Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Why is communism held in such a grave regard?
-
01-02-2011 6:12am#1We have all seen the dictatorships, but looking from the outside that seems to be because of these men who used "Communism" as an excuse to do what they please.
In "proper" Communism, if I may say, everyone has the same as everyone else. There is no hunger, poverty, there's universal health care. and no-one is extremely rich. It seems like a great model to be put in place, but why is it mentioned as the forefront of evil when it is brought up.
Capitalism isn't all angels, it's wrong to have a multi-billionaires yet drug addicts sleeping, living and pissing on the streets or people living in make-up shacks. What is peoples take?Tagged:3
Comments
-
We have all seen the dictatorships, but looking from the outside that seems to be because of these men who used "Communism" as an excuse to do what they please.
In "proper" Communism, if I may say, everyone has the same as everyone else. There is no hunger, poverty, there's universal health care. and no-one is extremely rich. It seems like a great model to be put in place, but why is it mentioned as the forefront of evil when it is brought up.
Capitalism isn't all angels, it's wrong to have a multi-billionaires yet drug addicts sleeping, living and pissing on the streets or people living in make-up shacks. What is peoples take?
Because it is impossible to see how communism would or could be implemented without massive repression.
Also, why should everyone "have the same" as everyone else? If someone has studied enough to become a doctor, or has founded their own successful business, should they not receive some kind of financial reward for their hard work? Why should the doctor "have the same" as, say, a waitress? (and I say this having worked as a waitress).
In wealthy countries, I think everyone should have equal access to high quality schools and decent health care (regardless of whether or not they are a doctor or a waitress). And I think society has an obligation to help those who cannot help themselves (or may need a little extra help): children, the mentally ill, etc. But there is a big difference between equality of opportunity (a social democratic goal) and equality of outcomes (the goal of communism as you seem to describe it).
Given that different people have different capacities and interests, I don't think income disparity will ever fully disappear; at best, the wealth generated by a market economy can be used to try and level the playing field somewhat. And given the history of communism, I think the social democratic market compromise is worth making, even if some people fall through the cracks.0 -
As above, why bother bettering yourself through education and hard work and not reap the rewards while some bum does feic all but receives the same as you.0
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
In "proper" Communism, if I may say, everyone has the same as everyone else...etc
Impossible due to human nature. Nowhere has 'communism' ever worked. And if you want examples of why, just ask any Cuban, Central or Eastern European, to name a few who have suffered under it, aged 40 or over.0 -
Capitalism isn't all angels, it's wrong to have a multi-billionaires yet drug addicts sleeping, living and pissing on the streets or people living in make-up shacks. What is peoples take?
What there are no drug addicts in communist states?
No rich party elite?
No poverty stricken populace?
History has shown this 'ism to be a terrible failure time and time again, lets not revisit it enough death and suffering was caused by it.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
We have all seen the dictatorships, but looking from the outside that seems to be because of these men who used "Communism" as an excuse to do what they please.
In "proper" Communism, if I may say, everyone has the same as everyone else. There is no hunger, poverty, there's universal health care. and no-one is extremely rich. It seems like a great model to be put in place, but why is it mentioned as the forefront of evil when it is brought up.
Capitalism isn't all angels, it's wrong to have a multi-billionaires yet drug addicts sleeping, living and pissing on the streets or people living in make-up shacks. What is peoples take?
For communism to work, a State would have to trample down the natural and beneficial instincts of the Human Person. The enterprising spirit, the individualistic spirit, and the desire to improve oneself would have to be snuffed out in order for communism to be implemented.
Second, communism works on the presumption that Governments know what is best for the individual, and what individuals require on a case by case basis. What may be more then adequate for one, may be the death knell for another.
Third, capitalism actualises the enterprising spririt of the human, and constantly strives from improvement. Communism is centralised, and rejects the right of the human being to participate in society to improve it for all. Under communism, Governmental providers of goods will be entitled to fix prices, determine the ceiling of quality for the same good, and will force people to enter into contracts with them. This is the opposite of what freedom and liberty is all about.0 -
Communism can work up to a certain point. Maybe a village sized population but once it goes beyond that it becomes a monster. I think village life in our recent past (and maybe still today) was a form of communism where people looked out for each other and took care of their own elderly/sick people.
