NationStates Jolt Archive

I personally think the idea is stupid.

No, the idea is brilliant. It's the practical side which always fucks up in communities of >300

No, the idea is brilliant. It's the practical side which always fucks up in communities of >300

I have heard that, but the thought that anyone would work hard when they dont need to is bs.

Average idea, no results to speak of.

eyyyyyyyyyyy!

Communism is love.

the thought that anyone would work hard when they dont need to is bs.


I work harder than I need to at times. Anyone can do the bare minimum, in any economic system, and still survive. I think communism would work worlds better than anything else if you have a group of motivated, moralistic, industrious, upstanding people.

I have heard that, but the thought that anyone would work hard when they dont need to is bs.

What about tribal societies? They didn't work for money or for personal gain. They worked for the good of the commune. The argument is that it is not human nature to work for your own benefit, but systems in which screwing over your fellow man in the pursuit of accumulation of wealth (i.e. feudalism and then capitalism) create a human overbearance towards selfishness.

I think Communism is a great idea, which industrially has good results but so far we haven't seen it perform politically. It requires consistent policy in the case of a gradual move to Communism, which means switching governmental parties is bad so you invariably end up with a one-ruler government, as multi-party Communist systems won't work because people have different ideas and extents of Communism (that's why the Eastern Communist countries were always at odds with each other). Unfortunately in the case of Communism we've only seen this one-party government manifest itself in selfish dictators and no true Communists with the interests of the commune at the fore. In the case of revolutions, the revolutionaries tend to form a dictatorship in defence of their revolution, so that obstructs the road to true Communism as well.

It's an incredibly difficult system to pull off a transformation to, but I think where Marx was wrong is in the idea of successive revolutions to bring about a socialist state. All that you will get is the proletariat, the middle class, and the upper class, and the top two will continually overthrow each other using the proletariat as their mass backing. No sooner will the middle class have taken power then they will shove the proletariat back into last position. I think that if a Communism is to be achieved, then it has to be done via gruadual change. For example, introduce social democracy and welfare states, being to nationalise key industries such as essential utilities, and take it from there, keeping a close eye on pesky trade unionism (that had Britain hostage at one point and it didn't work out).

I have, however, identified a few problems with a Communist economy (remember it is an economic system). For example, how does an artist earn their keep when there is no money to buy their art? Artists create works and depending on their popularity, they are bought or not. The indication of a country's culture in terms of art is which artists' work becomes popular, and for this to be gauged you can look at which artists become prosperous and which art styles are the most bought. Art is important, I feel, to society, but it would effectively die out in a Communist economy. What are you going to do... put each artist on the same salary? Buy their art no matter what it is? That simply doesn't make sense because it defeat the object of art as an expression of view. How popular that view is depends on how well the art does... and all expression of view isn't going to be worth the same amount now, is it?

Just my tuppence.

communism cannot be judged yet as it has not been properly tried in the optimum conditions in the way capitalism has. the russians, cubans et al were just very socialist governments trying to survive in a capitalist world.

it just seems selfish to me that people wouldnt want to work as a team, with the results of everyones hard work shared by the team. communism would solve the dreadful poverty of today, and also eliminate the sickening wealth of some people.

needless to say, i am impatiently awaiting the day when the time is right for communism to take over from capitalism. i think it will be this century when the poor of the world are SO poor, and SO numerous, that they will see no other way than to take from the super rich capitalists and spread the wealth.

While my reply to a certain NationStates issue is not consistent with this, I would leave art as a hobby. First the individual has an obligation to the state, though either manual or intellectual labor. If I wanted to live the life of an artist, I would not be likely to bother reaching for a demanding but more rewarding intellectual career, because my reward and contribution to society would be my art. I could live a happy existence working at the State fast food vender (the current ones having been assimilated into the government) and primarily focusing on my art. That way, I am still included in the equal distribution of resources (non-workers aren’t, considering everyone can get a job under good communism) but would still be essentially an artist.

The idea of it was great. Mainly it was supposed to provide equal things to everyone but once it was put into action the leader (Karl Marx I believe it was) didn`t act equal mostly he made it equality between the population except the leader lol. But i believe the idea of equality throughout people is a great idea if only the leader would follow it.

communism on paper is very nice, unfortuantly, humans are too stupid to make it work so it sucks in life.

