Communism: Is it Good or Bad?

[FearlessRoar]

Communism traces its roots back to responses against societal inequalities during the Industrial Revolution. Emerging in the mid-19th century through the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the ideology found practical expression in the Soviet Union post the Russian Revolution in 1917.

In the present era, communism continues to influence various societies. Examples include China's unique blend of communism and market reforms, Cuba's persistent adherence to Marxist principles, and the evolving dynamics in North Korea. Analyzing these instances provides insights into the complexities of implementing communist ideals in diverse contexts.

Communism's emphasis on radical equality aims to eliminate socio-economic disparities. Prioritizing collective well-being, it focuses on accessible healthcare, education, and basic needs for all. By eliminating exploitation, communism strives to empower the workforce, giving them a more direct stake in their labor. Common ownership of production means aims to prevent wealth concentration, fostering shared prosperity.

Critics argue that communism might diminish individual motivation and innovation by equalizing outcomes. Implementations of communism have at times resulted in concentrated power within the government, raising concerns about authoritarian tendencies. Detractors suggest that centrally planned economies can lead to inefficiencies, hindering economic growth. Some contend that communism may limit personal freedoms, as collective decisions may override individual choices.

Share your thoughts on its historical roots and the ongoing debate regarding its advantages and drawbacks.

 

[globetrotter]

It’s good in China
Bad in Russia

 

[Cricket Warrior]

its not actually a religion but more like a political idealogy which u can also find here in Pakistan too.

i dont consider it bad at all!

 

[James]

In theory it’s very good; in practice it hasn’t always worked out. (understatement.)

 

[sweep_shot]

Communism doesn't work in the long run (practically speaking).

Communism doesn't encourage productivity and healthy competition. It doesn't adequately reward hard work.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Communism may get praised for promoting equality or well-being for all, but it has its limitations like individual freedom and it also has the potential for manipulation by the state overall. Communism may sound good and fancy but it might not work in a country like Pakistan where people just want power.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Communists are the worst kind of fascists. Communism must be eradicated.

 

[U$ofA]

Best way to judge if it's good or bad, is to look at what people are doing. Are people trying to break into the country or break out and go somewhere else?

I see a whole lot of people breaking into US. On top of that, a lot of people move here legally. 50% of all immigrants the world over move here. Which means we are doing a whole lot of things.

These two things should give you the answer.

Communism and Socialism does not work. In these setups, only a few enjoy the power and wealth. Majority are kept at bay, lower standard of living under the guise of equality. Talent, hard work are not rewarded, merit is completely ignored, freedom to do what you want is almost non existent. Freedom of speech is nil.

Communism/Socialism have been tried in many countries. Always failed. No, China is not an example. They had to turn to capitalism to succeed.

Not to mention 100+ million people dead because of Communism/Socialism.

 

[Romali_rotti]

It is very good, look at the Indian state Kerala.

Ruled by the communist,

- Almost zero economy,
- Lack of jobs,
- Going nowhere....

But claims to be very literate and educated state, only with a big zero to show for it.

 

[gani999]

Communism is too perfect an ideology and will never work in a world full of imperfect people. It is better to confine such ideologies in the realm of books, debates and academics, and not bring them into the real world.

 

[Red-Indian]

Communism is too perfect an ideology and will never work in a world full of imperfect people. It is better to confine such ideologies in the realm of books, debates and academics, and not bring them into the real world.

Conceptually that's true but I think it's increasingly becoming clear that while pure Communism doesn't work as defined on paper neither does pure Capitalism. Both of them at core are best restricted to textbooks.

You want evidence in terms of GDP, look at China and say Vietnam. Yes there's a lot of free enterprise and capitalistic entrepreneurs but there's also a lot of state control, planning and direction setting. Yet they've grown like crazy.

You want evidence in terms of HDI, look at the Scandinavian countries. There's stuff there that would give Milton Friedman heart attacks - super high taxation, income disparity rules, generous welfare systems. Yet they consistently rank about the most desirable countries to migrate to and always are in the top of any indexes of human happiness.

Even in a country like Singapore that is rated among the most Capitalist, most people live in planned, State built housing. Adam Smith would turn in his grave.

So those on the thread who're writing obituaries for communism, be aware of all the benefits you're getting from it.

 

[gani999]

Conceptually that's true but I think it's increasingly becoming clear that while pure Communism doesn't work as defined on paper neither does pure Capitalism. Both of them at core are best restricted to textbooks.

You want evidence in terms of GDP, look at China and say Vietnam. Yes there's a lot of free enterprise and capitalistic entrepreneurs but there's also a lot of state control, planning and direction setting. Yet they've grown like crazy.

