Why communism failed

[balaclava]

Surprised that I haven’t been banned yet, I thought I’d try and raise my woeful lack of knowledge on revleft politics. I’m going on holiday next week and would like to take a book with me. Clearly communism as an ideology has failed in practice, can anyone recommend a book giving me the reasons why?

[lines]

Cuba has the highest literacy rate in the world and is a communist nation, that is not failure... that is success.

Whenever a country tries to go socialist or communist the USA does things to undermine that country economically and may even engage in various sorts of military operations in that country. There have been many assassination attempts against Castro for instance.

[graymouser]

The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Betrayed-Leon-Trotsky/dp/0486433986/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1288901276&sr=8-1) by Leon Trotsky.

[danyboy27]

Surprised that I haven’t been banned yet, I thought I’d try and raise my woeful lack of knowledge on revleft politics. I’m going on holiday next week and would like to take a book with me. Clearly communism as an ideology has failed in practice, can anyone recommend a book giving me the reasons why?


something that havnt been tried yet or was badly implented didnt failed.

North korea, china, or even russia, none of them where even close from communism.

communism is the antithesis of elitism, and all those regime where, at some point elitists

[balaclava]

I'm looking for a book not an arguement!

[balaclava]

The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Betrayed-Leon-Trotsky/dp/0486433986/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1288901276&sr=8-1) by Leon Trotsky.


eek - looks a bit heavy :crying:

[ComradeMan]

Surprised that I haven’t been banned yet, I thought I’d try and raise my woeful lack of knowledge on revleft politics. I’m going on holiday next week and would like to take a book with me. Clearly communism as an ideology has failed in practice, can anyone recommend a book giving me the reasons why?



Communism has never been in practice- you are confusing the victory of the vanguard parties/movements and their consolidation of power within a predominantly capitalistic world as the failure of communism as a system- a system that was never implemented.

Seeing as you don't seem to have much of a clue what communism is to start with- beyond red flags, Stalin and a lot of rhetoric, I suggest you read up and what communism is and isn't and then come back and reanalyse your statement.:thumbup1:

[Havet]

Surprised that I haven’t been banned yet, I thought I’d try and raise my woeful lack of knowledge on revleft politics. I’m going on holiday next week and would like to take a book with me. Clearly communism as an ideology has failed in practice, can anyone recommend a book giving me the reasons why?


Shouldn't this be in learning? If you want to request resources about communism, do so in learning. If you actually have any meaningful criticism, then feel free to do so here.





Then again, you do know how to use google, don't you?

[balaclava]

Shouldn't this be in learning? If you want to request resources about communism, do so in learning. If you actually have any meaningful criticism, then feel free to do so here.

Then again, you do know how to use google, don't you?

I wasn't criticising I was looking for a book !!

I think I'm 'restricted' to OI !!

OK forget it I'll just pick a title from Amazon

[ComradeMan]

I wasn't criticising I was looking for a book !!

I think I'm 'restricted' to OI !!

OK forget it I'll just pick a title from Amazon

Could you understand mathematics or logic from just one book? There is no Dummies Guide to World GeoPolitical and Social History....

Try the "Communist Manifesto" and apply your powers of logic to the events of history to see for yourself.

The way I see it is this-

Communism = good system- failed/never implemented etc- because people are shit.

Capitalism = shit system- "works"- because people are.....?

[Havet]

I wasn't criticising I was looking for a book !!

I think I'm 'restricted' to OI !!

OK forget it I'll just pick a title from Amazon

Don't you find it a bit stupid to ask for an anti-communist book in one of the main communist websites of the whole godamn internet? Lol, I thought that would be obvious. If you want to hear the arguments against communism you will get far more results in conservative/republican and right-libertarian message boards.

That being said, if you search around OI forum, especially older threads, you will find a lot of arguments both in favor and against communism.

[ComradeMan]

Don't you find it a bit stupid to ask for an anti-communist book in one of the main communist websites of the whole godamn internet? Lol, I thought that would be obvious. If you want to hear the arguments against communism you will get far more results in conservative/republican and right-libertarian message boards.

That being said, if you search around OI forum, especially older threads, you will find a lot of arguments both in favor and against communism.

Since when were you a commie? You're in OI, in the gulag remember!:lol:

[Havet]

Since when were you a commie? You're in OI, in the gulag remember!:lol:

Where have I given the impression that I was a commie... ? :confused:

[ComradeMan]

Where have I given the impression that I was a commie... ? :confused:

Sorry, I forgot- your are one of those annoying <insert prefix>-anarchists!
:lol:

:thumbup1:

[hatzel]

Like...Jewish-anarchists?

