The critque of communism

Before we will go to the thing , we must know something in introduction.:

Reason of this post: I don't want to you change your way of thinking, or mind , but view. Human (every) has got some way of thinking, wchich cannot be change, the view comes from it. If we tell to emptions , we won't change view , but only polarizate soviety, becouse with emotions we can tell only to people with the same way of thinking. In hight level of talk , to change someones view we must knowing his/her way of thinking show him/her mistake and to what we can go if some idea is in all good. In low level of talk people don't listen arguments , so if we talk about politics there's only one comon for evey motivation , to support some politic - thinking that other are corrupted.

Definition: So begore all we must to know about what we talk. Communism is showed in Communist Manifesto amd other texts writted by Marx and Engels. I think that it is uthopy. But analising it Viet Nam is not country with communist economy. Now counties with it are North Korea and probably Erytrea and others like that, not China. China is going to be confucianist country.

Marx (not in C. Manifesto) was seeing( if I have got good knowlagde, I haven't seen that , but it was told) that system of old societies was going to, or even having communist economy, but they hadn't got agriculture. 

Before finding ehought coertion to work was unhaning hope , that others will do goodly work , becouse finding food for people was more random. After finding, they were able to hope , that other will do enough work.

It as Marx have seen (it was written in Comunist Manifesto) makes neccesarity of coertion, but if knowed poeople makes coertion, the coertion is low motivation, and these people are badly thought , what makes their possibilities lower, which makes reaction.

If humans do not do rebelion , they can try to cheat , that they work. Marx as materialist could do not see that. Anyway agriculture makes communism impossible, and unusing agriculture is not possible , even using 10%s of contemporary agriculture is not possible. Thanks for discussion in the hight level, if it'll be.

I hope , you readed all of it.

you don't know what communism is.

So not having a bourgeois to hide the grains in times of drought to profit is impossible. That is the worst argument I've ever seen  

I haven't say that. But bourgeois weren't in all times. I readed Marx's text and there was clearly sayed, that burgeois and proletarians weren't existing in every time , but it is the last form of class confilct. And burgeois do not use peasants, and do not have grain.

The point in writing definition is to say what that means begore the talk. If you say that it is not good analys, but if definition is other, -that is not good answer , becouse analys comes from definition too. Saying, that analys is not good , becouse definition is other , that it from which it comes from , so with out the definition is spam, and it don't say anything. Please answer for that , what I have writed , not for other imagined thing. I write clearly.

Also, use autocorrect man.

Please remember that communism does not necessarily involve the peasants, this is a Maoist twist on Marxism. Real communism is directed more towards the proletariat(ie: the workers).

Vietnam is Socialism Not entirely Communist

Yes. valuable note.

That's right. And that is reason for writing definition , before the talk -to everything be clearly.

Ok

'Question 7: What is the proletariat?

Answer: The proletariat is that class of society which lives exclusively by its

labour and not on the profit from any kind of capital; that class whose weal and

woe, whose life and death, therefore, depend on the alternation of times of good

and bad business;. in a word, on the fluctuations of competition.

Question 8: Then there have not always been proletarians?

Answer: No. There have always been poor and working classes; and those who

worked were almost always the poor. But there have not always been proletarians,

just as competition has not always been free.

Question 9: How did the proletariat arise?

Answer: The proletariat came into being as a result of the introduction of the

machines which have been invented since the middle of the last century and the

most important of which are: the steam-engine, the spinning machine and the

power loom. These machines, which were very expensive and could therefore

only be purchased by rich people, supplanted the workers of the time, because by

the use of machinery it was possible to produce commodities more quickly and

cheaply than could the workers with their imperfect spinning wheels and hand-

looms. The machines thus delivered industry entirely into the hands of the big

capitalists and rendered the workers’ scanty property which consisted mainly of

their tools, looms, etc., quite worthless, so that the capitalist was left with

everything, the worker with nothing. In this way the factory system was

introduced. Once the capitalists saw how advantageous this was for them, they

sought to extend it to more and more branches of labour. They divided work more

and more between the workers so that workers who formerly had made a whole

article now produced only a part of it. Labour simplified in this way produced

goods more quickly and therefore more cheaply and only now was it found in

almost every branch of labour that here also machines could be used. As soon as

any branch of labour went over to factory production it ended up, just as in the

case of spinning and weaving. in the hands of the big capitalists, and the workers

were deprived of the last remnants of their independence. We have gradually

arrived at the position where almost all branches of labour are run on a factory

basis. This has increasingly brought about the ruin of the previously existing

middle class, especially of the small master craftsmen, completely transformed the

previous position of the workers, and two new classes which are gradually

swallowing up all other classes have come into being, namely:

I. The, class of the big capitalists, who in all advanced countries are in almost

exclusive possession of the means of subsistence and those means (machines,

factories, workshops, etc.) by which these means of subsistence are produced.

This is the bourgeois class, or the bourgeoisie.

II. The class of the completely propertyless, who are compelled to sell their labour

to the first class, the bourgeois, simply to obtain from them in return their means

of subsistence. Since the parties to this trading in labour are not equal, but the

bourgeois have the advantage, the propertyless must submit to the bad conditions

laid down by the bourgeois. This class, dependent on the bourgeois, is called the

class of the proletarians or the proletariat.'

From 'Communist confetion of faith'