London protest today

[VectraMan]

And as mentioned Mao and Stalin murdered millions of people, all in the name of the people.

And pleanty of non-communist dictators have done the same. Perhaps the issue is that they were dictators, not that they were communists.

[xoggoth]

Very true. In theory at any rate.

The reality of it is that big business, in combination with supposedly democratic governments, are just as unresponsive to the needs of the masses as any commisars ever were.

The only difference is that the former PRETEND to give a tulip.

[Fungus]

And pleanty of non-communist dictators have done the same. Perhaps the issue is that they were dictators, not that they were communists.

Absolutely.

[stackpole]

By way of balance it also has to be said that the unbridled capitalism so many espouse is hardly any more in tune with human nature.

Where does anyone practice "unbridled capitalism"? I can't think of anywhere, and I don't know of anyone who espouses it.

[bfg]

Where does anyone practice "unbridled capitalism"? I can't think of anywhere, and I don't know of anyone who espouses it.

China, India, Most of Africa, South America, Eastern Europe - mostly to the advantage of western multi-nationals. Just do a quick google on child labour, indentured servitude or slavery if you want find out who is gaining from it.

[expat]

I see nothing wrong with communist ideology i.e everyone should work and contribute to society in an equal manner.

Excuse me, that's just woolly socialism (to which I subscribe in principle some of the time), not communist ideology. Not ideology at all, in fact.

A communist party in one country does not mean that it agrees with the policies of a communist party in another country

That's not generally true. Most communist parties including the British supported Stalin and Mao. Quite a feat considering that all these 2 had in common was slave states and mass murder.

[stackpole]

Sorry, I thought xog was talking about "Western capitalism" being unbridled.

[xoggoth]

I only said espoused, not implemented. Suffice it to say that in my view it goes way too far.

[Fungus]

China, India, Most of Africa, South America, Eastern Europe - mostly to the advantage of western multi-nationals. Just do a quick google on child labour, indentured servitude or slavery if you want find out who is gaining from it.

In most of Africa unbridled capitalism takes second place if that to corrupt authoritarian regimes. I can think of Chad, Zimbabwe, Nigeria etc. India is not unbridled capitalism either. Though they have a long way to go in terms of poverty alleviation etc. As for China, surely that's a weird mix of authoritarian pseudo-Communism, with corruption, free market ideas and state intervention/control. And the number of deaths due to workplace accidents is horrendous, as is the pollution of the air, land and rivers.

What is shameful is the way that some multi-nationals invest in countries with such poor human rights and safety records.

However, who are we to knock the creation of industries in poor countries. That is their path to development, which will fund education and health, and so on. South Korea is one such country that is now a modern economy as a result of industrialisation (though a friend moans about the absurd work hours).

[Denny]

No, not greed and corruption. I think you'll find that the greed and corruption was at the top.

No, that's a load of b0ll0cks. What gets in the way is the fact that communism is unnatural, abnormal. It stifles self-reliance, ambition, individualism and freedom.

Wrong. Communism is a global phenomenon not a national one. One one has ever experienced communism in full throttle they've only experienced haphazard attempts to create it and then bungling it completely. What we seen in North Korea, or what was the Soviet Union, Communist China is not communism at all. Not even close to it.

All of these countries operate a state capitalist model (or State socialist model, as it is often inappropriately called).

If we all genuinely lived in a state of communism or true socialism (which is the same as true communism) we wouldn't have to worry about self-reliance, ambition, individualism because everyone would genuinely be free because the concept of property ownership, trade, scare resources etc. would be obscolete.

Unfortunately that is unlikely to happen - at least for a while yet, if ever some may think, depending on your view of human nature.

While I'm in political theory mode: what some of you often call socialism, under the Labour Party or in the worst examples, Blairism, is not socialism at all. The old Parliamentary Labour party was about Social Democracy. Blair doesn't even concede to that model even.