Communism

[Armand]

Views,thoughts,opinions?

[Callie Del Noire]

No such creature..

There are regimes that CLAIM to be Communist but it doesn't work for humans. We're simply not wired to take advantage of the system.

[TheGlyphstone]

Greatest idea ever on paper.

Worst idea ever in reality.

[Armand]

I agree, it appeals to the masses so easily lol.
I think it's a great idea though, which is why I don't understand where this presidential campaign slander about one of the puppets being a Communist over health care like it's a bad idea.

[TheGlyphstone]

Cause it's an easy boogeyman word - a good chunk of the (Republican) voting-age public was still alive back during the dying days of the Cold War, where 'Communism' was the doom and destruction of all things American.

[Callie Del Noire]

I agree, it appeals to the masses so easily lol.
I think it's a great idea though, which is why I don't understand where this presidential campaign slander about one of the puppets being a Communist over health care like it's a bad idea.

Because it is still a 'bad word' among the folks the GOP is trying to motivate to vote.

[Silverfyre]

Communism is the Big Bad Red Ghost that scares all the good little conservative boys and girls into giving away their trust funds, while Communism's little brother, Scary Socialism, roots through their trash for social programs that give to illegal minorities that rob from their parents' tax-breaks. 

At least, that's how I hear it from White Bread America.

[Vanity Evolved]

Yep. It's one of those things which work well, until one guy decides "Hang on, I'm more equal than that guy!"

As is human nature, this happens five minutes into the plan being put in place.

[Stattick]

Communism works fine... for small tribal bands, family groups, and so forth. Keep in mind, I mean true communism, not the totalitarian bullshit like what the Soviets did. But as a national economic structure, communism is an abject failure.

It's little brother, Socialism, is doing pretty well though. Socialism is communism done right. Of the options, I think I'd prefer socialism light, like what what you find in Canada, the UK, France, and Germany. I'm not sure I'd go for the heavier versions of it, but I'm really not sure.

[Armand]

I understand the view points of everyone, you're right though. It's more of a wooden spoon than a silver spoon and people rich people don't want that.

[TheGlyphstone]

I understand the view points of everyone, you're right though. It's more of a wooden spoon than a silver spoon and people rich people don't want that.

You're missing the point, or just buying into the propaganda of the advocates. Communism isn't a great panacea that the rich people don't want and keep suppressed because they lose their privileged status - it's fundamentally incompatible with human nature. We're just not wired to share equally and get along without trying to provide for ourselves the best we possibly can, which is why every attempt at using full-on communism in government has crashed and burned horribly. If it were instituted and the wooden spoons handed out, it wouldn't be long before we started handing out different-sized spoons, or arbitrarily judging people based on the type and quality of the wood their spoons were made of, or beating other people up and taking their spoons,or just carving ourselves wooden ladles and calling them 'spoons'. Until we develop the technology necessary for a post-scarcity society, there will always be something to divide unequally, and people will want to have the bigger share - till then, communism will never work, for rich people or poor people.

[Callie Del Noire]

Not to mention a simple matter of economics.. committee directed economies don't work.

[Valerian]

"I've been such a fool, Vassili.  Man will always be a man.  There is no new man.  We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbour.  But there's always something to envy.  A smile, a friendship, something you don't have and want to appropriate.  In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich and poor.  Rich in gifts, poor in gifts.  Rich in love, poor in love."

~"Enemy at the Gates"

It isn't a very good movie overall, but that quote has always stuck with me.  It sums up the sociological and psychological difficulties inherent in the system quite nicely.

[Elias]

Communism fails not because some want more then others but because those who are incompatible with said society must be removed.

Perfect communism does not tolerate laziness, everyone has to do their "fair share" in Capitalism you can be lazy, and you simply must deal with certain economic setbacks.

Perfect communism cannot handle individuals with diseases, those unable to work, they are a drain and must be removed. Capitalism does the same, but because resources are left in the hands of the individual, you can use YOUR resources to aid those people and care for them. Capitalism is pure and instinctual communism will always be a failed experiment it has NO future.

