Essentially this. I think communism could possibly work on small scales where the human aspects are manageable, but when it comes to countries it's pretty much the epitome of good in theory, bad in practice.Crowser said:
What's Wrong With Communism?
- Thread starter GoldenCondor
- Start date
Recommended Videos
wooo hooo. i've got 10 bucks american says this thread gets to 20 pages...
i love communism personally, it sparks such heated and entertaining threads here on the escapist.
i love communism personally, it sparks such heated and entertaining threads here on the escapist.
In actuality communism as an ideal is quite respectable. One for all and all for one, as it were. However, you inevitably run into the fact that the hardest of workers reaps the same rewards as the laziest of bums and, at least in my mind, that is not the way things should work.
Communism only works when there is NO corruption if any corruption exists then the system falls apart into a dictator ship with two classes that are even more separated than than in the worst capitalist states. Capitalism on the other hand works with some amount of corruption there is a point where corruption will destroy capitalism but capitalism has a much higher threshold for corruption. Communism also often leads to a lower standard of living for average Joe for the sake of argument lets compare 1980s America to 1980s soviet union. In america most people owned cars radios televisions and a phone. In the soviet union most people did not own a car television or phone. some people did own these but the numbers where very few. Technology for the average people in communist countries is also often lower i.e. soviet union in the 80s farmers where using animal pulled plows primarily where as in the united states farmers where primarily using tractors and other mechanical equipment. Those are the logical reasons now for the illogical reasons.
from 1946-1991 the United States government used propaganda saying the commies are bad. Also people especially from the born between 1950-1969 generations remember still "Its the "rusky commies" who are pointing nukes at us and hate everthing we stand for" its just the same as how people who where over the age of 16 at some point durring WW2 won't buy japanesse cars.
man this was a much longer post than i intended.
from 1946-1991 the United States government used propaganda saying the commies are bad. Also people especially from the born between 1950-1969 generations remember still "Its the "rusky commies" who are pointing nukes at us and hate everthing we stand for" its just the same as how people who where over the age of 16 at some point durring WW2 won't buy japanesse cars.
man this was a much longer post than i intended.
Communism was supposedly the next major form of government. Marx got the idea from tribal society, equal share amongst the members. This gave him the idea equal share for equal work.
America's earliest arguments was for laziness, why should I try hard if I get paid the same. This system was actually tried in the colonies, such as Jamestown, when farms were at full fruition.
But the argument of goverment used from Athens against the Spartan oligarchy, that it takes a very rare person to take power and not be corrupted.
Plus Marx said in the original treatise that communism cannot truly coexist with other governments, that it is a self conntained system.
America's earliest arguments was for laziness, why should I try hard if I get paid the same. This system was actually tried in the colonies, such as Jamestown, when farms were at full fruition.
But the argument of goverment used from Athens against the Spartan oligarchy, that it takes a very rare person to take power and not be corrupted.
Plus Marx said in the original treatise that communism cannot truly coexist with other governments, that it is a self conntained system.
Everything. Corrupt leaders & lazy people. If you had the choice to go through 18 years of education to become a brain surgen, or 10 years to become a postman, and they pay the same because wealth is distributed, you'd sooner become a postman. Then you have a lack of skilled people in your country, the quality of life is lowered, and everyone is worse off.GoldenCondor said:
In short, communism sucks.
Communism/Socialism are good ideas on paper, but the trouble is that these systems apparently don't have much in the way to stem corruption. I say this because you can look at a country like China, where bribes make the world go 'round, or Communist USSR, where Stalin tended to have you killed at the drop of a hat (the fellow did more ethnic cleansing than Hitler) and it's pretty clear what happened is that the people in charge allowed the power to corrupt them.
These systems could work if the government was run by angelic, uncorruptable individuals whose ability to rule was tempered by godlike intelligence and forbearance... but good luck having such an individual climb to the pile of popularity and stave off natural monkey-mind tendencies towards corruption.
That said, Democracy hasn't exactly removed corruption, so much as has limited and redirected the infection a bit. As the Neocons have been demonstrating fairly compellingly, we've got corrupt senators very much on-the-take from lobbyists representing fat cat businesses who are every bit as willing to profit off of human pain and suffering as anyone else in human history. Power still corrupts, it just moved on to corrupt certain individuals who have amassed it (lots of personal wealth).
Ideally, the population is supposed to be intelligent enough to recognize corruption when they see it and snuff it out by not voting for those candidates. What actually happens is we're all so completely snowballed by our candidates slick campaigns to the point where it takes formidable critical thinking to have any chance to penetrate the smoke screen. Because so few of us have that kind of time or energy, Democracy emerges, as our founding fathers have feared, as a baseless popularity contest.
In the end, politics has always been about herding cats, both at the bottom and at the top. Piss off enough cats among the bottom, and you get overthrown. Vote a cat to the top, and they're tempted to try their feline wiles at skimming the cream off society and getting away with it. Any political system is only as good as the intelligence of the people who make up the society. Anarchy is not the answer either, as it simply creates a power vacuum for us to be gobbled up by societies which cooperate on a larger scale.
These systems could work if the government was run by angelic, uncorruptable individuals whose ability to rule was tempered by godlike intelligence and forbearance... but good luck having such an individual climb to the pile of popularity and stave off natural monkey-mind tendencies towards corruption.
That said, Democracy hasn't exactly removed corruption, so much as has limited and redirected the infection a bit. As the Neocons have been demonstrating fairly compellingly, we've got corrupt senators very much on-the-take from lobbyists representing fat cat businesses who are every bit as willing to profit off of human pain and suffering as anyone else in human history. Power still corrupts, it just moved on to corrupt certain individuals who have amassed it (lots of personal wealth).
Ideally, the population is supposed to be intelligent enough to recognize corruption when they see it and snuff it out by not voting for those candidates. What actually happens is we're all so completely snowballed by our candidates slick campaigns to the point where it takes formidable critical thinking to have any chance to penetrate the smoke screen. Because so few of us have that kind of time or energy, Democracy emerges, as our founding fathers have feared, as a baseless popularity contest.
In the end, politics has always been about herding cats, both at the bottom and at the top. Piss off enough cats among the bottom, and you get overthrown. Vote a cat to the top, and they're tempted to try their feline wiles at skimming the cream off society and getting away with it. Any political system is only as good as the intelligence of the people who make up the society. Anarchy is not the answer either, as it simply creates a power vacuum for us to be gobbled up by societies which cooperate on a larger scale.
Actually, it was kind of founded to break free from the stifling economic and social restraints put on the colonies by Britain. You, sir, are thinking of the pilgrims.GoldenCondor said:
So yeah, Communism is kind of against the principles America was founded on.
Br
Britain has free healthcare and its not a communist country it just thinks. Hey lets make sure people don't die of easy to cure illnesses whereas America thinks ooo we could make money through this even if it does mean 5 year old dies Billy because can't get his cough medicineGoldenCondor said:
Because a Democracy doesn't have any corrupt leaders or lazy people. And how is every worse off, in a communist socity resorces arn't wasted there are little homeless people and everyone is equal.xxiadamixx said:
In a Democratic country people just have more freedoms, alowed to vote for whoever they want and alowed to make a ton of money.
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.
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