Why haven't I been restricted? :confused:

In all honesty, I don't think the OP wanted anti-communist literature. As we agree, what he was talking about wasn't communism, so he wants anti-quasi-communist literature. Or something. Don't ask me! Or, in fact, there could even be a pro-communist book, that is to say, an anti-capitalist book, outlining the capitalist role in stifling any attempts at setting up a communist society...

[Bud Struggle]

Lik
Why haven't I been restricted? :confused:


You are nobody on RevLeft till you've been restricted. :thumbup:

[Havet]

Sorry, I forgot- your are one of those annoying <insert prefix>-anarchists!
:lol:

:thumbup1:

Comrade, you've got it all wrong!

I am beyond that!

I am neither one of those prefixes, and I am all of those at once!

I am...an anarchist without adjectives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_without_adjectives)!

[ComradeMan]

Like...Jewish-anarchists?

Why haven't I been restricted? :confused:

In all honesty, I don't think the OP wanted anti-communist literature. As we agree, what he was talking about wasn't communism, so he wants anti-quasi-communist literature. Or something. Don't ask me! Or, in fact, there could even be a pro-communist book, that is to say, an anti-capitalist book, outlining the capitalist role in stifling any attempts at setting up a communist society...


If you give me six lines written by the most honest RevLefter, I will find something in them to restrict him...

[Revolution starts with U]

Start here. It's an audio recording so you don't have to read too much. It's a good unbiased account of the USSR's triumphs and failures.
"Communism failed (even when talking about state capitalism)" is western propaganda, pure and simple. Communism did quite well, and it is doing quite well in China and Cuba.

[Manic Impressive]

Start here. It's an audio recording so you don't have to read too much. It's a good unbiased account of the USSR's triumphs and failures.
"Communism failed (even when talking about state capitalism)" is western propaganda, pure and simple. Communism did quite well, and it is doing quite well in China and Cuba.

huh? China? it's failed in China that's why you've got these guys http://kasamaproject.org/2010/08/11/10-point-declaration-of-the-maoist-communist-party-of-china/ trying for a second revolution.

Meanwhile in Cuba they are introducing privately owned golf clubs and generally moving towards capitalism.

[RadioRaheem84]

I do not buy the whole "communism failed" canard by the Western media.

The media tries to paint third world countries in the periphery of global capitalism as the same as sieged socialist nations. They're not.

These are countries that have been invaded, sieged, leveled, sabotoged, and suffered chronic economic blockades due to Western meddling. This led many of those states to militarize their nations and rely on bureaucracy to defend them. This led to internal corruption and autarky. The deficiencies in their democracies can be traced to the fact that not one of these nations has seen one day of peace since their inception.

Even in the midst of all the things they suffer through, ranging from outward threats to internal corruption and corrupt leaders, those nations still managed to clothe, feed, and educate the majority of their populations, and all that without resorting to exploiting the labor and resources of their neighbors around them. They managed to create a modicum of standard of living for their citizens and they did it without imperialism or colonialism.

That is what made them a threat to Western nations.

Western nations tout capitalism as the winner of the Cold War but capitalism is still ravaging much of the third world nations in the periphery while capitalist nations at the Center are patting themselved on the back for conquering the former communist nations.

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't why it's so easy for our comrades to give in to the pressures of the media and for fear of being labled irrelevant, tend to give in to the nation that "communism failed" and thus resort to saying that those nations were not really communism.

I agree that they were not, but do not end the argument there and start denouncing them along with all the other anti-communists.

[Rafiq]

This balaclava guy is a serious Troll.

I don't know why he isn't banned completely yet.

[Rafiq]

I think poppynogood is a sockpuppet account from him.

[ComradeMan]

Calm it Shariati--- Balaclava is not Poppynogood- let's not start witch hunts either!
;)

[Kotze]

Clearly communism as an ideology has failed in practice, can anyone recommend a book giving me the reasons why?You mean the USSR? I could lecture you how it wasn't 100% truly TRUE communism, but I'll give you an actual recommendation instead: Red Plenty (http://www.revleft.com/vb/red-plenty-f-t136079/index.html?t=136079).

[Revolution starts with U]

huh? China? it's failed in China that's why you've got these guys http://kasamaproject.org/2010/08/11/10-point-declaration-of-the-maoist-communist-party-of-china/ trying for a second revolution.

