Long ago this topic was around me head and it was not until today that I have decided to try to open a debate on this issue today.
therefore I will give my purely personal opinion based on what you and I have read, so I say in this post is completely debatable and is subject to review, possibly wrong me this already on the part of the reader to give his opinion on the subject and we can start a debate.
To initiate a review that is communism I have naturally directed source, specifically to the "Communist Manifesto written by S MARX and ENGELS and not to the subsequent writings or analyses of others.
My first impressions when reading this written were talking of a class struggle, between the proletariat against the owners of land, means of production and of course the capital, which they call the bourgeoisie or capitalists, this according to my interpretation is a constant struggle between oppressors and oppressed .
Therefore in first instances have nothing on economy models, manage or lead a country if not a struggle of classes, what leads to an area of struggle for power socio-political of a nation in this case of the oppressors (capitalists) oppressed (proletariat), where according to the same Government only MARX exists to accommodate the vagaries of the capitalists , in this way oppressed much more to the proletariat.
the first thing you notice in the Communist Manifesto is Marx a materialist author, i.e. the engine of history and social changes are material goods, therefore the basis of thought is what it calls the "theory of value" which is basically the way according to Marx determine how an object is worth more than another. not to determine "price" if not the "value" for example a table has a price given by the monopoly, the supply and demand, the value according to Marx is given by the time spent to create this table, bone a while had to invest a person or a group of people get all the materials that make up this table and of course develop it
then if we have an assembly line of car where some 50 people work the wealth generated in such a factory would be the sum total of the work of 50 people working in the Assembly line, however these only workers perceive a portion of the value generated by the factory the rest would benefit who remains the owner. i.e. If you work 10 hours in such manufactures, only will receive 3 hours of benefit in relation to the hours that this relationship has been the owner Marx calls the "Capital gains"
the share of added value is, therefore, the expression exact degree of exploitation of the strength of labour by capital or the worker by the capitalist - Marx (capital vol 1)
As is possible that is give these relations of exploitation?
the answer to this is that the employer is the owner of the means of production is the capital, so it becomes a "capitalist".
against what many people think, Marx is not against private property, according to Marx is when you want to own the means of production.
But why?
Marx divides society into two groups which obviously as the have completely different interests, so it is a clash of classes; on the one hand we have to them capitalist and on the other hand we have to the proletariat. this as I have already mentioned, leads to an inevitable class struggle, which according to Marx is the original sin of the capitalist economy.
This relationship Marx called the infrastructure of the system, but this structure works and there is a clash of classes there is a super-insulation structure that would be the environment, i.e. laws, culture, religion and ETC. that serve to justify and legitimize these relationships of domination
Do Marx proposed to do away with injustice?
Good Marx proposes the revolution of the proletariat, i.e. According to Marx ending private ownership of the means of production so that workers can enjoy the wealth generated by these means, this would obviously end of root with the capitalist system
First conclusions
I am not a student of political sciences, but the more I read the "Communist Manifesto" that is the main source of this post but I did realize that seemed more a way of understanding reality seeking a way to bring an economy, if you look at the Communist authors almost all molding a form, an instrument by which understand the reality and offer a solution to that would be the relationship between oppressor and oppressed.
In Venezuela to today is a Communist country?
well, I think that it is not, a failed attempt of the interpretation of the rulers of communism called by former President Hugo Chávez "21st-century socialism" that if Marx were alive to see it surely would criticize it.
But pedro just in case Venezuela is not a Communist country?
According to my personal opinion, Venezuela is not a Communist country, is a country that has tried to implement policies which we could interpret as Communists but which in practice are not, i.e. as if I tell everybody that I am a healthy person but in reality just as junk food and live a sedentary lifestyle. It has no relationship what I say say with what I do.
Reasons why I believe that Venezuela is not a Communist country.
1.changed to the capitalist.
