Communism is a good idea with many flaws

[Darlokonia]

First communism isn't bad. It's just some people execute it totally wrong. First of all I would like to correct Karl Marx. You do not need a violent revolution to get what you want. Mahatma Ghandi overcame the British Empire without raising a fist against anybody. But the idea that we all run a country ourselves is good. For one you don't have to put up with politicians. The thing I don't like about the democratic society is that you have leaders. Aren't all men and women created equal? This person has complete and utter control over you for four years and you don't find that a little oppresive? One thing I would also like to comment on is that Marx was wrong about religion. You should not get rid of it. Let people believe whatever they want to believe. Eventually they will come to terms to the fact that religion does seperate people and we don't need that at all. There is just a few thoughts to get you going.

socialism.

personally, im a die-hard anarchist/idontknowwhatthefcukist but communism is a good shield to hide behind.

[Deeloleo]

Communism is a flaw, motivated by good ideas. All people are equals, but not all are leaders. Does religion seperate people? Maybe. But we do not all have to be exactly alike for society to function. I don't know where that idea that anything that sets some people apart or makes people different is bad comes from but it is crap.

Communism promotes the following:

1. Equal pay for unequal work.

Why should a doctor be paid the same as a labourer? There is no incentive then to become a doctor. Why not simply be a labourer?

Let us all be simple labourers. This results in a significant decline in skilled labour.

2. Two class society

There are only two classes in a communist society:
(a) Party favourites
(b) Poor

Marxism promotes the concept of a proletariat, a one class system. But even this mild form of communism fails to recognise human nature. Mankind is ambitious, greedy and for the most quite selfish (whether this is bad or not is irrelevent here). Equality can never come about because there will always be socio-economic groups battling for a higher living standard than others.

Hence, we saw in places like the USSR, there was a well-to-do upper class group who enjoyed the trappings of the old Tsarist aristocracy (even the Kremlin is lavishly decorated. Compare this to the Moscow slums). Even in revolutionary France, Robespierre set himself up in palaces etc and wore the finest clothes...whilst the nation starved.

Equality is a mere illusion. What happens under communism is that the power and wealth shifts from the conservative upper classes to the middle class reactionaries who take over.

Interesting this. Most communist revolutionaries were not poor, but middle class. e.g. Castro was born into a well-to-do family and even Robespierre was a lawyer by trade.

3. Poor Economy

The high level of poverty created by communism stems from its anti-incentive philosophy (see #1). Few people are voluntarily going to take on more responsibilities (e.g. management positions) for the same pay as before.

This results in lower productivity levels and ultimately poor growth (if at all!). This is coupled with high levels of economic corruption when the very few control government (totalitarianism).

I could go into more detail, but this post is already long enough. But you get the idea.

[Monkeypimp]

You work for everyone, everyone works for you. Thats it.

My point is that communism is not a good idea and the flaws are seen before it is practiced. So why do some support it?

I would state that communists are self interested men and women who seek personal glory, power and wealth. The same can be said of fascists. Except facism is in fact more equitable than communism (due to traditionally strong economic conditions).

The principle concept of communism is that by giving everybody equal ownership of industry, people will basically benefit from the economy in accordance with the amount of work that they do. Marx hated capitalism because he saw it as, basically, people taking money for other people's work. What Marx falied to realize is that in the same way as a stock based corporation or mutual fund works, ownership doesn't necessarily mean power, and it is power, not ownership that humans desire. Second of all, people who take risks and are willing to work hard should be able to live better than someone who just does enough work to get by, which is all that commmunism would require. Also, I'm going to have to disagree with you about the idea that the president has "complete and utter control" over me for any amount of time. Anarchy is not the natural state of humanity, government is the result of humanity's natural inclination to form communities, and if government is executed well, as I tend to believe it is in America, it is beneficial. I find it humorous that you claim that the leader of the most free democracy in the world controls our life, and then turn around and promote the most oppressive style of government possible. And no, I'm not just talking about the history of so called "communist" nations like the U.S.S.R. and China, but the idea of communism requires it to be oppressive. As for the whole "violent revolution" and Ghandi idea, it's completely wrong. Granted, Ghandi's ideas of passive resistance are great and all, but overthrowing all the governments in the world and using passive resistance and economic boycotts to get a colonial occupier to leave are two vastly different things. Also, religion DOES separate people, because the smallest of differences can set off "us" vs. "them" feelings. If you'll look at the research of Sherif, you'll find this to be quite true.

