I just find Marxist theory such an interesting topic, i'm not necessarily a fan however I see the struggle of the worker as the one the most forgotten tales in the 20th century.

Here I am, from Chinese Communist Youth League.

Marxism is an economic and socio-political worldview and method of socioeconomic inquiry that centers upon a materialist interpretation of history, a dialectical view of social change, and an analysis and critique of the development of capitalism. Marxism was pioneered in the early to mid 19th century by two German philosophers, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

I understand (and agree with most of) his points, but it just doesn't work out in the world we live in. Look at the Soviet Union.

the Soviets first were Leninists, some kind of terrorism against some oppresive monarchy and the following temporary government.

While I don't exactly buy into the idea that Marxism is a viable real world option for an actual political system, it is rather interesting. In my opinion a government requires a mix of everything rather than one old fashioned monolithic political system to function property - pure capitalism and pure socialism would never work in the long run, as I believe history has now accurately showed us.

Derf I completely understand that reasoning in so called socialist states capitalism is always allowed in type of form and in many capitalist countries socialist programs are put in effect but the true roots of Marxist theory feels like it's fading away, I believe there was mistakes made by many of the revolutionaries however the theory should not die because it has been failed to executed properly.

i'm a communist

Windows Beta Fan what country are you from and what are you doing to contribute to the communist cause, I'm interested in actually doing something positive for my political view.

The problem is such a system can never be executed properly. Just as human greed prevents pure capitalism from being sustainable because that allows the greed to run unchecked, a pure communist system can only work if such greed does not exist. This is because the moment someone is granted the power to enforce the concept of a classless and egalitarian society, to prevent nefarious types from using any means necessary to achieve a better standard of life than their fellow man, then you have already lost that concept because you have a class of people who can decide the fate of others.

Human nature is the enemy of ideals.

I don't support Communism at all, or any type of socialism whatsoever (and no, I am not talking about socio-democracy, or so-called democratic "socialism"; I mean socialsm as a political system, and not as a word to describe certain forms of democracies of which are, apparently, about social justice, or whatever it is, because that's only a different variant, or form, of the same system, which is democracy, and not an entirely different system such as Communism and/or Marxism in any sense, nor is it in any way related to such at all).

I also do not support facism (which was the basis for Nazi Germany, most of which is now modern Germany and Austria after the de-Nazization of both countries), nor do I support any form of totalitarianism whatsoever.

As such, I'm quite glad that my part of the world (First World West, that is, the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, and other smaller entities within this culture) rightfully honors democracy, that is, when it is using it to acheive what is good and right for all people, and I'm sure that (especially being that this is the part of the world of which most people here are from, but I'm even referring to many of those of whom are not from this culture) the vast majority of people here would agree with me wholeheartedly.

I myself am as democratic as one could possibly get, and I'm sure that most of you are the same way.

Also, I have heard a number of times that "Communism is a good idea in theory, but it doesn't work out in practice". Well, not only was the Soviet Union a highly unjust society, of which persecuted quite a number of religious people (and I'm not saying that it isn't possible to set up a religious nation based on Communism either), but even if it wasn't unjust in any sense, it still suffered from a lot of economic trouble due to the way in which the economy was set up, and many of its people not only fled for such nations as the United States, those in Western Europe, and those elsewhere in this part of the world, but also often defected from the Soviet Union itself by way of game-related matches (such as sports matches, etc...) as well as competitions, such as presumably musical concerts, among other things, into this part of the world.

This means that, even if certain portions of Communism were attempted in a just manner (that is, without anything such as religious, political, and/or cultural persecution, or anything of the type), it still creates severe economic implications nonetheless, such as what eventually happened to the Soviet Union shortly before it fragmented.

Communism, Facism, Liberalism, Marxism, and Socialism are society's greatest failed experiments.
Just look at how the U.S. is destroying itself with Welfare and other Socialist programs.

That's right, that darn socialist public school system that we and most other "first world" countries have going for it has proven to be absolutely destructive. And don't even get me started on Canada's public healthcare system, what a disaster it is to give inexpensive care to everyone at the expense of a few more dollars in taxes.

Quite Right you are. I can only hope that here in the U.S. we can repeal Obamacare before it takes affect.

I guess sarcasm really doesn't work on the internet.

No, that was pretty clearly sarcasm.

Ignoring the sarcasm fail above...may I just point out that the ideas of sharing property and creating a classless, completely egalitarian society did NOT originate with Marx and Engels? They're present in the Bible (read Jesus's speeches very carefully sometime) and even before, in the Jewish Essene communities around the Dead Sea. It's an old idea that works well on a small scale, but cannot work on a large scale because of human nature (as noted above). ALL political systems are imperfect, because people are imperfect. Be glad for the ones you live under now. It could be worse. *cough*Nazis*cough*.

Born in the USA Norwegian roots as well as Spanish roots the other question will remain unanswered

Aren't you in Colorado? You should know that PRC isn't Marxist anymore. It was first under Stalin and Mao's ideas and then "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" (Deng Xiaoping) which is what China's been since the late 70s.

---

Communism is an economic system not a system of government. Face it, just becuase there's been no perfect implementation of Communism, has there been any such of Capitalism or Socialism? Zimbabwe is a perfect example of a failed Capitalist state. And saying that democracy and Communism can no co-exist is also completely un-true. In 2008, Nepal elected a Mao-ist Communist Party (I would make the case for other Communist countries but I don't really want to argue the point whether a country is democratic or not). China would be an example of a successful Communist/Socialist country. My point is - Communism isn't any worse than all the other systems of government. However, I won't say which I think is the best...

I read a lot of Marx and Lenin and Mao, and agree with a lot of it (except Mao)
I myself am an anarchist

Well funny thing about that is anarchism and communism are almost dead opposites... Anarchy is if it's not my business I don't care. Communism is if it's for the good of the world then do it.

Actually anarchy and communism are both anti-capitalistic and anti-government.
How you describe anarchy is closer to objectionism and people like Rand.

None of the systems is the "ultimate solution"... Each has it's ups and downs, so a nation will never be completely satisfied. Sure they like the new system for a while, but soon they realize it's downsides and start to complain about it. A good example is the current democracy in former Yugoslav states; people nag about it all the time as if they never wanted it in '91 and onwards. They keep praising Tito and his socialism. It was stable system (for a while), but it limited nations freedom too much. But since I'm not an adult yet, I don't give a [censored].

So much from my part...

Anarchy is not anti-capitalistic, in fact, captalism thrives in anarchy. Without government controls capitalist corporations can be as greedy as they like. Communism in a way is both an economic system and sort of a government but not exactly. Without government to support communism nothing stops a population from becoming greedy and thats when capitalism starts to develop. Communism is anti-capitalist, depending on your implementation.

Communism is always, by definition, anti-capitalist. If it's not then it's socialism rather than communism.