You and other deluded socialists do not want to credit Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge with creating the most perfect Communist state in existence. Pol Pot tuned Cambodia into the society that best embodied most of the principles of communism. Among other things, Engels says that the first step of the proletarian revolution will be establishing a democratic constitution. He says that the revolution will transform society "gradually", and that only at a certain stage will it be "able to abolish private property". He emphasizes that the revolution cannot be limited to one country.[6] He says that the first consequence of the abolition of private property will be that society will take ownership of the forces of production and means of commerce, managing them "in accordance with a plan based on the availability of resources and the needs of the whole society". He notes that all the branches of production will be operated by "society as a whole". Engels writes that private property is the source of oppression of women and children, and that the abolition of private property will end it. Pol Pot did in fact create the most perfect classless society in modern times. All intellectuals, and opponents were killed. There was a blending of both urban and rural settings when the population was herded into death camps--excuse me---work camps. Of course all private property was abolished. It is telling that there have been almost no films made on communist genocides. Socialists who run the Leftist Major Media want to brainwash the public into thinking that only Christian Westerners are evil. That's why one will still see hundreds of films about the Holocaust, and not a single one about the Holodomor or Mao's Great Leap Forward genocide of 10's of millions.
I had said: "most of us believe communism was imposed and tried in several countries. It wasn't." Your extremist and insane paranoia about "Leftist Major Media" aside, you went through all that and even tried to make it look like you are informed on Marx and Engels, but your comments on communism completely contradict Marx and Engels. I said there has never been a communist society. Why? What did Marx and Engels say about communist society? If you knew you would not have contradicted what they said. Marx said that communist society is a stateless and classless society. The classes will gradually vanish on their own, and then the state will "wither away". Only then does communist society show up. Classes cannot be eliminated. They must "atrophy", shrivel up, distinctions vanish, and class distinctions disappear. Where did that happen? You say "Pol Pot did in fact create the most perfect classless society in modern times." How? Did he dictate the classes to vanish? You can't kill them off because there are always remnant "capitalist roaders" or wannabees even among the working class. So you can't dig them out, you can't kill them off, and you can't impose classless society. Hence, since the 500 or 1000 years needed for classes to vanish has never occurred, communist society has never existed and you are total incorrect that Pol Pot imposed one. What gets me about you anti-communists is how you think you know it all about communism, but all you really have is capitalist anti-communist propaganda. Let me know when you're ready to discuss the subject without being a know-it-all.
A perfect communist society can't exist, because large modern societies require some form of state. Marx accepted central planning as part of a process to bring about his impossible ideas. Central Planning by a powerful state is a core part of any communist society. It is sad that Commie-lovers like yourself deny the progress made by the great communist Pol Pot in creating the best example of a classless society, that of course needed a strong central government. Pol Pot was the greatest communist leader of any nation.
We con't know. That may turn out to have been true after 1000 years. No prob. Try finding a quote to that effect. You just contradicted Marx AND your own comment on Marx. And you speak of "communist society" as though there has been some experience with such a society. Sorry to crush you but I'm not a "commie-lover". I oppose that approach to socialism entirely. Times have changed. You should catch up.
I Thinks just this moment Communism are Little better than Socialism states. Vietnam Vs Portugal and Venezuela. Communism maybe also an Lutheran species.
Well, it depends on what you mean by behaving and having good hearts. What I meant was that any consistent communism does not concern itself with ethics; it is neither moral nor immoral since ethics and Marxism (=scientific socialism) are not really compatible, whereas capitalist ethical frameworks exist (though I would consider them meaningless).
Very good! It's true that ethics and Marxism are incompatible. And it's also true that in the real world, not everyone consistently "behaves and has good hearts." It seems that today, with the world wide collapsing capitalism, a very great problem is excessive, unbridled greed, for example.
How many examples of successful Marxist societies can you point to ? Admittedly Marx axioms on not on the top of my head, haven't read the manifesto for 25+ years. Please describe it for or provide a handy link ?
Then you may recall this when I tell you. Marx said that first comes socialism: the dictatorship of the proletariat. Then, as society grows accustomed to capitalist inclinations being denied and suppressed over multiple generations, eventually the existence of classes will disappear. And as classes disappear, the state will "wither away" to reveal classless, stateless, communist society. This process will take "multiple generations" and may total 1000 years. We don't know because it has never happened. and therefore, communist society has never existed. We have had revolutions in a few countries led by those who called themselves "communists" because their ultimate goal was communism but they never called the country "communist". The West did that and it was a lie but that's ok. They didn't understand it.
Yes. It seems communists and Libertarian volunteerists have the same goal in mind, and that sounds great. The events of the intervening 1000 years is what is concerning.
This "ultimate society" cannot be imposed because it denies human nature. All attempts by the left lean toward that denying of human nature. They seem to promote the idea human nature will reach a level of "enlightenment. Never has and never will. Western civilization, namely Christianity, attempts to acknowledge and confront that human nature. When successful, it works. When not, we have the Republic and the balancing branches of government to ensure liberty for those that embrace that acknowledgement.
When I read "it denies human nature. All attempts by the left lean toward that denying of human nature. They seem to promote the idea human nature will reach a level of "enlightenment." I see three completely incorrect sentences. So again I say you don't know anything about this other than your standard indoctrination.
Maybe I am not descriptive enough for you. The subject matter of which I alluded to, of course was Marxist philosophy which I believe has a utopian idea of human nature. Now perhaps you can explain better "your standard indoctrination" and how you feel it is far superior than "my standard indoctrination" and defend your "elitist attitude".
Ok. Let's try this as a start: where do you get your idea of socialism's denial of human nature? What input source have you had that leads you to conclude that denial?
It is so simple even you could understand if you wanted to. For a "collective" to confiscate property from individuals (bullying),merely for the purpose of redistribution, is in itself, immoral. It is a denial of "natural law". It is a denial of "individual liberty". Here's where we most likely part ways.... I hold to the standard in the Declaration of Independence "we are endowed by our Creator to certain, unalienable rights". These rights are bestowed upon us by a greater power and for a collective to oversee those rights, and redistribute, violates those rights. You seem to hold that if I present to you ONE input source of your approval, well.....that would make my case. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. I have a lifetime of input sources and experiences. The Truth speaks for itself. All I can do is present it. You are sovereign over what you hold to be true and determine your own destiny according to natural law. I will always resist being ruled over by an "elite class". In the spirit of my Great-G-G-G grandfather, I'll hold to the precept "Live Free or Die"-General John Stark
Morality is largely subjective, but even in the collective sense, if a group of people find it not immoral enough to support it, then it is not immoral to them individually or as a group.
Free capitalism in the US failed and was replaced by a quasi capitalist/Fabianism society....And now, the new order seeks to revise the standards of representation..