By the way, you need to change the poll. Communism and Socialism are very different things, socialism works wonderfully in the world and its a great idea.

Communism and Socialism are very different things,

Only superficially. Differences in definitions of the two are not even universally consistent.

Communism has yet to completely work on a large scale, but I don't think that it is impossible. The nations which tried it have rushed things and faced overwhelming outside opposition. There are many socialists nations/nations with some socialists policies in place today (ie most developed nations) and they work much better than nations totally devoid of any socialist systems.

I think it's funny that people believe it is a good idea.

Hmm, if you work hard, you are given more work, if you need more you are given more.

Sorry, I think it's a bad idea when working hard only brings you more work and the only way you can make life more comfortable for yourself is to prove you need more than the next person.

Craig

Being that I am a Communist:

Great Idea, Great Results when done right.

Fantastic idea, never worked which has smeared the name of communism by ignorance and capitalist propoganda campaigns that ever more the chances of it working at any stage by any one are evaporating.

The idea of it was great. Mainly it was supposed to provide equal things to everyone but once it was put into action the leader (Karl Marx I believe it was) didn`t act equal mostly he made it equality between the population except the leader lol. But i believe the idea of equality throughout people is a great idea if only the leader would follow it.
Marx developed communism, never led it, andto quote Marx himself "Karl Marx is not a communist." The 20th Century communism that was actualized was quite different than Marxist Communism which he wrote about. Marxism should work in a world where all nations are communist as each nation would just produce what they have a competitive advantage in producing, only not competitive, communal.

At heart Capitalism and Communism share the same world goal, Universal equality (while Capitalism benefits a few aristocrats so does the Communist intelligencia). Both systems have their supreme flaws, that does not mean that either of them are unacheiveable however: if the entirety of the world supports the system chosen.

If only everyone was selfless and highly motived by benevolent ideals, it could actually work. We don't live in that world and the world where it would work doesn't need a government.

Communism can work, but so far, flawed theory, imperialism, and anti-communist sentiment have prevented successful implementation. The Left has to convince no less than 6 billion people to give socialist ideas a chance.

Hmm, if you work hard, you are given more work, if you need more you are given more.

Sorry, I think it's a bad idea when working hard only brings you more work and the only way you can make life more comfortable for yourself is to prove you need more than the next person.


I don't recall that being part of any communist theory I have ever heard of. Work is shared out equally based on the needs of everyone. Some might not do it (A minority, probably, just as most people obey most laws most of the time) and everyone lives in comparative comfort and well being (As opposed to super-luxury and super-misery)

It is not surprising there are differences of definition around Socialism and Communism - different factions have been trying to colonise the words and make them theirs exclusively - like different church factions always claiming they are the one true way and everyone else is doing Satan's work ...

Socialism and Communism, by any practical definition, are different things, however, and most self respecting socialists (Which I consider myself to be) would be very angry with anyone calling them 'Communist.'

So far as I'm concerned, Communism in and of itself isn't so bad of an idea, but Marx screwed it up long before any of his supporters had a chance to.

Communism is really the only way to implement socialism in large countries. Native Americans had socialism.

It's a good idea, but it just can't work.

I think it's funny that people believe it is a good idea.

Hmm, if you work hard, you are given more work, if you need more you are given more.

Sorry, I think it's a bad idea when working hard only brings you more work and the only way you can make life more comfortable for yourself is to prove you need more than the next person.

Craig

I believe he gets it from the Communist maxim: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

The thing is, though, Craig, that this would be work that people want to do. Don't you hear all the time about people who talk about jobs that don't seem like jobs, as they are just that much fun to people? Well, in a communist society, everyone would do exactly what they most want to do: the housebuilders will build houses, the cobblers will make shoes, the philosophers will philosophize. Those jobs (like trash detail) will be done by everybody. As such, doing more work will be like getting more candy, without the diabetes.