You want evidence in terms of HDI, look at the Scandinavian countries. There's stuff there that would give Milton Friedman heart attacks - super high taxation, income disparity rules, generous welfare systems. Yet they consistently rank about the most desirable countries to migrate to and always are in the top of any indexes of human happiness.

Even in a country like Singapore that is rated among the most Capitalist, most people live in planned, State built housing. Adam Smith would turn in his grave.

So those on the thread who're writing obituaries for communism, be aware of all the benefits you're getting from it.

Aren't you confusing communism with socialism here? They are not the same thing, are they.

 

[Red-Indian]

Aren't you confusing communism with socialism here? They are not the same thing, are they.

If someone can clearly explain the difference between communism & socialism to me, I'll be very happy. Best as I can see, Socialism is Communism's soft & fuzzy younger brother.

 

[CricketCartoons]

If someone can clearly explain the difference between communism & socialism to me, I'll be very happy. Best as I can see, Socialism is Communism's soft & fuzzy younger brother.

I can explain the differences, but what are the similarities do you see?

 

[Red-Indian]

I can explain the differences, but what are the similarities do you see?

State control & ownership, equal distribution of wealth mainly I guess

 

[FearlessRoar]

Communists are the worst kind of fascists. Communism must be eradicated.

Can you give some examples?

 

[gani999]

Can you give some examples?

Stalin, Pol Pot, Ceaucesceau, Kim il Sung and his descendants, Che Guevara, Mao.... and several others. The list of communist facists is a pretty long one.

 

[Red-Indian]

Stalin, Pol Pot, Ceaucesceau, Kim il Sung and his descendants, Che Guevara, Mao.... and several others. The list of communist facists is a pretty long one.

Mussolini, Zia-Ul-Haq, Franco. I can quote rightwing dictators as well. I'm not sure what the point or connection is with the economic theory.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Mussolini, Zia-Ul-Haq, Franco. I can quote rightwing dictators as well. I'm not sure what the point or connection is with the economic theory.

Violent class struggle is central to communism. Violence is not central to right wing. The central ideals of right wing is free market and conserving culture and tradition. Right wing is the RIGHT wing. It is only recently that commies have tried to give it a bad name, when in fact the commies are the one who want to break society and family, and right wing wants to conserve the traditional system.

 

[FearlessRoar]

Stalin, Pol Pot, Ceaucesceau, Kim il Sung and his descendants, Che Guevara, Mao.... and several others. The list of communist facists is a pretty long one.

Was Che Guevara a fascist? I'm shocked

 

[FearlessRoar]

Mussolini, Zia-Ul-Haq, Franco. I can quote rightwing dictators as well. I'm not sure what the point or connection is with the economic theory.

Zia Ul Haq was not communist. He was an Islamic military dictator.

 

[Red-Indian]

Violent class struggle is central to communism. Violence is not central to right wing. The central ideals of right wing is free market and conserving culture and tradition. Right wing is the RIGHT wing. It is only recently that commies have tried to give it a bad name, when in fact the commies are the one who want to break society and family, and right wing wants to conserve the traditional system.

So you're essentially saying you disagree with the political component of Communism. Fair enough I guess...I'm no expert but I think I started with acknowledging that a lot of Communist theory is best left in textbooks.

If you're being fair though, you'll have to acknowledge that Capitalism hasn't covered itself in glory either. If we hadn't followed Communist/Socialist principles and allowed the too big to fail banks to actually fail given that that Capitalism recommends that there should be no protection from failure for those who take the risk, we'd have to let a lot of pensions fail, people scrounge for food and see an uptick in suicides. Let's leave those concepts in the textbook as well.

 

[Red-Indian]

Zia Ul Haq was not communist. He was an Islamic military dictator.

I was quoting rightwing dictators since he was bringing up leftwing/communist dictators.

 

[gani999]

Mussolini, Zia-Ul-Haq, Franco. I can quote rightwing dictators as well. I'm not sure what the point or connection is with the economic theory.

My answer was to the question about Communist facists.
And Mussolini, Zia-Ul-haq and Franco weren't Communist. They were right wing.
Maybe you should get your definitions straight first, mate?

 

[gani999]

Violent class struggle is central to communism. Violence is not central to right wing. The central ideals of right wing is free market and conserving culture and tradition. Right wing is the RIGHT wing. It is only recently that commies have tried to give it a bad name, when in fact the commies are the one who want to break society and family, and right wing wants to conserve the traditional system.

Bang on.

