I think we have been brainwashed into beliving communism is the root of all evil, but in the case of africa Communism would work better than our current system. capitalism is a system where the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, while communism seeks to equalize the distribution of wealth.

Nigeria is a country were perhaps 90% of the wealth is in the hands of like 3 percent of the people. believe it or not communism would immidiatley increase the standard of living for Nigerians. So why don't we ever consider communism?

No. And capitalism is a system where everyone has a chance to succeed or fail (in America anyway). Communism is a system where everyone automatically fails.

Because it sucks.

Redistributing wealth too much removes incentives for people to work hard.

And if you remove incentives to work hard for that top 10% or 5% of people in society, the economic pie/cake that you want to redistribute gets smaller. Much smaller. . . since those top 10% or 5% generally includes the best people any society has.

The central planning stuff in communism also doesn't allow goods to be available in the right amounts.

Imagine if the FG interfered in the price of pounded yam, rice, etc like it does with oil products? There would be scarcity of that too.

havoc37:

No. And capitalism is a system where everyone has a chance to succeed or fail (in America anyway). Communism is a system where everyone automatically fails.

i'm not talking about America, i'm talking about Africa were everyone is failing despite capitalism.

ekt_bear:

Because it sucks.

Redistributing wealth too much removes incentives for people to work hard.

And if you remove incentives to work hard for that top 10% or 5% of people in society, the economic pie/cake that you want to redistribute gets smaller. Much smaller. . . since those top 10% or 5% generally includes the best people any society has.

hows capitalism treating Africa? the top 10% or 5% are most definatley not the best people society has they often don't work hard for their money, but rather steal it through corruption (generalizing). And i'm not advocating total communism where everyone must be exactly the same, but rather a liberal version that allows for people in the business field to get ahead and compete. So in essence communism will not lessen the economic pie, but rather redistribute it. Because the Nigerian elite are usually not making their money in ways that contribute to the economy.

I also want to point out that Nigeria's economy is based on exportation of oil, so the amount of money available in the country  is more dependant on the amount of oil sold than the ingenuity or incentive of the private sector.

The central planning stuff in communism also doesn't allow goods to be available in the right amounts.

Imagine if the FG interfered in the price of pounded yam, rice, etc like it does with oil products? There would be scarcity of that too.

One of my favorite parts about communism its its introverted viewpoint. This is benificial to a country that has everything it needs in abundance like Nigeria, but devastating to countries that do not have resources. If Nigeria was communist the rice and yams would be probably grown on state owned farms, Nigeria is capable of meeting all its food needs in this way. The prices would be set by the government, irrespective of international prices and the produce would not be grown for profit, but at just enough cost to defray the cost of paying the field workers. creating employment and a stable local food supply, two things we do not have now.

pleep:

hows capitalism treating Africa? the top 10% or 5% are most definatley not the best people society has they often don't work hard for their money, but rather steal it through corruption (generalizing).

This is a silly generalization. OK, exclude those in the top 5 or 10% who steal. How much can they even be, .1% or so of the total population of naija? Are the remainder not far more productive than the guys at the bottom 20% or so? Which adds more value, the guy hustling pure water on the street or the civil engineer who is designing an office building?

If you redistribute too much wealth from the civil engineer to the pure water salesman, the civil engineer isn't going to be working as hard. What incentive will he have to go to work if most of his wealth will be taken away from him and redistributed?

And i'm not advocating total communism where everyone must be exactly the same, but rather a liberal version that allows for people in the business field to get ahead and compete.

And where has this been implemented successfully? What does it look like?

So in essence communism will not lessen the economic pie, but rather redistribute it.

There is always this tradeoff in life. More distribution => slower growth. There is no real way to get around it. See the above example I gave with the civil engineer.

Because the Nigerian elite are usually not making their money in ways that contribute to the economy.

I said top 5% or 10%, not the top .1% or so that represents thieving elites. So the guy that has his own construction firm that builds housing estates and employs many people is not making his money in a way that contributes to the economy?

