Poll: Capitalism or Communism?

[TK421]

In theory, communism is far better. In reality, capitalism is far better. The reason communism can't work in the real world is human greed and self interest.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I was wondering what the general consensus is, please comment and tell us why.
My vote goes to Capitalism, because imo if you say Communism, you haven't seen/been in a Communist country.

I say capitalism because of two things:

1. Capitalism works when you have men and women who are willing to work (see the WWII generation and Tom Brokaw's book The Greatest Generation for material that backs up that statement.)

2. Communism can never work because you NEVER can give people power and expect them to use it responsibly. No one can ever be equal, because everyone's desires and dreams are different. Have/have-not is subjective, because some people feel they're richer than Donald Trump because they have a family and friends and love from all of them without yet they don't have two nickels to rub together. Its a fantasy, that doesn't take into account that greed and jealousy and corruption aren't things that can be removed by revolution. They're BUILT INTO OUR GENES people.
Plus I don't like the idea that no matter how hard I work, I get the same thing as everyone else whereas the guy down the street who half-asses his job gets the same thing I do.

 

[breese]

Honestly, which one has worked and which one has utterly failed? Every country that has been Communist has suffered from extreme amounts of corruption, genocide, and generally failed economically, culturally and morally. Why? Lots of reasons that I won't get in to and many people have already named them.

Just study the 20th century and you can see that the Soviet Union collapsed, China had to basically switch to economic Capitalism and most other Communist countries just haven't really done well. Also, do people flee Capitalist countries or do they free Communist countries?

 

[Tooshay]

Communism in the sense of "the form of government and economy practiced in the USSR, China, Cuba, etc." (state-controlled capitalism) is obviously a complete disaster, just like any other form of capitalism.

Communism in the sense of "the form of socio-economic organisation described by Karl Marx" (democratically self-organising communities with little or no central government) is IN NO WAY related to the above, and could be fantastic if only people would realise it. Too many people saying it's too idealistic is exactly why it is too idealistic. If only people would think "actually, this could work" then it might work. It has never been tried. The USSR and others were doomed from the beginning, as they did not have mass popular support.

I think a lot of people here have confused communism with socialism, they are two different systems of political economy.

There is so much nonsense going around about both that it's impossible to separate them anymore; everyone has a different idea of what they think the theories are, despite never having read a single word of Marx.

If you like having any sort of human rights, then communism is not for you, by its definition everything you do, say, (and eventually, think) is dictated by the society (i.e. the dictator at top).

Communism is all about individual rights. If there is a dictator, it's not communism.

Regulated capitalism is the only system which allows freedom with economic growth.

I abhor the ritual worship of "growth" as an end in itself, rather than as a means to an end. As if growth is a panacea for all our problems. Growth just means that things get bigger. It doesn't imply that any kind of progress or improvement is being made. It just means that things carry on as they always have done.

Okay couple of things I wanted to reply with in what is I'm pretty sure is a dead thread.

1. Communism = Marxist-Leninist Socialism which is entirely distinct from Marxist Socialism (which is usually more like Anarcho-Socialism or Utopian-Socialism). In theory none of these systems have a dictator at the top. However Marxist-Leninism, with its assertion that 'revolutionary vanguard' (drawn from the middle class) leads the proletariat into a socialist system, seems to lead to these 'vanguard' just becoming the ruling class.

2. Small scale utopian socialist experiments have occurred, usually as colonies, often in South America. These all failed.

3. Theoretically, Socialism does not have a ruling class, but it does not have individual rights at its core. Individual rights are sacrificed for the good of the society. It is a social theory, rather than an individualist theory, or rather, collectivism vs individualism. By necessity it requires the sacrifice of individual rights for the good of the society. Best example of this is the lack of freedom of religion (religion being the opiate of the masses according to Karl Marx)

4. To social liberals, and pretty much any centrist who believes in capitalism, growth has never been the end, but a means to a better society. Growth, in a regulated system = the improvement of society. Growth means more production, production means more tax, more tax means more government sponsored health, education and scientific research. Growth also means more private sector research.