Also central to communism is the legitimacy of the elimination of real and perceived 'class enemies'.
The hypocrisy of forgiving every wrong that happens under the banner of communism is another of its warped and toxic ideas. It is the reason why communists consider Stalin a great leader, when he was an even bigger monster than Hitler.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Mixed system works best

 

[CricketCartoons]

So you're essentially saying you disagree with the political component of Communism. Fair enough I guess...I'm no expert but I think I started with acknowledging that a lot of Communist theory is best left in textbooks.

If you're being fair though, you'll have to acknowledge that Capitalism hasn't covered itself in glory either. If we hadn't followed Communist/Socialist principles and allowed the too big to fail banks to actually fail given that that Capitalism recommends that there should be no protection from failure for those who take the risk, we'd have to let a lot of pensions fail, people scrounge for food and see an uptick in suicides. Let's leave those concepts in the textbook as well.

The political component of communism is violent, and it has let to mass killings, and should not be ignored. Please don't hyphenate socialism with capitalism.

The bank bailout in USA was not socialism. It was capitalism with govt intervention, which is the model in most capitalism countries. If it was socialism, then those banks would become state assets, but they did not. The govt made profit on its investment.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Mixed system works best

Capitalism with govt intervention when needed. Welfare for those groups which need upliftment and helping hand. But not traditional socialism which talks about equal distribution of wealth and state control of all assets.

 

[gani999]

Communism = All men are made equal. It is just that some have better homes, better cars, better jobs and more resources than others.

 

[Red-Indian]

Capitalism with govt intervention when needed. Welfare for those groups which need upliftment and helping hand. But not traditional socialism which talks about equal distribution of wealth and state control of all assets.

Glad we agree. Not traditional Socialism/Communism. Not traditional laissez faire Capitalism. Somewhere in the middle.

Where in the middle based on each country's culture, appetite, circumstances etc.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Glad we agree. Not traditional Socialism/Communism. Not traditional laissez faire Capitalism. Somewhere in the middle.

Where in the middle based on each country's culture, appetite, circumstances etc.

If you agree with me, then I need to re consider my opinions.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Communism is nothing but an idealistic theory. The only system that in actual could ensure prosperity is the interest free Islamic economic system.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Communism is nothing but an idealistic theory. The only system that in actual could ensure prosperity is the interest free Islamic economic system.

Money always has a time value. So how is the interest free system implemented? eg if I need a home loan using this system.

 

[JaDed]

Conceptually that's true but I think it's increasingly becoming clear that while pure Communism doesn't work as defined on paper neither does pure Capitalism. Both of them at core are best restricted to textbooks.

You want evidence in terms of GDP, look at China and say Vietnam. Yes there's a lot of free enterprise and capitalistic entrepreneurs but there's also a lot of state control, planning and direction setting. Yet they've grown like crazy.

You want evidence in terms of HDI, look at the Scandinavian countries. There's stuff there that would give Milton Friedman heart attacks - super high taxation, income disparity rules, generous welfare systems. Yet they consistently rank about the most desirable countries to migrate to and always are in the top of any indexes of human happiness.

Even in a country like Singapore that is rated among the most Capitalist, most people live in planned, State built housing. Adam Smith would turn in his grave.

So those on the thread who're writing obituaries for communism, be aware of all the benefits you're getting from it.

Scandinavians have extremely free market.

Index of Economic Freedom 2024 | Statista

The 2024 Index of Economic Freedom ranks Singapore first due to its high attractiveness for foreign investments.

www.statista.com

Pure Capitalism works but just doesn’t get implemented.

 

[JaDed]

Communism is nothing but an idealistic theory. The only system that in actual could ensure prosperity is the interest free Islamic economic system.

That’s an opinion not a fact, innovation has exponentially risen only due to capitalism and interest rate.

 

[JaDed]

Mixed system works best

It does but it can’t swing more towards socialism, Canada is an example of absolute waste for a country with so many resources per capita.

 

[Red-Indian]

Scandinavians have extremely free market.

Index of Economic Freedom 2024 | Statista

The 2024 Index of Economic Freedom ranks Singapore first due to its high attractiveness for foreign investments.

www.statista.com

Pure Capitalism works but just doesn’t get implemented.

I don't understand your definition of an extremely free market but in Scandinavia

- ~50% of spending is Government or Public spending
- ~30% of the population is employed by the Government or in Government owned enterprises
- ~45% is the average tax burden

If this is an extremely free market, I'm glad Capitalism has taken on so many Communist/Socialist characteristics

As for your last statement, if I had a crisp 100 rupee note for everytime some extremist raised that particular strawman...
- Pure Capitalism works but just doesn’t get implemented
- Pure Communism is the perfect system but USSR corrupted it and didn't implement it properly
- Pure Islamic economics works best but immoral humans just can't live by it

...I'd be bidding on Antillia (Antilla?) as my retirement home.