What capitalism/globalisation has done is destroy the sense of community (communism?) and forced people into a more and more isolated/individual welfare stance where we tend not to care what happens to our neighbours once our own little world is rocking along nicely.0 -
Impossible due to human nature. Nowhere has 'communism' ever worked. And if you want examples of why, just ask any Cuban, Central or Eastern European, to name a few who have suffered under it, aged 40 or over.
Actually communism has and does work in monastic communities. Atheistic communism devoid of moral values in the sense of natural law are the ones that have slaughtered hundreds of millions.
Many may be unhappy with cuba but the largest economy in the world, the US, were exploiting Cuba for decades till Castro arrived and have embargoed them in an economic war ever since. Since Castro they still managed a higher literacy rate than the US and they dont have widespread slaughter. the church was frowned upon by Cuban communists but they eventually accepted it and religion is not repressed. i would contend it is the atheistic regimes that have caused the most damage and not necessarily the communist ones.
communism, fascism, democracy all don't work when human beings worship the material ( actually one can contend a breaking of the first commandment).
I would also suggest democracy as being the worst system of government... with the exception of all the other systems.0 -
Communisim delivers no incentive to sucseed, and therefore it fails.0
-
Advertisement
-
-
And like it or not, some people are just smarter, harder-working, and more skilled or talented than others.
Yes but most wealth is still inherited in spite of how hard people work. It is a myth of the Capitalist system. Yes it allows more mobility but it also preserves the position of the rich so much mobility is tokenism and probably done more by patronage than ability.0 -
-
On a national level, it is an abject failure.Actually communism has and does work in monastic communities. Atheistic communism devoid of moral values in the sense of natural law are the ones that have slaughtered hundreds of millions
This is the equivalent of saying the Napoleonic Wars were good because tinned food was invented.Many may be unhappy with cuba but the largest economy in the world, the US, were exploiting Cuba for decades till Castro arrived and have embargoed them in an economic war ever since. Since Castro they still managed a higher literacy rate than the US and they dont have widespread slaughter. the church was frowned upon by Cuban communists but they eventually accepted it and religion is not repressed. i would contend it is the atheistic regimes that have caused the most damage and not necessarily the communist ones
There is no oppression, censorship, disappearances, torture, curfew in Cuba then? Have you ever been there? Do you know any Cubans? If you do then talk to them. Then you can do a little research on the place.
How original.I would also suggest democracy as being the worst system of government... with the exception of all the other systems.0 -
Yes but most wealth is still inherited in spite of how hard people work. It is a myth of the Capitalist system. Yes it allows more mobility but it also preserves the position of the rich so much mobility is tokenism and probably done more by patronage than ability.
At least the capitalist system allows for mobility. People like Sean Quinn and Bill Cullen, who did not come from privileged backgrounds (from rural west Cavan and Dublins north inner city respectively) have become extremely rich because the capitalist system allowed them to use their entrepreneurial skills. In a communist system they would just be another drone on the factory floor.
Communism requires everyone to buy into it. It assumes all people are willing to fight for the same objectives, and once these are achieved that all people will work equally hard to maintain them. This is not possible and therefore communism is not possible without sever government oppression. If there are no other incentives to work hard (ie. wealth, progressing our career, self-fulfillment) people have to be forced to work productively.0 -
I think socialism and communism espousers makes the false assumption that people will work hard for a fair wage.
They just won't. People work for money.
Ok I know genetics can't explain everything but look at it this way. If someone living in the early human world conserved their energy by being lazy but managed to make it look to the rest of the tribe like they played their part they would have more energy for growth and reproduction.
If someone spent their time working as hard as possible they'd put themselves at risk of calorie deficit, injury and an inevitable exit from the gene pool.
Humans are not inherently good or honest. We need incentives for that.0 -
Actually communism has and does work in monastic communities.
Impossible in the real world though. That may be the case in certain places but that would be when a certain group of people have bought into it and renounced all possessions. They haven't had it forced upon them like other communist regimes.
While I do agree with the sentiments that everyone should have exactly the same chance, I don't believe communism is the way to go.0 -
I can't recall the source, but a few years ago I read an article about a survey that asked people if they would prefer to earn 50k where the majority earns about the same, or to earn 30k where everyone else make 10k. Most people went to the 30k, showing, in my view, that it is in human nature to compete for a better life than others.
There are also suggestions that instinctively females are more likely to be attracted to powerful and wealthy males.