And finally, its is really, really hard to separate theoretical politics from what happened in the real world. Arguing about the effectiveness of theories in Plato's world of ideas is pointless, the only way to judge these theories is how they have been applied in the real world. And it must be considered a fault of the socialist group of political theories that they have never ever been successful.

 

[Tooshay]

EDIT- double post

 

[oktalist]

the USSR was responsible for about 20 million deaths... So if we are so critical of the Soviets for this, should we not be equally if not more critical of ourselves for that same number of people who die every five years due to poverty...

You need to elaborate on these figures. Which countries are these? Which countries have the most poverty related deaths?

The countries I refer to are the ones on this planet. Actually the numbers are more than double what I said; 9 million per year, or 25,000 per day, according to UNICEF 2010 [http://www.unicef.org/rightsite/sowc/pdfs/SOWC_Spec%20Ed_CRC_Main%20Report_EN_090409.pdf]. I can't break it down to a per-country basis, but I'd imagine it's mainly the ones with low per capita GDP. Or to put it another way, the ones getting the most butt-rape from the rich.

poverty... is a necessary component of the system of global capitalism that we have imposed

That's a terribly backwards way of describing 'the lower class'.

I agree. And yet, I contend that it is true. Therefore capitalism is terribly backwards.

If I work consistently, I can afford shelter, running water, whatever food I want to eat, a car, a cell-phone, a refrigerator, a TV with cable and a laptop, with a low paying job.

What are you calling low pay? Because 49 percent of the world live on less than $2.50 a day of USA purchasing power (in 2005 dollars) according to the World Bank 2008 [http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2008/09/02/000158349_20080902095754/Rendered/PDF/wps4620.pdf]. 80 percent on less than $10.

I don't know how comfy it is in your country, but however good it is, it's all capitalism's fault.

It's pretty comfy in my country. And that's due to capitalism. It's utter shit for more than half of the world's population. And that's due to capitalism. We're incapable of putting sufficient food on everyone's table under capitalism. If there was no poverty, our capitalist economy would collapse. That's what I mean when I say that poverty is a neccessary component of capitalism. It needs poverty in order to function. It's built into its very structure.

Call me sentimental, but I don't like thinking that my car, computer and centrally-heated house are only made possible by the bloodshed of others. And rather than just ignore it, I'd like to do something about it. And now you're going to tell me that the answer is more capitalism...

You look at the homeless people and think 'We should make everybody as dirt poor as that.'

Um, no.

In communism, there are no "people in charge".

Really? Explain.

It's quite self-explanatory. It's part of the definition of communism that it's communally organised, not leadership-based. If any person has any more power than any other person, then it's not communism.

I'll accept your country's habit of putting 'u's in words all the time when you accept your country's decline caused by socialism and its failed healthcare system.

There is no socialism here, or anywhere else. There are social programmes (programs?) but that's just capitalism trying to delay the inevitable.

The NHS is functioning very well thankyou, not even our most laissez faire politicians could hope to claim it was failing. But that's wildly off-topic. Nationalised healthcare is not socialism.

Person B taking something from person C, D, E, F, G and H against their wills, that's what socialism and communism is. Person B is the government.

"That's capitalism. Person B is the capitalist class."

The 'capitalist class'?

Yes, meaning the owners of the means of production. Everyone else is the working class. There are only two classes of people in the Marxist critique of capitalism. The obsession with the "middle" class is designed to fool us into forgetting that our interests coincide with those of the people below us, not the people above us.

The mechanisms used by person B include inflation, and paying their workers less than the value of their work (which they must do in order to turn a profit).

it does make the rich richer and the poor richer at the same time, it doesn't really make the world a better place. With only a few rare exceptions, like...

Telephones, Television, Cars, Planes, Computers, The internet, Light bulbs, Fucking electricity

Past performance is not an indicator of future performance, as investment advisors often remind us.