 

[shortbread]

It’s good in China
Bad in Russia

China is a party run capitalist economy, the whole communism theory is a façade.

Whether good or bad, there are strong arguments on both sides. The policies have turned China into the economic superpower it is today, but at the same time is also the genesis of the challenges it faces going forward.

 

[Mockingbird]

China is a party run capitalist economy, the whole communism theory is a façade.

Whether good or bad, there are strong arguments on both sides. The policies have turned China into the economic superpower it is today, but at the same time is also the genesis of the challenges it faces going forward.

China prospered starting in the 90s when they finally started embracing capitalism, but Xi with his more traditional communism has reversed years of progress made and has managed to push several sectors into crisis. Tells you the effect that communism has on growth drivers.

With all its flaws, I would anyday take a right wing led capitalist society over a communist dictatorship with their grandiose and BS ideas of an equitable society. Team Ayn Rand for the win!

 

[FearlessRoar]

China prospered starting in the 90s when they finally started embracing capitalism, but Xi with his more traditional communism has reversed years of progress made and has managed to push several sectors into crisis. Tells you the effect that communism has on growth drivers.

With all its flaws, I would anyday take a right wing led capitalist society over a communist dictatorship with their grandiose and BS ideas of an equitable society. Team Ayn Rand for the win!

When we talk about communism, it's important to know that communism itself doesn't say leaders must be like dictators. However, in history, some leaders who called themselves communists acted like dictators. This happened because of different reasons like wanting to keep power, thinking there were threats from outside, or believing it was necessary for the revolution.

But, we can imagine communism without dictatorship too. For this, we can think about sharing power more evenly. Instead of one big leader, we can have decisions made by many people at different levels. Also, having democratic processes means everyone gets a say in decisions, making it less likely for one person to control everything. Following rules and laws can also help keep leaders accountable.

In real life, during the Spanish Civil War, a place called Anarchist Catalonia tried communism without dictatorship. They made decisions together without a big leader. In Kerala, India, there have been communist governments elected by the people without turning into dictatorships. So, imagining communism without dictatorship involves finding a good balance, solving problems in governing, and making sure leaders don't have too much power.

 

[FearlessRoar]

China is a party run capitalist economy, the whole communism theory is a façade.

Whether good or bad, there are strong arguments on both sides. The policies have turned China into the economic superpower it is today, but at the same time is also the genesis of the challenges it faces going forward.

In China, they call it "socialism with Chinese characteristics," and here's how it goes:

The government there keeps a tight grip on things, especially in important industries and key parts of the economy. So, you've got the state having a say in major sectors, but at the same time, there's room for private businesses to do their thing. It's like a mix where the government is still very much in the picture, making sure things go where they want, but they're also giving some space for private companies to run things. That's how they roll with their own version of socialism over there.

 

[FearlessRoar]

It does but it can’t swing more towards socialism, Canada is an example of absolute waste for a country with so many resources per capita.

It's surprising that Canada is a friend of America but still follows a mixed-market economy, combining elements of both socialism and capitalism.

 

[FearlessRoar]

Scandinavians have extremely free market.

Index of Economic Freedom 2024 | Statista

The 2024 Index of Economic Freedom ranks Singapore first due to its high attractiveness for foreign investments.

www.statista.com

Pure Capitalism works but just doesn’t get implemented

I think communism offers a more direct approach to addressing economic disparities with its emphasis on equality of outcome. The idea of collective ownership, where everyone shares in the benefits and ownership of resources, seems like a powerful way to prevent wealth concentration. While I respect the Nordic model for its social welfare programs, I believe communism, in theory, provides a more thorough solution to economic inequalities. Of course, this is just my perspective.

 

[FearlessRoar]

Mixed system works best

Vietnam is a pretty interesting example of a place with a mixed system. So, the Communist Party runs the show there, right? But, they've also been up for some economic changes. They brought in market oriented policies, gave a thumbs up to private businesses, and now you've got this mix of state owned enterprises and private companies doing their thing. It's like they're blending communism with a bit of capitalism.

 

[FearlessRoar]

Stalin, Pol Pot, Ceaucesceau, Kim il Sung and his descendants, Che Guevara, Mao.... and several others. The list of communist facists is a pretty long one.

Che Guevara was not a fascist. Che was actually more into the whole socialist and communist thing. Fascism is more about being on the far-right side, but Che was on the left, working with Fidel Castro in the Cuban Revolution. They're pretty different political views.

 

[FearlessRoar]

Communism doesn't work in the long run (practically speaking).

Communism doesn't encourage productivity and healthy competition. It doesn't adequately reward hard work.

