SaturnVengeance
Lieutenant
Will we ever see a communist country that doesn't commit genocide or violate human and/or civil rights of it's own citizens?
Will we ever see a peaceful communist state?
- Thread starter SaturnVengeance
- Start date
You're missing a 'maybe' option.
Who can tell? The future could hold any number of things. It all depends on how mankind evolves and which values are embraced most.
Who can tell? The future could hold any number of things. It all depends on how mankind evolves and which values are embraced most.
SaturnVengeance
Lieutenant
What do you predict though?
It's entirely possible, but hard to say for sure. The past\current crop of the world's communist parties are a poor reflection of it as a system of government, seeing as none were really communist in the strictest sense of the world.
And as well, it's pretty damn hard to find any country in the world, regardless of the system of government, that hasn't committed some violation of the rights of its people.
And as well, it's pretty damn hard to find any country in the world, regardless of the system of government, that hasn't committed some violation of the rights of its people.
A
Amaris
Guest
There's a possibility, but I would consider it remote. Absolute social doctrines like Communism (as well as Fascism, Libertarianism, Anarchy), all look great on paper, but cannot really succeed in reality at this point in human history. The reason being that such doctrines require purely altruistic motives and the purely altruistic willpower in all areas of government and citizenry, to actually work effectively. We've nowhere near mastered such altruism. It's possible that in the future we will, thousands of years in the future, but definitely not in our lifetimes and probably not within the next several generations.
If the status quo remains the same as that of America, China, India, and others: No.
If it tilts toward the Nordic states and western Europe, Yes.
Of course by 'yes' and 'no' I mean its more likely rather than definitive. I'm much more likely to say 'no' if pressed.
No.
But that's not unique to communist countries. Eventually, any government will do one of the above, at least in the eyes of a subset of the population.
No. Communism is inherently incompatible with freedom and democracy.
No, it can't happen. Communism can only function under a totalitarian regime and such societies will always sacrifice the individual. As Arthur C Clarke said, Communism is the perfect society... for insects.
Well, if we accept Marxist-Leninism as gospel (certainly not trying to imply I do, mind you), the answer is no with one caveat. If there's a global revolution instead of a single-state revolution, the theory is oppression will be unnecessary. But I doubt that will happen and I'm not even convinced, if it did, that Lenin was right. A system that leaves no room for contrary opinions, by its nature, must be oppressive.
Well, none of the "communist" countries were actually communist. They certainly didn't follow Marxist philosophy.
It may be unnecessary, but it is also inevitable. Any communist system will inevitably lead to dictatorship, because that is essential human nature. The only way government control of the economy can work is dictatorship - turning everyone who does not agree with the system into a criminal. The human desire for POWER is what caused communism to lead to dictatorship.
Communism might sound like a lofty goal - to each according to his need, from each according to his ability, and all that crap - but the problem is, who defines what that need is? The government? That is not possible.
Well, Marxist philosophy did involve a dictatorship of the proletariat that would oppress the bourgeoisie. Marx wasn't pacifist either.
Under the premise that Marx's theory is a scientific theory, it's certainly open for revision, however. Lenin claimed he was revising it by recognizing that, although the spark for socialist revolution could happen in Russia, it could not sustain itself from hostile capitalistic neighbors and non-proletariat classes within unless there was a global revolution. The only other options were a brutal dictatorship or a retreat from socialism. Arguably, both things happened. The USSR temporarily retreated from socialism in the 20s and then Stalin returned to a brutal dictatorship (which also existed under "War Communism" during the Civil War).
Personally, I don't really accept Marxist theory and I think Marxist-Leninism isn't correct either (in spite of the superficial things I mentioned above seeming to give it some credibility).
MLB, true communism doesn't require a command economy. I think a worker-controlled factory actually makes more sense. Of course, Marx predicted a world where automation would remove the need for actual workers. That's when true communism begins and history stops.
^ I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I have to say I have often wondered what history would be like had the first Marxist revolution happened in a country that fit his model, rather than Russia. Would it have worked in a fully industrialized economy? We'll never know, obviously, but it is an interesting question, I think.
Well not quite. There wasn't supposed to be a dictator but rather an interim government/military that made sure the bourgeoisie did not rise up again. However, this was not supposed to last and a communist country was supposed to soon emerge. However, Lenin sort of stopped at the interim government stage and made himself in charge. That's what has happened with pretty much all communist countries.
Only if resource scarcity can be made an essential non-issue in the future. Without significant scarcity, a planned economy could work, the end goal of communism is, as Marx stated to create a society where one can "do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic." The end goal of communism is a free society where economic planning can free people of repressive obligations, but it seems a very utopian ideal that doesn't jibe well with a world where there are significant resource scarcities.
Sidious, Marx didn't say how long it was supposed to last. Was it supposed to last a year, 20 years, 100 years? Either way, it would be oppressive by nature however long it lasted.
Similar threads
