Communism

[s4b0t4g3]

Hey guys. I'm curious waht everyone's opinions are on this system of government. Most people who are against it have no idea what they are talking about, and I would like to have a structured and intelligent debate. I personally hate capitalism, and find that it causes people to step on each other's throats to get by. The upper 1% controls everything and keeps getting richer, while taxes and low wages completely wipe out the lower classes. In a communist society, even if people were all poor it wouldn't matter. The economy would revolve around people being poor, and people would not die of starvation.


Be aware that communism is a left wing system, and shouldn't be totalitarian. The flaw with most countries that have attempted to use it is that they imposed a right wing military dictator.

 

[vv.bbcc19]

Communism is quite a powerful form of Governance given the people are noble.
Today's Democracy sometimes becomes a pseudo communistic in the way the power is centralized.
As far as I am concerned..there is no bad form of Governance but there are bad Governments.

 

[fractalfeline]

The problem with Communism is that it's even more wide-open to corruption than the status quo. It would be heavenly if everyone did their part, shared the load, and the people in charge of redistributing the resources did so fairly. Alas there are flaws with all three of those critical areas, in that people are lazy and greedy by nature. Some more than others, but it only takes a handful of greedy ambitious types to seize power and redistribute resources into their own pockets. That's the major problem with Communism: if you surrender everything to the state, and keep nothing for yourself, then they have absolute control over you and your destiny.

That said, I think (especially here in the USA), we could benefit from a little socialization, even if only temporarily. The rich get richer only because the commoners have allowed them too much power for too long.

 

[slowmassacrelabz24]

Communism is actually an economic system (like Capitalism).

As an economic system, I think communism is pretty lame. There's no competition and thus it makes business pretty
dull. Competition CAN be fun.

As far as government support for people, what can you say? I guess it all depends on your view of the worth of a human
life. What is it that humans do? Are they doing anything when they are NOT engaged in an economic system that is of
any use?

Then, there's the use of the planet. What is it here for? Is it some rock that grows people, or is it a complex environmental
system meant to support life made by whomever?

Once that's decided, then there's the issue of the rights (and abilities) people give up when forming a collective government.
After all, once we could freely roam the lands (there was little "property ownership"). We gave this up when we formed a
collective society. In addition, whilst roaming the land we had survival skills, thus we didn't depend on jobs or economies
for shelter, welfare, food, etc.

Yes, we gave up a lot of things and (theoretically) gave them to civilization/government. That said, I'd say each government
owes their citizens a "living wage" of $40,000 a year.

 

[vv.bbcc19]

Communism is actually an economic system (like Capitalism).

As an economic system, I think communism is pretty lame. There's no competition and thus it makes business pretty
dull. Competition CAN be fun.

As far as government support for people, what can you say? I guess it all depends on your view of the worth of a human
life. What is it that humans do? Are they doing anything when they are NOT engaged in an economic system that is of
any use?

Then, there's the use of the planet. What is it here for? Is it some rock that grows people, or is it a complex environmental
system meant to support life made by whomever?

Once that's decided, then there's the issue of the rights (and abilities) people give up when forming a collective government.
After all, once we could freely roam the lands (there was little "property ownership"). We gave this up when we formed a
collective society. In addition, whilst roaming the land we had survival skills, thus we didn't depend on jobs or economies
for shelter, welfare, food, etc.

Yes, we gave up a lot of things and (theoretically) gave them to civilization/government. That said, I'd say each government
owes their citizens a "living wage" of $40,000 a year.

Agreed about the fact that it is a kind of economic system but it also the way of life.Equality for all kind of stuff

 

[jackibees55]

Communism is actually an economic system (like Capitalism).

As an economic system, I think communism is pretty lame. There's no competition and thus it makes business pretty
dull. Competition CAN be fun.

As far as government support for people, what can you say? I guess it all depends on your view of the worth of a human
life. What is it that humans do? Are they doing anything when they are NOT engaged in an economic system that is of
any use?

Then, there's the use of the planet. What is it here for? Is it some rock that grows people, or is it a complex environmental
system meant to support life made by whomever?

Once that's decided, then there's the issue of the rights (and abilities) people give up when forming a collective government.
After all, once we could freely roam the lands (there was little "property ownership"). We gave this up when we formed a
collective society. In addition, whilst roaming the land we had survival skills, thus we didn't depend on jobs or economies
for shelter, welfare, food, etc.

Yes, we gave up a lot of things and (theoretically) gave them to civilization/government. That said, I'd say each government
owes their citizens a "living wage" of $40,000 a year.