I get what you're saying about communism not working in the long run, but I kinda see it differently, you know? I think communism can actually boost productivity and bring in healthy competition. When everyone's working together for the common good, it creates this team spirit and shared responsibility. There's still competition, but it's more about making things better for everyone. In communism, hard work is like a way of contributing to the whole community's well-being.

 

[FearlessRoar]

It’s good in China
Bad in Russia

Why it is bad in Russia?

 

[sweep_shot]

I get what you're saying about communism not working in the long run, but I kinda see it differently, you know? I think communism can actually boost productivity and bring in healthy competition. When everyone's working together for the common good, it creates this team spirit and shared responsibility. There's still competition, but it's more about making things better for everyone. In communism, hard work is like a way of contributing to the whole community's well-being.

Team spirit works in sports. But, I don't think it works in other sectors.

In communism, one person may put in more work than others while receiving less than others. Communism doesn't reward hard work.

It is why there aren't many successful communist countries in the world.

 

[globetrotter]

Why it is bad in Russia?

If it was good, why Russians throw communism out of Russia?

Bunch of commie leaders, their agents, supporters committed heinous crimes against Russian ppls… and different rules for them and ppls

 

[sweep_shot]

I think biggest reason why communism doesn't work is human nature.

Some humans are dishonest frauds. They may not have the best intentions in their hearts. This is why communism is not sustainable in the long run since it requires everyone to chip in.

 

[KB]

I think it is useful to clarify what we mean by communism.

On way to understand it, is in terms of its ultimate goal. The communist utopia was a classless society, with no ruling class, one which would render the state as redundant. Politics per se would not exist. Needless to say, this communist ‘nirvana’ has never been realised.

Another way to look at communism, is as a political movement. Here it may be divided into revolutionary and non-revolutionary forms. In the case of a non-revolutionary form the aim to gradually realise the ultimate utopia. Marx himself argued that history was unfolding along inexorable lines “independent of human will, consciousness, and intelligence.” This is historical determinism. If history is unfolding as an ineluctable process, it does not need change to be forced by a vanguard.

But it is the revolutionary form of communism that left its mark - a brutal mark - on the twentieth century. For the revolutionaries change had to be forced through. The existing system had to be demolished and replaced with a completely new order. Lenin and Mao were ‘voluntarists’, who emphasised the importance of will and action and not sitting back and waiting. Even Marx had written:

“Communism is for us not a state of affairs that is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement that abolishes the present state of things.”

The outcome of revolutionary communist zeal was quite disastrous. Millions perished under Stalin’s Terror, Mao’s Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, and the Pol Pot’s genocidal regime in Cambodia.

How to begin to understand this? A starting place is the reflections of the fine historian of the Soviet Union, Sheila Fitzpatrick, on the nature of revolutionaries:

“All revolutions have liberté, égalité, fraternité, and other noble slogans inscribed on their banners. All revolutionaries are enthusiasts, zealots; all are utopians, with dreams of creating a new world in which the injustice, corruption, and apathy of the old world are banished forever. They are intolerant of disagreement; incapable of compromise; mesmerized by big, distant goals; violent, suspicious, and destructive. Revolutionaries are unrealistic and inexperienced in government; their institutions and procedures are extemporized. They have the intoxicating illusion of personifying the will of the people, which means they assume the people is monolithic. They are Manicheans, dividing the world into two camps: light and darkness, the revolution and its enemies. They despise all traditions, received wisdom, icons, and superstition. They believe society can be a tabula rasa on which the revolution will write.”

 

[JaDed]

I think communism offers a more direct approach to addressing economic disparities with its emphasis on equality of outcome. The idea of collective ownership, where everyone shares in the benefits and ownership of resources, seems like a powerful way to prevent wealth concentration. While I respect the Nordic model for its social welfare programs, I believe communism, in theory, provides a more thorough solution to economic inequalities. Of course, this is just my perspective.

It’s a myth as seen time and time again.
Social programs are good but communism leads to issues, the classroom example of grading every student the same irrespective of the effort is a good example.
Social programs for education ,healthcare do make some sense.

 

[FearlessRoar]

Team spirit works in sports. But, I don't think it works in other sectors.

In communism, one person may put in more work than others while receiving less than others. Communism doesn't reward hard work.

It is why there aren't many successful communist countries in the world.

I don't agree with the idea that communism doesn't reward hard work. In communism, everyone is expected to contribute based on their abilities, and the focus is on collective well being. But yes, it is true that if someone works harder than others, they will still receive equal benefits.

 

[FearlessRoar]

I think it is useful to clarify what we mean by communism.

On way to understand it, is in terms of its ultimate goal. The communist utopia was a classless society, with no ruling class, one which would render the state as redundant. Politics per se would not exist. Needless to say, this communist ‘nirvana’ has never been realised.

