Communism in the Modern World

Do you believe that communism can survive in this post-Cold War era, particularly since it has been so discredited (Or at least, the twisted Stalinist version of communism) in the eyes of the world?

Do you believe that the remaining communist states (North Korea, Cuba, and the People's Republic of China) will continue to have a communist, or even socialist, government? Is there any chance for the government to improve living conditions, while at the same time, remaining true to the ideology?

Do you think any nations will experience a communist revolution, takeover, or election in the near future (Within the next 25 years)? If so, would it be for better or worse?

Now, as for the remaining communist states, I believe there will be special cases for all of them:

China: In recent years, China has become more and more capitalist, and there are continued cries for democracy. The government is indeed corrupt, but I do not think it will collapse. Indeed, it will probably reform its way to a superpower status.

North Korea: Their leadership is simply too "Old Guard" and rather brutal for any chance of reform. It is, in a sense, already a failed state, with its continuing famine and such. The regime will probably fall, and there will be huge problems with reunification that will most likely result in a refugee crisis.

Cuba: The country is opening up, and it has an extremely educated workforce, which will be important for its new role in the global economy. It will need to keep its social welfare network, but I think it may become a "Latin American Tiger", much like South Korea, Taiwan, and Ireland. I don't think that the government will collapse, but it will likely have to reform to keep its population happy.

today i learned that social democracy is the same as communism. yay. it clear things up. for cuba and the americas will become more socialized yea.. and i think we might get representative democracy in cuba, lets hope it doesnt turn out to be like in the west, media controlled populism. but the reason i think they will get it now is that with obama there is less chance that CIA will sabotage it like in USSR, and Chile etc.

China, it needs LABOUR UNIONS, NOW MORE THEN EVER!! support chinas labour unions, lets win the war, government against people.

"communism is stateless" - 1
right now i dont believe in a revolution at least not now.
north corea wont stand a chance, maybe there will be a cup of state. lets wish for that.
the biggest problems i believe is bureaucracy of the world, people are sucking on the leaks of the societies tubes, its filled with problems, reforms, mud, dust, rust and shit. only way is the replace the whole system with new tubes. then we will soon have flooding water, thats good thing. its all about movements. (get it?)
thats what i could make up in my 2 minuts. respond me please.

btw i think that the collaps of USSR made it easier, now every communist party have to declare indepent from USSR, before it was a torn in the left, it splitted the parties and people, some believed that USSR was right some other where euro-communists.

carmen510 wrote:

Do you believe that communism can survive in this post-Cold War era, particularly since it has been so discredited (Or at least, the twisted Stalinist version of communism) in the eyes of the world?

I do not. Since yes in some countries it has been discredited. But also cause some fucktards in countries who think they represent communism , really are stalnists or leninists. Which are not true communists, may I thank Zealot for that knowledge.

carmen510 wrote:

Do you believe that the remaining communist states (North Korea, Cuba, and the People's Republic of China) will continue to have a communist, or even socialist, government?

Well they were never Communist, and I dont see North Korea with their fuckheads of a leaders to be more socialist since they nearly show to give a fuck about their people.
Cuba, well, actaully might get more welfarestate for the people, more socialist is a option, but true communism(that is without a state), I dont think so.
And China? Hell no, free market did their job.

carmen510 wrote:

Is there any chance for the government to improve living conditions, while at the same time, remaining true to the ideology?

Hard since no one has the true idealogy in their country, some may think so. But I say, nah not really. I see however in China things getting better, thank you Mr.Capitalism. But they got a loooong ass way to go. So dont epic post me people.

carmen510 wrote:

Do you think any nations will experience a communist revolution, takeover, or election in the near future (Within the next 25 years)?

NO. Well maybe one poor ass country, but it won't get communism probably just a dictatorship or stuff. So yeah.. no not really, even that chance is small.

carmen510 wrote:

China: In recent years, China has become more and more capitalist, and there are continued cries for democracy. The government is indeed corrupt, but I do not think it will collapse. Indeed, it will probably reform its way to a superpower status.

I agree, the leading Commie party will stay, fuck democracy they say probably, but damn they love their cheap ass toys to sell to the West. Omnomnom.

carmen510 wrote:

North Korea: Their leadership is simply too "Old Guard" and rather brutal for any chance of reform. It is, in a sense, already a failed state, with its continuing famine and such. The regime will probably fall, and there will be huge problems with reunification that will most likely result in a refugee crisis.