Thank GOD, a real debate, unlike the lame "stripes or polka-dots?" type of discussions going on in here.



"I think communism is pretty lame. There's no competition and thus it makes business pretty dull. Competition CAN be fun." Perhaps, but it can also be tragic, too. When corporations battle back and forth for market share, many times the consumer benefits, but sometimes (and increasingly so, in recent years) the consumer suffers, particularly when said corporations cut costs to the extent that public safety, welfare, and well-being is put at risk for the sake of profits. Examples:

• the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico
• the Great Egg Recall of 2010 (salmonella poisoning)
• the Firestone/Ford Explorer recall
• current gas prices/oil pricing speculations
• the housing market and ARM crisis

I could go on, but you get the idea. Communism as an economic system may be boring and lame, but it makes corporations more accountable, because government is directly involved in just about every facet of corporate affairs. Everything that's done and sold benefits the government, and the government disburses funds and jobs to the population. Nice concept, but as mentioned earlier, too easy to abuse, and usually is. And, what's more, there's the whole "Big Brother" concept.

But too, in Capitalism, there's a nasty lack of scruples. Microsoft came into being because Bill Gates allegedly stole software from Xerox and made it his own. GM, Ford, and Chrysler conspired against the Tucker Motor Company in the 1940s to push it out of the automotive industry. John D. Rockefeller took extraordinary steps to ensure that Standard Oil would become and remain a monopoly (it took a Communist-like step by the government to declare monopolies illegal).


But one has to ask: if Communism is such a horrible, horrendous thing, then how is it that China is poised to become the new Superpower, not just in terms of population, but financially, in manufacturing, in technology, and militarily? And how is it that it's citizens are happy enough that they're not motivated to overthrow the government? (I mean, come on...over a billion people, and they're not all enlisted in the army!) Obviously, the country's doing something right...?

I've studied macroeconomics and microeconomics, and I've come to the conclusion that there's no existing political/socio-economic system that does everything right or everything wrong. Herbert Hoover nailed it on the head when he said, "the only thing wrong with capitalism is capitalists."

But Communist or Capitalist, in a very broad statement, at the base of any (all) political/socio-economic system, there's always this very sad truth: that the two things that drive all things that all men (women) do are greed and power. And that point is very difficult to argue against.

Edit: LOL, I just now read the "Logical Fallacies and Constructing a Good Argument" sticky. I probably didn't follow that too closely here, particularly with that last statement, but if anyone cares to dive in, I can assure you I can provide the logical proof behind the statement. Just didn't want to do it right now, I've already made this long enough!

 

[kadai]

Communism and Capitalism are both valid economics systems. There is not a "bad" and a "good" one (don't be brainwashed), they are just "systems".

Communism from one of the sides seeks that everyone is at the same level that everyone else (and from that the term "common"). Ok, you maybe might not be the same chances that one people or another, but it does remove the unfairness from the "Free Market". You get free education, free health, free economic safety, and other things, at the exchange to have yourself capped.

Now, the main problem with it is that it lack the competitive behaviour we are used to. If you are the best one at a certain area, you are stuck (and stuck with those that are the middle and worse at the same role), you usually do not have a way to access better conditions. It also get included to the fact that a Communist system can't exist by itself, because at the time there is a government and a separation, roles and organisation... the common rule of the Communism is dynamited, specially because most of the people tends to seek for power.

In the other hand, Capitalism is the system we are told that is the "good" one, you are free to do whatever you want, and you can climb as above as much as you can. You can be the richest person in the world if you are able to. But on the other side, the Capitalism system to actually works, it requires Rich and Poor people... specially poor people.

Have you ever tough why you can purchase a PC so cheap? Or veggies at accessible prices? Or other common items that you use everyday and that you demand to be cheap? It is easy, because they use the poor to produce them. If a computer where entirely made in the USA, or if your veggies were all picked up by "Americans", etc... then you might then add one or more "zeros" to the actual price you might be getting your things... a computer might be worth like 150,000 USD or each veggie like 10~15USD, each. That is why the system require the poor people, to keep everyone in the pyramid happy. The rich richer, and the poor even poorer.

Other of the myths of Capitalism is the "Free Market", because in truth everything tends to "Monopoly", it is that one corporation of group will always push outside the others to have complete control over a product and Market. Every corporation dreams about that.