So stupid the person who thought it up shouldnt even have a grave

Equality sucks

Contrary to what many have said, Communism is not "a good idea on paper that fails in practice." It is in fact a bad idea on paper. Communism is not just practically inefficient, but (and more importantly) it is utterly morally bankrupt.

It is based on the idea that the individual is not an end in himself, but merely a means to some other end. It is based on the idea that the individual exists not for his own sake, but for the sake of others. It is based not on the greatest virtues of self-interest and greed and individualism but rather the basest obscenities of altruism and selfishness and collectivism.

It is based not on the greatest virtues of self-interest and greed and individualism but rather the basest obscenities of altruism and selfishness and collectivism.
You see the problem we have here is the fact that the majority of the people in the world would not call greed and self-interest good virtues little alone the greatest virtues. Peopel are social animals that is why the family has been so important through out history. It use to be, and often still is, that you would help out and work with the others in your family for the good of the family, this is why people would do things that wern't nesecarily in their best intrests like drop out of school in order to help suport their family. All socialism realy needs to happen for it to work is for people to extend their definition of family to include the entire human race. This isn't going to happen over night, but if enough people put their minds to it and are willing to work hard enough long enough it might prove to be possible sometime in the distant future.

You see the problem we have here is the fact that the majority of the people in the world would not call greed and self-interest good virtues little alone the greatest virtues.
Then those people are wrong.
Peopel are social animals that is why the family has been so important through out history. It use to be, and often still is, that you would help out and work with the others in your family for the good of the family, this is why people would do things that wern't nesecarily in their best intrests
OK, are people here REALLY that shallow, or do I just tend to attract those who are? After all, if one values the company and well-being of his family over his own education, then it is a very selfish thing to do to work to support the family. That should be obvious to anyone who actually takes the time to THINK.

I personally think the idea is stupid.

I agree.... bad idea, bad results

The ideal Communism calls for both social and economic equality. Social equality is wonderful and gives great results. But economic equality bothers me. Unrestricted laissez-faire usually creates monopolies, offers unfair wages, maldistributes the national wealth, &c; on the other hand, a socialized economy tends to limit property rights, ignores individual achievements, makes few incentives, &c. We need a healthy balance between the two extremes to provide the option of economic mobility.

I also don't like the method by which Communism should come about. Violent revolutions should be a last resort. Where I live, if one "class" of people begins to oppress the other, larger "class," then the larger one wins the elections and reforms the economic policy.

Communism in practice has a bad reputation of ignoring the social equality aspect as well.

Then those people are wrong.

OK, are people here REALLY that shallow, or do I just tend to attract those who are? After all, if one values the company and well-being of his family over his own education, then it is a very selfish thing to do to work to support the family. That should be obvious to anyone who actually takes the time to THINK.
Depends on your defenish of selfish I supose the one you are useing most definently isn't the one in the dictionary. The thing is that despite what you neocons want people are not only obsessed with what they see as best for them selfs. More often then not that is the case, but not always, any one who actualy spent time relating to people as humans instead of pawns and numbers should be able to recognize that.

Depends on your defenish of selfish I supose the one you are useing most definently isn't the one in the dictionary. The thing is that despite what you neocons
Who the hell are you calling a "neocon"? Neocons are most decidedly anti-capitalist.
want people are not only obsessed with what they see as best for them selfs. More often then not that is the case,
First, you're still being shallow. It is man's tendency to act in such a way that he perceives will give him an increase in that which he values--in other words, self-interest. It matters not the nature of that value--it may be friendship, material wealth, free time, whatever. Second, even if that were false, it's meaningless anyway since what men tend to do has no bearing on what they SHOULD do.
but not always, any one who actualy spent time relating to people as humans instead of pawns and numbers should be able to recognize that.
So by then I should recognize what you mentioned earlier, right? But I don't, because it's simply NOT TRUE--and even if it is true, it is meaningless in a discussion of objective moral principle.

It worries me how many people think that Communism has had great results. :( Try telling that to those who died in the gulags of Russia, or to those who were sent to Chinese re-education camps, or to those who watched their resources and environment be destroyed by years of civil war in places like Angola, Nicaragua, Vietnam,... or to those who could no longer freely practice a religion in places like Albania, Tibet,... And who here would support the North Korean version of Communism, which I will not bother to explain because I think you all understand it?