Good anylise, sir.

carmen510 wrote:

Cuba: The country is opening up, and it has an extremely educated workforce, which will be important for its new role in the global economy. It will need to keep its social welfare network, but I think it may become a "Latin American Tiger", much like South Korea, Taiwan, and Ireland. I don't think that the government will collapse, but it will likely have to reform to keep its population happy.

Yeah, there is a chance on that.

Tyrlop wrote:

today i learned that social democracy is the same as communism. yay.

It was, actually the first communist party Lenin and shit joined was called social democrat party russia or something. But then the communists and social-democrats separated because soc-dem believed in reform communism, and the communsts in revolution. But now the days, social democrats are fake bitches. Centre-left, is not centre leaning to the right!

CoolKidX wrote:

It was, actually the first communist party Lenin and shit joined was called social democrat party russia or something.

yea thats what im talking about

CoolKidX wrote:

But then the communists and social-democrats separated because soc-dem believed in reform communism, and the communsts in revolution. But now the days, social democrats are fake bitches. Centre-left, is not centre leaning to the right!

thats what i said yea.

im just fine.

Let's get one thing perfectly clear: North Korea, China, and Cuba are not keeping true to the ideology, at least not the kind of Communism that Marx came up with. The modern interpretation of Communism could not be any further from Marx's vision, and even a very brief understanding of Marx's writings would show that. Usually, certain Socialists - and I include myself among them - would typically label such countries as "State Capitalist" because they still have private ownership over the means of production, wage labor, surplus value, and numerous other things that are exclusive to a Capitalist economy. Now whether or not having these things or good or bad is not being discussed here; I am simply stating that, yes, these countries do have these things and, thus, must be considered Capitalist countries and not Socialist or Communist ones, at least to a certain extent.

But now let's get into Marxism, which gives us the ideological basis for Communism. The key component to the political arrangement in a Communist society is - and this is one thing that unites the Anarchists with the Communists, to a certain extent - this: the State will, in time, whither away. Now I won't get into the specifics as to why, or how, but under Communism, there is to be no State, and Marx makes this very clear in the Communist Manifesto. This is a pretty simple concept, and it heightens the absurdity of the idea of "Communist States" such as those you have listed.

The difficult part exists under Socialism - and keep in mind, we're still referring to Marx's ideas, no one else's. Now in Socialism, there is a State, but it functions still differently than the so-called "Communist States" we have today. Under true Socialism, the workers - not the State - own the means of production; the State only remains so that the workers can enforce their ownership over the means of production and for retaining some sort of political model for the basic reasons that any society retains a political model at all, but it is important to understand that the State is not used in economic functions at all. In fact, it is under the Socialist epoch that the State first begins to whither away. So even by this definition, I don't think you can call these countries Socialist. Truly, I think that "State Capitalist" is the only proper term to refer to them.

However, if you think that Communism can exist without Marxism and without keeping to Marx's original ideas, then perhaps you can make the argument that these countries are holding to the Communist worldview and that this "State Capitalist" format is what Communism really is about. But those "Communists" would not be true Communists; they would be usurpers of the idea, and should be treated as such. They're not Communists, not Socialists, not Marxists; they're something else.

Having said all of this, I should like to answer your question twofold: 1.) Can "Modern Communism" exist in the post-Cold War era? and 2.) Can Marxism exist in the post-Cold War era?

The short answer is, pretty bluntly, yes to both. However, I have a certain degree of confidence when I say that I think that there may be a time where Marxism will make a rise. I do think, though, that these modern abstractions from true Communism will go away in time. I think that man has a certain tendency to progress and to improve his general living condition, and that starts, first and foremost, with the kind of political arrangement he allows himself to be subjected to. And since modern interpretations of Communism are pretty Authoritarian, I think that they will go away in time.

We've come a pretty far way as a species; I can't imagine that we won't go farther.

Sorry for this crazy mega-post; I've been lurking for the past few months without saying anything too much, but I felt like that this was an important topic, and I needed to speak my mind about it.

I don't think that communism ever existed unless you count the Spainish revolution. All of them psudo-socialist nations are just posers.