While it is true that the majority of enterprises or means of production are in the hands of the Venezuelan Government this does not mean that it ceases to exist a relationship of oppressed-oppressor. According to Marx the relationship should not be since it is the basis of the "Communist Manifesto"
Albeit the above statement, today companies expropriated by the Government do not report or employee benefit according to tell us has taken it, nor to the capitalist (in this case the Government) companies have only changed their owner, are now the Government and the employees continue to work as before, but with the difference that these companies are broken.
so the company can bring benefits there should be a change of model not only economic but also socio-political one that allows the employees through an Assembly to take control of the company and therefore of the benefits which the undertaking would have to be shared or traded with the rest of the world. These benefits in the Venezuela of today do not exist or will exist outside the walls of the company, Venezuela is a capitalist model.
2. the dictatorship is of the proletariat
What've been able to understand you Marx (Please if I'm wrong let me know in the comments) is that it is literal, a dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e. that through an Assembly of workers of different means of production, chosen course by other workers and with this I say literally only workers nothing of businessmen, so these are medium-sized or small will take the reins of the country i.e. the Government only exists to enforce the law and only that.
The Government is to say would be public officials (police officers, firefighters, judges etc.) but that would take the reins of the country in terms of economic decisions would that make the economy work bone the proletariat.
in Venezuela, this is not the case, we have a "democratic" NEO-dictadura that is nothing more than a totalitarian regime that makes decisions without looking sideways, without measuring the consequences taking decisions that obviously do not agree to the proletariat, since this is the proletariat, worker who, because of the lack of production and business, who is suffering to living flesh and more than any other Venezuelan inflation and economic mistakes of the President Nicolas maduro.
EXTRA
It is a funny thing, but I think there is a Communist country, there are failed attempts to build communism, that most early that later become in countries that seek to stay in power through populist policies guise of communism, to finally become a totalitarian dictatorship, examples there are many.
Final Conclusion
Nowhere in the literature that I have consulted to make this post, I found that having a car of last model is bad or clothing, smartphones among other things is something that Marx hated, if I remember correctly grateful that you left me the book or text of Marx that says otherwise.
I do not like or agree with any of these theories, personally I do not believe that equality of classes, one has what has sweated, either thinking or literally sweating, but however I firmly believe in equal opportunities and as every thinking human being I think the proclamation of universal rights such as freedom for example.
I strongly believe in the values of democracy and that the Government should intervene only for compliance with the laws and the protection of people at risk, being thus a Government as little intervention in areas such as for example the economy, my view on the role of a Government and my personal political ideology are subject for another post.
Pedro, creo que hablas español, el comunismo es una teoria politica bastante buena, en realidad de las mejores que hay, sin embargo no pasa de eso una teoria, una utopia inalcanzable, me parece que si se ha logrado en algunos Kibbutz en Israel, pero son muy pequeños y por ende la poblacion ha logrado adaptarse a este modo de vivir y son bastante prosperos.
En cualquier otro lado, ya sea pais o territorio no va a funcionar, va a pasar lo que ha sucedido en todos los regimenes que han intentado llegar a una sociedad comunista, se convierten en regimenes totalitarios.
En Venezuela lo que intentaron fue un socialismo menos radical sin embargo ha terminado fracasando porque de por si la idea es bastante dificil de aplicar y tambien creo que un alto porcentaje de la poblacion un poco menos del 50% cuando Chavez y mucho mayor ahora se niegan a aceptar los cambios que pretende el gobierno.
Añadir a esto la corrupcion que se supone impera en Venezuela (esto no lo se, no vivo alli) y tenemos una poblacion descontenta que en cualquier momento puede explotar.
Tambien hay que tomar en cuenta la funcion de la prensa que ahora es nada mas un portavoz de quien es su dueño, ya no da noticias sino que las ideas que pregonan los propietarios de los medios y por lo tanto la poblacion lee la noticia que quiere leer aunque no sea la verdad.
