What do you think of Communism as a multiparty system?
453106
Capitalism is an other word for greed. Communism is about sharing, neither work very well in its entirety. However some socialism in a mix with capitalism would work if you could get the capitalist to see that it would restore order to a chaotic society.
368298
Yes, ideally.  Personally, I find anarchy a very interesting, frustrating, but potentially workable alternative to the capitalist system for some.  However, this relies on many many things.  The purest form of Communism is also an interesting concept, but no government has been able to reach that.\n\nAs crazy as it may sound, I think anarchy can work in small groups among people who share the same ideals about how a system should work.  Although there is no form of government in an anarchy, there are a couple of principles that underlie a properly funcitioning anarchist group.  The first is that each person does not look out for his or her own needs, but the needs of each of the other individuals in the group.  This is different from Communism or Socialism in that in those systems, the betterment of the collective, all people as a unit, is considered, rather than the betterment of each individual.  Anarchy is a bit more appealing in this way, because it is better able to gauge the needs of an individual.  Through this system, if one is looking out for every other person in the group, they also have the entire group looking out for their interests.\n\nThe second important prinicple that leads to a functioning anarchist group is coming to decisions through concensus.  This means that every single member of an anarchist community must agree with a decision before it is made.  This is very difficult and time consuming.  It is very hard to get even 25 people to agree on something as trivial as pizza toppings!  However, it is an important step to functioning as an anarchist collective.  With this and the above ideals in mind, it is easy to see that anarchism can really only work in small groups.  To say that we would all be fine without a government or any sort of social order, as anarchism is commonly understood, is just foolish.\n\nCommunism is also an interesting alternative because ideally, in a perfect system, there would be no one leader, but instead a cooperating and functioning system in which everyone gets an equal share.  Companies would find out how many shoes were needed, make those shoes, and the people would get them.  People would work, and would thus be able to get the goods they needed, but all would get the same.  However, this is also complicated, and would be a very hard system to set up and maintain.\n\nAlthough these two theories are interesting as theories, they rely on the idea that human beings are good, and would work with each other and cooperate.  They also rely on the idea that people will not want compete with each other for more money, things, or a better life, as in the capitalist system.  That seems like a slightly naive assumption.  I'm not sure if they would work in practice as a whole economic system, especially in a country with democratic ideals such as the United States.  Communism and anarchy are contrary to the very ideals of democracy, in some sense.  However, they make for interesting discussion.
285970
In a nutshell, Communism, at least as interpreted by the Bolsheviks, would lead inevitably to world domination.  Only after the world was under one governemnt could the utopia exist where everything got distributed equally and every one sang and danced all day, etc.  The United States, however, was and still is a sovreign nation not part of comintern (the Soviet term for the allied Communist states falling under the Warsaw Pact; the rest of the world referred to this as the Second World, however).  As such, the United States and its allies were seen as prime targets for Soviet spying and espionage with the vision in mind of subverting sovreign nations and republics the world over so that atheistic communism would reign.  Sen. Joseph McCarthy and many of his colleagues at the time fought tirelessly to expose Soviet agents working in sensitive governemnt positions, but many communist sympathizers slandered the good Senator and his efforts and so his name is continually defamed to this day.  A lot of thanks to a man who only tried to keep America alive...
134610
I have actually long been a fan of a modified parliamentary two-party system. Let me explain. In a parlimentary system, the party that wins the most seats gets what they want...period. The minority party cannot stop them. This would make the winning party COMPLETELY accountable to the voters. They cannot blame failure on anyone, nor can anyone take away their success. \n\nIn many of these systems, the system itself can be paralyzed by the endless array of political parties. For example, in the German elections, the two dominant parties were in intense negotiaions with smaller parties in order to get their person elected prime minister. The result is EXACTLY what we have in the US. All compromise; no one gets what they wanted. Therefore, if you could limit it to two parties, then there would be virtually no squabbling, stalling, blaming, etc.