Meanwhile in Cuba they are introducing privately owned golf clubs and generally moving towards capitalism.

That's waht I'm talking about. This false dichotomy that anything market can't be socialism. Capitalism is not market economics, per se. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with socialists using market theory for certain reasons. Capitalism is wage slavery and state protection of the ownership class. Socialism is worker empowerment, and non-exploitation.
I'm not saying China is good socialism, just that calling it not-socialism is the same as ancap apologists calling the US not-capitalism; devoid of historical fact. Were I chinese, I would probably be rebelling against it as well.

[Bud Struggle]

Here's a great book to read (and it's free online!) Cavier with Champagne: common luxury and the ideals of the good life in Stalin's Russia ... By Jukka Gronowe

http://books.google.com/books?id=43PHk33qOMEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

It's a pretty interesting book--it shows that our comrades in the SU in Stalin's day actually had a quite pleasent life--all things considered.

[ComradeMan]

Here's a great book to read (and it's free online!) Cavier with Champagne: common luxury and the ideals of the good life in Stalin's Russia ... By Jukka Gronowe

http://books.google.com/books?id=43PHk33qOMEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

It's a pretty interesting book--it shows that our comrades in the SU in Stalin's day actually had a quite pleasent life--all things considered.

Shit! Then they really were champagne socialists full of gauche caviar!!!!! :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

Shit! Then they really were champagne socialists full of gauche caviar!!!!! :lol:


WWII kind of spoiled everything--but it appears that the SU was headed in a decent direction. It might have eventually become real Communism.

[#FF0000]

I wasn't criticising I was looking for a book !!

I think I'm 'restricted' to OI !!

OK forget it I'll just pick a title from Amazon

This silly guy.

The Russian Revolution by Sheila Fitzpatrick is good, btw. Not really about "why communism failed" but it's a good history of the USSR, using new sources and dispelling old cold war myths.

But yeah.

[Budguy68]

Sorry but I dont buy these excuses on why communism fails.

Pure capitlism or Real Capitlism has never been tried yet when a society practices something close to capitlism it does a lot better then the communism.

Capitalism countries have also been invaded, their infastructure almost completely destroyed yet most of them rebounded just fine. (Think Japan, Germany, Europe Etc) Why cant communism do the same?

If communist could just show us Just ONE Good example of a successful communist society then maybe they might have an arguement.

Communist seem to have nothign but excuses and are always blaming everyone else on why communism fails.

[Amphictyonis]

Surprised that I haven’t been banned yet, I thought I’d try and raise my woeful lack of knowledge on revleft politics. I’m going on holiday next week and would like to take a book with me. Clearly communism as an ideology has failed in practice, can anyone recommend a book giving me the reasons why?


I'm not sure if you noticed but 'the end of history' didn't happen. We're in the middle of a global capitalist crisis which has illuminated the instability of the unplanned market economy. When Francis Fukuyama proclaimed that the end of the Cold War, “is not just the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution", he was, well, lets say, wrong.

Just as Lenin was wrong to think capitalism had extended it's productive forces during the early 20'th century. We're truly witnessing the decline of capitalism as we speak. The various crisis will only get worse as the global economy is further integrated.

If you think this mess of an economic system will be the final system in mankind's development you're pretty short sighted. It's not a matter of if capitalism will be swept to the dustbin of history it's a matter of when.

[Revolution starts with U]

Sorry but I dont buy these excuses on why communism fails.

Pure capitlism or Real Capitlism has never been tried yet when a society practices something close to capitlism it does a lot better then the communism.

Are you sure about that? The USSR achieved in 20 years what it took 200 for capitlaism to achieve.


Capitalism countries have also been invaded, their infastructure almost completely destroyed yet most of them rebounded just fine. (Think Japan, Germany, Europe Etc) Why cant communism do the same?

Yes, but those nations were not shunned by the world community after. They rebounded due to foreign investment, at least the rebound was so quick.


If communist could just show us Just ONE Good example of a successful communist society then maybe they might have an arguement.

Once again, CHina is doing pretty well right now. Better than the US actually, so.. communism wins?


Communist seem to have nothign but excuses and are always blaming everyone else on why communism fails

Troll-lol-lol-lo

[ComradeMan]

@Budguy68

Sorry but I dont buy these excuses on why communism fails.

- I didn't know you could buy and sell excuses.. hell capitalists will be marketing fresh air next.. oh wait, they already probably do!:lol:

Pure capitlism or Real Capitlism has never been tried yet when a society practices something close to capitlism it does a lot better then the communism.