:(

It worries me how many people think that Communism has had great results. :( Try telling that to those who died in the gulags of Russia, or to those who were sent to Chinese re-education camps, or to those who watched their resources and environment be destroyed by years of civil war in places like Angola, Nicaragua, Vietnam,...

:(
I don't think they are saying that the things contry's claiming to be communist are good, but are saying that the results of a sucessfull inmplementation of communism would be a good thing.

Well, the red bastards will say that the USSR was NOT a Communist society--which is in fact true--I have read quite a bit of commie literature, which is how I have been able to determine that it is morally bankrupt. Their problem is that they refuse to accept the fact that the USA is not capitalist.

An actual Communist society would be much, much worse.

Well, the red bastards will say that the USSR was NOT a Communist society--which is in fact true--I have read quite a bit of commie literature, which is how I have been able to determine that it is morally bankrupt. Their problem is that they refuse to accept the fact that the USA is not capitalist.

An actual Communist society would be much, much worse.

I agree in part.

The USSR, though it had "morally bankrupt" people in power, did have very many aspects of a Communist economy. They tried to spread the population across the land evenly with their railway system. Stalin gave everyone an apartment. Transportation became much more communal with advanced subway networks. etc.

[QUOTE=Reason and Reality]Who the hell are you calling a "neocon"? Neocons are most decidedly anti-capitalist.

QUOTE]
All right if your not coming at this from a neocon perspective, but from a more people are bastards and are generaly motivated only by selfishness I can understand that. Though it does sound like your saying saying that selfishness is agood thing which using more common meaning it isn't, however from what I have gathered your definition isn't the same as the common definition, and seems to be in parts more comendable. However you said that someone displays selfishness when they work towords their ideals, under this definitions are socialist/communists not simply working towords their idels in perfect compliment with what you described as the greatest value of selfishness?

I don't think they are saying that the things contry's claiming to be communist are good, but are saying that the results of a sucessfull inmplementation of communism would be a good thing.

Successful implementation involves too much socio-economic engineering. I like many of my economic freedoms, including my freedom of location of residency, freedom to be unemployed, etc.

I also disagree with the Communist concept of people changing jobs however they want. Some jobs would end up with more workers than others. Supply would go up without the demand matching it. Jobs needing more training could end up with the underqualified. I like my doctors to be trained, personally.

All right if your not coming at this from a neocon perspective, but from a more people are bastards and are generaly motivated only by selfishness I can understand that.
No, I'm not. I'm coming from a "selfishness is a perfect virtue; therefore, selfish people are morally good" perspective.

Part of your problem is that you are completely ignorant of many ideologies and philosophical schools of thought that apply here. Specifically, I suggest you look up "moral objectivism", "Randian objectivism" (two entirely separate philosophical traditions genetically, although in substance they overlap), "egoism", "rationalism" and "libertarianism".

Though it does sound like your saying saying that selfishness is agood thing
Which it is.
which using more common meaning it isn't,
Nope, it still is.
however from what I have gathered your definition isn't the same as the common definition, and seems to be in parts more comendable. However you said that someone displays selfishness when they work towords their ideals, under this definitions are socialist/communists not simply working towords their idels in perfect compliment with what you described as the greatest value of selfishness?
The problem is twofold: first, they want to use coercive force to compel others to go along with them, which they simply have no moral right to do; second, though they are indeed acting in a selfish manner (albeit towards irrational, and therefore evil, goals), they do not recognize selfishness as a virtue--thus, they are again evil.

Of course, one has every right to be evil so long as he does not use coercive force against others--so as long as collectivists stick to words they are fully within their rights, even though they are evil. However, the instant they begin using (or attempting to use) government force to impose their desires upon others regardless of consent, they are to be stopped at all costs.

No, I'm not. I'm coming from a "selfishness is a perfect virtue; therefore, selfish people are morally good" perspective.

Part of your problem is that you are completely ignorant of many ideologies and philosophical schools of thought that apply here. Specifically, I suggest you look up "moral objectivism", "Randian objectivism" (two entirely separate philosophical traditions genetically, although in substance they overlap), "egoism", "rationalism" and "libertarianism".