As for will it happen again: thats our job, isn't it?

carmen510 wrote:

Do you believe that communism can survive in this post-Cold War era, particularly since it has been so discredited (Or at least, the twisted Stalinist version of communism) in the eyes of the world?

Communism will take the upper hand no later than 100 years from now. And the reason for that is that 1) humanity's intellect is evolving at an increasing pace and this will allow for greater portions of population to develop their intellectual proficience and capability of reasoning to a greater extent 2) information disseminates far more broadly than it did 100 years ago and with far more speed 3) capitalism is a system based on ripping people off and lies, truth sooner or later overcomes lies, specially in an increasingly rational and scientific world.

Oscurantism collapsed, many died to speed this up, so will happen to capitalism the new era's oscurantism.

carmen510 wrote:

Do you believe that the remaining communist states (North Korea, Cuba, and the People's Republic of China) will continue to have a communist, or even socialist, government? Is there any chance for the government to improve living conditions, while at the same time, remaining true to the ideology?

If they had had communist systems in the first hand, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now - the entire world would have been communist for a while already.

Will they still have state capitalism? I believe those systems will eventually collapse, the question is wether they'll fall to the hypocritic western capitalism, to fascism or to communism.

carmen510 wrote:

Do you think any nations will experience a communist revolution, takeover, or election in the near future (Within the next 25 years)? If so, would it be for better or worse?

I hope yes and that said country is a giant like Russia, China or the US followed by Latin America and Africa. If that happens and there's still capitalism in Western Europe, Japan and some other places, they won't take long to collapse and embrace communism.

carmen510 wrote:

Now, as for the remaining communist states, I believe there will be special cases for all of them:

I hate to repeat but "transvestite" is not a synonim of "woman". Call a spade a spade please.

carmen510 wrote:

China: In recent years, China has become more and more capitalist, and there are continued cries for democracy. The government is indeed corrupt, but I do not think it will collapse. Indeed, it will probably reform its way to a superpower status.

It's been always capitalist since the monarchy there collapsed. Democracy? No country has it and they won't have it unless there's communism.

carmen510 wrote:

North Korea: Their leadership is simply too "Old Guard" and rather brutal for any chance of reform. It is, in a sense, already a failed state, with its continuing famine and such. The regime will probably fall, and there will be huge problems with reunification that will most likely result in a refugee crisis.

The SCO is already making plans for that event, they may even intervent military to preserve a puppet government there aligned to them instead of US, meaning they'll try putting SK, Japan and US at bay.

carmen510 wrote:

Cuba: The country is opening up, and it has an extremely educated workforce, which will be important for its new role in the global economy. It will need to keep its social welfare network, but I think it may become a "Latin American Tiger", much like South Korea, Taiwan, and Ireland. I don't think that the government will collapse, but it will likely have to reform to keep its population happy.

Cubans are far less disatisfied with that system than what most would like to believe. Proportionally, people in Mexico are far ore disatisfied with the system we have here and have as many if not lesser means ofhaving their voice heard. Either way, Cuba may undergo changes similar to those of Vietnam and China.


Frank, I don't remember Marx ever speaking of a distinction between socialism and communism. He spoke of a lower and upper stage of communism, but he called both communism. And I don't remember of arx ever saying that state would be preserved under either of those stages.

Plus, by mere definition and logic, a classless society cannot have a state unless we understand by "state" an organizational mechanism, but of course, that's not what the state is.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Communism will take the upper hand no later than 100 years from now. And the reason for that is that 1) humanity's intellect is evolving at an increasing pace and this will allow for greater portions of population to develop their intellectual proficience and capability of reasoning to a greater extent 2) information disseminates far more broadly than it did 100 years ago and with far more speed 3) capitalism is a system based on ripping people off and lies, truth sooner or later overcomes lies, specially in an increasingly rational and scientific world.

Its hard to believe you actually think real communism will take not even one finger but the upper hand in less than 100 years, though you gave your reasons why, I will bet it won't happen. Maybe its cause people are just to stupid and to aggresive to just have no state, I say impossible. Real communism will not be achieved less thatn 100 years, or maybe never. Nice idea though.

