“Museum of Communismâ€￾ - "WOOT"!

[Geeforcer]

fbg1,

Unfortunately no nation to date has implemented a textbook example of Marxist Communism. Most are just tinpot dictatorships flying a hammer and sickle flag heh.

Indeed, what we today refer to as communism is quite often bolshevism. (With all the “dictatorship of proletariatâ€￾ and other Lenin's add-ons). However, the Soviets were so successful in high jacking the ideology and branding it "true communism" that this is what it's now by today. (Marx has once said "If that's what you call communist, then I am not a communist). I do submit however that the reason why Marxist vision was never implemented is because it is utopian to the extreme. He envisioned such harmony between the fallow man the government would not longer be need and would disappear. How are you supposed to implement that?

 

[Willmeister]

He envisioned such harmony between the fallow man the government would not longer be need and would disappear. How are you supposed to implement that?

Simple answer: You can't. There will always be interests that will work with the system for personal gain. It is always these parasites who bring systems down. As flawless as your system may be on paper, we all know it doesn't quite work the same in real life. That's a flaw in all -isms.

 

[pax]

Yeah Marx's fault is that he based his ideas on man eventually growing into wide acceptance of the collective good without a fault. Itll never happen and obviously unenforcable no matter the size the state. Which anyway like you said was meant to dissapear under communism's vision of utopia. Completely unworkable had they really tried to implement it in any sized country...

I dont think we need to ponder that much on failed ideologies as much as failing ones still around today but Id like to see a museum to soviet communism as we have with nazis...

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Very insightful fbg1. Thanks.

 

[Geeforcer]

Apparently not many of you even know what Communism is. Unfortunately, few do these days, to our potential future regret.

That's quite a bold statement.

Communism as laid out by Marx is not evil, for his writings primarily focuses on pointing out glaring flaws of late 19th century industrial societies and provide his vision.
While very utopian, he does not make provisions for evils commonly attributed to communism. He also made a number of predictions based on historical precedence, and his theory gained popularity as some of them were quite accurate at the time. Of course, soon afterward his predictions stopped coming true, and that's where we get a number of Revisionist movements.

Many people who argue for inherent evil of communism like to say that Marx’s vision doesn't "seem" evil solely by the virtue of its incompleteness. While Marx clearly spells out his vision for the ideal society (disappearance of aristocracy and bourgeoisie classes, money and eventually government and private property; universal equality; etc), he provided for not real practical way of achieving them. In his vision, there is to come a glorious proletariat revolution and from then on things magically sort themselves out. Marx understood that for his theories to take hold, a monumental change in the society, and most importantly human nature would be required, however he laid out no mechanism to facilitate this change. Thus, his followers had to fill in the glaring blanks he left - and by completing his ideology they made it evil, as there is no other way to complete it. Therefore, communist is evil.

I don't buy this. Marx's ideology might be unrealistic, utopian, unworkable, etc - but I don't see how he could be blamed for evil perpetrated in the name of implementing his vision. To draw an analogy: Let's say I write a book describing horrors of homelessness and calling for its elimination, without providing a specific solution to the problem. A group of people reads my book, heeds my call to eliminate homelessness - and proceeds to round up and murder every homeless person they find. Can I be held responsible for their crimes?

 

[rabidrabbit]

I fully agree with Geeforcer's words.
Marx's vision was used to 'hype' the ideology to people as a blissful utopia.
The communist ideology itself is in no way 'evil'. The way it has been used as a cover for totally opposite intentions, is evil.

By the way, wher I live, you can visit this

 

[fbg1]

fbg1,

Unfortunately no nation to date has implemented a textbook example of Marxist Communism. Most are just tinpot dictatorships flying a hammer and sickle flag heh.

Actually, the end result of Soviet Communism, or Bolshevism, was supposed to be textbook Marxist Communism. Lenin & Co. knew they couldn't achieve such a social utopia overnight due to human nature's flaws (greed), so they conceived a "progressive" plan based on dialectical materialism to fix humanity and prepare it for Marxist Communism. Capitalism/Individualism --> Bolshevism/Socialism --> Marxist Communism. Obviously it failed b/c you can't just remove greed from humanity, no matter how many capitalistic types you murder and brainwash. It's bred into our genes, as proven when even the leaders of the Soviet Communist Party succombed to it in various ways.

It also failed because they ignored their own philosophy. According to dialectical materialism, all social change occurs when an antithesis rises to challenge a thesis, overcomes the thesis through a violent synthesis, and becomes the new thesis. That is how Socialism was supposed to overcome Capitalism. However, according to the Soviet Communist Party, once Socialism had become the worldwide paradigm, and greed had been eradicated, it was simply supposed to morph into Marxist Communism. But that progression is contrary to what the dialectical process calls for. Shouldn't Communism overcome Socialism as the latter did Capitalism? This contradiction begs the question, did the Bolsheviks ever really intend for Marxist Communism to occur, or did they simply pay it lip service to trick the world into giving them absolute power on the way to a false ideal? That I don't know; I haven't yet found any rationalization for that contradiction...

 

[fbg1]

That's quite a bold statement.

True. I hope didn't come across as an arrogant ass, but I said that b/c so many people these days seem to be unaware of the extent of the crimes against humanity perpetrated by Soviet Communism, and more importantly, why. It's extraordinarily dangerous when new generations aren't taught exactly what Bolshevism, Communism, and materialism were, b/c they're by no means dead and could certainly be used again, especially in the age of genetic engineering.

Regarding the rest of what you wrote, there is an inherent evil in Marx's philosophy, at least imho... I was about to start writing, but just realized the Communist Museum which is the subject of this thread explains what I was going to say in much more detail and completeness. So I'll let them say it instead:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/marx1.htm

Marx railed against the lingering feudalistic class system of old Europe, rightfully imo, but his critiques and proposed solutions are invalid in a country of absolute class mobility like America. Every evil thing that happens in the world starts with a rationalization for it, and his philosophy has provided the philosophical rational for all sorts of evils, from the encroachment of individual rights to outright tyranny and opression. Whether Marx himself foresaw and/or intended that, I don't know. If he did, he was evil, if not, he probably wasn't. Regardless, the consequences of his philosophies have cost millions of people their lives, families, and livlihoods, and therefore are imo inherently evil.