I also want to point out that Nigeria's economy is based on exportation of oil, so the amount of money available in the country  is more dependant on the amount of oil sold than the ingenuity or incentive of the private sector.

Fine, so oil is 30% of Nigeria's GDP. What of the remaining 70%? This is the mentaility that has weakened Nigeria over the past 40 years (which unfortunately I was guilty of too). . . thinking that all of the country is this 30% chunk and neglecting the 70%.

One of my favorite parts about communism its its introverted viewpoint. This is benificial to a country that has everything it needs in abundance like Nigeria, but devastating to countries that do not have resources. If Nigeria was communist the rice and yams would be probably grown on state owned farms, Nigeria is capable of meeting all its food needs in this way. The prices would be set by the government, irrespective of international prices and the produce would not be grown for profit, but at just enough cost to defray the cost of paying the field workers. creating employment and a stable local food supply, two things we do not have now.

So much wrong with this, I dunno where to begin. In essence, if you remove profit, then nobody will have an incentive to get anything done. The day that the gov't starts setting the price of yam and other foodstuffs is the day that Nigerians will be starving to death due to scarcity.

communism always sounds good in principle but its useless in implementation,do we need communism to ensure food security and full employment ,should we keep harping on having natural resources or should we find ways of developing our human capital to harness those resources efficiently.Liberal version of communism, communism has no liberal version, no private businesses re allowed,

Maybe advocating chinese style capitalism would be better for us, as the government can still use its power to regulate prices while leaving the private sector to operate in some certain areas,

Communism is a system that limit skill and capacity of the people to think and be creative in fostering a beta society. There can never be an equitable distribution of wealth till the world come to an end.


View my profile for details on green world

Too much Capitalism is bad, so is too much communism. How about a mixture of both Socialism?

Greenpro:

Communism is a system that limit skill and capacity of the people to think and be creative in fostering a beta society. There can never be an equitable distribution of wealth till the world come to an end.


View my profile for details on green world

If america and britain was practicing communism, de wud have packaged it in a fine wrapper that capitalism would have seem from the deepest pits of hell. I do not think we have to copy and paste in everything, our cultures are different so we shd b able to do ours d way it suits us.

Rgp92:

Too much Capitalism is bad, so is too much communism. How about a mixture of both Socialism?

Seconded.
I think that is what China is experimenting and they seem to be succeeding. People are allowed to get rewarded for their hardwork but the society doesn't ignore those that fail to make it. My problem with capitalism is it's soullessness. It treats poverty as the fault of the poor.

IG:

Seconded.
I think that is what China is experimenting and they seem to be succeeding. People are allowed to get rewarded for their hardwork but the society doesn't ignore those that fail to make it. My problem with capitalism is it's soullessness. It treats poverty as the fault of the poor.

I agree with you capitalism is soulless - one has only to take a look at the pyramid scheme called "stock market", a larger-than-life system where people make money, not from goods and services, but from pieces of paper! But where are the shining examples to point to to make the case for communism? So I agree with you that a mixed system is better. But China is no shining example of that. In a few years from now, maybe once the generation that personally knew Mao is gone, the Chinese will stop pretending to be "communist". The unfortunate thing is that what the Chinese are building is the American-type capitalism that you describe as "soulless", not the people-oriented "mixed" social democracy you find in Europe, particularly the Scandinavian countries.

@op I am not in support of Full blown communism because it simply wouldn't work. Capitalism in my own humble opinion encourages productivity.

@OP

You should ask yourself the question, has Communism served North Korea very well comparing it to South Korea!?

Isolationism has its benefits. It can be a good incubation period for a country to build capacity. See the case of pre-WW2 Japan and America for the benefits of isolationism.

Communism also builds up expertise and social values. Communist countries once liberated often have competitive advantage over their rivals in terms of human capacity.

I believe a few years of communism can benefit a new country in its early stage of development.

Would Nigeria be better off under communism?

If we were communist, we would still export crude oil, meaning 90% of our budget would be intact. . .

