I was sitting in my history lesson yesterday when we were on the topic of the Cold War Now If you don't know already The Cold War was mostly a war based around USA Vs USSR (Formely known today as Russia) And we were discussing how both sides tried to brainwash europeans into being either Capitalist OR Communist.
Capatilsim is what U.S.A and U.K are towards they have different partys to vote for in election and everyone has their own right to run their own busniess. Communist on the other hand is different it has only ONE Party to vote for so who ever is the Dictator they are put in each election and they win all the time the Dictator can only be changed when the Dictator dies or resigns and Communist don't pay taxes BUT there property is owned by the Dictator and is rightfully theres not the people living in there.
And I was staring at the word Communsim in my book and I was saying to myself "Communsim Communsim!!" and over and I was thinking can our modern day society go back to Communism?
PLease Reply and don't hesistate to offend my intellegence since i'm only 14.
1 edit
Originally posted by Howell123I'd be a little bit worried if your teacher gave you this verbatim, Howell, it seems very tendentious - if it's your own view, great, but "Everyone has their own right to run their own business" in particular is a bit of a reach - where do I get the money to have mine, then?
I was sitting in my history lesson yesterday when we were on the topic of the Cold War Now If you don't know already The Cold War was mostly a war based around USA Vs USSR (Formely known today as Russia) And we were discussing how both sides tried to brainwash europeans into being either Capitalist OR Communist.
Capatilsim is what U.S.A and U.K are toward Communism?
PLease Reply and don't hesistate to offend my intellegence since i'm only 14.
Originally posted by Howell123I think you need to read more about Marxist philosophy and how it has or has not been implimented historicly. I think you will find that many times what the west has branded as "communism", may actually not be communism at all.
I was sitting in my history lesson yesterday when we were on the topic of the Cold War Now If you don't know already The Cold War was mostly a war based around USA Vs USSR (Formely known today as Russia) And we were discussing how both sides tried to brainwash europeans into being either Capitalist OR Communist.
Capatilsim is what U.S.A and U.K are toward ...[text shortened]... Communism?
PLease Reply and don't hesistate to offend my intellegence since i'm only 14.
Originally posted by AmauroteHe said you had the right, he didn't say you had the means.
I'd be a little bit worried if your teacher gave you this verbatim, Howell, it seems very tendentious - if it's your own view, great, but "Everyone has their own right to run their own business" in particular is a bit of a reach - where do I get the money to have mine, then?
Originally posted by Howell123Your perception of Communism is overy simplistic. The hallmark of what Communism is supposed to be is worker ownership of the means of production. This means that the workers in a factory (for example) would collectively own and operate the factory themselves. This stands in contrast to a Capitalist system where one person owns the factory and hires or fires employees, as he needs them, to work for him.
I was sitting in my history lesson yesterday when we were on the topic of the Cold War Now If you don't know already The Cold War was mostly a war based around USA Vs USSR (Formely known today as Russia) And we were discussing how both sides tried to brainwash europeans into being either Capitalist OR Communist.
Capatilsim is what U.S.A and U.K are toward ...[text shortened]... Communism?
PLease Reply and don't hesistate to offend my intellegence since i'm only 14.
Following the Russian Revolution, in 1917, Communism became corrupted by Lenin, and then Stalin. They decided it would not be the workers who would be supreme, but the Communist Party, who was supposed to represent the interests of the workers. Of course it didn't work out that way. The Communist Party was only interested in expanding and maintaining its own power, so it very quickly became dictatorial in nature. But this had nothing to do with what Karl Marx had in mind. That dictatorial type of Communism is often referred to as 'Leninism' or 'Stalinism' to distinguish it from the original 'Marxist' form of Communism. All countries that have claimed to be Communist have been of the Leninist/Stalinist variation. There has never been a country that applied Communism of a real Marxist variety. So it has often been said that Communism hasn't really ever been tried.
Originally posted by rwingettWell said.
Your perception of Communism is overy simplistic. The hallmark of what Communism is supposed to be is worker ownership of the means of production. This means that the workers in a factory (for example) would collectively own and operate the factory themselves. This stands in contrast to a Capitalist system where one person owns the factory and hires or fire ...[text shortened]... Marxist variety. So it has often been said that Communism hasn't really ever been tried.
Well you seem interested in the matter so I would recommend some reading. For a start you can read the wikipedia article on communism for a better understanding of it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Click and read any of the links that interest you.
Then for a more in depth look you should go for any Karl Marx you can lay your hands on he was the 'father' of communism. Next look at some of the places that have tried it, how it has worked what have the problems been and so on.
Originally posted by Will EverittHey, you don’t wanna encourage the kid..!
Well you seem interested in the matter so I would recommend some reading. For a start you can read the wikipedia article on communism for a better understanding of it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Click and read any of the links that interest you.
Then for a more in depth look you should go for any Karl Marx you can lay your hands on h ...[text shortened]... ome of the places that have tried it, how it has worked what have the problems been and so on.
Originally posted by rwingettThe main error with your post is that I don't think classing Lenin with Stalin is accurate. Lenin was fairly true to Marxism but Stalin was just an out and out brutal dictator with some mental problems near the end of his reign. Lenin adapted Marxism to Russia but he read Marx like some Christians read the bible. Karl Marx did think up the violent revolution as the means for installing communism.
Your perception of Communism is overy simplistic. The hallmark of what Communism is supposed to be is worker ownership of the means of production. This means that the workers in a factory (for example) would collectively own and operate the factory themselves. This stands in contrast to a Capitalist system where one person owns the factory and hires or fire ...[text shortened]... Marxist variety. So it has often been said that Communism hasn't really ever been tried.
Originally posted by rwingettWhat Karl had in mind for others to follow, and what he followed himself are two diametrically opposed ideals. One hundred thirteen years following his death, we still have ignorants pushing his ideas forward, despite their abject failure.
Your perception of Communism is overy simplistic. The hallmark of what Communism is supposed to be is worker ownership of the means of production. This means that the workers in a factory (for example) would collectively own and operate the factory themselves. This stands in contrast to a Capitalist system where one person owns the factory and hires or fire ...[text shortened]... Marxist variety. So it has often been said that Communism hasn't really ever been tried.