About 25 percent of the world can't afford electricity. 40 percent have no basic sanitation. (Source: UN 2006 [http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2006/chapters/])

I quite agree that capitalism has done great things, like feudalism and hunter-gathering before it. But the claim that our present system is the best we can ever hope for is as silly today as would've been in the Middle Ages.

Everyone is getting richer, on average, but the rate of that growth is slowing (source: CEPR 2001 [http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/globalization_2001_07_11.pdf]), so that eventually if things carry on as projected, growth ought to plateau, with a large proportion of the world's population still in pitiful conditions.

Your argument appears to be "America is capitalist, and America is successful, therefore capitalism works." Well the whole world is capitalist, and has been for centuries, and all things considered I could not entertain the view that the world is a success. A small part of the world is successful, at the expense of the rest.

To give everyone in the world an adequate diet for a year would cost $13 billion. That's about the same amount that Americans and Europeans combined spend on perfume in a year (source: UN 1998 [http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1998/chapters/]). That's so fucked. Why can't we feed everyone? We have the resources. We choose to make ourselves smell pretty instead.

 

[AnyNamePlease]

Communism would be great if we were all hard-working, for the community types, but people generally aren't that type.

But why is this? Is this an inherent part of human nature? Or is it something that humans learn from being raised in a capitalist environment? Out of all the criticisms of communism this is one that just boggles me. Okay, even if we accept that people are inherently greedy (which I don't) and we accept that being massively greedy is bad, then surely we want a society that attempts to counteract this, not one that majorly encourages it.

Besides, we would have to many artist and singers and not enough laborers unless we forced people to do a job, and then we'd have a bunch of unhappy people.

And this just makes no sense. Why would there be too many artists and singers? Why would we need a massive workforce of labourers? Under communism we wouldn't have the modern world's incredibly self-destructive obsession with growth as an end in itself.

If we say to convert now, then yes SOME people will be greedy. And here's the thing about Communism, we all need to do our fair share. I'm saying that if I had the choice between working an 8 hour day or a 10 hour day, I'll choose the 8 hour. If it doesn't make a difference I'm not going to kill myself over the work. I know people who work all night on deals, and I'm saying that they would rather do something else rather then kill themselves. I know that they're people who are motivated by money, and I am one of them. But it's because I like being able to buy a video game when I want. I like going to dinners and I like not having to worry about finances. You have to admit that yes, SOME people aren't going to kill themselves for no personal gain. It's just unrealistic to think otherwise.

I would rather be a writer then my job now. And I know people who have their own dreams, like singing and dancing. And if we had a choice, whose going to work in retail. There are jobs that people don't want to do, but they do it anyway. I doubt a plumber enjoys his job, but someone has to do it. It's not just about growth it's about people not liking work. And that's understandable. But they do it because they have motivation to do it. We need workers and labor and even if we cut down we need people to do it. That is a fact that we can't avoid.

 

[hexFrank202]

It's quite self-explanatory. It's part of the definition of communism that it's communally organised, not leadership-based. If any person has any more power than any other person, then it's not communism.

Um... good luck with that.
"Hey everybody, let's all get together and spread our wealth evenly from now on, and no one will be in charge! Yeah! No one will ever interfere with this or try to take power!"

Actually the numbers are more than double what I said; 9 million per year, or 25,000 per day, according to UNICEF 2010. I can't break it down to a per-country basis, but I'd imagine it's mainly the ones with low per capita GDP. Or to put it another way, the ones getting the most butt-rape from the rich.

I see. So countries where free markets and individual rights are allowed to thrive inhabit wealth and prosperity, and countries with bullshit governments who do as much of the opposite as they can inhabit poverty and starvation. And your conclusion from this is that capitalism causes poverty and death?