Another way to look at communism, is as a political movement. Here it may be divided into revolutionary and non-revolutionary forms. In the case of a non-revolutionary form the aim to gradually realise the ultimate utopia. Marx himself argued that history was unfolding along inexorable lines “independent of human will, consciousness, and intelligence.” This is historical determinism. If history is unfolding as an ineluctable process, it does not need change to be forced by a vanguard.

But it is the revolutionary form of communism that left its mark - a brutal mark - on the twentieth century. For the revolutionaries change had to be forced through. The existing system had to be demolished and replaced with a completely new order. Lenin and Mao were ‘voluntarists’, who emphasised the importance of will and action and not sitting back and waiting. Even Marx had written:

“Communism is for us not a state of affairs that is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement that abolishes the present state of things.”

The outcome of revolutionary communist zeal was quite disastrous. Millions perished under Stalin’s Terror, Mao’s Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, and the Pol Pot’s genocidal regime in Cambodia.

How to begin to understand this? A starting place is the reflections of the fine historian of the Soviet Union, Sheila Fitzpatrick, on the nature of revolutionaries:

“All revolutions have liberté, égalité, fraternité, and other noble slogans inscribed on their banners. All revolutionaries are enthusiasts, zealots; all are utopians, with dreams of creating a new world in which the injustice, corruption, and apathy of the old world are banished forever. They are intolerant of disagreement; incapable of compromise; mesmerized by big, distant goals; violent, suspicious, and destructive. Revolutionaries are unrealistic and inexperienced in government; their institutions and procedures are extemporized. They have the intoxicating illusion of personifying the will of the people, which means they assume the people is monolithic. They are Manicheans, dividing the world into two camps: light and darkness, the revolution and its enemies. They despise all traditions, received wisdom, icons, and superstition. They believe society can be a tabula rasa on which the revolution will write.”

Communism aims for a classless society, and I personally lean towards achieving this goal gradually, without forceful revolutions. I believe that revolutionaries, despite good intentions, can be unrealistic and intolerant. Creating a new world requires careful consideration rather than relying solely on zeal and destruction.

 

[FearlessRoar]

The future of communist capitalism in China

It is a mistake to believe that China is no different from the capitalist countries and economic systems that follow the Western liberal model led by the United States of America. There are still strategic and fundamental differences between the Chinese leadership’s approach to governance and the Western capitalist system. China’s adoption of a free market economy does not necessarily mean its abandonment of socialism, which will ultimately lead – according to the Chinese point of view – to building a completely communist society. Rather, adopting a free market economic system based on capitalist thought, from China’s point of view, through a scientific experimentation, to build a free market economy, which will allow it to build national wealth and develop its industries in a global competitive environment, while attracting capital, expertise, and skills from outside China. For this reason, China continues to liberalize its economic, financial and banking sectors.

To achieve this, Chinese President Comrade “Xi Jinping” defined the future of communist capitalism in China, by declaring his principles towards integrating capitalism and communism economically, by emphasizing adherence to the principle and approach of (socialism with Chinese characteristics in the modern era), which is based on continuing the approach. His predecessors were leaders of the Chinese Communist Party, with a focus on continuing and deepening the comprehensive reform process, especially in the economic and administrative sectors, while adopting scientific ideas to achieve technological innovations, simultaneously with maintaining a sustainable green environment, an open and accessible horizon for development for all, and emphasizing moral and social moral values. Based on the concepts of (Marxism, communism, and socialism with Chinese characteristics), with safe coexistence with nature by adopting the concepts of renewable energies, preserving the environment, contributing to global climate security, strengthening Chinese national security, and charting a common destiny between the Chinese people and the rest of the peoples of the world in a global environment free of Wars, and strengthening party discipline among members of the Communist Party of China.

Here, Chinese President Xi Jinping shows great interest in studying the reasons for the failure of socialism in the Soviet Union, and how to avoid those mistakes in China. President Xi believes, in accordance with his philosophy, that the Soviet Union has adhered to a rigid doctrine that it has not tried to develop, and that the Soviet Communist Party has sagged and lost its vitality at all levels, high and low, in the Soviet state. The Soviet army has also lost its ideological orientations in directing its people, unlike the situation in the Chinese state at the present time. Therefore, the final result in the end was the fall of the Soviet Communist Party, and the disintegration of the Soviet Union as a great socialist state.

