display | more...

A sort of communism that is supposed to be the real stuff. It is often claimed that True Communism has not yet seen the light of day, and that the communism that has been practiced was too flawed at several important communist points to be True Communism. One could argue that True Communism is just communism in theory and that communism in theory is something very different from communism in practice.

True Communism is the stuff that Karl Marx dreamed about. Communism has been impossible for many countries, for Karl Marx never took in the fact that one government could ever rule a country, and never will we all share one religion. Communism may work for some, it will never work with others. It is like the proverbial stories, myths, and tales from around the world. They are all different, but they all are essentially the same. Governments want peace and their people to be happy and content. Many Religions want people to believe in their what they think is right. I don't think we will ever be able to agree on anything, not between 2 people from the 6 billion people that live here.

Communism in today's society is usally a dicatorship or some other authoritarian government. Russia was on its way to becoming a true communist country. The major factor that killed Communist Russia was Josepf Stalin. If you ask me, Lenin was headed down the right path. The Red Scare also had a big effect on the development of True Communism. I like the idea of communism. It already works on a small scale. If you asked me to choose between communism and democracy, or socialism and capitalism. I would be divided, both have great ideals but neither work without somebody gaining to much power.

My Thoughts and Opinion:
Communism so far has always led to a dictatorship.
Democracy is rule by the mob, but just because they are the majority doesn't make them right?(Note: Hitler was elected to be der Fuhrer
Socrates said Rule by the mob.
Capitalism and Socialism: I will admit to not knowing of any high ranked socialist country, so I can't provide why it doesn't work, but with Capitalism today, especially in the United States, the country is turning into a company run republic. I don't like either True Capitalism or True Socialism. The reason because both true capitalists and true socialists are way to radical for many reasons. True Capitalists would want you to pay money to visit a park and not have national parks in our great country. I would not mind paying taxes for more parks, but some want National Parks to be able to be sold as private property. I dislike Socialism because it is about control and I dislike Capitalism because it is rule by the wealthy. I like very little parts of these governments to.
A standard defense of communism by leftist talking heads is that there has never really been a "real" communist state. So what is true communism? Whatever Karl Marx had in his drug-addled head? Or the new theories cooked up by his followers? Here is the first flaw in the true communism defense, the lack of a solid definition. I've yet to run across a group of commies that did not claim the true communist mantle. Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, Stalinists, Trotskyites, you name it. Even the libertarian socialists, also known as the anarchists, staked their claims.

Any time a critic points out past communist failures, the dittoheads would point their fingers at the other factions and claim that their derivative was Karl Marx's real vision. Repeat ad nauseam.

Or you can cut the crap and look at it by faction by faction. There has certainly been established regimes of the Stalinist, Maoist and Marxist-Leninist flavors, and they resulted in total disasters. Those factions would like to disown their failures by claiming those weren't communist examples but "state capitalism". They probably thought that the inclusion of the c-word would ease their pains.

Marx stated that the revolution should be lead by a temporary cadre class which would eventually render itself unnecessary. There has yet been a case of the cadre class giving up its power "for the good of the people". In fact, later revisions of Marxist theory, most notably by Mao, would state that the people are in fact too stupid to see the light of the true communist way, and that the cadre class is vital for guidance purposes.

Here lies another flaw in Marx's basic theory. Marx wrote on individualism with comtempt, and he wasn't the first. Jean-Jacques Rousseau trashed the individual spirit, and Marx developed on his views. Individuals are greedy, lazy, stupid bums that needed the intelligensia to guide them to the socialist light. Stalin called individualism a disease. It is funny how he attaches the word "disease" to all these things. Mao called it a cult. Sure, he was one to talk.

It is safe to assume that every communist derivative, including the ever-elusive true communism, requires a slave-like populace with no tolerance for individual dissent. Power to the people indeed. So what did Marx's Apostles use to snap the stupid mass line (Maoist term) out of their individualist minds and join the great socialist revolution? I know that lefties everywhere are very fond of the Chomskian term, "manufacturing consent". I'll leave it at that.

So is true communism might well be one that is devoid of cadres? The libertarian socialists seem to think so. Their preferred goal is the spontaneous revolution, where the people rise up and fight the oppressors without the cadres to lead them. Has it ever happened before? Some point to the Spanish Anarchists, or maybe the Sandinistas. But those are false examples because the Spanish anarchists were a relatively small faction in the complicated Spanish Civil War, and the Sandinistas had a very distinct leadership, namely their 12 commandants. A better example of their "leaderless revolution" would be the plateau years of the Khmer Rouge or the Maoist Cultural Revolution, actually an anomaly from Mao's dictates.

That worked very well indeed.

Despite all the lover-like sighs and dreamy eyes "true communism" would bring, the term has been mangled beyond rescue. True communism has no definition. It is simply a trophy-mandate for the faction-ridden Ultra Left. But there is one certain fact. True communism, despite all the lies surrounding it, has no respect for the individual. That's why the only law the Left has ever universally followed for the past 40 years is "Don't Look Back". For all they would see is famine, gulags, oppression, purges and death.

Actually there isn't much to add after MythBuster's write-up but I couldn't believe my eyes after I upvoted her: She had -3 while SB5 had +3 with her wu, full of mistakes.

I'm one of those darned leftist punks who still think that there hasn't been True Communist state. Still, I agree pretty much with matsmats and MythBuster i.e. there will not be one.

First of all, SB5 was right only saying that True Communism was something Karl Marx dreamed about. But there wasn't goddamn government nor one religion in his True Communism. He never wrote a lot on the coming societies but you should all read Grundrisse to get any idea what True Communism was for Marx.
MythBuster is very much right that the proper definition is missing. In Grundrisse Marx wrote that no transition period would be needed i.e. we can overcome capitalism without transition period called socialism.
There's some debate over whether the term "transition" was ever properly translated leading into catastrophes of Russia etc..

So, as far as I know my Marx, True Communism is defined by following properties:

  • No government, no state
  • Property/possession relations of capitalism have been overcome
  • No classes
  • There's no difference between urban and rural areas
  • Everyone's needs are fulfilled
  • Everyone contributes as they are able to
Simple as that.

Finally some notes for SB5:
- Lenin was on the right path? Don't you remember Kronstadt?
- Aye, Hitler was elected but the Nazi party build up the dictatorship afterwards, against constitution.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.