It's pretty comfy in my country. And that's due to capitalism. It's utter shit for more than half of the world's population. And that's due to capitalism. We're incapable of putting sufficient food on everyone's table under capitalism. If there was no poverty, our capitalist economy would collapse. That's what I mean when I say that poverty is a neccessary component of capitalism. It needs poverty in order to function. It's built into its very structure. Call me sentimental, but I don't like thinking that my car, computer and centrally-heated house are only made possible by the bloodshed of others. And rather than just ignore it, I'd like to do something about it. And now you're going to tell me that the answer is more capitalism...

Ohhhhhhh. Now I see what you're thinking. Now I know the root of the problem. Here, watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5uJgG05xUY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZzHU3ZfTtY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgLrZc7cws8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XeW5ilk-9Y

Past performance is not an indicator of future performance, as investment advisors often remind us.

Okay I have to give you that. Fuck the past. This whole idea of whatever 'happened before will happen again' is bogus. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to jump off a bridge; the known record of people dying from that isn't an indicator of what will happen to me.

Your argument appears to be "America is capitalist, and America is successful, therefore capitalism works." Well the whole world is capitalist, and has been for centuries, and all things considered I could not entertain the view that the world is a success.

No it's not. :| This is really hard... the whole world isn't capitalist. I mean every country has some sort of trade and currency, but most don't have a government designed to protect individual rights. So what makes a country capitalist to you?

Also, wait, now you're saying that the world's history is that of capitalism, and the world is generally poor. Therefore capitalism doesn't work. Buuuut I thought you just got finished saying history doesn't matter?

I know that in the response to the above comment, you're going to say something like 'No that's not really what I said', and then you'll basically step back on that statement and change its original meaning. Known at Cracked.com as 'Internet Argument Technique #3'. But of course you're not going to do that NOW, now that I've predicted it to your face.

Mr. Oktalist, you seem very intelligent. You have far more grammar and sentence-structure skills than the internet requires. You can articulate concepts, even if they're flawed. It'd be great to see your head on the good side. My advice? If you have much spare time, listen to Rush Limbaugh some. He's the #1 radio talk-show personality because every day he powerfully expresses a pure and true message.

 

[CaptainKarma]

Communism would be great if we were all hard-working, for the community types, but people generally aren't that type.

But why is this? Is this an inherent part of human nature? Or is it something that humans learn from being raised in a capitalist environment? Out of all the criticisms of communism this is one that just boggles me. Okay, even if we accept that people are inherently greedy (which I don't) and we accept that being massively greedy is bad, then surely we want a society that attempts to counteract this, not one that majorly encourages it.

Besides, we would have to many artist and singers and not enough laborers unless we forced people to do a job, and then we'd have a bunch of unhappy people.

And this just makes no sense. Why would there be too many artists and singers? Why would we need a massive workforce of labourers? Under communism we wouldn't have the modern world's incredibly self-destructive obsession with growth as an end in itself.

If we say to convert now, then yes SOME people will be greedy. And here's the thing about Communism, we all need to do our fair share. I'm saying that if I had the choice between working an 8 hour day or a 10 hour day, I'll choose the 8 hour. If it doesn't make a difference I'm not going to kill myself over the work. I know people who work all night on deals, and I'm saying that they would rather do something else rather then kill themselves. I know that they're people who are motivated by money, and I am one of them. But it's because I like being able to buy a video game when I want. I like going to dinners and I like not having to worry about finances. You have to admit that yes, SOME people aren't going to kill themselves for no personal gain. It's just unrealistic to think otherwise.

I would rather be a writer then my job now. And I know people who have their own dreams, like singing and dancing. And if we had a choice, whose going to work in retail. There are jobs that people don't want to do, but they do it anyway. I doubt a plumber enjoys his job, but someone has to do it. It's not just about growth it's about people not liking work. And that's understandable. But they do it because they have motivation to do it. We need workers and labor and even if we cut down we need people to do it. That is a fact that we can't avoid.

I'm kinda lost in all the double negatives. If you remove the massive pressure to turn stupid profits then people won't pull 23 hour days securing ludicrous deals. The whole point of communism is that if you reorganise society and industry to cut out all the profit, there's no need for ANYBODY to kill themselves on long hours. Yes, people will have to do jobs they don't like (as they do under communism) but the hours they need to commit should be pretty small, leaving everyone time to pursue things they actually enjoy.

