Why is communism held in such a grave regard?

southsiderosie

ISAW wrote: »

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.

Arguably you could say the same thing about capitalism. A society with a market economy but no moral values is one where corruption and greed can run amok.

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.

Not all humans are inherently greedy, but greed is certainly part of human nature. Most religions have both warnings against and dictates meant to prevent excessive greed (rules for charity; parables , etc). In secular societies, theoretically state laws will hedge against greed (reporting requirements, taxation, etc), but these are generally much weaker restraints than social and/or religious norms.

Again, this is another fatal flaw in communism - as it generally operates under a one-party system (operating in the best interest of the workers, of course), there is no check on greed within the ruling party or among elites. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Liam Byrne

ThisRegard wrote: »

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.

We have that in this country at the moment - Cowen, the Financial Regulator and others come to mind.

I don't know what to call what we have, but communism would be better than it.

Pete_Cavan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

We have that in this country at the moment - Cowen, the Financial Regulator and others come to mind.

I don't know what to call what we have, but communism would be better than it.

Here we go, it was only a matter of time. Can we have one thread without this crap? Not every thread in the politics forum is for Cowan/government bashing. There is more to politics than just Biffo.

TrollHammaren

JustinDee wrote: »

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.


Great. Thanks for that. I'll remember that when I next read Longfellow.

If you're going to be smart-arsed, cocky, and dismissive, then I don't see why you're posting here in the first place. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but behaving like a snobby prat is not good form.

"in the mood for an argument". You mean like arguing a point related to the question that was initially asked?

I'm coming at this from various levels: psychological, sociological, historical, political, micro, macro - disagree if you like, but disregarding them isn't helping you make a good case.

JustinDee

TrollHammaren wrote: »

If you're going to be smart-arsed, cocky, and dismissive, then I don't see why you're posting here in the first place. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but behaving like a snobby prat is not good form.

"in the mood for an argument". You mean like arguing a point related to the question that was initially asked?

I'm coming at this from various levels: psychological, sociological, historical, political, micro, macro - disagree if you like, but disregarding them isn't helping you make a good case.

Oh dear. Given the personals there, I'd call that a tad chippy.
It might feel like all sorts of levels covered from your perspective but from here, it just looks like some anonymous soul arguing on the internet just for the sake of it and over a slight too.

TrollHammaren

JustinDee wrote: »

Oh dear. Given the personals there, I'd call that a tad chippy.
It might feel like all sorts of levels covered from your perspective but from here, it just looks like some anonymous soul arguing on the internet just for the sake of it and over a slight too.

I love this whole condescending attitude you get when you argue with the arrogant, but it appears I'm wasting my time. I'll save my points for someone worth discussing with.

Liam Byrne

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Here we go, it was only a matter of time. Can we have one thread without this crap? Not every thread in the politics forum is for Cowan/government bashing. There is more to politics than just Biffo.

Firstly, "bashing" is a misnomer, because it's valid criticism.

And I was just saying that having someone take our money for doing nothing is not unique to Communism.

People view capitalism or whatever as if it has succeeded; it hasn't......it has just been reintroduced every time it failed by those with enough money and power.

Duke Leonal Felmet

JustinDee wrote: »

On a national level, it is an abject failure.


This is the equivalent of saying the Napoleonic Wars were good because tinned food was invented.
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.

It's such a naff statement too, it's like saying Usain Bolt is the slowest runner in the world... except for all the other runners.

JustinDee

TrollHammaren wrote: »

I love this whole condescending attitude you get when you argue with the arrogant, but it appears I'm wasting my time. I'll save my points for someone worth discussing with.

If you want to get through your college years, you'd better take a different tact when debating, "TrollHammaren".
You just come across as a bit too chippy to be taken seriously.

Duke Leonal Felmet

I would like to be fair to proponents of Communism.

In my opinion, the colectivisation of all state output for equal distribution among all people requires that the state is endowed with massive powers, both politically and economically.

How does a proponent suggest that these powers do not lead to despotism or totalitarianism?