[Hemingway]

I have to say, before I go on to say anything specific, that a lot of the "criticism" so far in this thread has been based on platitudes and clichés, and not serious reflection. Now, I'm not a communist - as far as I know - but I still think it deserves better than that. Having said that...

Not to mention a simple matter of economics.. committee directed economies don't work.

Command economies do have certain advantages. The Soviet Union, for all its problems, did manage something remarkable. If you look at the numbers from the Soviet period, the growth is incredible. It did eventually stagnate, but it would be simplistic to claim that's simply inherent in a planned economy. The arms race with the United States, and the war in Afghanistan, were contributing factors. It may also have been too heavily based on heavy industry, but again, that's sort of focus is not part and parcel of a command economy.

I do want to make it clear, at this point, that I don't actually advocate a command economy. I'm also not a proponent of a pure market economy.

As to the claim that communism is simply contrary to human nature, that is ... well, you'd have to know more about human nature than I think anyone does. You'd first have to prove that there is such a thing as "human nature". Because while we, like all animals, have our evolved instincts, we also have the mental faculties to ignore those instincts and act contrary to them. What you'll find, if you dig through various theories of evolutionary psychology, is that we ignore our instincts and our evolutionary heritage, shall we say, quite often.

If saying that communism is contrary to human nature is a sufficient argument, that leaves us in the unfortunate position of possibly having to accept racism and sexism on the same basis. I'm not, in other words, denying that we are, first and foremost, concerned with our own well-being as opposed to that of people around us ( certainly outside our immediate group, who may be necessary to our survival ), but rather that the record shows that we're capable of ignoring this supposed human nature, and if it can be done in some cases, it can be done in all cases.

Communism fails not because some want more then others but because those who are incompatible with said society must be removed.

Perfect communism does not tolerate laziness, everyone has to do their "fair share" in Capitalism you can be lazy, and you simply must deal with certain economic setbacks.

Perfect communism cannot handle individuals with diseases, those unable to work, they are a drain and must be removed. Capitalism does the same, but because resources are left in the hands of the individual, you can use YOUR resources to aid those people and care for them. Capitalism is pure and instinctual communism will always be a failed experiment it has NO future.

What you said is completely contrary to the communist ideal of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". This, I think, is predicated on the assumption that most people, if given the choice between working and being idle, will choose work. I think, furthermore, that this view is correct, as I think anyone who's gone without work for a long time will agree.

[Elias]

What you said is completely contrary to the communist ideal of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". This, I think, is predicated on the assumption that most people, if given the choice between working and being idle, will choose work. I think, furthermore, that this view is correct, as I think anyone who's gone without work for a long time will agree.

No they want to work because they dont want to be in the financial pit that is unemployment, if the only reason I have to work is to be a cog in the machine ill pass. I want to work my ass off be better then others and get more for my hard work. Why should the guy who never wants to leave the gas station be granted all the same privileges as the person who grabbed extra hours showed initiative and became the manager and if Communism DOES award those people then they're acting like capitalists because everyone is supposed to be equal from the lowest attendant to the leader of said regime.

[Hemingway]

No they want to work because they dont want to be in the financial pit that is unemployment, if the only reason I have to work is to be a cog in the machine ill pass. I want to work my ass off be better then others and get more for my hard work. Why should the guy who never wants to leave the gas station be granted all the same privileges as the person who grabbed extra hours showed initiative and became the manager and if Communism DOES award those people then they're acting like capitalists because everyone is supposed to be equal from the lowest attendant to the leader of said regime.

Well of course people work because they want to avoid unemployment. But they do so because they prefer work to unemployment. Or, rather, in cases where unemployment would not be a disaster - where people can still live decently on unemployment benefits - people work because they prefer work to idleness, as is supported by this research.

In a situation of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", people would still work, because people still prefer work to idleness. We think, for instance, when at work, that we'd much rather do nothing at all. But nothing at all very rapidly becomes boring, it diminishes our self esteem, and so on.

