Communism

Let's talk about it. And let's not tie it with USSR, or China, or whatever.
Just the idea thing, mmkay?
I mean, concept of communism in theory is supreme form of democracy isn't it?
Is it possible IRL? Or not? Why?

So debate a political theory but, we can't talk about the reasons why it's not a fantastic idea in reality? Kind of backwards don't you think? eh, why the hell not.

On paper, communism is the perfect system. No government, everybody works together towards a common goal, everyone retains their individuality and independence ...on paper.

In reality, communism is a huge democracy which means it turns everything into a popularity contest. If communism was "successful" smaller voices won't have the forum to have their ideas heard like a Republic. Not to mention the problems with production. Who decides to build factories? Who decides what is to be made and how much? Who decides where it goes and what methods are used to deliver those goods?

On a large scale communism is plagued with production inefficiency as there isn't any management to oversee production nor entrepreneurs who put their own money at risk for a return investment.



On the local government scale you have problems of who is going to build what, and where such as roads, water treatment, general infrastructure. You can't hold elections for local representatives as true communism can't have a government other than the entire population of the area (city, town, village) being in agreement.

With those out of the way, the countries that claim to be communist all have shown signs of overpowering government doing as it pleases against the population. The only reason these countries have a government is that a mid to large society can't exist without at least the minimal amount of Government. So what ends up happening is the Federal (or whatever equivalent term for those countries) tends to take control of everything as some round about way of "the people" owning everything but, that is really in name only as "the people" don't own the government, they just support it through taxes and labor. So in a roundabout way, these communist government always degrade into dictatorships as one man or a group of men have absolute power.

Another flaw in the argument for Communism is that the opponents are arguing against a theory as most supporters ignore the real world "communism/Socialism" or simply excuse their way out of it by saying that capitalism ruins the idea of communism or, "it just wasn't implemented correctly" or whatever excuse they cook up nowadays.

Shit, I'm not prepared. As a socialist/communist, I debate this a lot, especially online, but it always catches me off guard for some reason. I'll be back.

I'm not in the mood for a huge political analysis either, maybe later. I support the idea of Communism. It will never be implemented effectively, but the concepts (though bold) are ideal.

I think Communism is just a inch away from awesome. The basic Idea of Communism is good, but when you start getting into all the details of it and look at the history of it it looks like it needs a little tweaking.

Because no one can get past step three - stepping down from power. Once an individual has the power to rule the entire nation they will never willingly give it up.

Communism is good in theory, but when applied to real life, it fails.

Well, technically they fucked up on step 1. In order for socialism to succeed (must be in place before communism- dialectical materialism 101) capitalism must consume the world; think of it like the old British Empire motto: "The empire on which the sun never sets." Once capitalism is in place globally, it will inevitably destroy itself and through the years of exploiting the proletariat there will be a world-wide revolution. The only problem is that no one is willing to wait that long; I'm not even sure I can/will- maybe it is doomed to fail, but I wont give up.

I would love the opportunity to prove that a human can avoid corruption. Ooh, if I have the time I'll talk about how that argument is actually just another trick by capitalist to convince the workers there is no better tomorrow for them.

Communism works well in small scale.

However, the larger the scale, the more bureaucracy is required to handle (this is true for any government). Unfortunately, bureaucracy, by definition, is a system telling a larger group of people what to do and how to do it... which is antithetical to communism.

In other words, a small town can be run like communism and every decision can be made with everyone's input, but a very large country will be paralyzed unless you put some people in charge of certain things. The more people you put in charge, the farther away from communism you get.

I have to disagree, slightly. I understand and agree that the "ideas" of communism can be implemented to small scale, but small-scale will only survive for as long as the capitalist will allow it- People's Exhibit A: US foreign policy "Containment."

As for bureaucracy, it is a real hazard, but everyone knows you can't escape it. But it doesn't have to control everything. Representational democracy can thrive along side socialism, and Argentina has proved that direct democracy can succeed in the workforce.

EDIT: Also, before I forget, I want to thank ManiacYKT for starting a topic that I have a lot to say about, thus allowing me to make up all those posts I should have made in my 2 years of membership. lol

Communism is a good idea, as long as the people in that system are lobotomized and have no hope nor aspiration in life aside from being fed. Livestocks, pretty much.

Here's the reality: There will never be enough resources for everyone, and genetically any human will want to be better than the other. Will there be those that suppresses their material need for a sense of mental/ethical/whatever superiority by giving up their need for additional material gains "for the greater good"? Yeah, and it'll be the greedy bastards who play the system that gets the poor sap's share.

And hell, even if you can get a nation/world full of lobotomized workers, how will their overall goals be determined? National psychic mind meld? No, there will need to be those who are "more equal" than the ones doing the work that decide how labor and resources will be allocated. The second a need for this "more equal" class arise, communism turns into something a lot more sinister in practice.

Funny how it's in a communistic/socialistic society where social mobility only occurs during fortunate reincarnation.

I'm not as smart as my typing may have led you to believe. Please explain this.