CoolKidX wrote:

Its hard to believe you actually think real communism will take not even one finger but the upper hand in less than 100 years, though you gave your reasons why, I will bet it won't happen. Maybe its cause people are just to stupid and to aggresive to just have no state, I say impossible.

You're arguing here that 1) people's intellect is too limited to even be able to reach a status of general consensus, fortunately this is not the case and the mere existance of language is proof of this. 2) Aggressiveness is not even important, yet, you make it sound like if you supported Hobbes' notion that the only thing that prevents humans from hurting or utterely destroying others is fear of being punished by a coercive entity like the state. Also, you're arguing that the state somehow prevents this aggresiveness or disorder within this agressiveness, while as we can see the state is just aanother aggressive entity which just creates conflicts and in many cases serves as a ruling class or at least a competitor to the current one.

To argue this one has to disacknowledge the process of development of the individuals given their material conditions, in other words, the fact that peope develop in accordance to how well they have their material needs sufficed, from simply being able to eat, drink and sleep comfortably on an every day basis to having satisfactory relationships between individuals and between individuals and the collective(condition that is product of a functional organizational mechanism).

The identity of the individual is determined by the collective as much as the characteristics of the collective are determined by the individuals within it. People are not born engineers, neurosurgeons, speakers of a certain language, killers or rapists - they learn all this from the collective where they develop. This means that individuals will be or can be, in most cases, as aggressive and hostile as the most hostile and aggressive parts of the collective can be.

In a system where culturally we're taught that competitiveness and individualism are some of the most important values, where economic and social isolationism prevail, where this social and economic organization create so precarious material conditions for the vast majority of the population disallowing them to properly develop as human beings and where there exists a minoritary class that enhences its material conditions at the expense of a majoritary class creating a condition of class struggle, class resentment preserving the previously described status quo, a hostile and destructive status quo for the majority... how do you expect most people not to develop high levels of aggressiveness and resentment while at the time unable to acquire the proper knowledges to develop their rationality?

We humans are naturally interdependant, social and thus collectivist. Some fundamental organizational structures within society are, in most cases, deprived of self destructive aggression (which seems to be what you're talking about), completely well organized and not rarely anarchistic in nature. For example families and groups of friends.

Families are often organizational structures based on mutual aid where the individuals that conform them apire both materially and abstractly to suffice the needs of the remaining members of the family, or at least search, to some degree, the common well being.

I'm pretty sure that if your mother or father haven't killed you or each other is not because it is forbiden within dutch law or because they fear repression by some external force. I'm pretty much sure that there is no intrinsic desire to harm you. And believe me, this is real in most families, even within most or at least several of those within the most precarious material conditions.

Friends' groups tend to be anarchistic in nature and in most cases the individuals within these groups do not search to destroy each other, not because they fear police will incarcerate them, but because they do not intend to harm the others but actually most often search for the opposite. Do you believe that when a friend gives a gift to other or overall helps him when in need it is out of fear of relatiation or something like that?

A guy with a scientific mind like yourself should defenitely consider going to the roots of everything.

CoolKidX wrote:

Real communism will not be achieved less thatn 100 years, or maybe never. Nice idea though.

Sorry but you underestimate a lot peoples' capability to develop.

Also, there have been functional stateless societies in the recent past, as recent as 1930's. They did not collapse due to intrinsic factors but due to extrinsic factors. This is a pragmatic demonstration that your arguement that people cannot keep order without a state is nil. In other words, experimentally your arguement has been demonstrated invalid while theoretically it's been demonstrated to be inconsistent with the inherent characteristics of humanity.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

You're arguing here that 1) people's intellect is too limited to even be able to reach a status of general consensus, fortunately this is not the case and the mere existance of language is proof of this.

There are languages, there are rules of why a chair exists, no one can go against that. However, we have that for ages. So our intellect is not limited, ofcourse not. But by reaching a status of that. People maybe think that they don't want it. Its kinda weird to say that everyone wants communism, even with everyone knowing what it is, there will be atleast one opposing. But that is just a side note.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

2) Aggressiveness is not even important, yet, you make it sound like if you supported Hobbes' notion that the only thing that prevents humans from hurting or utterely destroying others is fear of being punished by a coercive entity like the state.