Considering that this information is about natural instincts I would say that a system based on true equality could never occur.0 -
imho, the reason communism is held in such grave regard now is because Communists used to be the boogieman that Al'Que'ada are now and the propaganda that flooded the western world will be a long time dissapating. There is nothing intrinsically scary about communism, it's just an idea.0
-
Pete_Cavan wrote: »At least the capitalist system allows for mobility. People like Sean Quinn and Bill Cullen, who did not come from privileged backgrounds (from rural west Cavan and Dublins north inner city respectively) have become extremely rich because the capitalist system allowed them to use their entrepreneurial skills.
You have just done exactly what I illustrated. Promoted the myth of the token.
The whole point is "why is becoming rich a target?"
Well? Why is it? What benefits a man if he is rich and has no principles or values?
Why should the ability to sell someone shirt or to horse trade and make more money by valued above all else?
What about disabled people? If they find it difficult or impossible to become extremely rich where do they fit in the capitalist system that does not elevate them?
What about the billions of poor people who do have business skills but are denied developing them by rich capitalist economies?In a communist system they would just be another drone on the factory floor.
This is another element of the myth. allow the token poor guy mobility! Look I recently saw a documentary about Harrow or Eton scolarships. Kids of ten or eleven were examined. Iut of about ten thousand applicants they eventually picked three. These guys were expert debaters , maths whizzes, level five on piano or cello or some instrument. Incredible ability. Every year they take in these people and save then paying £28,000 or so a year fees. thats 150k plus to get to school leaving.
Now look at it another way. the academic and artistic results of Harrow are now raised by having 5-10 percent geniuses from the working class in each classroom. The other 9,997 "drones" don't come into the equation except for to compare these three.Communism requires everyone to buy into it.
How so . does not democracy?It assumes all people are willing to fight for the same objectives, and once these are achieved that all people will work equally hard to maintain them.
Whereas capitalism espouses laziness? and anyway you are in error. communism says each should work to the best of their ability and each get what they need.This is not possible and therefore communism is not possible without sever government oppression.
You are arguing a straw man . the idea that communism " assumes all people are willing to fight for the same objectives, and once these are achieved that all people will work equally hard to maintain them. " is a false premise!If there are no other incentives to work hard (ie. wealth, progressing our career, self-fulfillment) people have to be forced to work productively.
Funny how the communist monastic movement which was not based on individual wealth and actually had vows of poverty in some cases got by for over a millennium without forced labour then isn't it?0 -
Advertisement
-
Spudmonkey wrote: »Impossible in the real world though.
What? Monks dont live in the real world?
The eastern and western monastic movements were not part of society for over 1,000 years? I think they were in fact central to society . You seem to have a strange concept of "real world"That may be the case in certain places but that would be when a certain group of people have bought into it and renounced all possessions. They haven't had it forced upon them like other communist regimes.
But I was not referring to "regimes" who were atheistic as well and not just communist. I mean some regimes forced capitalism or fascism on people but you are not going to say it proves fascism or capitalism does not work are you?While I certainly agree with the idea that everyone should have exactly the same chance, I don't believe communism is the way to go.
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. It is a different issue as to saying "communism never works and capitalism is better" though0 -
Whereas capitalism espouses laziness? and anyway you are in error. communism says each should work to the best of their ability and each get what they need.
And how do you determine what my ability is and if I am working to the best of it?
Are you going to monitor my work to ensure I am doing it to the best of my ability?
What happens if I stop working to the best of my ability, will I continue to receive what you have determined I need?
Is there any incentive for me to work to the best of my ability if the guy next to me is not working to the best of his ability yet continues to receive what you have determined he needs?
What happens if everyone decides they no longer have the ability to work, does everyone still get what they need and if so how is it paid for?0 -
What? Monks dont live in the real world?
The eastern and western monastic movements were not part of society for over 1,000 years? I think they were in fact central to society . You seem to have a strange concept of "real world"
Your point? Hardly applies to modern society today does it unless everyone unknown to me is a monk? People who have entered monastic movements have in effect agreed to the terms and conditions of their new life. They have agreed to adopt this lifestyle. It may be an example of how communism works, but it could never be applied to society as a whole. How you can suggest so is beyond me.
I have never suggested that any regime forced upon anybody is right, have I?0 -
Pete_Cavan wrote: »And how do you determine what my ability is and if I am working to the best of it?