Even further examples about how bad Capitalism can be is what happened a few years ago on 2008, where literally million of dollars just vanished (while some executives got even more millionaire just with ruining everyone else's lifes) and the USA government was "forced" to save the companies used to leech money (But, oh surprise... saving a company is a Communism movement, what they should have do is to let the company broke).

But well, since we are more used to the Capitalism system, there are more examples to good and bad things, but if you executed each of them under the same fair circumstances (not corruption, and not status quo enforcement) and with strictness applying the rules of each system then you might had then success in any of them.

So far for my knowledge, none of those two is the best one. Every one of those has its problems and abuses, and always you'll have groups that will try to prevent people from moving through the set "groups" of the systems, preserving the status quo.

The solution? Maybe take what does work on each of the systems. Because we have seen that both work, but that everyone of them have spaces that people can abuse to ruin everyone else's lifes.

(( UPS, I had a little anger moment there XD ))

 

[kinley3]

Why shouldn't communism be associated with a totalitarian regime? Many left-wing regimes are totalitarian, or authoritarian in general.

And in response to kadai, the US itself is not a purely capitalist economy, just like it is not technically a democracy. There are elements of both communism and socialism in the US; take welfare, Social Security, and Medicare as just a few examples. So we have taken what works from other systems.

 

[jackibees55]

Why shouldn't communism be associated with a totalitarian regime? Many left-wing regimes are totalitarian, or authoritarian in general.

And in response to kadai, the US itself is not a purely capitalist economy, just like it is not technically a democracy. There are elements of both communism and socialism in the US; take welfare, Social Security, and Medicare as just a few examples. So we have taken what works from other systems.

Because Communism in its strictest form isn't Totalitarianistic. Communism advocates STRICT governmental controls, while Totalitarianism preaches TOTAL governmental control, and there IS a difference there. Then after that you have Fascism, which advocates total governmental control that goes a step further and attempts to influence/control the personal lives of its constituents (e.g. radical censorship, domestic surveillance, excessive penalties for opposing the government's agenda). Fascism can be either conservative or liberal.

Agreed, though, that the U.S. does borrow from other economic systems, and yes, that includes Fascism...what would you call the mandatory 5-second delay in all U.S. broadcasting so as to bleep out words and phrases considered to be obscene? How about all the U.S. satellites circling the earth? Think they ignore the U.S.? (Think again.) There are even some facets of the Patriot Act that people say go too far in prohibiting free speech and movement...but that's a different debate.

---------- Post added at 01:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 PM ----------

Communism and Capitalism are both valid economics systems. There is not a "bad" and a "good" one (don't be brainwashed), they are just "systems".

Communism from one of the sides seeks that everyone is at the same level that everyone else (and from that the term "common&quot. Ok, you maybe might not be the same chances that one people or another, but it does remove the unfairness from the "Free Market". You get free education, free health, free economic safety, and other things, at the exchange to have yourself capped.

Now, the main problem with it is that it lack the competitive behaviour we are used to. If you are the best one at a certain area, you are stuck (and stuck with those that are the middle and worse at the same role), you usually do not have a way to access better conditions. It also get included to the fact that a Communist system can't exist by itself, because at the time there is a government and a separation, roles and organisation... the common rule of the Communism is dynamited, specially because most of the people tends to seek for power.

In the other hand, Capitalism is the system we are told that is the "good" one, you are free to do whatever you want, and you can climb as above as much as you can. You can be the richest person in the world if you are able to. But on the other side, the Capitalism system to actually works, it requires Rich and Poor people... specially poor people.

Have you ever tough why you can purchase a PC so cheap? Or veggies at accessible prices? Or other common items that you use everyday and that you demand to be cheap? It is easy, because they use the poor to produce them. If a computer where entirely made in the USA, or if your veggies were all picked up by "Americans", etc... then you might then add one or more "zeros" to the actual price you might be getting your things... a computer might be worth like 150,000 USD or each veggie like 10~15USD, each. That is why the system require the poor people, to keep everyone in the pyramid happy. The rich richer, and the poor even poorer.

Other of the myths of Capitalism is the "Free Market", because in truth everything tends to "Monopoly", it is that one corporation of group will always push outside the others to have complete control over a product and Market. Every corporation dreams about that.

Even further examples about how bad Capitalism can be is what happened a few years ago on 2008, where literally million of dollars just vanished (while some executives got even more millionaire just with ruining everyone else's lifes) and the USA government was "forced" to save the companies used to leech money (But, oh surprise... saving a company is a Communism movement, what they should have do is to let the company broke).