Ofcourse no one is born evil, and to kill other humans for example or steal shit. Neither it is to live to be good. But by letting know that you cant do this in a certain country, does let them know to please don't go that way. You can do it, sure, but you will get busted for it.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Also, you're arguing that the state somehow prevents this aggresiveness or disorder within this agressiveness, while as we can see the state is just aanother aggressive entity which just creates conflicts and in many cases serves as a ruling class or at least a competitor to the current one.

Ofcourse it prevents some disorder, or just to let people follow the rules of the country. Yes, but as you see people around the world still do shit that is illegal or hurt others. But knowing that those rules were not there, I would say that then those guys who break the law already and people who know they can do shit now, will be a total mess.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

The identity of the individual is determined by the collective as much as the characteristics of the collective are determined by the individuals within it. People are not born engineers, neurosurgeons, speakers of a certain language, killers or rapists - they learn all this from the collective where they develop. This means that individuals will be or can be, in most cases, as aggressive and hostile as the most hostile and aggressive parts of the collective can be.

Yes indeed, they do learn these things from "the collective", but eat, drink and sleep, that is mostly just there instict. If not, their parents. And if "collective" you mean the state, then no, the parents can raze a child as a killing machine. The state does not check every family. But the child is determined by not everyone, but by other individuals. On some things they may be like the rest of the country and some just alone. And it differs from every person.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

In a system where culturally we're taught that competitiveness and individualism are some of the most important values, where economic and social isolationism prevail, where this social and economic organization create so precarious material conditions for the vast majority of the population disallowing them to properly develop as human beings and where there exists a minoritary class that enhences its material conditions at the expense of a majoritary class creating a condition of class struggle, class resentment preserving the previously described status quo, a hostile and destructive status quo for the majority... how do you expect most people not to develop high levels of aggressiveness and resentment while at the time unable to acquire the proper knowledges to develop their rationality?

To say this short, there is no way you can make a population of a whole country accept the same things and/or agree on everything. Impossible. Well ofcourse maybe a country with less than 100 people, and then maybe. So yeah, decided you can satify every one, its best to know you can atleast satisfy the majorty. And that is why we now have at some countries a majorty democracy. Ofcourse with the rule "Winner take's all". There are lots of countries who need a coaltion with other parties, or just have a pairlaiment with like 9 parties in it.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I'm pretty sure that if your mother or father haven't killed you or each other is not because it is forbiden within dutch law or because they fear repression by some external force. I'm pretty much sure that there is no intrinsic desire to harm you. And believe me, this is real in most families, even within most or at least several of those within the most precarious material conditions.

Yes, there won't be a reason to harm me. Or a baby. Its to say, a moral thing, right? But there still might be a chance they want it, but dont because of the law. Like, I want free things, hell yeah, I wanna steal shit cause then I dont have to pay for things. Oh wait, I got a chance to get busted. Never mind then.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Sorry but you underestimate a lot peoples' capability to develop.

Maybe. But less then 100 years? It took like what? Centeries that kings ruled countries, to have one replace a king with a president or parilement. That took more then 100 years. And now imagine something like communism, such a huge progressive change, such a ginourmous change, to be atleast in a majorty of a countries population head in less then 100 years? No chance. And the world to get even in touch, the whole world, with either socialism or communism. In less than 100 years? Never.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Also, there have been functional stateless societies in the recent past, as recent as 1930's. They did not collapse due to intrinsic factors but due to extrinsic factors. This is a pragmatic demonstration that your arguement that people cannot keep order without a state is nil. In other words, experimentally your arguement has been demonstrated invalid while theoretically it's been demonstrated to be inconsistent with the inherent characteristics of humanity.

Okay, first off, I want some names of the countries or communes of that. And btw question, the Paris Commune, did they acheive real communism for a short time?
And besides that, times changed. Most countries dont handle like the 30's anymore. Things changed amigo(okay sorry for that, just had to say it).

CoolKidX wrote:

There are languages, there are rules of why a chair exists, no one can go against that. However, we have that for ages.

So? That means that we do have the possibility to reach consensus.

CoolKidX wrote:

So our intellect is not limited, ofcourse not. But by reaching a status of that.

I'm sorry but I didn't quite get what you meant with this.