 

[CaptainKarma]

Actually the numbers are more than double what I said; 9 million per year, or 25,000 per day, according to UNICEF 2010. I can't break it down to a per-country basis, but I'd imagine it's mainly the ones with low per capita GDP. Or to put it another way, the ones getting the most butt-rape from the rich.

I see. So countries where free markets and individual rights are allowed to thrive inhabit wealth and prosperity, and countries with bullshit governments who do as much of the opposite as they can inhabit poverty and starvation. And your conclusion from this is that capitalism causes poverty and death?

But where is the drive for this coming from? You can't just reduce it down to "capitalism caused this" or "crap governments cause this", the two feed from each other. Without the use of cheap labour in china/india/wherever the western capitalist lifestyle is unsustainable. You cannot say that the benefits the west gets from this arrangement are because we have "free markets". And, this bit is important, individual rights still exist under communism. Just not under the dreadful statist interpretations of it that most people have experienced so far.

http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/william-engdahl/2011/06/29/getting-used-to-life-without-food-part-1

This link is worth a read, or at the very least a quick skim: Wall Street, literally causing famines, poverty and death through manipulating grain futures.

Ohhhhhhh. Now I see what you're thinking. Now I know the root of the problem. Here, watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5uJgG05xUY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZzHU3ZfTtY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgLrZc7cws8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XeW5ilk-9Y

This is a pretty dismissive way to treat his argument. Especially as that video argues that we aren't going to run out of resources by looking at the volume of the earth. There's more to resources than rock, that should be obvious.

Past performance is not an indicator of future performance, as investment advisors often remind us.

Okay I have to give you that. Fuck the past. This whole idea of whatever 'happened before will happen again' is bogus. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to jump off a bridge; the known record of people dying from that isn't an indicator of what will happen to me.

Mr. Oktalist, you seem very intelligent. You have far more grammar and sentence-structure skills than the internet requires. You can articulate concepts, even if they're flawed. It'd be great to see your head on the good side. My advice? If you have much spare time, listen to Rush Limbaugh some. He's the #1 radio talk-show personality because every day he powerfully expresses a pure and true message.

Limbaugh is a racist misogynist who compares torture to frat hazing and denies not only global warming but the friggin' hole in the ozone layer. I'm not sure how he is even remotely pure or true.

 

[Gloomsta]

I like how everyone believes they have valid opinions in this thread.

Face it guys, it would take an expert to truly understand what works better, reading about communism on wikipedia and having a few history lessons in school about this isnt enough.

It would take years of study to evaluate everything historically,socially,economically, psychologically, etc etc. It would take intelligent people without bias too.

Face it guys.

Probably none of you know enough on this subject matter to truly understand and evaluate it, and neither do i.

 

[oktalist]

Actually the numbers are more than double what I said; 9 million per year, or 25,000 per day, according to UNICEF 2010. I can't break it down to a per-country basis, but I'd imagine it's mainly the ones with low per capita GDP. Or to put it another way, the ones getting the most butt-rape from the rich.

I see. So countries where free markets and individual rights are allowed to thrive inhabit wealth and prosperity, and countries with bullshit governments who do as much of the opposite as they can inhabit poverty and starvation. And your conclusion from this is that capitalism causes poverty and death?

Free markets and individual rights are directly opposed to each other. Most of the countries where people have a rough time are exactly the places where the free market has a greater hold. Whereas developed nations can use their power to weight the scales in their favour.

If all those developing countries where the most poor people live all got fully-functioning Western-style democratic institutions and individual rights, all of us in the West would be screwed. We'd have nobody left to exploit, so we wouldn't be able to afford the comfy lifestyles we currently enjoy. Our leaders can't afford to let that happen.

The world is connected, so you can't argue a case by comparing single countries in isolation.

