Could communism work?

[The_Radioactive_Woman]

Gracchvs Robespierre

mokonafan

SoViEtTaNkT34

mokonafan

rdvd7

If it would the only person who I would want in charge would be Lenin, he was the only true Communist, the others are dictators who are masked under 'Communism'.
But seeing how the only way to get Lenin is to revive him (Ahhhh Zombie!)
it looks like perfect Communism will just be a thought/ dream.
Man is to corrupt now for it to wok.

Didn't Lenin's... erhm... 'regime', I guess, ultimately fail??
And no, he wasn't a 'true communist'. That was Lennin-Marxism. They share some characteristics, but are different philosophies. Perfect communism, as an economic, political, or social theory, has never been practiced before.

You mean Achieved?

Unless your an anarcho communist that does not go with stages then the end game theory has to be achieved not out the door practiced.

"Achieved"?? I'm afraid I see nowhere in my post where 'achieved' could be put in.
I go with-
This is what Carl Marx said and published, and we're obviously not getting there. Stages and Endgame theory or no. And hey, that might just make me a person uneducated about communism who's trying to argue about it. But no, I'm not an anarcho communist. I'm not communist at all. Lennin failed. China isn't truly a communist country. True communism is not going to be achieved. Look back through history at all the countries that have tried.

Marxism is a living doctrine, and is not confined to what one man wrote. As a doctrine, it is a method, a guide to action. So to talk about what Marx said and published is rather limiting, especially as it was a collaboration between two people: both Marx and Engels, and future practice has expanded on out practical knowledge of the subjects dealt with. One cannot talk about Marxism, even 'pure pre-Leninist' Marxism without Engels, as he both elaborated on, and co-wrote many of the works of Marx. And their works, together, contain pretty much all of subsequent Marxist thought, if only in embryo. All the way through to modern Trotskyism.

All that aside, I would also like to ask you about what you think Marx actually wrote, because knowing that would certainly clear the path for further discussion.

Hm.... this is true.
It is rather limited to be talking about what just Marx (And Engles) wrote, and to view communism as something adhering to that.
But even if the doctorine was a collab between two people, it's still recognized as Marxism.
But what the philosophy called and who wrote it is fairly irrelivant. Sure, two guys wrote it, but they agreed on a subject. So the amount of people, just like the 'who wrote it', is irrelevant. They still collaborated to publish a book about a govornment philosophy that they agreed on. Lennin built on their concept. But what he built was not something that, to me, is an agreeable govornment theory.

I have yet to actually read both "The Communist Manefesto" and "Principles of Communism", but I get a lot of my information and my view on communsim from these sites(As well as a few others)--
Marxism.Org
Philosopjy-All About
And a very good definition from here-
Dictionary.com definition

[Le Pere Duchesne]

mokonafan

Hm.... this is true.
It is rather limited to be talking about what just Marx (And Engles) wrote, and to view communism as something adhering to that.
But even if the doctorine was a collab between two people, it's still recognized as Marxism.
But what the philosophy called and who wrote it is fairly irrelivant. Sure, two guys wrote it, but they agreed on a subject. So the amount of people, just like the 'who wrote it', is irrelevant. They still collaborated to publish a book about a govornment philosophy that they agreed on. Lennin built on their concept. But what he built was not something that, to me, is an agreeable govornment theory.

I have yet to actually read both "The Communist Manefesto" and "Principles of Communism", but I get a lot of my information and my view on communsim from these sites(As well as a few others)--
Marxism.Org
Philosopjy-All About
And a very good definition from here-
Dictionary.com definition

While it'd be obvious for me to say 'I disagree, and think Lenin was perfectly in line with authentic Marxism,' it would be redundant, as I've already said that, and rather silly because nothing would be gained by it. Rather, I'd like to ask why you think Leninism and Marxism are separate or contradictory.

I think the most important works to read, for beginners in Marxism and people just looking at it for scholastic purposes, are the Manifesto and PrinCom.
On the topic of works relevant to Marxism, I made this post a while back:
Here

The preamble to the post says:

This is a list of important works in the Marxist canon. Each of the works has three features:
*I have read it
*The work is available to read online
*I find it invaluable in explaining some aspect of Marxism.

If you're interested, check it out. All the works (there are 45) listed are linked to the copy on Marxists.org

mail-order slut

Maybe its better than the alternative, maybe its not. Marx himself said that communism was meant for countries that had already gone through industrialization and a certain extent of capitalism, which is a good reason why it failed in the developing world. Almost all the developng world is industrialised, on a small level, and is capitalist. Some countries, for example Afghanistan, don't have a proletariat worth mentioning, nor capitalist development beyond usury and some banking in the urban centres. In such places a proletarian dictatorship is impossible. However, no proletarian dictatorship has formed in a similar place.

[rdvd7]

It worked in the Soviet Union with Lenin and Trotsky, then Stalin removed Trotsky and exiled him, and well the entire nation went down the crapper after that...
I think with another person like Lenin it can work, they have to be entirely selfless and put the good of the people before the good of them self.