-Logical fallacy.
-On an individual basis capitalism does work, and well, for individuals- one major problem is that a lot of other individuals have to lose for that to be the case. Ever thought about looking at things on a global scale? :thumbup1:


Capitalism countries have also been invaded, their infastructure almost completely destroyed yet most of them rebounded just fine. (Think Japan, Germany, Europe Etc) Why cant communism do the same?

-Yeah and they were also rebuilt by capitalism weren't they? Never heard of the Marshall plan? Western Europe was "rebuilt" for capitalism by capitalism. The damage actually helped the capitalists---hmmm lots of new contracts for rebuilding and investment.

-"Europe is a capitalism country".... groan.....

If communist could just show us Just ONE Good example of a successful communist society then maybe they might have an arguement.

How do you define success? China is pretty successful at the moment and will be the World's Superpower by 2050. It's not pure communism, but then pure capitalism has never existed according to you either.

Communist seem to have nothign but excuses and are always blaming everyone else on why communism fails.

-Well it's better than shooting people when communism fails which is what the capitalists are quite good at doing when there system is under threat....

[#FF0000]

Pure capitlism or Real Capitlism has never been tried yet when a society practices something close to capitlism it does a lot better then the communism.

But the exact opposite actually happens. Economic liberalization usually means decrease in quality of life.


Capitalism countries have also been invaded, their infastructure almost completely destroyed yet most of them rebounded just fine. (Think Japan, Germany, Europe Etc) Why cant communism do the same?

Japan and Germany rebounded because they got rebuilt through an international effort, though. And I'm not saying that a communist country COULDN'T rebound from something like that. Russia just started off with a real tough hand, and things, for whatever reason, didn't pan out in a good way at all. Why that is is up for discussion but it doesn't necessarily mean "welp communism failed because this massive country in the tundra with an agrarian economy could produce enough worthless shit in a geopolitical dickwaving contest". I mean, things just aren't that simple.


If communist could just show us Just ONE Good example of a successful communist society then maybe they might have an arguement.

Cuba's hella good when compared to literally every other tiny island country in that region.


Communist seem to have nothign but excuses and are always blaming everyone else on why communism fails.

No. Communists usually blame bad communist theory.

[#FF0000]

Once again, CHina is doing pretty well right now. Better than the US actually, so.. communism wins?

China isn't anywhere near socialist though, silly.


Are you sure about that? The USSR achieved in 20 years what it took 200 for capitlaism to achieve.

This is actually p. true. The USSR industrialized hella quickly and the workers there probably enjoyed a better quality of life, materially, than they would have otherwise. That's ignoring the awful political situation, though.

[Revolution starts with U]

[QUOTE=The Best Mod In Revleft History;1915059]China isn't anywhere near socialist though, silly.

They claim, and capitalists as well claim them to be. That's all that really matters. We have to get past this "real socialism" paradigm. What is "real" socialism. I ask the same things of LvMI pukes... what is "real" capitalism? Is it not the past 200 years of western history, and longer? Or is it this mystical fantasy land where people respect property w/o a state to make them?

If slavery was part of capitalist history, than we have to accept that China is part of communist history.

[#FF0000]

[QUOTE]

They claim, and capitalists as well claim them to be. That's all that really matters. We have to get past this "real socialism" paradigm. What is "real" socialism. I ask the same things of LvMI pukes... what is "real" capitalism? Is it not the past 200 years of western history, and longer? Or is it this mystical fantasy land where people respect property w/o a state to make them?

If slavery was part of capitalist history, than we have to accept that China is part of communist history.

Oh well sure I agree with that. I wasn't aware that they still thought themselves socialists but, alright.

But at the same time it's like a country calling itself "democratic" when it's anything but. We all know that there's really nothing socialist about China in the least and that workers there are utterly disenfranchised, so, yeah, structurally there's nothing socialist about China no matter what the government wants to say.

[Baseball]

[
QUOTE=ComradeMan;1914798]Communism has never been in practice- you are confusing the victory of the vanguard parties/movements and their consolidation of power within a predominantly capitalistic world as the failure of communism as a system


But of course, communism or socialism still has to deal with functioning with a predominantly capitalist world. There is no reason to suppose that this problem the reds faced 90 years ago would not also be faced by some future socialist/communist community. So those ancient failures are indeed relevent. And it is certainly plausable to claim the failure was no more complicated than that socialists were/are--- wrong.