577924
No, communism only works on paper. In real life application it fails miserably
608827
Absolutely not. Communism is a political ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production.  In theory, wouldn't it be great to live in a society where education, medical treatment and living costs were all free?  Greed is what causes communism to fail when it is put into practice, but then greed is also what causes democracy to fail in its own aspects.\n\nHowever, many of the major Communists like Marx, Stalin, Mao, and Lenin were all very intelligent people.
1127294
I am not a communist but in know this.\nCapitalism and Communisima are in a fight to the death.\nCaptilism has better PR.\nWhat we call Communism like Russsia Cuba China is not real communisim its not close, it is pretty much Fascism with the rehtoric of the worker, people ect. Those were horrible, Capitlism is horrible too but not as bad, depends on where you are in the food chain....\n\nIn theory shouldn't everyone be equal. Wouldn't god want that. isn't that what Heavan in our Christian doctrine is all about.\n\nHumor me now.....\nImagine if Heavan were physical place, during the 50 we would be threating to Bomb them....
313533
I think that a parliamentary form of government is better than the Congressional system we use in the U.S.  It gives points to 2nd place so a multi party system would develop making a more Representative government.
1009631
The one with 20 parties is more democratic.  It is giving voice to the many points of view espoused by its people.  Governing such a country might be problematic as you would have to form consensus between many parties in order to have a majority for conducting business.
53733
Communism as such means a political party in favour of the working class. It was party formed by the workers to oppose the rich or the wealtheir. The working class has always been oppressed under the rich factory owner who used to utilise them.\n\nJust like any other countries, there are labor union for companies, but in kerala, the communist party being very strong and supporting to the workers, there you can see many workers union for 90% of the factories and companies. This in a way was/is to support the interest of the workers.
804038
In CONCEPT, communism is quite acceptable to me. However, that's where it, like all other isims end.
292441
There are always sacrafices needed and made so that we can enjoy our freedoms. You can't force anyone to live together in peace. No matter how hard you try, it doesn't work. That is the big ideal that socialist/communist societies try to portray. History has shown them to be failures.
342512
The Soviet Union was not true communism, it was a dictatorship with classes like rich and poor, I don't really see much difference then what we have here in America other then we get to vote our own poison.
694940
First, I don't think all Liberals are "Commies."\n\nBecause Rush took drugs, is it fair to say that ALL conservatives are drug addicts?  Because ... well, there are so many things liberals and conservatives have done that could never label the WHOLE party/lib.con.agenda.\n\nSecondly, the fundamentals behind Marx's idea of Communism are actually inspiring, and were meant to make the people free and equal.  You should read them.  I know we've been practically bred to shudder at the word "communism," but if you really knew what it was all about, you wouldn't quake quite so much.\n\nIt hasn't worked yet, I'll agree with you on that.  Countries that have embraced communism have seen huge economic failure.  I think part of the reason is that they are not supported (for aforementioned fears) and also because the nature of "leaders" is so often corrupted.  Sad, but true.  When someone takes control of a country or takes office, the powers they wield make them do crazy things.
1131779
communalism is something else but you probably mean 'communism'\n\nWell in the Marxist theory, communism was regarded an 'ideal'  realm of society in which everyone would contribute as they could and receive as they need. (Any earlier stage couldn't be regarded as Communism)\n\nSocialism was a transitory stage on the way to communism.\n\nLater on the terminology used in the Marxist theory was rather blurred and confused as Stalin declared the USSR had to head for 'socailism in one country' (as opposed to universal revolution rhetoric) and; the term 'communist' in the names of the leading parties in the Eastern bloc turned out to be the names of the concurrent regimes in those countries at that time.
1170831
China's communism is much deeper rooted than the Soviet System.  One thing you can say for the Chinese is that they do evolve to new systems when they are better.  You can see this slow change over the thousands of years that China has existed.  Kinda makes you feel like a baby country when you think the US has only been around for 200 years.
1164299
it works for the communists...lol..seriously...it is not an easy type of government to live under... most communist countries have a  horrible economy.. there is a sense of hopelessness among the people... the majority  live in  poor conditions, while the government officials and special elite   citizens  like  athletes etc  are treated like royalty..it could be thought of as an idealized society... where everyone is equal  but unfortunately  everyone has no food or money or decent housing except the special few...