But well, since we are more used to the Capitalism system, there are more examples to good and bad things, but if you executed each of them under the same fair circumstances (not corruption, and not status quo enforcement) and with strictness applying the rules of each system then you might had then success in any of them.

So far for my knowledge, none of those two is the best one. Every one of those has its problems and abuses, and always you'll have groups that will try to prevent people from moving through the set "groups" of the systems, preserving the status quo.

The solution? Maybe take what does work on each of the systems. Because we have seen that both work, but that everyone of them have spaces that people can abuse to ruin everyone else's lifes.

(( UPS, I had a little anger moment there XD ))

Excellent points there. Especially that in order for Capitalism to work, there have to be different economic classes. That in turn, lends itself to there being different social classes, which brings the concept of Socialism into play. Most Capitalists can't stand Socialism, mainly because the notion that someone else will benefit from his/her hard work is abhorrent, and should be...that's the nice part about Capitalism, the idea that people who work hard are rewarded more.

Too bad it doesn't work like that, because the success of Capitalism depends heavily on the self-policing of its constituents, and if the entire society is corrupt, well, there you are...which sadly, is an awful lot like where the U.S. is today. American industry does not police itself well at all, and when the government attempts to intervene, those who stand to lose the most are usually the most vocal in opposition (can anyone say "Donald Trump"?).

But is this right or wrong? I agree with Kadai, neither. It is what it is. If you don't like the way the system works, there's other countries with other systems out there, and you're welcome to move.

 

[kinley3]

Because Communism in its strictest form isn't Totalitarianistic. Communism advocates STRICT governmental controls, while Totalitarianism preaches TOTAL governmental control, and there IS a difference there.

Yes, but my point is that the two are not mutually exclusive. I'm simply saying that just because communism is a left-wing system does not preclude it from totalitarianism. Also, keep in mind that communism is an economic philosophy, not a political one.

 

[jackibees55]

Yes, but my point is that the two are not mutually exclusive. I'm simply saying that just because communism is a left-wing system does not preclude it from totalitarianism. Also, keep in mind that communism is an economic philosophy, not a political one.

Well, I can't think of any economic system that's totally exclusive. There's no black and white when it comes to systems, political or economic. This is what grinds me sometimes about our current two-party political system in the states. With both sides, you're either for them or against them (classic examples: Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck on one side, Rachel Maddow and Nancy Pelosi on the other), and the wide majority of people are somewhere in the middle. Neither side gets it completely right, but to retain power, it has to 'toe the line', as it were, and preach its party's principles as being best, no matter the cost. And then, what burns me most of all, is how gullible the American people are, and how they'll herd toward whatever direction some charismatic talking head points them to. People just don't do their homework.

Sorry, got a little off track here. But I really do wish someone would establish a true moderate party.

Anyway, to get back on topic, I've never read Marx, but being someone who's had to lean on the government's shoulder to help me get back on my feet when I lost my job because the executives of the company I worked for wanted a bigger paycheck (read: a hand-up, not a hand-out), I can relate to some of the core Communistic principles, and frankly don't see a problem with the overall concept. Let's be totally honest here -- who in the world needs (not "wants", needs) $50 million to live off of for the rest of their lives, when there are people who want to do an honest day's work, who are homeless and starving in the streets?

Now, at the same time, I certainly don't think it's fair that I bust my ass at work day-in and day-out to make a house and car payment, while the slacker who lives down the street perpetually leeches off the government because he can get more money from aid programs than he can working a job, and yet he has the same kind of house and car that I have. His house and car are coming from the taxes I pay. Here's your Communism at work. (Think we don't have it here?)

In the end, and not surprisingly, the problem with both systems is...greed. People who want to take advantage of the system and get more for less. I put it to you that the people who run these huge corporations and make millions of dollars each year are absolutely, positively, no different than the deadbeat down the street making a living off of welfare from the government. Both are doing little real work, and are making good money doing it. And both groups can't stand one another, and both try as hard as they can to eliminate each other.

Meanwhile, we in the middle class hate both groups, because they both cry and whine about each other, while both groups get millions of dollars from our sweat and time.

 

[FrozenTime]

Communism really only sounds nice to the people who are going through extreme difficulties. I mean, everyone gets a job. But, the problem is that everyone also likes freedom, and the 2 don't seem to mix well. You get the newer generation of people who would normally still have lots of opportunities, but they don't get to use it because they've been born in a communist society. And of course there's the lazy people who won't really work hard if they're being spoon-fed everything since there's little pressure, so the whole concept, which may seem appealing on the outside, falls apart. That's just my thoughts though.