How do you determine what people get in capitalism where most wealth is inherited by people who just own things and do little or no productive work at all?
Im not suggesting how we implement communism just that that is the principle. from each according to their means to each according to their needs.Are you going to monitor my work to ensure I am doing it to the best of my ability?
One could ask the same of capitalism. The means of implementation are a different issue to accepting the principle.What happens if I stop working to the best of my ability, will I continue to receive what you have determined I need?
The point isnt whether you do or not or how much you get ,. the point is that in principle you espouse those ideals. WE may all sin but still espouse a sinless state.Is there any incentive for me to work to the best of my ability if the guy next to me is not working to the best of his ability yet continues to receive what you have determined he needs?
It isnt what I determine. it is what the person needs and the ability isnt determined by me either. ans again all this is separate to people contributing as much as they can and taking as much as they need.What happens if everyone decides they no longer have the ability to work, does everyone still get what they need and if so how is it paid for?
Again that is an implementation problem. It exists in capitalism too. what happens if everyone stops working? nothing gets produced and everyone eventually dies I suppose. It would not be something endemic to communism though.0 -
How do you determine what people get in capitalism where most wealth is inherited by people who just own things and do little or no productive work at all?
In a capital system it is determined by competition and markets. Again, how, in a communist system where everyone is required to work to the best of their ability, does the state determine what a persons ability is and if they are working to the best of it.Im not suggesting how we implement communism just that that is the principle. from each according to their means to each according to their needs.
Thats the thing about communism, it sounds great in theory, but it doesnt work in partice.One could ask the same of capitalism. The means of implementation are a different issue to accepting the principle.
With capitalism, what a person receives is determined by their ability, ie. if a person is better at a job than others they will receive more. Again you dodged my question, in a communist system, how does the state you monitor my work to ensure I am doing it to the best of my ability? Also, if I am no longer working to the best of my ability, does the state punish me?The point isnt whether you do or not or how much you get ,. the point is that in principle you espouse those ideals. WE may all sin but still espouse a sinless state.
More question dodging, in a communist system, what happens if I stop working to the best of my ability, will I continue to receive what you have determined I need?It isnt what I determine. it is what the person needs and the ability isnt determined by me either. ans again all this is separate to people contributing as much as they can and taking as much as they need.
Ok, it isnt you personally who determins my ability and what I need, it is the communism state. So how does the state determine my ability and what I need?Again that is an implementation problem. It exists in capitalism too. what happens if everyone stops working? nothing gets produced and everyone eventually dies I suppose. It would not be something endemic to communism though.
But with capitalism you have an incentive to work, in communism there is none. On the most basic level it is the existance of this incentive to work, or lack there of, that is the differenece between capitalism and communism. Your inability to answer the questions I have asked proves that an incentive is needed for people to work and therefore communism is not posible without an incentive. Wealth cannot be that incentive because it goes against the communism policy, so the only incentive communism has successfully used (in terms of maintaining communism) has been sever government oppression. I'd rather not have that, thanks very much.0 -
This post had been deleted.
Sure, some people may be born with or develop certain skills and aptitudes, but a capitalist system produces a situation where those from privileged backgrounds are born with significant and overwhelming advantages. For example, in college, I'm surrounded by some seriously dense people who walked into college from their private education, whereas some extremely talented and motivated people I went to school with didn't get the points because they simply didn't have the resources to excel.Impossible due to human nature. Nowhere has 'communism' ever worked. And if you want examples of why, just ask any Cuban, Central or Eastern European, to name a few who have suffered under it, aged 40 or over.
I'm sick of hearing this "human nature" argument because it's absolutely ridiculous. Humans aren't inherently greedy, generous, enterprising, lazy - humans are inherently diverse. Unfortunately, one of the consequences of living in a capitalist society is that in order to succeed in an area you would like to, you need to step on a few heads, and be born into significant privilege. A government is always going to attract greedy, corrupt people if one of the main incentives for getting into government is economic power.Yes but most wealth is still inherited in spite of how hard people work. It is a myth of the Capitalist system. Yes it allows more mobility but it also preserves the position of the rich so much mobility is tokenism and probably done more by patronage than ability.
Although I think capitalism is an inherently flawed system, I don't think communism is a viable alternative. I believe democratic socialism comprises the best elements of most political systems. In democratic socialist systems, people are given incentives to work, but everyone starts on a level playing field, and athough wealth can be accumilated, it can't be used to subjugate other people.
