It provides no incentive to be ambitious or to work hard. Why put forth any more effort when you only get the same as everyone else?
What's Wrong With Communism?
- Thread starter GoldenCondor
- Start date
Recommended Videos
As a warning: I believe government to be a criminal enterprise and taxation to be theft, so here it comes:Borrowed Time said:
I hear about Friedman frequently, but I haven't read his stuff. Free market principles are dependent upon a free market- that is where most critics of free markets and, indeed, many Austrian economists make mistakes. Free market principles don't apply to neo-mercantile markets. The perfect world that a free market requires is not a world of perfect competition- which entails unlimited or equal access to resources and knowledge of markets- but a world without institutionalized theft and artificial barriers to entry in the forms of taxation and modern protectionism. The tendencies of market forces apply also to imperfect markets, which I agree all real world markets must be, at least in the sense of perfect competition.
Communism is great in theory...but the majority of what we call communism isn't actually communism, they're dictatorships, Marx said that in a communist society there would be no leader, everyone would be equal
The comical aspect of this is, people think DEMOCRACY works. When, in practice, it does not. Look at the status of all western democracies. They're either dead, or dying. In the rest of the world, they're mostly just puppet states set up by the US, for the US' own gain. And therefore, hardly a democracy at all.
Democracy is a rather bad system, since it relies on the idea that people care about the things that really matter, and a way to look deep into what politicians are saying. Oh, and that people will WANT to do both.
Democracy is a rather bad system, since it relies on the idea that people care about the things that really matter, and a way to look deep into what politicians are saying. Oh, and that people will WANT to do both.
Communism was given a bad name under Stalin and soviet russia. They said they were communist but didnt portray it properly. they acted evil and because those men were evil, they made the rest of the world think communism was evil, when it wasnt. It was just the russian leaders.
Lots of people believe prime minister Putin is an evil man who likes to invade Georgia and wants to rebuild the eastern block, but no ones calling capitalism evil because russia is now capitalist and so is Putin.
Look at china. One of the biggest economys in the world, One of the best emergency response systems in the world, The largest army in the world, some of the best technology in the world, and people are happy to live there. They're communist.
So is North korea and while you might ask anyone from a Nato country, they'll say north korea is evil (me included), however the people who live there love their country.
Lots of people believe prime minister Putin is an evil man who likes to invade Georgia and wants to rebuild the eastern block, but no ones calling capitalism evil because russia is now capitalist and so is Putin.
Look at china. One of the biggest economys in the world, One of the best emergency response systems in the world, The largest army in the world, some of the best technology in the world, and people are happy to live there. They're communist.
So is North korea and while you might ask anyone from a Nato country, they'll say north korea is evil (me included), however the people who live there love their country.
People believe Obama is socialist. Not communist.
Also, technically, there's nothing wrong with communism. It's perfect on paper--but in practice, it doesn't work.
Also, technically, there's nothing wrong with communism. It's perfect on paper--but in practice, it doesn't work.
I hate to say this, but if China is your ideal communist society, I really think you need to rethink your premises. Your criticism of Stalin etc. is quite good, however. In my opinion, communism is self-defeating and a sham unless it is voluntary and stateless. Communism in that sense may turn out to be a good model- so let's thrust it into the tempestuous sea of liberty and see if it works. If it works, people will choose it. If it does not, we can try other things.Federalist92 said:
It's not Communism, its the fact that countries that are Communist tern evil like the USSR, who killed millions of there own people becasue they did not vote for there current leader.
Communism doesn't work simply because the necessary steps to introduce it cannot be feasibly introduced.
1) You need a charismatic ruler willing to take charge so that the socialist state of change can be implemented. You then need this ruler to go away so that the communist republic can be established from the evolution of the socialist society.
So you need a disposable king, in other words, because the sort of person necessary to form the revolution in the first place is -exactly- the sort of person you do not want running the whole works.
2) You need a self-sufficient economy, where the people do not want for their necessities, a land of plenty. The moment you have shortages, you have a starving populous that cannot attain more for themselves through the very system designed to spread the wealth, so to speak. A society is exactly three meals away from anarchy. The populous has already proven to be able to overthrow one government; they can just as easily do away with yours if their kids aren't fed.
3) There is no impetus for improvement, no competition that bolsters change. With communism, there's no reason to improve upon products, because that's an investment of resources that could go, instead, to -making- those products. And because distribution of those products is guaranteed, and because your compensation and your own personal wealth are not challenged by outside forces. If you're in the mousetrap business in a non-communist country, you need to make better mousetraps, or someone else will. And if they do, for a better price, you starve. Thusly, the general quality of life improves over time. In a communist country, building a better mousetrap means more resources spent, but there's no increase in profit from that, so there's no point for you to do it. There's no decrease in profit from not doing that. You still take home the same amount of resources to feed your family either way. So why improve?
4) Because of the need of self-sufficiency, and the lack of improvement, your ability to trade on the world-wide scale is signifigantly curtailed. No country will look to your country for quality products, unless you're the only supplier in the world. This means that the only ways your country improves it quality of living in the global competition is militarily. And without civilian improvements in science and technology, this is much harder to attain.
5) Eventually, either your country will collapse from economic ruin (no competition), from military takeover (your military cannot stand against a world constantly improving forever), from starvation (the people don't get their basic needs), or by absolute necessity, some system of competition and merit forms in the underbelly of your society, creating the very social structure that communism is supposed to depose.
