I think communism is just very unrealistic with typical human nature. Most people feel that more money makes you more successful/attractive/awesome/whatever. It looks nice on paper, but it would require the cooperation of everyone to work and you're never going to get 100% of the population to agree on anything. It also creates an easy opening for a dictatorship because people do need some sort of leadership and it's hard to take such a powerful role without letting it change you into something else. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
What's Wrong With Communism?
- Thread starter GoldenCondor
- Start date
Wow, really, read some fucking history. USSR is the reason communism doesn't work. Also see china. The only reason china is doing well is because it started to incorporate capitalism. Same thing with vietnam.
Oh I don't know um everything! The government owns evetrything, anything you say that is not what they think will have you shot, bad ecconmey plans, Big-head idoits ruling you forevr (North K, ussr, Cuba)
1. No, the theory doesn't allow this, quoting wikipedia: "Communism in the Marxist sense refers to a classless, stateless, and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made directly and democratically(...)" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CommunismKair said:
2. No, they wouldn't. And they wouldn't even TRY to predict and let the market regulate itself. More people need coats = more coats getting purchased = more coats getting made if materials are available.
3. I think you're putting that percentage a little high there. I don't think as many as that have problems.
About the Russia-part. Yes and no. The population is free from madmen which according the communist-model set up execution-numbers beforehand and ordered every region to kill that many, but they've lost some other quite nice priviledges that a communist state offers - work, home and food for everyone.
All in all, I would say this: if you combined the best elements of both theories then you might end up with someone that has a lower chance of failing than most other things.
1. Everyone should get their basic needs covered: health care, housing, food, etc.
2. Everyone should be rewarded for doing something extra.
3. Democracy.
4. Power comes through the people.
5. A group of (easily exchangeable by election) rulers.
I won't mention stuff like free speech, of course it is included
Communist societies are slave societies where individual workers cannot contract and endeavor toward a better standard of living than the one their society chooses to provide them. In practice this leads to a lot of passive aggressive withholding of ones innate talents (understandable IMHO) due to the absence of reward-- and then the slow deterioration of the economy and culture which the free market built is soon to follow.
If you want to live in a society of slaves then communism is great. I prefer not to.
If you want to live in a society of slaves then communism is great. I prefer not to.
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that communism or socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment".
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D!
No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that communism or socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
That class had insisted that communism or socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment".
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D!
No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that communism or socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
A random person said:
xxiadamixx said:
This has a lot to do with mentality though. Everyone has been out for themselves for the last milleniums so you can't expect people to adapt immideatly. If you were to try it for some 200-300 years or so perhaps people would be different. For example, communities far from the cities with a harsh climate usually has very helpful and trusting inhabitants because that's what they needed to survive. I think that most native tribes were like that before they were discovered and "civilized".This shows that human beings are not inheritently selfish. That depends on the environment where they are raised. They can adapt to being helpful if it's on their own and the communities interest. We are flock animals after all and we wouldn't be that if everyone was inherently selfish.EnglishMuffin said:
Also, I don't think there's anything in the books about Communism that states that everyone has to have the exact same wage all the time. If you have a graph that shows the wealth of the population you will se that it very much resembles a set of stairs were the difference between each step becomes larger the higher and further you come. The idea is that you cut a bit from the ones above the middle and give that to the lower ones the lower ones would contribute more to society.
They also define the highest steps as the ones that works the hardest and most. There are very few jobs that are actually worth less than any other job. A doctor for example has to rely on nurses and cleaners to do his job. It might look more important but he couldn't do it on his own therefore the other ones are just as important.
I might be thinking about Socialism though.
Mankind was sort of communist from the beginning. The founder of the first stone tools probably didn't charge the other tribe members for making their own. Most people that study this suggests that they had one appointed stone-tool maker that spent some of the days making stone tools and he/she got fed until their needs were satisfied.
The way things work now is that corporations runs a lot of the show and as much as one might think politicians are very inefficient CEOs aren't that much more efficient. The only real difference is that a government is a lot easier to keep track of and you can demand politicians to retire. Also, a politicians job is to make it as much of the population as happy as possible while a CEO's job is to make money for the corporation. I'd rather trust the politician. What you choose in the end, i guess, is if you prefer as many people as possible happy or if you want some people to be happier than the rest.
I think the problem with most of the communist countries to this day is that they were achieved trough armed revolutions rather than elections. The revolutionaries were the lower-class under-educated people and therefore they had no clue how to actually make this kind of government work. A lot of the well-educated people left those countries because the revolutionaries saw them as their old enemies that they wanted revenge on and they could provide for their families much better were they got paid better. You need disciplined intellectuals to make a government like this to work.
The way i see it. Communism could work if the change came slowly so people could adapt and it was worldwide so the selfish couldn't escape their duty. If mankind worked together towards creating a better world for everyone rather than just their own we could probably advance in technology faster and thus everyone could have it just as good as the CEOs have it today. It would just be a matter of time.
I would very much like comments on this so i can improve on my reasonings and find solutions to the problems you see.
People don;t change even generation to generation it is rare to see real change in humanitys 50,000 year history there have been but a few major changes and human nature is to be greedy and do as little work as possible because if you can conserve energy and get what you need nature tells us that we have succeeded but in communism you can not have the basic instinct but all humans have it and forever will have it.Akai Shizuku said:
The reason most people are afraid of communism is because it has never been successfully put into practice. It has always been corrupted by greed, pride or power.
It's a good system in theory, but whenever it's been attempted, things like Stalin and Mao happen
It's a good system in theory, but whenever it's been attempted, things like Stalin and Mao happen
I'm not ENTIRELY sure what communism is exactly, and I am too lazy to find out.
From what I can tell though, as long as humans are humans, it will never work, because we think of whats best for us before we think of whats best for others.
Also, Free healthcare is not communist. Its "Socialist". Socialist is when its controlled by the Government.
Britain has it, France has it, my country of Canada has it. (Free Helathcare)
In the USA, there actually are quite a few socialist aspects in there. (if my definition of Socialism is correct.)
Schools? Socialist. The Police and Firefighters? Socialist. Library's? Socialist.
As long as the government is in charge of it, its socialist... I think.
I don't know why people in the US are so afraid of socialism. Propaganda and all that I suppose.
From what I can tell though, as long as humans are humans, it will never work, because we think of whats best for us before we think of whats best for others.
Also, Free healthcare is not communist. Its "Socialist". Socialist is when its controlled by the Government.
Britain has it, France has it, my country of Canada has it. (Free Helathcare)
In the USA, there actually are quite a few socialist aspects in there. (if my definition of Socialism is correct.)
Schools? Socialist. The Police and Firefighters? Socialist. Library's? Socialist.
As long as the government is in charge of it, its socialist... I think.
I don't know why people in the US are so afraid of socialism. Propaganda and all that I suppose.
Mankind is to easily corrupted, therefore it would quickly turn into a dictatorship. And if all people would get the same wages, the people would not strive for promotions and therefore to do lack of manual labor and the sorts the economy would completely collapse. Communism works in theory but only in theory.
This.HotShooter said:
At it's core communism will not work. Funny that a Chinese proverb says it best "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime". To severely dumb it down, with a communist society there is no real need to better yourself, because it is all given to you. Therefore you are breeding complacent robots... not productive humans.