Accordingly, China has learned a lot from the Soviet experience in order to study and understand it as a lesson from history for the Chinese. Accordingly, Chinese President Comrade “Xi Jinping” tried to revitalize the components of his communist state, unlike the situation of the Soviets, with his determination to make (Chinese socialism with Chinese characteristics in the modern era) based on continuing the approach of his predecessors among the party leaders, with a focus on continuing and deepening the comprehensive reform process, in a large number of economic, administrative, financial, social and development sectors. Therefore, we find that after more than 75 years, the Soviet communist experiment has collapsed, and the Chinese experiment has survived, which hastened since the 1970s to open up economically to become an important economic competitor to the United States of America and the capitalist countries, adhering to Marxist theory and the ideas of its late leader, “Mao Zedong”.

Here, President “Xi Jinping” affirms his deep and complete belief in Marxism-Leninism and Mao’s ideas, which lifted China from backwardness, weakness, and poverty, and led to the rise of modern China. President “Xi” also asserts that strengthening and strengthening the foundations of socialist society in the future will require a long period of time, but according to the vision of Chinese President “Xi Jinping” and the leaders of his Communist Party, in his capacity as Secretary-General of the ruling Communist Party in China, he considers that the destiny of Chinese socialism is victory. The final outcome is that capitalism is heading toward inevitable demise.

Here it is worth noting that “Karl Marx”, the German philosopher who lived in the nineteenth century, believed that socialism would create a better future that would transcend capitalism. A century after his death, the Chinese Communist Party is applying his theory in practice, albeit with Chinese characteristics, and leading the country from poverty to prosperity. As the late Chinese leader “Deng Xiaoping” said that: “When China enters the front ranks of nations, we will not only have paved a new path for the peoples of the Third World, but we will also have demonstrated to humanity, and this is most important, that socialism is the only path that excels on capitalism”. The twentieth century witnessed intense competition between the socialist and capitalist camps, but the fall of the Soviet Union dealt a severe blow to the international socialist movement. But, China resisted that crisis and stepped into the new century with a Marxism that applied Chinese characteristics.

The future of communist capitalism in China

It is a mistake to believe that China is no different from the capitalist countries and economic systems that follow the Western liberal model led by the USA

moderndiplomacy.eu

 

[FearlessRoar]

They're mixing capitalism with socialism while sticking to Marxist principles. China's economic success and commitment to socialism challenge capitalism's dominance. It shows that communism, with Chinese characteristics, is shaping up to be a promising path for their future.

 

[ElRaja]

They're mixing capitalism with socialism while sticking to Marxist principles. China's economic success and commitment to socialism challenge capitalism's dominance. It shows that communism, with Chinese characteristics, is shaping up to be a promising path for their future.

disagree, china is a middle income country at best, struggling with a demographic inversion and a total reliance on capitalist economies to feed any growth it may have. there is no doubt that free market liberal capitalism is the greatest generator of wealth, however it is inherently ruthless, especially on those who do not posses capital (either physical, intellectual or financial).

you could rewind history and have western European countries develop to industrialized levels without any communism, however chinas economic growth over the past 30 years would be impossible without producing for the capitalism economies which already existed.

capitalism in western Europe was wealth creative, socialism whether practised on local level or international can only ever be a wealth transfer mechanism.

an ideal economy is capitalist in wealth generation and redistributive in social justice, i believe education and justice and human rights and they must be funded publically, for everything else, theres mastercard, lol.

 

[KB]

Che Guevara was not a fascist. Che was actually more into the whole socialist and communist thing. Fascism is more about being on the far-right side, but Che was on the left, working with Fidel Castro in the Cuban Revolution. They're pretty different political views.

I agree and ‘communist fascist’ does not make much sense to me as a description.

The problem with -isms is that there are always conflicting understandings of what they mean. There is no objective definition - we cannot run experiments on any -ism. But for clarity it is important to make clear what working definition we are applying - the ones we find useful.

Communism, in its Marxist-Leninist form aimed in the long-run at a classless society, with no ruling class, one which would render the state as redundant. Socialism was to be a temporary phase between capitalism and communism. As Lenin realised, those that possess power and own property, were not likely to give up their privileges without a fight. Hence for many communists, violence would be required to overthrow the existing order. The question was whether the revolution would occur organically and in the future or whether it needed human action to force the issue immediately. Lenin and Mao believed in the latter.

The Communist Party of India (Marxist), has been a more peaceful movement and states explicitly in its Programme that it “strives to achieve the establishment of people's democracy and socialist transformation through peaceful means.” But it still aims at “developing a powerful mass revolutionary movement” and notes that "it needs always to be borne in mind that the ruling classes never relinquish their power voluntarily. They seek to defy the will of the people and seek to reverse it by lawlessness and violence. It is, therefore, necessary for the revolutionary forces to be vigilant and so orient their work that they can face up to all contingencies, to any twist and turn in the political life of the country.”