The question is what has our current system (laissez-faire corruption) added to us beyond oil revenue?

If only for the extermination of corruption, education of a lost generation; and re-integration of social miscreants who now pose security problems, I say Nigeria would benefit from a few years of communism. Not to mention building local capacity.

I hope all of you commenting know the difference between Communism and Socialism.

In most cases, we have Socialist states and not Communist states (such as China).

http://www.marxmail.org/faq/socialism_and_communism.htm

What is the difference between socialism and communism?

Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism grows directly out of capitalism; it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds (socialism). From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (communism).

The socialist principle of distribution according to deeds— that is, for quality and quantity of work performed, is immediately possible and practical. On the other hand, the communist principle of distribution according to needs is not immediately possible and practical—it is an ultimate goal.

Obviously, before it can be achieved, production must reach undreamed of heights—to satisfy everyone’s needs there must be the greatest of plenty of everything. In addition, there must have developed a change in the attitude of people toward work—instead of working because they have to, people will work because they want to, both out of a sense of responsibility to society and because work satisfies a felt need in their own lives.

Socialism is the first step in the process of developing the productive forces to achieve abundance and changing the mental and spiritual outlook of the people. It is the necessary transition stage from capitalism to communism.

It must not be assumed, from the distinction between socialism and communism, that the political parties all over the world which call themselves Socialist advocate socialism, while those which call themselves Communist advocate communism. That is not the case. Since the immediate successor to capitalism can only be socialism, the Communist parties,-like the Socialist parties, have as their goal the establishment of socialism.

Are there, then, no differences between the Socialist and Communist parties? Yes, there are.

The Communists believe that as soon as the working class and its allies are in a position to do so they must make a basic change in the character of the state; they must replace capitalist dictatorship over the working class with workers’ dictatorship over the capitalist class as the first step in the process by which the existence of capitalists as a class (but not as individuals) is ended and a classless society is eventually ushered in. Socialism cannot be built merely by taking over and using the old capitalist machinery of government; the workers must destroy the old and set up their own new state apparatus. The workers’ state must give the old ruling class no opportunity to organize a counter-revolution; it must use its armed strength to crush capitalist resistance when it arises.

The Socialists, on the other hand, believe that it is possible to make the transition from capitalism to socialism without a basic change in the character of the state. They hold this view because they do not think of the capitalist state as essentially an institution for the dictatorship of the capitalist class, but rather as a perfectly good piece of machinery which can be used in the interest of whichever class gets command of it. No need, then, for the working class in power to smash the old capitalist state apparatus and set up its own—the march to socialism can be made step by step within the framework of the democratic forms of the capitalist state.

The attitude of both parties toward the Soviet Union grows directly out of their approach to this problem. Generally speaking, Communist parties praise the Soviet Union; Socialist parties denounce it in varying degrees. For the Communists, the Soviet Union merits the applause of all true believers in socialism because it has transformed the socialist dream into a reality; for the Socialists, the Soviet Union deserves only condemnation because it has not built socialism at all—at least not the socialism they dreamed of.

Instead of wanting to take away people’s private property, socialists want more people to have more private property than ever before.

There are two kinds of private property. There is property which is personal in nature, consumer’s goods, used for private enjoyment. Then there is the kind of private property which is not personal in nature, property in the means of production. This kind of property is not used for private enjoyment, but to produce the consumer’s goods which are.

Socialism does not mean taking away the first kind of private property, e.g. your suit of clothes; it does mean taking away the second kind of private property, e.g. your factory for making suits of clothes. It means taking away private property in the means of production from the few so that there will be much more private property in the means of consumption for the many. That part of the wealth which is produced by workers and taken from them in the form of profits would be theirs, under socialism, to buy more private property, more suits of clothes, more furniture, more food, more tickets to the movies.

More private property for use and enjoyment. No private property for oppression and exploitation. That’s socialism.

More reading here:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_socialism_and_communism

Modern socialist parties tend to believe in a strong, centralised, welfare state, but they fall very short of communism, in that they support the right of individuals to own private capital.