Before anyone says it, Cuba, Venezuela, Soviet Russia; none of them are examples of democratic socialist systems.0 -
No it isn't.TrollHammaren wrote: »I'm sick of hearing this "human nature" argument because it's absolutely ridiculous
Its the basic flaw.
People in power or positions of increasing wealth get greedy. In communism, this is hypocritical so it therefore fails.
Simple explanation of an impossible concept.0 -
No it isn't.
Its the basic flaw.
People in power or positions of increasing wealth get greedy. In communism, this is hypocritical so it therefore fails.
Simple explanation of an impossible concept.
Of course it's ridiculous; society couldn't function if humans were inherently greedy. Humans evolved through cooperation. It's no coincidence that greedy people in power happened to operate in dictatorships, capitalist, communist (and I do believe that communism is a flawed system), and monarchy systems. It's just a case of the wrong kind of people getting into power, and a system that facilitates this situation.
A lot of Native American tribes operated in a way that the chief of the tribe was the most generous, and the person who could offer the most to the tribe. Then of course the Europeans arrived and píssed all over them.0 -
Look "TrollHammaren" (??), I'm sure your faith in it is nice but you just seem to be in the mood for an argument. If you want to pfaff about on semantics or intrinsicities of social psychological studies then I'll desist if you don't mind.TrollHammaren wrote: »Of course it's ridiculous; society couldn't function if humans were inherently greedy. Humans evolved through cooperation.
It's no coincidence that greedy people in power happened to operate in dictatorships, capitalist, communist (and I do believe that communism is a flawed system), and monarchy systems. It's just a case of the wrong kind of people getting into power, and a system that facilitates this situation
Great. Thanks for that. I'll remember that when I next read Longfellow.TrollHammaren wrote: »A lot of Native American tribes operated in a way that the chief of the tribe was the most generous, and the person who could offer the most to the tribe. Then of course the Europeans arrived and píssed all over them.0 -
Advertisement
-
You have just done exactly what I illustrated. Promoted the myth of the token.
The whole point is "why is becoming rich a target?"
Well? Why is it? What benefits a man if he is rich and has no principles or values?
Why should the ability to sell someone shirt or to horse trade and make more money by valued above all else?
What about disabled people? If they find it difficult or impossible to become extremely rich where do they fit in the capitalist system that does not elevate them?
What about the billions of poor people who do have business skills but are denied developing them by rich capitalist economies?
This is another element of the myth. allow the token poor guy mobility! Look I recently saw a documentary about Harrow or Eton scolarships. Kids of ten or eleven were examined. Iut of about ten thousand applicants they eventually picked three. These guys were expert debaters , maths whizzes, level five on piano or cello or some instrument. Incredible ability. Every year they take in these people and save then paying £28,000 or so a year fees. thats 150k plus to get to school leaving.
Now look at it another way. the academic and artistic results of Harrow are now raised by having 5-10 percent geniuses from the working class in each classroom. The other 9,997 "drones" don't come into the equation except for to compare these three.
While I can get on board with some of what you say, you seem to be promoting a meritocracy, something communism surely is not. A free market system may not be perfect, in fact its far from perfect, but its the best of a bad bunch in terms of macro economic policies.How so . does not democracy?
No, democracy does not. The essence of democracy is providing the people a choice. The most popular choice wins out. Furthermore democracy is self correcting as it is open to change. Communism can be democratic if the people are offered a choice and the majority choose communism.
Whereas capitalism espouses laziness?
I would say communism does since I am only going to get the same as the person with the least ability, I only need to work as hard as them.and anyway you are in error. communism says each should work to the best of their ability and each get what they need.
And this is the crux of the problem....Its impossible to determine when someone is working to the best of their ability and everyone's needs are different.You are arguing a straw man . the idea that communism " assumes all people are willing to fight for the same objectives, and once these are achieved that all people will work equally hard to maintain them. " is a false premise!
To a certain extent communism doesn't assume it, it requires it.
Funny how the communist monastic movement which was not based on individual wealth and actually had vows of poverty in some cases got by for over a millennium without forced labour then isn't it?
Now who is using a strawman argument?0
![[Jackass]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/3178d191648ad5d2fb7722b96c5c616c.svg)
Advertisement