[Elias]

Lets say you're correct and its naturally in us to work would we work to our full extent or the minimum? If there are no rewards what motivates people to work harder? What makes them excel?

[Vekseid]

No they want to work because they dont want to be in the financial pit that is unemployment, if the only reason I have to work is to be a cog in the machine ill pass. I want to work my ass off be better then others and get more for my hard work. Why should the guy who never wants to leave the gas station be granted all the same privileges as the person who grabbed extra hours showed initiative and became the manager and if Communism DOES award those people then they're acting like capitalists because everyone is supposed to be equal from the lowest attendant to the leader of said regime.

Communism is supposed to be about the public ownership of he means of production. You can still earn and own more property - you just can't own the factory.

It has a lot of overlap with various forms of more well-thought out libertarianism in this regard -
how to stop bullshit like rent-seeking. Government should not have the right to grant monopolies, etc.

There are positions to the left of this, but where they are a function of communism it is more a recognition of where technology is headed. It's not a part of communism per se.

[Armand]

How old are you guys? just a random question clearly over 18 I was just wondering if you're basing your politics on what you've been exposed to or what not.

[TheGlyphstone]

Are you asking if anyone here lived under communism before the fall of the Soviet Union? Or lives in 'Communist' China?

[Armand]

Yes that, or have been in contact with any people from such places, if you're brainwashed by WW2 propaganda stuff like that. Being that I've never left America, and we'd like to believe reading enlightens us on the world, we read what we're allowed to.

[Stattick]

Yes that, or have been in contact with any people from such places, if you're brainwashed by WW2 propaganda stuff like that. Being that I've never left America, and we'd like to believe reading enlightens us on the world, we read what we're allowed to.

I'm 40. My childhood was in the last days of the Cold War. I grew up with Duck and Cover drills in case the nuclear bombs started falling. I knew where the nearest bomb shelter was, although to be honest, most of us figured that it would be impossible to get to the shelter before they'd closed the doors. I grew up sure that my life would end in nuclear war, likely before I got out of my 20's. When the Cold War ended, the Berlin Wall came down, and the Soviet Union broke apart, it was eerie realizing that there might be a future for this world after all.

So, I have every excuse for being extremely bigoted against communism... but I'm not. Communism is just a thing, a form of government, and it doesn't work quite as well as our system in the US did, but I don't demonize the Russian people or anything like that. It's not like they had a choice in growing up under a totalitarian regime. Things have gotten better over there, but they're still pretty bad from what I understand.

[Elias]

Yes that, or have been in contact with any people from such places, if you're brainwashed by WW2 propaganda stuff like that. Being that I've never left America, and we'd like to believe reading enlightens us on the world, we read what we're allowed to.

I am  one of the younger ones speaking their minds. However I was born in a socialist heavy nation (Canada) Despised how hard they made it to excel, or even crawl out of poverty and moved to America for the dream. I did everything legally, worked my ass off and am succeeding more now then I ever did back in that country thats considered "fair". I plan to be part of the 1% everyone hates in this country and so dont like anything presented by communism or socialism I feel even in its purist form it lacks the ability to dream.

[Hemingway]

At least you're open about your reasons for disliking socialist ideology.

Just don't pretend that a free, unregulated capitalist system is in any way "fair". It simply isn't true that, through hard work, anyone can be wealthy and successful. Even a cursory glance at lists of rich people will reveal that not a single one of them got to that position through hard work - that is to say through labor - and they're only wealthy because there's an underclass for them to exploit. To say that a system like this is "fair" is simple, and simplistic, and it ignores the unfairness that's built into the system. It seems fair on the surface, because everyone theoretically has the same opportunities, but it doesn't account for the reality, which is that people are not on equal footing and are not rewarded equally for equal work.

Is it "fair" to tax the rich more heavily in order that the poor may have a higher standard of living, and don't have to worry about what will happen if they suddenly have to go to hospital? I certainly think there's a stronger case for that being fairer than the alternative. There are far more poor people, for one thing.