Snk

Basicaly Marx belived in everone doing the work to the best of their abilities and everone taking from what was achived only what was neccesary however originally he did not come up with any idea of soving a questions of what's "the best of abilities" and "neccesary" should two people had two different opinions on the subject. He then gone to experiment his grand theory with 40 odd people and it ended up in a complete failure. He altered his theory as to include that what is best and best way to achive it would be decided by temporary government that at the path's end would be no longer need and dissolve itself. However again he made assumption that this "temporary government" would imidiatly and unfailingly at all times know what is best and another assumption he made was that this government would be made up of "true" communists and apparently it would form itself on basis of him pointing out who is true communist and who isn't just yet. In all of his theory there is no consideration for difference of opinions, even if all worked in best interest. As a more general example let's assume you have saved some capital, you can either spend it on schools or roads. In any society apart from totalitarism final decision is made by some kind of consensus among the representatives, be it voting or lenghty discussion on pros and cons for both of the choices. In communism there's no place for such discussion because marx never though of any situation other than black and white. Therefore with no facilities to solve internal disputes you are left with only two options: a) subjugation of everyone that thinks differently than the leader which sooner rather than later means subjugation of everyone b) dissolution of any formal group into millions of one to five people groups, each working in it's own direction, with no common goal in between them Even without lenghty experiments both of the above can be classified as undesirable, and only way to not meet those troubles was if everyone thought the same way. That is as likely to happen as one that from now on there would be no rainy day, ever. Hope that does make it a bit clearer what i ment. (and i say it in respectful not patronising way)

Not all of it and i didn't treat that as bible but still, yes

So why should i bother answering with anything more than this if you are so sure even before i write it that it's gona be bs?

This topic deserves creating a forum account. Back at you because it seems denying facts is what you are doing most of the time. As for myself i come from a former comunist country and let me tell you some of the differences: 1. communism: everyone was "employed" and jobs were collectively regulated, meaning that your pay was set up front no matter how worthwhile or useless your work was, how hard working or lazy you were, how well or poorly educated you were. Any ideas you had didn't count because they were not "party's" ideas. Only variation from this schedule, were it position, earnings or right to express your ideas, was throught connections to someone up higher. If you didn't have friends or relatives in party you were nobody. (and NO, government was COMPLETLY UNCAPABLE of promoting people based on merit) now: most of things are opposite but there's one extra worth mentioning: whatever you do you are free to leave and seek other opportunities if you think you're beeing exploited by your employer 2. com: government planned what was worth producing and in what quantities, so if they planned on producing million reels of toilet paper that was it, never mind the demand. If you spent 10 hours in a queue you could be lucky enough to get 3 of those reels, if you didn't, well... you didn't wipe now: companies/people produce, in general, what customers desire, there is no such thing as a shortage of products. 3. com: everyone thinking differently than collective/government was ultimatly wrong and considered dissident, hundreds of thousand of people spent decades in prisons because they dared to have own opinion on something. (or dared to make a joke of a party leader) now: everyone's free to say their mind, even if it's total bs like "communism is great" 4. com: travel out of country was forbiden now: i'm free to go wherever i like provided i meet some basic standards of country i'm going into 5. com: any and all kinds of publications were always censored, if party didn't like something then it was never published. Even informations like gross production of potatos was considered strategic and forbiden to reveal or seek, not to mention anything technical. now: i can pursue almost any knowledge i desire Some other random bits of the past: I have a permit to own a rowing boat signed by then current prime minister himself, I've seen a permit to transport a single pig from one field to another, My father had to write a petition to party comitee explaining why he seeks to obtain a phone line and what would he do with it if he was given one And one last bit on how well comunism rewards labourers: My father built his house with money he earned working on construction sites in Sweden. He did that work legaly according to swedish law but illegaly by our own, commie, law. So if he did exactly the same, physical (what commies praise as foremost and only true) work back in this country he'd be allowed to live in a government owned flat of 2 rooms, hall, kitchen and toilet assigned to him (and that big only beacause of having a family living with him). Appart from all of the above communism will ALWAYS fail on one very simple principle: it lacks any means whatsoever of handling a difference of opinions. In communism someone (in practice it is nowhere close to collective, but even assuming it was) decides on a way to do things and any other input at best is ignored at worst is penalized. In any non-totalitarian form of government there are set laws and lines of conduct that allow for settlement of disputes and inclusion of ideas not originating from party leaders and in opposition to them.