Which it is.

Nope, it still is.

The problem is twofold: first, they want to use coercive force to compel others to go along with them, which they simply have no moral right to do; second, though they are indeed acting in a selfish manner (albeit towards irrational, and therefore evil, goals), they do not recognize selfishness as a virtue--thus, they are again evil.

Of course, one has every right to be evil so long as he does not use coercive force against others--so as long as collectivists stick to words they are fully within their rights, even though they are evil. However, the instant they begin using (or attempting to use) government force to impose their desires upon others regardless of consent, they are to be stopped at all costs.
First of I'm going by the dictionary defenition of selfishnesswhich as I said befor the majority say is a bad thing, which is fact the only debatable part is if they are right. Second not all communists want to use force to achieve their ends some plan on using the goverment to achieve them. You say that it is wrong for the goverment to force communism on capitilists why is it alright for capitilists to force capitilism on communists?


You know never mind I looked up some of the suff your talking about and all it basicly appears to mean is that if you dont agree with the concept formed by them you are immoral and subhuman. I other words if you don't agree with what they say you aren't human and it is alright for them to use force to deal with you. It seems to regect the posibiltiy that some one could logicaly come to a diferent conclusion then them. I know when I'm dealing with a closed mind and I know when it is pointless to deal with them. And before you go and say that by not accepting your stance I did gave you a chance I read over the philosophies base assumptions( all philosophies have them) and decided that I don't agree with them.

Id say lets agree to diagree, but aparently disagreeing with you means I'm not human so I don't think I'll bother in this instance.

The assumption I disagreed with is that humans are reasonable a quick glance at history will show you that that is not the case.

I work harder than I need to at times. Anyone can do the bare minimum, in any economic system, and still survive. I think communism would work worlds better than anything else if you have a group of motivated, moralistic, industrious, upstanding people.
which can not encompass the entire world because there are a lot of lazy people in the world.

which can not encompass the entire world because there are a lot of lazy people in the world.

Even if the world only contained the most motivated, idealistic people, I would still like the CHOICE to be lazy.

Only superficially. Differences in definitions of the two are not even universally consistent.

Ummm. . .no.

Communism is a system where the state controls everything a person has and dispenses everything a person gets. Communism is also an atheistic system as well as requiring everyone to follow the demands of the state, i.e. Stalin's Five Year Plans.

Socialism is none of those. You own private property, you can buy whatever you want. Yes, the government taxes the hell out of you but you get massive amounts of benefits in return. Any religion is allowed, you can voice opposition to the government, there are multiple parties, there is a moxed economy.

Those are some pretty big differences there cowboy.

Ummm. . .no.

Communism is a system where the state controls everything a person has and dispenses everything a person gets. Communism is also an atheistic system as well as requiring everyone to follow the demands of the state, i.e. Stalin's Five Year Plans.

Socialism is none of those. You own private property, you can buy whatever you want. Yes, the government taxes the hell out of you but you get massive amounts of benefits in return. Any religion is allowed, you can voice opposition to the government, there are multiple parties, there is a moxed economy.

Those are some pretty big differences there cowboy.

That's democratic socialism. Which is a flexible thing with varying degrees of being.

That's democratic socialism. Which is a flexible thing with varying degrees of being.

Thats basically what every socialistic system is. I don't think I've ever heard of a socialistic tyranny.

First of I'm going by the dictionary defenition of selfishnesswhich as I said befor the majority say is a bad thing, which is fact
And I have said nothing to the contrary.
the only debatable part is if they are right.
Which they aren't.
Second not all communists want to use force to achieve their ends some plan on using the goverment to achieve them.
How does government operate if not by coercive force?
You say that it is wrong for the goverment to force communism on capitilists why is it alright for capitilists to force capitilism on communists?
It's not--it's simply impossible. Capitalism being a system in which each individual is left free to do as he pleases so long as he honors his contracts and refrains from initiating physical force or fraud against the person or property of another individual without his consent, it is thus impossible to FORCE capitalism on anyone. It simply exists.