That is perhaps the most important difference.

Also, many countries including the UK and several countries in Europe operate a combination of Capitalism and Socialism. Why else do you think you have "Free Health Care" if not for a Socialist ideal?

Nigeria need a little bit of communism in their system

Communism wont work in a society like Nigeria.No question about that.

Please name one functioning country that has run communism successfully.

North Korea--Complete failure. surviving on food stamps from china, south korea and the US. Also selling weapons to miscreants.
Cuba--Existed on Soviet funds for a long time. Still deeply indebted to Russia (though not usually mentioned).
USSR-- what? LMAO.
China-- "To be rich is glorious". Mao would be ashamed to see the modern China.
Vietnam-- communist in name. just like china, its essentially a capitalist dictatorship.
Yugoslavia--see USSR above.
East Germany--Merged into West germany and generally dragging down German economy.
Libya-- touche.
Mozambique-- capitulated. Now deeply capitalist.
Byellorusia--Capitalist democracy
Romania, Hungary etc---Deeply capitalist. Failures all of them.

Yet you want us to take on a system whose very nature detests the entrepreneurialism thats the core of nigerian life. God help you if you dont fill your farm quota. Besides web designers will only be paid according to effort not the going market rate that truly values their expertise.

Capitalism is not the cause of Nigeria's problem, and Communism is DEFINITELY NOT the solution.

A system is only as good as the people that run it.

My take on this issue is that[b] it is easier to define than to implement[/b]. So, we should better steer clear from something that will make our nation becomes worse off as the world is progressing in the other direction rather we shouldn't adopt a regressing approach, what's becoming a govt. of the past.

communism in Nigeria would be very difficult to achieve, firstly would all of us be willing to give most of our private property for the "GREATER GOOD", secondly how do u go abt convincing the the masses that's its for thier own good,e.g how would u tell the onion farmer in plateau/bauchi, the cocoa farner ,that all he produces would be owned  by government.

To bring it closer, how would we tell Seun, "em bros this ya forum(NL) na the property of the proletariat(public),  not his, how would he react to it.it would be very difficult , if anyone know how to do these simple thing please explain, and i would gladly join the nearest local Politburo .

donguutti:

communism in Nigeria would be very difficult to achieve, firstly would all of us be willing to give most of our private property for the "GREATER GOOD", secondly how do u go abt convincing the the masses that's its for thier own good,e.g how would u tell the onion farmer in plateau/bauchi, the cocoa farner ,that all he produces would be owned by government.

To bring it closer, how would we tell Seun, "em bros this ya forum(NL) na the property of the proletariat(public), not his, how would he react to it.it would be very difficult , if anyone know how to do these simple thing please explain, and i would gladly join the nearest local Politburo .

No way to implement it without killing lots of people and creating general unhappiness. No point to it.

Communism is retarded, it doesn't work. No country where it has been implemented as the major economic system has enjoyed lasting prosperity, that is why there are no purely communist countries anymore. Russia, China even Cuba are all trending towards capitalism, only North Korea holds tenaciously to the old ways.
If it clearly has not worked in the countries that have previously tried it, why on earth would Nigeria even consider it?

capitalism is evil,no to communism
YES TO SOCIALISM

Communism, capitalism, socialism, federalism etc systems are not the problem, the problems are the people operating the system. if you try any system outside Nigeria, it ill work but inside Nigeria it will surely fail.
Why? Nigerians build the system around thereselves, friends, political members and families not studying the intricacy of the environment and the people, and this will surely fail. But when a system is built to have colossal and formidable structure having the generality of the people in mind will surely last and work even though it mail fail, but ultimately will rise again.

E.g- Nigeria senate will only make laws btw 1 week that will enrich their pockets, but will take 2 terms ( 8 years) on a law that will touch peoples life and strengthen the system.

Every known economic system that has worked in other countires when same brought to Nigeria will not work again. WHY? Because it would have been hijacked by some one that will change and change it to suit only his family system and political affiliates. its BAD.