Spudmonkey

Liam Byrne wrote: »

People view capitalism or whatever as if it has succeeded; it hasn't......it has just been reintroduced every time it failed by those with enough money and power.

Liam, don't go lumping what Cowen et al have done under Capitalism.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Firstly, "bashing" is a misnomer, because it's valid criticism.

And I was just saying that having someone take our money for doing nothing is not unique to Communism.

People view capitalism or whatever as if it has succeeded; it hasn't......it has just been reintroduced every time it failed by those with enough money and power.

Hi Liam, you do realise that people today are vastly more wealthy than they were fifty years ago, hundred years ago, two hundred years ago, etc? Not just the rich (as you probably assume), but say, the average real wage of a labourer? Whether you like capitalism or not, you cannot deny it's success, even with it's instability.

If you don't believe me, I can provide the evidence (im on a phone now, so later).

amacachi

I am sick to the back teeth of people pointing at capitalism "failing" when communism or socialism is criticised. Capitalism (like communism to be fair) has never failed because it has never been tried.
The main thing (IMO) that capitalism has on its side is human nature. Attempts to have communism usually end up eliminating any threats which isn't exactly what I would call equality. I've also noticed a trend in the area I've been reading in lately that it seems the first and last signs of human settlement is a market emerging spontaneously, as I said, human nature.

TrollHammaren

JustinDee wrote: »

If you want to get through your college years, you'd better take a different tact when debating, "TrollHammaren".
You just come across as a bit too chippy to be taken seriously.

I'll just use your approach, then; I'll shrug off an argument with an arbitrary decision as to what's to be taken seriously.

You just come across too arrogant to be taken seriously.

Einhard

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think that's a rather extreme position to take, especially because it's the spreading of money around which makes a society safe and stable enough for those who create the wealth to succeed. A bitterly divided society would be counter productive to the creation of wealth. Having their money spread around to an extent, is the price the wealthy pay in order that they hold onto their wealth. Also, much of the world's wealth is accumulated through accident of birth, and not necessarily through skill and hard work.

sarumite

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Firstly, "bashing" is a misnomer, because it's valid criticism.

And I was just saying that having someone take our money for doing nothing is not unique to Communism.

People view capitalism or whatever as if it has succeeded; it hasn't......it has just been reintroduced every time it failed by those with enough money and power.

"Democracy is the worst form of government....except for all the others" Winston Churchill

I believe the same can apply to capitalism.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I would like to be fair to proponents of Communism.

In my opinion, the colectivisation of all state output for equal distribution among all people requires that the state is endowed with massive powers, both politically and economically.

How does a proponent suggest that these powers do not lead to despotism or totalitarianism?

Any proponent want to have a crack at this? Surely a supporter of Communism must have a mechanism in their mind to prevent totalitarism occuring?

JustinDee

TrollHammaren wrote: »

I'll just use your approach, then; I'll shrug off an argument with an arbitrary decision as to what's to be taken seriously.
You just come across too arrogant to be taken seriously.

Seriously, how can you take things personally with an anonymous moniker like Troll's Hammer in Norwegian/Swedish/Danish?
Relax. Its just a thread and people will disagree with you. Sånn er livet.

ei.sdraob

sarumite wrote: »

"Democracy is the worst form of government....except for all the others" Winston Churchill

I believe the same can apply to capitalism.

capitalism is not a "form of government"

sarumite

ei.sdraob wrote: »

capitalism is not a "form of government"

No its not....I guess I thought you would be able to figure out where I was going with it...i.e that it is the worst form of whatever it is (in this case economic policy) except for all the others. I guess not.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RandomName2

CorkMan wrote: »

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?

In proper communism if you do more work your produce is stolen off you so that everyone has the same as everyone else. Nobody likes this arrangement so you need a powerful militaristic party to maintain this equality.

In a capitalist society if you are more successful, you will have more money. It has flaws but the ideas concerning the benevolence of communism are so easily debunked it is amazing that anybody still even gives it a passing glance, let alone respect.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I would like to be fair to proponents of Communism.