[Revolution starts with U]

Well they say they are implementing "market reforms." So to me that implies they are reforming out of Maoism, a form of socialism (whether or not we want to accept that).
Structurally no. Ideologically, yes.

[#FF0000]

How is something materially not one thing but ideology that thing at the same time? A democracy isn't a democracy if it's only democratic in name.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Revolution starts with U;1915047]Are you sure about that? The USSR achieved in 20 years what it took 200 for capitlaism to achieve.

Using capitalist investment, western skilled labor (trained


Yes, but those nations were not shunned by the world community after. They rebounded due to foreign investment, at least the rebound was so quick.

Nice argument. Capitalism allowed for the investment under capitalist terms-- and the result was success. Non-capitalist dissallowed such investment under such terms, and the result...

[Baseball]

Japan and Germany rebounded because they got rebuilt through an international effort, though.

And the communists refused. Which worked out better.


Russia just started off with a real tough hand, and things, for whatever reason, didn't pan out in a good way at all.

ALL nascent industrial countries (and Russia was such in 1917) start off with a real tough hand. This was true in the UK, Germany, USA ect ect ect.


Why that is is up for discussion but it doesn't necessarily mean "welp communism failed because this massive country in the tundra with an agrarian economy could produce enough worthless shit in a geopolitical dickwaving contest". I mean, things just aren't that simple.

By 1914 Russia was fastest growing country on earth (growing more rapidly than than the USA). More people were emmigrating to Russia than immigrating from. Russia was on its way, and the term "russian steamroller" did not just refer to the raw numbers a Russian Army could field. Yeah life was tough for Russians then, as it was the English in the 1790s, Americans 1840, Germans 1860s ect ect ect. Getting ahead involves sacrifice, and the question becomes whether that sacrifice is worth it. It is tough to see how the sacrifice of the Russians under Stalin was worth the benefits supposedly accrued.




Cuba's hella good when compared to literally every other tiny island country in that region.

Cuba has been the wealthiest island in the Carribean since the 1800s. It was always "hella good" compared to everyone else.

[Amphictyonis]

[


But of course, communism or socialism still has to deal with functioning with a predominantly capitalist world. There is no reason to suppose that this problem the reds faced 90 years ago would not also be faced by some future socialist/communist community. So those ancient failures are indeed relevent. And it is certainly plausable to claim the failure was no more complicated than that socialists were/are--- wrong.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/globalization-good-thingi-t143983/index.html

[#FF0000]

Cuba has been the wealthiest island in the Carribean since the 1800s. It was always "hella good" compared to everyone else.

Yeah and now it's socialist and things are even better for the workers on the island, as opposed waaay back when there was a lot more disparity and privilege.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Comrade, you've got it all wrong!

I am beyond that!

I am neither one of those prefixes, and I am all of those at once!

I am...an anarchist without adjectives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_without_adjectives)!

Intresting. And congrats on moving one step closer to not being restricted :P

However I do wonder why you always seem to reject moving closer to class based politics in favour for the most wishy washy, liberal, interllectual/internet based circle jerk ideology that meets your current ideological preferences?

[Budguy68]

@Budguy68

-Logical fallacy.
-On an individual basis capitalism does work, and well, for individuals- one major problem is that a lot of other individuals have to lose for that to be the case. Ever thought about looking at things on a global scale? :thumbup1:


Yes, and thats because capitalism only works on individuals who choose to work hard and succeed. And people don't succeed at the cost of other people not succeeding.

There you go again. Blaming all the world's failures on capitalism....




-Yeah and they were also rebuilt by capitalism weren't they? Never heard of the Marshall plan? Western Europe was "rebuilt" for capitalism by capitalism. The damage actually helped the capitalists---hmmm lots of new contracts for rebuilding and investment.

-"Europe is a capitalism country".... groan.....

check your history.
Europe and Japan were mostly or more capitalist and not communist after WW2. New Contracts means new jobs. Eventually things worked out well for everyone. And yes the US did profit a lot since their industry was undamaged.





How do you define success? China is pretty successful at the moment and will be the World's Superpower by 2050. It's not pure communism, but then pure capitalism has never existed according to you either.


China is pretty successful compared to what they were when Moe was in charge. Care to goes why? Its probably got something to do with them becoming more capitalist and doing Business with the US.... Hong Kong is very welll know to be capitlist. I've seen some treads on revleft which describe China as being capitalist.