You know never mind I looked up some of the suff your talking about and all it basicly appears to mean is that if you dont agree with the concept formed by them you are immoral and subhuman. I other words if you don't agree with what they say you aren't human and it is alright for them to use force to deal with you.
Apparently you haven't--someone only becomes non-human when he himself attempts to initiate force against others. He may become evil before then, but his humanity is not renounced until he engages in actual initiatory physical force or fraud.

Also--stay away from the ARI whatever you do. They're a bunch of dogmatic idiots.
It seems to regect the posibiltiy that some one could logicaly come to a diferent conclusion then them.
Because such a possibility does not exist. All other possible conclusions are based on some combination of flawed logic and faulty premises.
I know when I'm dealing with a closed mind and I know when it is pointless to deal with them.
Then you should know that I'm not. If you can show that either (a) my conclusion does not follow from my premises or (b) my premises are incorrect, then I will have no choice but to change my mind. Can you? If you can't, then you have no choice but to change YOUR mind--it's the only honest way.
And before you go and say that by not accepting your stance I did gave you a chance I read over the philosophies base assumptions( all philosophies have them) and decided that I don't agree with them.
Nope, no base assumptions, just objective and fundamental facts. If you disagree with them, then you are disagreeing with reality itself, so you are incredibly wrong.

Id say lets agree to diagree, but aparently disagreeing with you means I'm not human so I don't think I'll bother in this instance.
No--disagreement only makes you evil. As I explained above, you only lose your humanity when you initiate (or attempt to initiate) physical force or fraud against the person or property of another without his consent.

The assumption I disagreed with is that humans are reasonable a quick glance at history will show you that that is not the case.
Such an assumption was not made. Read again.

I personally think the idea is stupid.


I agree, it is wishful thinking and an absurd lack of knowledge on the human mind.

I believe he gets it from the Communist maxim: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

The thing is, though, Craig, that this would be work that people want to do. Don't you hear all the time about people who talk about jobs that don't seem like jobs, as they are just that much fun to people? Well, in a communist society, everyone would do exactly what they most want to do: the housebuilders will build houses, the cobblers will make shoes, the philosophers will philosophize. Those jobs (like trash detail) will be done by everybody. As such, doing more work will be like getting more candy, without the diabetes.

Yet some people want to make money, some people get their satisfaction from completing a project to better their life.

Communists say that the Capitalist system alienates workers from their work.

I think it is Communism that does this. In a capitalist system you can obtain jobs where your effort and quality of work affects the rewards you get from it.

Communism takes this away, and makes work entirely independant on the reward for doing it.

It may sound nice, but what about the people who don't want to do a weekend of trash collecting, knowing that it is a waste of their time, that they are capable of far more intellegent, productive work?

Do you think everyone will be able to find a job they love, and then work hard at it when they see others slacking off and getting the same rewards?

When your income is not linked to your work, injustice is inevitable. By being "equitable" and "fair" you pave the way for the slackers to be held up by the hard workers. Getting the same outcome for different inputs is not equal, IMO.

Craig

Since it's Communism/Socialism in the poll, I assume that I'm allowed to point out Scandinavia. Now THAT, my friends, is Modern Socialism, AKA Uber Pawnzzorship.

You have to remember that a big part of the reason America has been so successful with capitalism is that we got lucky with having a shitload of easily-accessible natural resources, while the USSR had less accessible natural resources and many more unaaccessible ones that will be forever trapped in Siberia.

Also, if the USSR had been founded and led by people more like the US's great leaders (George Washington, etc.), they also would've been more successful.

If the USSR had been more like the US geographically and had leaders like the US, communism would've succeded, and this thread would be titled "What do you think of Capitalism?" and it would be in Russian, not English.

Since it's Communism/Socialism in the poll, I assume that I'm allowed to point out Scandinavia. Now THAT, my friends, is Modern Socialism, AKA Uber Pawnzzorship.
Social Democracy (aka, total welfare state) has seemed to work well in various European countries.

But communism, particularly the Marxist version, was a great idea for a utopia, but utterly fails unless every member of the community personally knows and respects every other member.

Basically, communism can work great in a family, or on a Boy Scout camping trip...but in larger groups it falls flat on its ass.