CoolKidX wrote:

People maybe think that they don't want it. Its kinda weird to say that everyone wants communism, even with everyone knowing what it is, there will be atleast one opposing. But that is just a side note.

As I said, you don't need everyone to accept communism, just a broad majority. The rest will just isolate or eventually join.

CoolKidX wrote:

Ofcourse no one is born evil, and to kill other humans for example or steal shit. Neither it is to live to be good.

People do things out of reasons. If a person kills there's a reason behind the act whatever it might be, the same with stealing.

CoolKidX wrote:

But by letting know that you cant do this in a certain country, does let them know to please don't go that way. You can do it, sure, but you will get busted for it.

In any relationship rules are to be established by the parties involved. You don't need a police state telling you what you can and what you cannot do.

CKX wrote:

Ofcourse it prevents some disorder, or just to let people follow the rules of the country.

It just creates a framework for disorder to occur. The state determines that X land where Y people inhabit belongs to individual A. The state then provides A the means to force Y into obeying A's demands whatever they may be. There we get disorder and conflict.

And, let the people follow the rules of the country? More like determine the rules of a certain country and force everyone within their jurisdiction to follow them.

CKX wrote:

Yes, but as you see people around the world still do shit that is illegal or hurt others.

Legality itself is a problem. It's a set of unilateraly determined and forcibly imposed rules. So wether and action is illegal or not is irrelevant, what is relevant is whether the action is rational, reasonable, understandable and can be traced back to the origins that motivated it. I'm sure all actions have a reason behind them.

Judicial systems also hurt people, and actually hurt a greater ammount for greater ammounts of time than any criminal has done. And they haven't prevented crime from happening because simply these coercive forces do not target the origin of all these hostile actions which are mainly found in the material conditions of the individuals within society.

CKX wrote:

But knowing that those rules were not there, I would say that then those guys who break the law already and people who know they can do shit now, will be a total mess.

People infringe others' liberties and integrity for a reason. People grow hostile for a reason. People steal for a reason. People are unable to udnerstand the implications of their actions for a reason.

We already have a total mess. Imagine mess as a liquid. The state is the container. We have a lousy mess that just adapts to the shape of the framework imposed by the strongest coercive entities within the community.

CKX wrote:

Yes indeed, they do learn these things from "the collective", but eat, drink and sleep, that is mostly just there instict.

Those are basic needs. Instinct could be a way to suffice them but definitely it is irrelevant within a human community, specially as developed as ours and when we can control them consciously and assess them abstractly.

And even so, you learn from the collective what is safe to eat and what is not, what may be tasty and what may not, ways to prepare different meals, where to get them, etc. Individual experience forges the collective experience which enriches the experience and knowledge of each individual within the collective.

CKX wrote:

If not, their parents. And if "collective" you mean the state, then no, the parents can raze a child as a killing machine.

*raise. "Raze" is alusiove to destruction. "Attila the Hun and his army razed many towns".

By collective I mean a group of individuals, the aglomeration of humans.

The State is nothing but another little group imposing its arbitrary rules in order to control a certain population.

CKX wrote:

The state does not check every family.

Tell that to Kim Jong Il. Anyway moot point.

CKX wrote:

But the child is determined by not everyone, but by other individuals. On some things they may be like the rest of the country and some just alone. And it differs from every person.

Everyone that lives within a community has his identity moulded by the rest of the individuals within it - the language he speaks, the music he listens, the knowledges he posseses, the clothing he wears, the food he eats, the transports he uses, the means of entertainment.

Every individual may interpret differently his reality but the fact remains that the identity of the individual is shaped by extrinsic factors like his environment and the community where he develops.

CKX wrote:

To say this short, there is no way you can make a population of a whole country accept the same things and/or agree on everything. Impossible.

So it is impossible for all the Russians to accept that "Moscow" is Moscow or for all Dutchs that the Baltic Sea is to the northeast of their country or is it impossible for everyone to agree on the meaning of "chair"?

Plus, take into account that I never implied anything about every single human agreeing on everything with the rest and I don't see why that would be necesary for the stablishment of communism were all you need is consensus on what everyone needs and the ways to produce it.

CKX wrote:

Well ofcourse maybe a country with less than 100 people, and then maybe.

Maybe 60,000,000 countries interacting with each other?