Sherif's Research

[Jeem]

Communism cannot work because you work under the same illusion as the US Constitution in that "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL"

Rubbish.

Not all men or women are created equal and it would be a damn dull futile existence if they were!

"From Each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs". More rubbish.

So the able and skilled people work all day and the useless members of society just take?! If you were able and skilled why the hell would you bother? Unless they forced you, in which case how does Communism differ from slavery?!

God Save Us From Idealists! The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

:twisted:

[Sanjaypur]

God Save Us From Idealists! The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Thats the main problem with Communism- it's a noble ideal but unworkable in real life. Perfect communism and perfect anarchy would provide utopian societies but the problem is you'd need an utopian society to implement either policy in the first place.

Until we progress to a level of technology that allows us unlimited resources (ever read the Culture novels by Iain M. Banks?) perfect communism will be unachievable.

In the end I believe that capitalism combined with social democracy offers people the best chance for a better quality of life.

Thats the main problem with Communism- it's a noble ideal but unworkable in real life. Perfect communism and perfect anarchy would provide utopian societies but the problem is you'd need an utopian society to implement either policy in the first place.

I'd beg to differ. I don't believe that complete homogeny is utopian at all, nor do I particularly like the idea of being denied the right to gain luxuries through work and risk. Utopia is a place of universal luxury, yet communism only promises enough for everyone to get by. Marx was smart enough to realize the obvious, that we couldn't all live like the upper class. I however, don't view a utopian society as one so fatalistic as communism.

Perfect communism and perfect anarchy would provide utopian societies

These are one in the same, as communism by definition eventually leads to a complete absence of government, or anarchy.

[Chikyota]

Communism and capitalism are both flawed forms. It is how you balance the two that matters; erego my support for socialism.

Communism and capitalism are both flawed forms. It is how you balance the two that matters; erego my support for socialism.

Communism is both "government" and economy, whereas capitalism is solely an economic style. Pure democracy is the obvious counterexample to pure communism, although they are not exact opposites, they work well. Socialism however is by no means a "balance" of capitalism and communism, as socialism is much further to the communist end of the spectrum. I have no respect for socialsim, as it is just impossible, whiny idealism that claims that those who work ought to care for those who won't. The combination of a democratic republic and impure capitalism that we have in America is about as good as its going to get. Any further left, and you crush aspiration, any further right, and you disenfranchise the lower classes.

[Classless Utopia]

Except facism is in fact more equitable than communism (due to traditionally strong economic conditions).

Omg your kidding right? :shock:

Anyway capitalism is essentially flawed as inequality is inherent within such a system, at least Communism attempts to deal with such inequalities in its basic principles, not that I totally agree with either system. Also the idea of constant economic growth to create jobs and increase prosperity relies on the presumption that extracting and consuming large amounts of resources is a good thing and that such resources are infinate. Well guess what people... THEY'RE NOT!!!

Why should a doctor be paid the same as a labourer? There is no incentive then to become a doctor. Why not simply be a labourer?

Given the choice of being a doctor or a labourer for the same wage I would prefer being a doctor nethertheless. Obviously doing something for the good of others does not feature in your way of thinking.

Except facism is in fact more equitable than communism (due to traditionally strong economic conditions).

Omg your kidding right? :shock:

Looks like we have another closet facist in our midst...

Anyway capitalism is essentially flawed as inequality is inherent within such a system, at least Communism attempts to deal with such inequalities in its basic principles, not that I totally agree with either system. Also the idea of constant economic growth to create jobs and increase prosperity relies on the presumption that extracting and consuming large amounts of resources is a good thing and that such resources are infinate. Well guess what people... THEY'RE NOT!!!

Why should a doctor be paid the same as a labourer? There is no incentive then to become a doctor. Why not simply be a labourer?

Given the choice of being a doctor or a labourer for the same wage I would prefer being a doctor nethertheless. Obviously doing something for the good of others does not feature in your way of thinking.

You simply have taken two small quotes from what I wrote. You have ignored the fundamental fact about humans:

Humans are:

1. Greedy
2. Self interested
3. Ambitious

Humans also have emotions. Without serious brainwashing (which goes against basic civil rights) communism can never work. Human nature simply does not allow for it.

You may want to be a doctor, but the majority of people would expect more money for a higher skilled job.

Your point on finite resources? Tell that to Mr and Mrs Jones who want a new DVD player or Widescreen TV.

Communism can never work.

[Chikyota]

Communism can never work.

I'm not sure on how to translate it onto a large scale, but it has already been proven successful various times on a small scale, thus makingthis statement erroneous at best.