I've noticed that many people on this forum are intimidated by the very idea of socialism, and even social-democracy. In many posts I've seen the idea of communism and socialism treated as something entirely bad. Some people are even comparing these things with fascism. Everybody knows that communistic regimes are very prone to becoming exactly the opposite what they are supposed to stand for, but this doesn't mean that the basic idea of communism is "evil"... its actually very humane.
Why are people still looking as these things the same way they did during the cold war?

Communism is NOT humane. It kills all incentive for hard work, striving to do better, innovation, and reaching goals. That's why communism fails in the end.

Your confusing the concept of communism with a Russian dictatorship. There is no true "communist" state, and never was. But calling the USSR and mainland China communist is a grave misjudgement.

I understand that there is no true form of any government. But, doesn't China call itself a communist country? Didn't USSR call itself communist?

I guess it is the same as calling the US a Democracy when it is, in fact, a Republic.

I understand that there is no true form of any government. But, doesn't China call itself a communist country? Didn't USSR call itself communist?

I guess it is the same as calling the US a Democracy when it is, in fact, a Republic.

If there is NO true communist state and never was.....then there's good reason for it. It doesn't work.

Communism, like all utopianism, tends to ignore human nature and natural social function in favor of social engineering, and is thus doomed to failure. This was intriguing social thought during the late 19th century, and it remains the perennial darling of many students and young people that have yet to fully grasp how the world works, but it's simply not a practical model and it's day has passed. History already shows that it's purpose was to act as a counterpoint to unfettered capitalism, and to that end it succeeded.

While social democracies strike a fair balance between social wellbeing and capitalism, and thrive widely around the world, undiluted communism with communes and work collectives by government directive will never happen again. Communes and collectives do exist within capitalist countries, and in some cases thrive, however this is a function of a conscious choice by the participants, not the action of government without mandate.

My personal view is that undiluted and unfettered capitalism is similarly doomed within the next 50yrs. While the US has achieved great economic success, that success is not broadly shared among it's citizens, and the distance between the haves and the have nots grows every year. At some point it will reach and untenable situation.... again. In reality there is very little class mobility in the US contrary to all the rosy oration one hears.

Further, the unrestricted flow of capital inflow is always welcomed by the 3rd world, but disasters like the aftermath of the currency meltdown/capital flight from Asia in the late 90's shows how destructive sudden capital flight is. Millions of middle class families were thrown into abject poverty, which has given fuel to previously harmless subversive organizations in that region. I suspect that the first step will be aimed at large multinational business when the US re-imposes some the restrictions implemented in the 1930's, like Glass-Stegal, as it recognizes the error of repealing them during the 1990's with the Financial Services Modernization Act. I also imagine there will be international rules ratified over the next decade that regulate the international flow of capital to a small, but necessary, extent in order to prevent the kind of disruption that occurred when traders put pressure on Asian currencies.

As is often the case, neither extreme offers a long term practical solution, and the middle ground is where the future is. Americans love to tout unfettered capitalism, and have phobic reactions to socialism, however at the end of the day, nobody wants to see granny living out of a shopping cart under a highway overpass, so social security was implemented, however it's future is doomed. Sooner or later, the US will be forced to address the failure of social security and a national discussion will ensue that will eventually lead to more socialism than many currently imagine. Even the arch conservative Bush administration forced through prescription drug legislation for the elderly rather than face the anger of that demographic at election time. It was a horrible first attempt due to the influence of pharmaceutical lobby, but that is often the case with first attempts at anything. It will get fine tuned as the years go by. And, it's huge cost will hasten the day when social programs must be further rationalized.

Regardless of whether that change is bringing democracy to Iraq or socially humane government to another country, real long term change happens in an evolutionary manner with the consent of the governed, not wholesale change by directive at gunpoint. While it's not impossible that a country would freely elect a communist government in the future, I don't see that happening. The inefficiencies have been adequetely demonstrated, and the real advantages over a social democracy are few.

oc

Oddly says....."In reality there is very little class mobility in the US contrary to all the rosy oration one hears."

This is absolutely NOT true. I'm a perfect example of "class mobility" in America. And I know plenty more who are such an example. Everyone in America has the opportunity to be successful at whatever they choose to do. They've just got to have the desire and the tenacity.

I know far too many people (like my entire family to start with) to say there is little upward mobility. Nearly all of my friends were either lower middle or middle class (except one friend and his family who came from the ghetto) and all of them and us are now upper middle class.

It isn't transitive. Just because a true communist state hasn't existed doesn't mean the theory is flawed.
Also, this is never occured because no state ever actively pursued becoming "communist". Russia might have actually become a communist state without Stalin succeeding Lenin. But even under Lenin Russia was turning into a complete dictatorship, so that claim is questionable.
It's a theory still, it might be false, it might be correct. But personally I find it too utopistic to actually function.

I think Oddlycalm stated it nicely.
I'll stick to my Social Democracy, thank you very much.