" The analysis of history and economics come together in Marx's prediction of the inevitable economic breakdown of capitalism, to be replaced by communism. However Marx refused to speculate in detail about the nature of communism, arguing that it would arise through historical processes, and was not the realisation of a pre-determined moral ideal."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/

^^

Karl marx's prediction and theory is not necessarily a fixed destination, it is cyclical. When you see it that way, you will not spend too much energy fighting for one theory over another.

World's richest 1% own 40% of all wealth, UN report discovers
· First ever study of global household assets
· 50% of world's adults own just 1% of the wealth

UN via guardian.co.uk

^
Capitalism will never make everyone rich, actually I don't think it can enrich more than a few single digit % of the world at a time. The little progress we've made across the world is just a result of increase in wealth creation in the developing world. China, Asia, Latin America, which of course took some wealth away from the developed world. We are essentially shifting wealth around. That to me is redistribution too, unfortunately it goes to a few people too while the bottom poor remains extremely large.

Capitalism will not make things fair. The world is not fair. Communism won't either. A combo might help but we will need to keep tweaking.

You will probably like capitalism when it's working for you and communism when it's not. Russia was a joint super power when it had communism, now it's a shadow of it's former self. America will eventually kill herself if she fails to reign in runaway excessive capitalism too, if that happens, then people will demand more socialism, then the cycle continues.

@OP. have you ever read the book Animal Farm? That's exactly what will happen in Communist Nigeria. Few will still feed fat while others starve and chant "communism is our creed!"

Communism is an economic stunting approach to provide for all yet loses all in d process of redistributing wealth, I am not much of a fan of capitalism either but it seems to bring out the best in individuals economically,while downplaying d illegit modes employed by some to accrue so much. That said my view of the best system for the african continent and Nigeria in particular is Social Welfarism where government provides basic infrastructures and amenities and offers it to the people at little or no cost, like is operated in most scadinavian countries, imagine 24hr electrity,free education to the university level,free health care and a good rail network. With social welfarism and nigerians ingenuity in business with hardwork,things will surely be brighter, A figment of social welfarism was all "Awo" did that propelled the west almost a decade ahead of other regions and made him a hero from his region, But all still boils down to a responsive goverment who understands the yearnings of its people.ple at little or no cost, like is operated in most scadinavian countries, imagine 24hr electrity,free education to the university level,free health care and a good rail network. With social welfarism and nigerians ingenuity in business with hardwork,things will surely be brighter, A figment of social welfarism was all "Awo" did that propelled the west almost a decade ahead of other regions and made him a hero from his region, But all still boils down to a responsive goverment who understands the yearnings of its people.

For example when and Operating system is built round one function or application without flexibility to other applications , it fails and it becomes obsolete with time no matter the strength of technicalities of the OS.

Nigeria problem is not with the system but those operating the system. it is built by our leaders around theirselves.

Our leaders do not know any operating system of government they are just concerned with looting for there children, children's children and children children children, political fathers and fatherares, god and devil fathers etc.
Its disheartening.

I think you really do not know what communism is all about !
for you information plsss try to travel to former soviet union countries and see for your self the problem,sorrow,killing, e.t.c RUSSIA,UKRAINE,BELARUS,MOLDOVIA,UZBECK, E.T.C its all about rich VS poor.
:owake up and stop posting nonsense here plsssssssssss!!

@poster,cummunism can never work effectivly in a country lik Nigeria.1stly,majority of her citizens lack commitmnt toward d managemnt of public property,2nd,diversify culture&ethnic group.3rdly,it may eventually lead to oligarchy,dictatorship&authoritarian leaders.4th,it cant work in d corrupt society.I tink,mixes economic are better 4 Nigeria.The economy of USA is mixed in nature,it's d misinterpretation of USA capitalist system by their imitators dat result to globa economic meltdown.No country country can achiev extremely by operating either capitalism/communalism alone but mixed economy.The economy of most developed countries of today are mixed&not solely d capitalism/communism.