Communism

[COMMUNIST FLISK]

ill just leave my signature here shall i?

seriously though
i know real communism is pretty much impossible to acheive, but i believe the fundemental ideals behind it are so much more morally good than those behind capitolism

 

[irmerk]

This is true, I think. People > profit.

 

[COMMUNIST FLISK]

i hate the society of the us and the uk, where big corperations screw people over with rediculously big profit margins so a few people at the top can become filthy rich. its just not right. the majority of products on the market should be so much cheaper, and they would be if all industry and buisness was nationalised

 

[GoodKat]

I see capitalism as a kind of necessary evil, at least for the time being. I agree that communism is morally superior, but I doubt its viability in the real world. To put it simply, greed is reliable, good will is not.

 

[richi1173]

i hate the society of the us and the uk, where big corperations screw people over with rediculously big profit margins so a few people at the top can become filthy rich. its just not right. the majority of products on the market should be so much cheaper, and they would be if all industry and buisness was nationalised

Then you will have this kind of situation.

Or, do you mean that if we get rid of bosses we can lower the cost of production? Not happening, since you have to pay for the bureaucrats. Its just shifting the bourgeoisie from one side to another. This side however, controls everything, and turns in the long run into a totalitarian regime. But that is socialism in the long run; communism is a stateless society, which with its long term goals, is unachievable.

Nationalizing whole industries just makes them less effective. Just imagine trying to put quotas on the needs of 300 million people.

Finally, should a craftsman not have the right to his hammer? Should a farmer not have the right to his sickle? Should you not have the right to your home and your car? Should you not have the right to your computer? Tell me now, because if you say no I will fly to wherever you are and take them for my own use.

 

[Netheralian]

You would have to ignore human nature if you think communism can be fully successful. People are inherently lazy and if there is no reward for striving hard then why bother - i.e. you only get your share no matter what you do, then why do anything at all. Why try that little bit harder to make your life better as your efforts need to be shared with everyone.

Human evolution wrt behaivour is ultimately a trade off between selfishness and altruism - you can't suceed with too much of either or you are alternatively hated or taken advantage of.

Capatalism rewords those that work hard (clearly you can argue against this in specific cases).

I think you could argue that the general standard of living is much higher specifically due to competition (as a product of capitalism). However this needs to dampened with regulation especially in the case of market monopolies so that the cost of things reflect thier true value.

I get the feeling this thread was started just to get people ranting and raving!

 

[Ozymandyus]

I used to think Communism was the best possible system, but the older I get the less possible it seems. Some modification of Capitalism works best imo, just still needs some adjusting.

I suppose within the proper cultural framework Communism MIGHT work, if certain things were added to it. Some addition of a recognition and reward system would be necessary. A strong indoctrination program of the purpose of humankind as creating a better world and how valuable everyone is to that goal. An immediate self-recognition that every bit of energy is saving/making immensely better some life a hundred years down the road, which is probably true. But honestly, I think people are just too darn lazy and unmotivated by default. We actually perform much better in a dog eat dog world than a happy go lucky one.

 

[Aught3]

I've started to think of this debate (communism/capitalism) as a sort of continuum. At one end pure capitalism and at the other pure communism, both seem like an excellent way to organise society, but neither of which work in reality. There is probably some mixture which would always work for the average population, but different groups of people implement different mixtures in their separate societies. It seems to work fairly well for a number of years then the pendulum swings to far to one side and eventually the economy collapses. The country picks itself up and starts all over again. Creative destruction I suppose.

 

[GoodKat]

I've started to think of this debate (communism/capitalism) as a sort of continuum. At one end pure capitalism and at the other pure communism, both seem like an excellent way to organise society, but neither of which work in reality. There is probably some mixture which would always work for the average population, but different groups of people implement different mixtures in their separate societies. It seems to work fairly well for a number of years then the pendulum swings to far to one side and eventually the economy collapses. The country picks itself up and starts all over again. Creative destruction I suppose.

This is sort of my thinking. A perfect system would adjust itself to society, but I don't know if such a thing could be devised.

 

[luckyirish67]

A social democracy (a more socialist then capitalist one) would be much easier to achieve, it incorporates both socialism and and capitalism and wouldn't be as drastic a change from capitalism to communism.

