
The Soviet Union could not be communist because it lacked the industrial capacity to produce a large enough surplus that would do away with scarcity. On the contrary, they didn't have enough productive forces before the war, let alone after the devistation of three years of World War and four years of internal civil war and foreign military intervention.

As is commonly known, Marx expected communism to be reached in the more advanced capitalist countries first, however, he also aknowledged that the revolution itself would be sparked in a not-too-developed capitalist power. In 1848, this was germany, in 1917 this was Tzarist Russia.
The revolution was likely to occure in one of the less developed countries, in 'the weakest link in the imperialist chain.' But the revolution would only put the working class in power. The revolution would not bring communism, but the situation in which communism could develope. After the Russian revolution, it was expected Europe would explode into a general civil war. In such a case, the German, French and English economied would build up the russian economy on a planned basis and they 'would all live happily ever after' if one wants to put it in such simple terms. But that didn't happen. The revolutionary wave that sweapt across Europe was defeated and the SU was all alone, and had to rely on its own productive capabilities. In such a situation it would be hard for a stalinist bureaucracy to not arise.

It is easy to use empty phrases, but without understanding the actual course of events, they mean nothing.