Communism is about total theft of those capable for distribution to those unwilling. As to morals, it seems this world has none so communism would be just for the unwilling.
Well the key word there is always. Because of the few bad seeds, we can't have communism. You could always argue that there are a few good seeds too. But its more important to cover for that bad seeds than hope for the good seeds.
Yes indeed. They can't even feed or dress themselves. The hubris in working and middle class aspirations! Fttt! Know your place. All things bright and beautiful, All creatures great and small, All things wise and wonderful, The Lord God made them all. The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate, God made them high and lowly, And ordered their estate.
Well, the point is taht most people see Communism as one entity. And Comunism is like Capitalism: it has "right" and "lefts". Communism is about the nationalization of the means of production. Just that. Making this, even if there are filthy rich people and people dying of hunger, it's a perfectly functioning communist regime. Then, all the rest comes later, depending in what point of the communist spectre is the country. All in all, it's evidently more equalitarian and less competitive. So it's dificult for it to survive next to capitalist regimes.
And that categorical afirmation comes from? PD: that's is not suposed to sound ironic, but a serious question.
Communism is about establishing a classless, moneyless, stateless society in which the means of production are owned collectively (not nationally) and used to produce goods according to the needs of people. Nationalising the means of production does not neccessarily lead to such a society and might instead lead to an authoritarian state capitalism like it happened in the Soviet Union for example. A nationalised economy would also require a state and also communism is by nature internationalist which also goes against the idea of a nationalised economy being the essence of communism.
Well, man. That's marxism. And I am not sure that even Marx commented about moneyless (I should read the capital again). That's for sure. My bad. I was wrong with that word. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that. Maybe ot was too late at night. The word I wanted to say is colectivize (the means of production). What does not require a state. Sorry for the mistake. All in all, after recognizing my stupid mistake, let's return to the point. Let's not make like Marx or Engels invented socialism.
The Marxist conception of communism is moneyless indeed. Anarchists sometimes have different ideas about this and aren't always opposed to a state (at least the way a Marxist would describe a state). They didn't invent socialism but they developed a scientific approach to it. Before Marx and Engels socialism was usually utopian socialism which was based on idealism and utopian blueprints.
I haven't read much about anarchists, but what you say surprises me. What current accepts the existence of a state? Thats 100% true (taht's why we call it cientific comunism). However, I met once a primitivist. A rare sight, indeed. All in all, thoughts about Luxemburgism? (and similars)
They basically consider things like the CNT/FAI or Makhnovist Ukraine to have actually been a stateless society while it clearly had a state (standing army, leadership, prisons etc.). They just use a different definition for what states are so from a Marxist perspective an anarchist society isn't a stateless one. I honestly don't know too much about Luxemburgism but I've heard that it's some kind of ultra-leftism which I found confusing because Luxemburg was fairly close to the Bolsheviks. However, she had more of an emphasis on workers' councils and disagreed with the national right to self-determination. She also was a proponent of unconditional freedom of speech and democracy. I think that my current is fairly close to Luxemburg's ideas even though we disagree on question of national right to self-determination.
Well, about the CNT-FAI, they wanted to do the revolution in reality. Just that in the middle of a war may not be the wisest of choices. So there was a little civil war inside the Spanish civil war, where the comunists fought against CNT-FAI and the POUM, ending twith the commies victory, who said that first the war, then the revolution. I always wonder about stuff like this. Why everybody is so strongly nationalistic, when it is difficult to even decide what it is, or if some people form a nation or not.
Communism is way more moral than capitalism. At list it is fairer. It's just people who were implementing communism didn't fit in moral standarts of the following generations. And communism is outdated. It was even outdated in the times of Marx. Probably, in the times of Owen who really started this teaching communism could have been effective. Or better in the middle ages or ancient times. Today communism looks immoral because of horrors people had to endure around the world. In reality, it's not that communism failed and communists are immoral - it is that ALL people are immoral and noone wants to live in equal poverty, we want to compete with others, we want to show off our clothes, money, cars etc. We can't be equal because someone is lazy and won't work to give away enough. Others are ambitious and they want to work but if they lose motives, if they have to give away fruits of their labour to lazybones... Just something like that.
Communism even theoretically can never be divorced from the corrosive power of the State. In my view, the State itself is the real oppressor, not the "bourgeois" (feudalist, industrialist and now corporatist)
We have been systematically brainwashed by government on this question. Only in the U.S. is socialism seen by a large section of society as something to be feared. It is openly and objectively discussed and considered in most of Europe. And due to our particular brainwashing most of us believe communism was imposed and tried in several countries. It wasn't. Yes, there have been governments led by the communist principles of Marx and Engels, but communism has never existed as a system anywhere since at least WWI and even before. And in discussing a subject as complex as this, accurate terminology means the difference between making sense with clarity, and confusing a confused public. Discuss?
Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, or any form of government is amoral. If folks behaved and had "good" hearts, then any form of government would work, even anarchy.
Communism is fine if... You are an ant farm, bee hive or group of people that like and want it from the top person down to the bottom person. If not, then it is not fit for human consumption. Humans are too greedy and self-centered to be good communists. You have to be selfless to be a good communist.
How can anyone know that if there has never been a communist society other than among ancient hunters and gatherers?
Most of the "bourgeois" influence the state and own the power. Communism was partly born as a consequence of the french revolution. During the french revolution, the people revolted against the nobles, but after revolution, a lot of people had the feeling that bourgeois just replaced the nobles. Saying the "state" is evil is a big oversimplification. Slavery was often a private initiative. At the end of XVth century, slavery was forbidden or barely accepted in the western europe. Charles Quint tended to disapprove slavery and the pope Paul III emitted an opinion against the enslavement of the people of the new world. It's too the state who brought massive education policies or hygiene policies. It's always the state who organize the collection of the trash. An insingnifiant task who save the life of millions of people. I believe communism had the seeds of it's own collapse in his very own idelogy. However how many workers in poor countries sacrifice their health, their life for a salary which will barely give them enough to eat when some rich people win millions ? Isn't the revolt feeling legitimate ? It's extremly easy to see communism as "bad" when you always lived the comfortable life of the middle class.