CKX wrote:

So yeah, decided you can satify every one, its best to know you can atleast satisfy the majorty.

I don't quite get wht you mean.

CKX wrote:

And that is why we now have at some countries a majorty democracy.

Nope. All countries within this planet are oligocracies, a great majority of them being plutocratic.

Everything is determined by the agglomeration of bourgeoise and/or the State.

Who sets the prices for goods? The bourgeoisie and the state.
Who sets the ammount of hours to work? The bougeoisie and the state.
Who sets the wages? The bourgeoisie and the state.
Who sets the rules by which everyone should abide? The state.
Who owns the land? The bourgeoisie, the state and the petit-bourgeoise, although de facto the state has a higher stake on that.

Seems like more than enough to completely control the other class, the proletariat.

CKX wrote:

Ofcourse with the rule "Winner take's all". There are lots of countries who need a coaltion with other parties, or just have a pairlaiment with like 9 parties in it.

Which is relevant to this discussion because...?

CKX wrote:

Yes, there won't be a reason to harm me. Or a baby. Its to say, a moral thing, right?

Not moral. There's no reason to do so.

CKX wrote:

But there still might be a chance they want it, but dont because of the law.

You call those people "mentaly ill" or circumstancially troubled, and still, the law does not stop them.

I've wanted to kill people and even found the idea pleasant. You know what prevented me from doing it? Not fear for being punished or the idea that there's law enforcement - reasoning prevented me from doing it. And still there was a reason behind those thoughts, just not a logical one.

CKX wrote:

Like, I want free things, hell yeah, I wanna steal shit cause then I dont have to pay for things. Oh wait, I got a chance to get busted. Never mind then.

I'm sure you're aware that there is a world of difference between stealing and murdering. Right?

People steal to suffice certain material needs. And yes, coercion is in soem cases a dissuasive for this. But, why do people steal in the fisrt place? And don't come with the typical "because people don't want to work and are lazy". After all, as per the definition of work, it's physically impossible not to perform work while stealing. In fact, many acts of robbery are more risky and difficult than lots of legitimate and less profitable jobs.

CKX wrote:

Maybe. But less then 100 years? It took like what? Centeries that kings ruled countries, to have one replace a king with a president or parilement.

When the vast majority didn't even have the concept of reading and those who did didn't have fast means to transfer information.

The Renaisance, for example began 70 years after the Bible started to be printed. It took slightly more than 100 years for the catholic church to suffer the protestant schism and shortly after the print came to existance philosophers and enlightened individuals started sprouting like mushrooms, the event which set the basis for the first collapses of oppresive regimes like the Teocracy and Monarchies.

CKX wrote:

That took more then 100 years. And now imagine something like communism, such a huge progressive change, such a ginourmous change, to be atleast in a majorty of a countries population head in less then 100 years? No chance. And the world to get even in touch, the whole world, with either socialism or communism. In less than 100 years? Never.

On what basis? We're light years ahead from the begining of the XX centiry in matter of information dissemination and technological advance. What in those times could have taken 2 weeks to be transfered now takes 2 seconds.

Communism, as Marx put it, is the last remaining social change, the last emancipation. And the technological, communicative and informative means to achieve this are developing at great pace. In 100 years from now it will be 260 years since the ideas of communism were formalized, in a context where spreading communication is getting easier by the day.

You seem not to be taking into account how humanity develops. One little step sets the basis for a full step, then, the step sets the basis for a stride, then the stride evolves into a leap, then the leap becomes into a jump and so on.

1.__2.____3.________4.________________5.________________________________6._________________________________________________________________7.

Also, socialism = communism. Lenin's interpretation, aside from disfunctional, disregards the etymology of the word.

CKX wrote:

Okay, first off, I want some names of the countries or communes of that.

The Anarchist Communes in Spain, the Free Territory of Ukraine.

CKX wrote:

And btw question, the Paris Commune, did they acheive real communism for a short time?

According to some, yes. I'd have to research more to be sure. Either way, they were militarily crushed as way by a gang of mercenaries.

CKX wrote:

And besides that, times changed. Most countries dont handle like the 30's anymore. Things changed amigo(okay sorry for that, just had to say it).

What things changed? There are not more bourgeoisie or State? Do countries avoid interventing militarily on others? Has imperialism withered away?