Ohhhhhhh. Now I see what you're thinking. Now I know the root of the problem. Here, watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5uJgG05xUY

Yep, the root of the problem is that I've been indoctrinated by a bullshit video that I've never seen before, which was uploaded in 2007, almost a decade after I started having political opinions.

I could tell the video was bullshit within one minute (the original video I mean, not the critique). And I can't say I'm surprised that bullshit videos get used in American classrooms.

"I know, let's get the stupidest, most retarded example of a left-wing opinion we can find, and criticise it in order to discredit all left-wing opinions." Nice.

Your argument appears to be "America is capitalist, and America is successful, therefore capitalism works." Well the whole world is capitalist, and has been for centuries, and all things considered I could not entertain the view that the world is a success.

No it's not. :| This is really hard... the whole world isn't capitalist. I mean every country has some sort of trade and currency, but most don't have a government designed to protect individual rights. So what makes a country capitalist to you?

To me, trade and currency make a place capitalist. Actually just trade is enough. Currency is just the natural evolution of trade.

Individual rights has nothing to do with capitalism. That would have to do with democracy, which is diametrically opposed to capitalism.

Also, wait, now you're saying that the world's history is that of capitalism, and the world is generally poor. Therefore capitalism doesn't work. Buuuut I thought you just got finished saying history doesn't matter?

You are right, sir. I shouldn't have argued that history has nothing to teach us. I'm in danger of cherry-picking only those parts of history which support my argument. Sorry.

I know that in the response to the above comment, you're going to say something like 'No that's not really what I said', and then you'll basically step back on that statement and change its original meaning. Known at Cracked.com as 'Internet Argument Technique #3'. But of course you're not going to do that NOW, now that I've predicted it to your face.

And now you're going to say that I only agreed with you because you predicted that I would backtrack on what I said. Well that is not so! I totally would've conceded the point whatever you'd predicted. But maybe you did make me a little bit more apologetic as a result.

Mr. Oktalist, you seem very intelligent. You can articulate concepts, even if they're flawed. It'd be great to see your head on the good side.

Likewise.

[EDIT]Except, the communist argument has more to gain by attracting support, because the capitalist argument already has all the support it could want. Supporters of capitalism outnumber supporters of communism by orders of magnitude. Capitalism doesn't really care if you or I support it.[/EDIT]

"Everything I disagree with is indoctrincation, while everything I agree with is the plain truth." I guess we're all guilty of that particular logical fallacy.

You have far more grammar and sentence-structure skills than the internet requires.

Well, this is the Escapist. We like to maintain a higher standard.

 

[AnyNamePlease]

Communism would be great if we were all hard-working, for the community types, but people generally aren't that type.

But why is this? Is this an inherent part of human nature? Or is it something that humans learn from being raised in a capitalist environment? Out of all the criticisms of communism this is one that just boggles me. Okay, even if we accept that people are inherently greedy (which I don't) and we accept that being massively greedy is bad, then surely we want a society that attempts to counteract this, not one that majorly encourages it.

Besides, we would have to many artist and singers and not enough laborers unless we forced people to do a job, and then we'd have a bunch of unhappy people.

And this just makes no sense. Why would there be too many artists and singers? Why would we need a massive workforce of labourers? Under communism we wouldn't have the modern world's incredibly self-destructive obsession with growth as an end in itself.

If we say to convert now, then yes SOME people will be greedy. And here's the thing about Communism, we all need to do our fair share. I'm saying that if I had the choice between working an 8 hour day or a 10 hour day, I'll choose the 8 hour. If it doesn't make a difference I'm not going to kill myself over the work. I know people who work all night on deals, and I'm saying that they would rather do something else rather then kill themselves. I know that they're people who are motivated by money, and I am one of them. But it's because I like being able to buy a video game when I want. I like going to dinners and I like not having to worry about finances. You have to admit that yes, SOME people aren't going to kill themselves for no personal gain. It's just unrealistic to think otherwise.

