Lets talk about the down side of communism and in my humble opinion its not as good as capitalism.
In one word, centralization.
Communism has a centralized pyramidal hierarchy (worker > party > head of state) , on top of that pyramid a man (Lenin, Stalin, kim jung-un,…) these men are head of their political party as well as head of state, they have virtually no opposition, no balance, they have all power.
This result in a lifetime presidency, they're in charge, they decide when to leave, and sometime turn the state into a pseudo monarchy (North Korea)
Am i the only one to see that no opposition to a government would inevitably lead to autocracy/dictatorchip ?.
Compared to under the Tsar? Compared to under the Japanese fascists? Plenty. Wasn't perfect, but it was better. Read a book OP.
1. its not as bad as you're making it out to be 2. we're not talking about revolution in USA, we're talking about revolution in reactionary hellscapes. im so tired of reading that LMAO LENIN didnt immediately institute communism so it was a failure. read a book.
Comparing communism to capitalism in the same country tells a much different picture.
You are wrong, simply because Centralisation is not the integral part of either the Communism or Capitalism at all.
Except, well, you know, a plenty of Communist leaders were stripped of power legally.
In capitalism, on the other hand, Economic power is handled with true Despotism, which permits absolutely no legal means to influence it.
Population is not necessarily a good indicator of economic success, in fact more often than not it's the other way around, people tend to have less children (if any) if they're economically well off. The rest there is fine.
FUCKING HELL OP. posts like yours give me a headache just to look at. I don't even know where to start. . . . OK First of all communism is not a political system or economic model. Comunism is a mode of production where production is socialized, as in :producing and working for the survival and improvement of society as oposed to the profit motiff. How the citizens of a socilist society decide to implement this it's up to them, as long as production is socialized and means of production are colectivelly owned.
With this in mind let's comment on your post.
Communism is not limited to centralized models, as i said before there is no required economic model for communism. Either way centralized production has shown respectable results in the soviet union and can be usefull in many areas of our society.
Again communism is not a political system. Either way, you just presented a really simplistic and idealistic vision of the political workings of 20th century based solely on a western liberal vision. You are used to liberal democratic politics and can only see this system as the valid one even when surrounded with cases of it being absolute garbage. The heads of state were not absolute monarchs. It is true that there was little opposittion to unpopular measures put forth by past socialist states, but this is mostly because the party was widelly respected and people honestly are gratefull for living stable lives when the rest of the world actively tries to destroy your country.
yes you are the only one jimmy the chosen one, the special one trully enlighted.
No. This isn't an argument. If you can't take valid criticism then you can't evolve and better yourself. I'm pointing out the flaws that exists in the communist systems have gone wrong in the past and still are. Every single case of communism resulted in an autocracy and nepotism and i'm not even talking about corruption on lower levels. I dare you to show me a single case of communist country that didn't fallow that path.
Except thats exactly what communism is about. Putting things in common. You can't have things in common but separated, that doesn't make sens. Arguable As in ? Now thats just strawmaning. Who said i'm a liberal ?
My sides have transcended space time en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge grateful to death. user. But you're right, statistically if you kill everyone who disagree with you you won't have much opposition.
Unironically, yes, you illiterate Zig Forumsnigger.
So you came to the communist forum to lecture communists about what communism actually is? OK then, explain further what do you mean by "Putting things in common", because that means jack shit, and after that prove me how this is the consensus among communist thinkers and activists. I can give you a pass if you manage to give me some thinkers.
If going from a shitty late monarchist country barely holding its own on ww1 to the world's second strongest superpower is not enough i don't know what else i can give you.
Organizing mass industry and space travel among other things. Also global efforts that are not possible at local levels and many times sub-optimal at international levels. Major example is fighting climate change, we are failing to do it as a species.
I certainly didn't. i said you were validating liberal democratic systems based on the fact that you offered no critique of centralized power. You just said it was bad.
Pic related is the funeral of joseph stalin, he was a widely beloved by the population this is just historical consensus. Yes hundred of thousands of political enemies were been killed, but this does not mean the population was in fear, because they were in agreement and had nothing to worry about. In fact if all the opposition was killed then really it was a small part of the population compared to the USA for example where half the population is part of the opposition.