No se si entendes lo que quiero decir, para mi punto de vista en Venezuela lo que hay es una lucha entre dos grupos de poder y como siempre el que sufre es el pueblo.
No creo que el comunismo sea una teoría ni siquiera medianamente buena, ya que el señor Karl Marx en su libro manifiesto comunista (que es como la biblia del comunismo) en la fase 1 de esta ideología (Socialismo) explica ciertas medidas a aplicar para que así se llegue a la fase 2, que vendría siendo ya la utopía comunista que ya antes mencionaste. En esta utopía comunista, Marx se refiere al hombre como un nuevo ser iluminado y renacido el cual antepondrá las necesidades "del pueblo" antes que las suyas propias, incluso cuando este trabaje a la par de personas mediocres y menos talentosas que el no le importará recibir la misma recompensa (yo la verdad pienso que esto es un atentado al "yo" interno, al autoestima del hombre), no tendrá ambiciones, ni tendrá ningún carácter individual que lo distinga del resto de las personas, algo totalmente imposible en ese aspecto concordamos. Lo que Marx no explica es cuando sucederá ese cambio, esa transformación y renacimiento de ese hombre iluminado y nuevo. Tampoco explica cómo sucederá ese cambio, ni mucho menos como harán "los líderes" después de la fase 1 (socialismo) para impulsar ese cambio tan drástico en el hombre.
Y es normal que Marx no lo haya mencionado, ya que para el año en que Karl Marx escribe este libro (1848) los estudios en la psicología eran muy escasos, los conocimientos en este campo eran muy limitados y por ende el señor Karl Marx realmente no tenía ni la mas mínima idea de como funcionaba la mente humana. Ni si quiera Freud con su psicoanálisis (el cuál ya está bastante desprestigiado) había empezado sus estudios.
Hoy en día sabemos que el ser humano por naturaleza se preocupa por sí mismo antes que todas las cosas, hoy en día a una persona le importa mas su dolor de muela que la hambruna en Africa y esto es totalmente normal. Este concepto individualista es el que ha impulsado a la humanidad a grandes descubrimientos a lo largo de la historia.
Así que por esto, yo pienso que el comunismo no es bueno ni en la teoría, ni muchísimo menos en la práctica donde ya se ha demostrado que aparte de fracasar la teoría, los estados que practican esta ideología en vez de abolirse como promete Marx que sucederá en la fase 2, se hacen mas grandes hasta que llegan a convertirse en totalitarios. Soy venezolano, y te cuento hoy día se han implementado en el país de manera muy exitosa (para los gobernantes) la fase 1, donde como ya dijiste los mas perjudicados somos los ciudadanos.
Las personas siempre deben tener el derecho a crear su propia realidad por ellos mismos, ya sea pobreza o riqueza sin que esto perjudique el derecho de otros. Y esto solo es posible y factible cuando el estado respeta los derechos individuales de las personas, cosa que no sucede en el comunismo ni en la teoría ni en la práctica.
Ok, entiendo tu posicion, pero igual lo que vos queres es tambien utopico por las mismas caracteristicas que tenemos los humanos de pensar primero en uno mismo.
Mira yo soy agnostico, y sin embargo estoy muy de acuerdo en una parte de lo que dijo segun la biblia Cristo en lo que creo se conoce como la regla dorada, ama a Dios por sobre todas las cosas y ama a tu projimo como a ti mismo.
Como soy agnostico y no estoy seguro de la existencia de un dios la primera parte la dejo en duda sin embargo la segunda parte del axioma si deberia ser un fin para todos pero cuantos la seguimos? Muy pocos, por lo menos te aseguro que yo no la sigo a pesar de que estoy de acuerdo con ella.
The Communist Manifesto, published on steemit
https://steemit.com/anarchism/@spacebeard/the-communist-manifesto-preface
https://steemit.com/anarchism/@spacebeard/what-is-a-communist-society