I would rather be a writer then my job now. And I know people who have their own dreams, like singing and dancing. And if we had a choice, whose going to work in retail. There are jobs that people don't want to do, but they do it anyway. I doubt a plumber enjoys his job, but someone has to do it. It's not just about growth it's about people not liking work. And that's understandable. But they do it because they have motivation to do it. We need workers and labor and even if we cut down we need people to do it. That is a fact that we can't avoid.

I'm kinda lost in all the double negatives. If you remove the massive pressure to turn stupid profits then people won't pull 23 hour days securing ludicrous deals. The whole point of communism is that if you reorganise society and industry to cut out all the profit, there's no need for ANYBODY to kill themselves on long hours. Yes, people will have to do jobs they don't like (as they do under communism) but the hours they need to commit should be pretty small, leaving everyone time to pursue things they actually enjoy.

No actually. We need people to work hard for society to function. We need those emergency room doctors to spend tons of hours. We need doctors to go work and go help people. We can't all work 5 hour days, and some people if they want to get the job done need to work 10 hour days. I don't think we can have stores and restaurants open for a small amount of time for when their employees are actually there.

 

[CaptainKarma]

Communism would be great if we were all hard-working, for the community types, but people generally aren't that type.

But why is this? Is this an inherent part of human nature? Or is it something that humans learn from being raised in a capitalist environment? Out of all the criticisms of communism this is one that just boggles me. Okay, even if we accept that people are inherently greedy (which I don't) and we accept that being massively greedy is bad, then surely we want a society that attempts to counteract this, not one that majorly encourages it.

Besides, we would have to many artist and singers and not enough laborers unless we forced people to do a job, and then we'd have a bunch of unhappy people.

And this just makes no sense. Why would there be too many artists and singers? Why would we need a massive workforce of labourers? Under communism we wouldn't have the modern world's incredibly self-destructive obsession with growth as an end in itself.

If we say to convert now, then yes SOME people will be greedy. And here's the thing about Communism, we all need to do our fair share. I'm saying that if I had the choice between working an 8 hour day or a 10 hour day, I'll choose the 8 hour. If it doesn't make a difference I'm not going to kill myself over the work. I know people who work all night on deals, and I'm saying that they would rather do something else rather then kill themselves. I know that they're people who are motivated by money, and I am one of them. But it's because I like being able to buy a video game when I want. I like going to dinners and I like not having to worry about finances. You have to admit that yes, SOME people aren't going to kill themselves for no personal gain. It's just unrealistic to think otherwise.

I would rather be a writer then my job now. And I know people who have their own dreams, like singing and dancing. And if we had a choice, whose going to work in retail. There are jobs that people don't want to do, but they do it anyway. I doubt a plumber enjoys his job, but someone has to do it. It's not just about growth it's about people not liking work. And that's understandable. But they do it because they have motivation to do it. We need workers and labor and even if we cut down we need people to do it. That is a fact that we can't avoid.

I'm kinda lost in all the double negatives. If you remove the massive pressure to turn stupid profits then people won't pull 23 hour days securing ludicrous deals. The whole point of communism is that if you reorganise society and industry to cut out all the profit, there's no need for ANYBODY to kill themselves on long hours. Yes, people will have to do jobs they don't like (as they do under communism) but the hours they need to commit should be pretty small, leaving everyone time to pursue things they actually enjoy.

No actually. We need people to work hard for society to function. We need those emergency room doctors to spend tons of hours. We need doctors to go work and go help people. We can't all work 5 hour days, and some people if they want to get the job done need to work 10 hour days. I don't think we can have stores and restaurants open for a small amount of time for when their employees are actually there.

I don't know enough detailed communist economic theory, but you're misrepresenting what I just wrote. Maybe some systems of communism will keep the 38 hour week, maybe they won't, it depends on your interpretation.

 

[Shinigami214]

If you have much spare time, listen to Rush Limbaugh some. He's the #1 radio talk-show personality because every day he powerfully expresses a pure and true message.

Hilarious Next you'll be saying that Fox News is 'fair and balanced' as they claim to be.