In other words, communism's survival is only assured when it ceases to be communist.
Communism only works in theory because the theory excludes 'The rest of the world' in the equation.
It works for small groups, however. Households can be communist -easily-, as can larger town-sized communites. But a country is too large and anonymous for it to work out for long.
1) You need a charismatic ruler willing to take charge so that the socialist state of change can be implemented. You then need this ruler to go away so that the communist republic can be established from the evolution of the socialist society.
So you need a disposable king, in other words, because the sort of person necessary to form the revolution in the first place is -exactly- the sort of person you do not want running the whole works.
2) You need a self-sufficient economy, where the people do not want for their necessities, a land of plenty. The moment you have shortages, you have a starving populous that cannot attain more for themselves through the very system designed to spread the wealth, so to speak. A society is exactly three meals away from anarchy. The populous has already proven to be able to overthrow one government; they can just as easily do away with yours if their kids aren't fed.
3) There is no impetus for improvement, no competition that bolsters change. With communism, there's no reason to improve upon products, because that's an investment of resources that could go, instead, to -making- those products. And because distribution of those products is guaranteed, and because your compensation and your own personal wealth are not challenged by outside forces. If you're in the mousetrap business in a non-communist country, you need to make better mousetraps, or someone else will. And if they do, for a better price, you starve. Thusly, the general quality of life improves over time. In a communist country, building a better mousetrap means more resources spent, but there's no increase in profit from that, so there's no point for you to do it. There's no decrease in profit from not doing that. You still take home the same amount of resources to feed your family either way. So why improve?
4) Because of the need of self-sufficiency, and the lack of improvement, your ability to trade on the world-wide scale is signifigantly curtailed. No country will look to your country for quality products, unless you're the only supplier in the world. This means that the only ways your country improves it quality of living in the global competition is militarily. And without civilian improvements in science and technology, this is much harder to attain.
5) Eventually, either your country will collapse from economic ruin (no competition), from military takeover (your military cannot stand against a world constantly improving forever), from starvation (the people don't get their basic needs), or by absolute necessity, some system of competition and merit forms in the underbelly of your society, creating the very social structure that communism is supposed to depose.
In other words, communism's survival is only assured when it ceases to be communist.
Communism only works in theory because the theory excludes 'The rest of the world' in the equation.
It works for small groups, however. Households can be communist -easily-, as can larger town-sized communites. But a country is too large and anonymous for it to work out for long.
Americans dislike Communism not only because they are ill-informed but those in power that know about Communism see that it is a great threat to capitalism, which is the system that put them in power in the first place.
Do you like being able to pick what job you want to have, what car you drive, what internet you use, what computer you buy, and what GAMES you get to play. I sure as hell do. And I'm not afraid of communism I understand it completely and because of that I never want to live under that form of a government. I don't care that communism exist but it better stay far away from me.GoldenCondor said:
I like being an individual, which is why I hate communism. Why should the government control my life? Why should I work long hours as a doctor when I can work less hours at McDonalds and get the same wage? And as for free health care, if you get a life-threatening disease, suck as pneumonia, you are screwed, because you won't be able to get into a doctor because everytime someone has a headache, they can go to the doctor for free. Also, in a communist society, people can't be innovative because the government controls everything. It becomes blatant how close to socialism and communism the democratic party is by how the democrat controlled government is attempting to take control of everything. Look at what happened to General Motors. Taken over by the government. Because of this, I will NEVER buy a car from General Motors. Have we fought communism for decades only to sink down to it? I hope not.
If you are becoming a doctor because you want more money you are seriously fucked up. The only reason you should be a doctor is because you have a genuine interest in helping people. And you wouldn't get payed the same amount. Try learning the facts and seeing something from a different perspective beside your own selfish one.darthmalak95 said:
because i like keeping what i earn.
because i like knowing that things i earn are mine and are my property and will remain mine until i make a conscious choice to change that.
because i like to keep my money and decide where it goes, be it expenses for my own enjoyment or charity: i want to choose where my money that i earned goes.
because i want to be rewarded for my effort whereas one who exerts none gets none of the benefits.
because i want to be able to choose products from a diverse competitive market.
because i want said market to allow the free implementation of new ideas and to let nonviable ideas die out along with their creators unless they adapt.
because i want products to die out naturally because the public refuses to buy a bad product whereas the creator of a good product is rewarded because the public recognizes its value and chooses to purchase it. because i want to decide my level of involvement in life.
because i want to get what i deserve and for others to get what they deserve.
because i don't want to get what i don't deserve and don't want others to get what they don't deserve.
please quote any problems you see and refute them in an intelligent manner if you feel so inclined
because i like knowing that things i earn are mine and are my property and will remain mine until i make a conscious choice to change that.
because i like to keep my money and decide where it goes, be it expenses for my own enjoyment or charity: i want to choose where my money that i earned goes.
because i want to be rewarded for my effort whereas one who exerts none gets none of the benefits.
because i want to be able to choose products from a diverse competitive market.
because i want said market to allow the free implementation of new ideas and to let nonviable ideas die out along with their creators unless they adapt.
because i want products to die out naturally because the public refuses to buy a bad product whereas the creator of a good product is rewarded because the public recognizes its value and chooses to purchase it. because i want to decide my level of involvement in life.
because i want to get what i deserve and for others to get what they deserve.
because i don't want to get what i don't deserve and don't want others to get what they don't deserve.
please quote any problems you see and refute them in an intelligent manner if you feel so inclined