Also, in a Communist society there could still be a want to try hard and work hard to achieve something, there would still be promotions with increased wages, Marx said in a Communism there would be some with less and some with more, but no one with nothing.

 

[Spase]

I used to see less problems with communism.

Capitalism so far out performs communism in terms of innovation and productivity in most cases I'm aware of that it's hard to make a strong case for communism simply because eventually a communist society will inevitably be less wealthy by an ever increasing margin as compared to capitalist societies so that even the capitalist societies lower classes will be better off than if they were in the communist society.

I agree that a pure capitalism is not a good system, mostly because no protection for small business also inhibits innovation. The other problem is the progression of stratification of wealth in a society with a 'pure' capitalism.

If I had to name an ideal system it would be a form of capitalism where every child had the same strong education and opportunities. There would be massive inheritance tax to ensure that people didn't get a free pass from their parents to be useless. There would be opportunities to work for anyone who couldn't find real work to do really unpleasant jobs which would provide them with subsistence food and housing.

The goals of such a system would be to ensure as close to a real meritocracy as possible by giving everyone as equal a chance of success as possible which would mean the largest possible talent pool was being drawn from and to make sure that homelessness is a real choice where individuals can enroll in work programs.

Just my thoughts on the subject. Communism works from the precept that everyone should be treated equally.. and we shouldn't.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Capitalism as currently practiced is a Ponzi scheme. Communism failed, and Capitalism is failing... and frankly needs to. A blended system with lots of regulation is our best bet.

 

[Aught3]

Did you see that recent clip of the Daily Show? Stewart asked his financially inclined guest if there is any difference between a Ponzi scheme and an investment bank. The guest thought about it for a few seconds and finally said he was 'pretty sure' that investment banks were operating within the bounds of the law.

Doesn't give you much confidence.
btw, why do these sorts of things turn up on the Daily Show, aren't there any serious financial or political shows in the US?

 

[GoodKat]

btw, why do these sorts of things turn up on the Daily Show, aren't there any serious financial or political shows in the US?

Sure, the shows are plenty serious, they just aren't honest.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

btw, why do these sorts of things turn up on the Daily Show, aren't there any serious financial or political shows in the US?

The financial and political shows are all run for the benefit of the giant corporations who are just as profit-driven and amoral as the financial institutions that wrecked the economy. Jon Stewart gets away with it because he's on Comedy Central.

 

[COMMUNIST FLISK]

im against the whole buisness politic, industry and production should be about the people for the people by the people, not to make money for the owners of corperations so they can live in luxury while other starve/suffer etc. also people should do away with arbitary barriers that divide people and cause conflict (race, religion, the idea that male>female or one colour>than another colour)we shouldnt forget that we are the human RACE and we should work for the good of our species as a whole not seperatly thinking we are so differant that we need to be on opposite sides in some kind of war...... communism promotes equality, capitalism encourages it and requires it to work successfully.

I get the feeling this thread was started just to get people ranting and raving!

not totally, but in part yes

 

[Rosenrot]

Capitalism is the best way to go if you're planning to advance and progress.
Socialism in general allows no progression, so I'd say you should only apply socialism(/Communism) once the society can risk not progressing.

Without the goal of profit, it's hard to make money.
No money = no progress.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Socialism in general allows no progression.

There's no reason for that to be true.

 

[Rosenrot]

Well if progress is not rewarded, people are discouraged to progress, thus people won't.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Well if progress is not rewarded, people are discouraged to progress, thus people won't.

First of all, that's silly - even if progress is not rewarded, that hardly makes it discouraged.

Secondly, progress is its own reward. If societal morals were properly placed away from greed and towards joy in accomplished tasks, or joy in understanding, joy in simple comforts we'd be in a much better place. Instead our society has convinced us that the most important thing in life is owning shiny stuff. Preposterous.

Many of the people that cause the most progress in our society get jack shit in terms of reward, comparitively. For example: most scientists work ridiculous hours and get paid very little for the amount of expertise that is required... In fact, capitalism often drains societal energy AWAY from this sort of progress and puts it in completely anti-societal jobs like marketing, packaging, entertainment and such.

I do think capitalism does a pretty decent job of organizing society, but more is needed than pure capitalism to keep society moving forward.