In my opinion, the colectivisation of all state output for equal distribution among all people requires that the state is endowed with massive powers, both politically and economically.

How does a proponent suggest that these powers do not lead to despotism or totalitarianism?

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Any proponent want to have a crack at this? Surely a supporter of Communism must have a mechanism in their mind to prevent totalitarism occuring?

The silence has spoken.

Liam Byrne

RandomName2 wrote: »

In a capitalist society if you are more successful, you will have more money.

So explain to me how failed developers, failed bankers and the worst governments and regulators in history have more money than me ?

In a capitalist society the biggest chancers and con-artists with the least ethics have more money.

I guess it depends on your definition of success.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So explain to me how failed developers, failed bankers and the worst governments and regulators in history have more money than me ?

In a capitalist society the biggest chancers and con-artists with the least ethics have more money.

I guess it depends on your definition of success.

They are still rich because of corruption in politics. Had pure capitalism been allowed to run its course, they all would have been wiped out. Capitalism was failed, in that case.

Are we talking about a (very generalised) economic system or a political system? Capitalism is a very flakey definition, but I don't think it is a system of governance.

Liam Byrne

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

They are still rich because of corruption in politics. Had pure capitalism been allowed to run its course, they all would have been wiped out. Capitalism was failed, in that case.

Are we talking about a (very generalised) economic system or a political system? Capitalism is a very flakey definition, but I don't think it is a system of governance.

It's a fair point, and I alluded to it already by saying "whatever you call what we have".

But it proves that greed and wrongdoing will always subvert a proper system, which is why I wonder why the same logic isn't put out as the reason communism or socialism failed.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It's a fair point, and I alluded to it already by saying "whatever you call what we have".

But it proves that greed and wrongdoing will always subvert a proper system, which is why I wonder why the same logic isn't put out as the reason communism or socialism failed.

Greed and wrongdoing will subvert any economic system, but there does exist a historical oddity in that the implementation of one economic system tends itself towards totalitarianism, despotism and genocide; while the other leans towards corruption and income inequality.

But yes, both are subverted by greed and wrongdoing.

gbee

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not really. Our current industrial age was started mostly by the gentry and the ruling Protestant parties worldwide.

Low wages and even slavery was a driving force in the creation of wealth. Not everyone had an opportunity to engage in business. Business were tightly controlled and power kept absolute.

We are still playing this same game today, except there are far less gentry controlling everything and making the world dance or squirm.

Today, there are more opportunities, but these depend on finance, you won't arrive on foreign shores and start a shop on the beach and end up owning the beach in a few years.

You can't buy a farthing toy in Woolworth's and sell it outside the store for a halfpenny and buy more to make the Dunne's Empire [today].

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We cannot pretend that society, and in particular the behavior of the government does not affect wealth creation, and not just negatively. Transport infrastructure affects commerce; education and public health impact the workforce. These are things that I do not think can credibly be left solely to the public sector. There is also an argument that culture plays a role, whether a culture of entrepreneurship, savings, or corruption.

Also, while people have different levels of drive and skill, let's not pretend that a lot of wealth creation isn't related to power: the power to evade taxes and to limit competition through favorable trade, licensing and tariff regulations. This is a critical problem in many developing countries, particularly in oligarchic societies. This is not something I think that communism can address - indeed, it seems to exacerbate the problem - but it is also something to be mindful of in capitalist societies as well, especially in an era where anti-trust laws have been greatly weakened.

As for "pernicious effects", let's also not pretend that high levels on income inequality do not have a pernicious effect on society. Again, using Latin America as an example, historically the wild swings between right-wing authoritarianism and left-wing populism (and often authoritarianism) are largely traceable to incredibly high levels of income inequality which have a dramatic effect on social welfare, civil society, public security, investment in infrastructure, etc.

Finally, as to the "fragile" climate a strong state presents for entrepreneurship and innovation, a weak state can be just as bad, if not worse. To quote Hobbes, "In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."