It is in a communistic/socialistic society, where everyone is "equal" (except those who're "more equal", that is) where the workers are stuck where they are, grinding away their life for the "greater good", where there are minimal hope of them ever achieving something greater than what they already have.

In fact, I dare say they are NOT allowed to have hopes or aspiration for personal advancement under communism, since that would be for their own good instead of the greater good. Thus, the only way for them to get ahead in life is to die, and hopefully reincarnate as one of the "more equal" ones.

Oh yes, capitalism exploits the worker... yeah right, at least in capitalism the workers have a chance to advance. Whereas in communism they're suppose to stay a worker AND LIKE IT.

Ok, I can appreciate that.

Advance to what, though? It's ironic how opponents to socialism say that because the state will provide for you people will become lazy, and yet the goal of a capitalist is to work as little as possible but get all the wealth. Yes, I can't deny that in communism being a contributor to society is the means to get services back, and yet you can say the same thing that capitalism forces everyone to work, for if you don't work you don't get pay, and if you don't get pay you can live. And the bitch about that is that you never get payed enough to buy the crap you labored on.

The constant use of "more equal" leads me to think that you have the Red Scare idea that communism wants to eliminate all individuality or the false idea of Lenin's Vanguard/Politburo. I can assure you, at least in my idealist/theorist eyes, neither is the case.

It is the goal of EVERYONE/ANYTHING to work as little as possible and get the most they can out of it. Call it physics, things have a way of finding the path of least resistance. Whereas in communism, unless there is some enforcement that make me work, there will be no difference in what I get by working my ass off or if I just sit on the said ass. Here's where my constant mentioning of "more equal" comes in. For there to be enforcement, there will be those with power over others, thus the end of this supposed true equality.

Now I think in your view of capitalism, you are not clearly defining exactly what is "work". Me, I call it "bringing something to the table", something valuable. Now, is it wrong to do as little as possible and get the most out of it? Not if what little they do have equal value to what they receive. Capitalism is about you getting your fair share based on what you bring to the table, not just about simply being at the said table.

A problem with communism/socialism is the lack of economic liberty. The government in those systems stakes a large claim to the fruits of your labor in hopes of distributing it "more fairly". Such as taking care of the "needy" or as some people would say the leaches of society. So the Government takes away your choice to be charitable, or use the fruits of your labor in the ways you deem necessary. Charity at gunpoint isn't really charity.

Look around the world at the socialist/communist countries in the world. Red China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, and Laos.

Look at the real world examples of such a great system. Poverty is rampant, food is scarce*. The government of those countries treat their people like slaves. Even Mao Zedong spoke of the 38 million he starved to death as merely "replaceable".

*Exception being the current government of China.

With all the brutality and general human rights violations of these countries. Why do people keep thinking this form of Government is so awesome when real world implementation has shown that it can't work? Isn't the definition of madness, doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results? The real world versions of that theory are horrid abominations that should be carved from the minds of society and the wounds cauterized.

History has proven that communism can't and will never work. Get used to it as history repeats itself.

The only half way decent thing about anything "socialist" is the Canadian medical system but, that's a completely different thread for a completely different time.

Communism it's a good idea, so good that makes it an utopia, it's really hard to have a communist country that works well, communism must be perfect, if it's applied wrong then communsim sucks. With big letters, SUCKS

ok ,look at it like this:
DO you wnat to own a ferrari? or a nice mansion? spend your holidays in nice hotels on hawaii?
if yes, choose capitalism.
otherwise, communism.

face it. communism will decline you any form of luxury, as it is reserved for the wealthier people. only because you are not wealthy right now, doesn't mean you should hate this system. anyone has a chance to enjoy luxury. capitalism DOES reward hard work.

human nature is made in a way that we DO want to have more than others next to us. communism is, in a way, contradicting human nature.

and anyone studying economics will sooner or later acknowledge that a perfect form of government does not exist. even capitalism will fail eventually, and turn into anarchism. survival of the strongest. pray that it will take a decade.

Here I am debating Communism again. But I will say that most people know what communism is at its most basic level. Simply put, communism is the idea that everyone in a given society receives equal shares of the benefits derived from labor. In order for everyone to achieve equality, wealth is redistributed so that the members of the upper class are brought down to the same financial and social level as the middle class. The same with the poor they are brought up into the middle class. Communism also requires that all means of production be controlled by the state. In other words, no one can own his or her own business or produce his or her own goods because the state owns everything.

See even this can sound good in theory everyone is middle class what a perfect classless society we'd live in. I hate the fact that people that advocate Communism, not that all do this but most, also advocate individualism. I hate Communism for this fact that their is no longer any individualism and everyone is the same. This goes completely against human nature or Social Darwinism. The strong or smart will survive in a Capitalist society and the weak or uneducated will fail. But with Communism in theory no one fails and everyone becomes the strong. This is like forced evolution in a sense. Not to mention Capitalism is the fuel for the gaining of knowledge. The people who go to college and further their education get better jobs. If more people go to college to get a better job then we have a more educated populous. Which brings me to my closing argument or question.

Which is better an educated nation or a brainless one that follows order from its superiors and has no individualism?