Fascists were also seeking a revolution but of a different kind. Fascism can be defined as a revolutionary form of extreme nationalism. I think a really useful definition is as follows:

“A revolutionary form of ultra-nationalism bent on mobilizing all “healthy” social and political energies to resist the perceived threat of decadence and on achieving the goal of a reborn national or ethnic community. This project involves the regeneration both of the political culture and of the social and ethical culture that underpins it, and in some cases involves the eugenic concept of rebirth based on racial doctrine.” (From, World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopaedia)

For the communist it is capitalism that is on death row and it needs to be replaced by socialism in the new order. For the fascist, what needs saving is the nation (or ethnic community). They see decline, decay and decadence, requiring a revolution leading to the rebirth of the nation; a revolution that will create a new society, a new culture, a new man and woman, which will provide people with a sense of identity and meaning based on the reborn nation. Here the nation, not class, is central to the revolution. Violence within the fascist worldview has a curative dimension. As one of the leading historians of fascism, Stanley Payne has noted, for fascists, “violence possessed a certain positive and therapeutic value in and of itself [and]…was necessary for the health of national society.”

It should now be obvious that fascism is also distinct from conservatism. Whereas conservatives seek to maintain order and control and manage change, fascists are seeking something much more radical: destroying and overthrowing the existing order, to create something very new. A form of creative destruction, in their minds.

Therefore, Franco of Spain and Salazar of Portugal are better defined as conservative authoritarians than fascists. In the interwar period the only fascist movements that succeeded in obtaining state power were Mussolini’s regime in Italy, Hitler’s regime in Germany and the Croatian Ustasha.

 

[IndoorCricket]

Communism concept seems to be noble but doesn't translate well to reality.

 

[FearlessRoar]

Indian communist leader Sitaram Yechury dies after illness​

Sitaram Yechury, the leader of India's largest communist party, has died at the age of 72.

He was being treated for an acute respiratory tract infection and had been admitted to a Delhi hospital since 19 August.

Yechury, the general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPI (M), was a key figure in India's politics over several decades.

Several politicians including main opposition leader Rahul Gandhi and former rival Mamata Banerjee have paid their tributes.

Yechury started his political career as a student leader with the left-wing Student Federation of India. He was arrested in 1975, when the Congress government led by Indira Gandhi imposed an Emergency that saw widespread curtailment of civil liberties.

After his release, he went on to become the president of Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University, where he studied economics.

He played an especially significant role during the peak years of coalition politics, when the federal government's stability depended on bringing together disparate ideologies and priorities.

In 1996, he played a leading role in forming a coalition of 13 parties, which governed India for nearly two years with two prime ministers - HD Deve Gowda and IK Gujral - sharing the tenure.

In 2004, his party won a historic 44 seats in the 2004 parliamentary election.

The Left parties, including the CPI(M), then supported the Congress-led government from “outside” - a term used for supporting the regime without taking ministerial roles.

But in 2008, they withdrew their support as a protest against the Indo-US nuclear deal, which required India to place its civil nuclear facilities under the watch of International Atomic Energy Agency in exchange for full civil nuclear cooperation with the United States.

The Left’s decision was controversial and seen by many as questionable as it failed to repeat its 2004 electoral success.

By the time Yechury became the CPI(M)'s general secretary in 2015, the party had lost many of its former strongholds, including West Bengal, and its parliamentary seats were on the decline.

He was a member of the Rajya Sabha, or the upper house of parliament, from 2005 to 2017.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, with whom Yechury shared a warm relationship, called him a "friend" while paying his tribute.

"A protector of the Idea of India with a deep understanding of our country. I will miss the long discussions we used to have," he wrote on X (formerly Twitter).

Mamata Banerjee, whose Trinamool Congress ended the Left's 34-year-old rule in West Bengal in 2011, called his death "a loss for national politics".

Sitaram Yechury: Indian communist leader dies after illness

Yechury died in a Delhi hospital where he was being treated for an acute respiratory tract infection.

www.bbc.com

 

[FearlessRoar]

Sri Lanka has just elected Anura Kumara Dissanayake, a Marxist-leaning leader, as its new president. His win signals a strong desire for change, especially after the country’s severe economic crisis. Dissanayake is promising to tackle corruption and strengthen the fragile recovery, which resonates with voters looking for accountability.

It's interesting to see how he managed to pull in 42.3% of the votes, a significant leap from just 3% in the last election. This shift away from traditional political figures shows a growing appetite for new ideas in governance. Dissanayake's victory might be a pivotal moment for Sri Lanka, and it’ll be fascinating to see how his policies play out in addressing the country's challenges.