-Well it's better than shooting people when communism fails which is what the capitalists are quite good at doing when there system is under threat....


No idea what you're talking about.

Anyways I am still waiting for one of you commies to show me a good example of a successful communist society,

[Revolution starts with U]

And it was better off under Mao than what came before it. You cannot deny that those countries that have called themselves reds have achieved far faster levels of industrialization than their capitalist counterparts did in the previous centuries, at least economically.
Once again, there is nothing inherently un-socialist about China implementing market reforms.
And, if you believe the hard right in America, than america is a socialist nation (sic), and I'm sure you won't deny they are succesful, correct...?
;)

IT doesn't matter tho, you will just deny any evidence as "not good enough."

[ComradeMan]

@Budguy

Loll- this is too easy.

Yes, and thats because capitalism only works on individuals who choose to work hard and succeed. And people don't succeed at the cost of other people not succeeding. There you go again. Blaming all the world's failures on capitalism....

You have no idea of how economic systems work do you? I suggest you read Zygmunt Bauman, you might open your mind a little. People don't succeed at the cost of other people not succeeding- of course they do- that's what competition is about. If my venture capital investment firm gets in first and wipes the opposition then I win. :thumbup1: In order to increase shareholder profits what do multi-nationals do? They remove labour from the developed world where labour laws and costs are high (putting people out of work and increasing the "social" burden on the state) and then go to lesser developed nations where they succeed in putting local enterprise out of business and producing cheap goods- but not to the benefit of the local population, no- the shareholders and so on. It's a parassitic system that works for a while and once the resources are exhausted or become costly it moves somewhere else.

check your history.
Europe and Japan were mostly or more capitalist and not communist after WW2. New Contracts means new jobs. Eventually things worked out well for everyone. And yes the US did profit a lot since their industry was undamaged.

For a start- "Europe" is not a country. Secondly a large part of Western and Central Europe was industrialsed and capitalist, as Japan, but it was REBUILT post WWII by capitalism wasn't it? The US profitted from WWII directly- not because of damage to the US, there was none other than Pearl Harbour, but because of the capitalist war economy. To take one example, Britain did not receive Marshall aid, Britain received a bill- to pay back with interest.... The US made big bucks out WWII and you are foolish to deny it. I also remind you that Eastern Europe was under Moscow.... and also that in both France and Italy the US basically put the fascists and the right back in power, broke up labour movements and participated in some really nasty stuff because they were shit scared that Italy (primarily) and France would become socialist/communist and so there would be no big bucks for Yankee investors.

China is pretty successful compared to what they were when Moe was in charge. Care to goes why? Its probably got something to do with them becoming more capitalist and doing Business with the US.... Hong Kong is very welll know to be capitlist. I've seen some treads on revleft which describe China as being capitalist.

China now has developed from what is with Mao, no Mao- no NOW!!!!! BTW Hong Kong was largely a product of capitalism and, was under... whose flag until 1997?

No idea what you're talking about.

No you don't have an idea of what your talking about do you? That's why it might be better to listen and learn and stop being arrogant. How about capitalist state sanctioned terror campaigns against anyone and anything that might have threatened capitalist interests? When "Communism"- collapsed the transition from communism in the Eastern Block was relatively peaceful.

Anyways I am still waiting for one of you commies to show me a good example of a successful communist society,

Well, not because I like picking on the US, I don't, no offence to honest and decent Americans here, but seeing as the US is probably the most capitalist country in the world and a "superpower", you would probably consider it a success then. But really? Is US society such a success?

[Nicholas Popov]

Communism has never been in practice- you are confusing the victory of the vanguard parties/movements and their consolidation of power within a predominantly capitalistic world as the failure of communism as a system- a system that was never implemented.

Seeing as you don't seem to have much of a clue what communism is to start with- beyond red flags, Stalin and a lot of rhetoric, I suggest you read up and what communism is and isn't and then come back and reanalyse your statement.:thumbup1:

"A six-time convicted criminal, Joseph Dzhugashvili (Stalin) had right away understood what possibilities the MONOPOLY of a " religion for the sheep" called "communism' opens for the Power maniacs: "The Great Helmsman" Mao, "The Master of the House" Stalin; enthusiasm in spite of eternal poverty and millions of victims deemed "enemies of the People" by "Communist tin gods" - emperors who were presumed to be the guardian angels of people's needs and desires? Or was it illusions?"

[Nicholas Popov]

Any palace coup leads to exactly the same. This was not a revolution.