NationStates Jolt Archive

i personally believe that if acommunist government were to run for 150 years, it would be the most succesful government in the world
Agree or Disagree? WHy?

i disagree because other forms of government have already lasted longer than that so THEY must be the most successful.

what form of communism do you have in mind?

A real, democratic, communist government, maybe. But historically communism has been used only as a way to trick the populace into establishing a totalitarian state. For communism to work it has to have real elections.

It depends how you measure success, but if people have to suffer for 150 years (in a similar way to that which has occured under other communist regimes) before the country is "successful" I wouldn't regard that as a great success!

Reagan said it was evil and "athiest", so till the end of time, all Republican Americans will call everyone who has views that oppose theirs "communist", without even knowing what communism really is about.

If it was possible, then yes, it would be pretty orgasmic. But that's just a wet dream, as practicable communism always results in what I dub "pseudo-communism", which authoritarian economically as well as socially.

In theory, true communism is the best type of government there is.
In reality, it can't work. People have no incentive to strive for excellence, and as a result, productivity declines and nobody works hard. The obvious alternative to this is to force people to work hard, but then your government becomes tyrannical.

As a system, it is just too easily corrupted. Not t mention it creates a static society, and static societies are unable to adapt to changing environments, hence they crumble sooner or later anyway.

It sounds so right when you read Marx, but if confronted with reality, it just cannot compete with any other society, and will soon degenerate into a nightmare for everyone involved.

In theory, true communism is the best type of government there is.
In reality, it can't work. People have no incentive to strive for excellence, and as a result, productivity declines and nobody works hard. The obvious alternative to this is to force people to work hard, but then your government becomes tyrannical.

Unless you raise effort by democratic mandate. In today's world violent revolutions are bound to fail, but if the culture slowly changes we may yet have a good government. Communism would need to be adjusted to take advantage of self-interest rather than the other way around.

:confused: I didn't understand one sentence of that.

In theory, true communism is the best type of government there is.
Though I think communism is pretty good, my personal belief is that anarchy is the ideal form of government. It's just that anarchy is even less realistic than communism. :(

Though I think communism is pretty good, my personal belief is that anarchy is the ideal form of government. It's just that anarchy is even less realistic than communism. :(
Well, when you actually get to the logical conclusion of Marx's dialectic, there's only a little difference between Communism and Anarchy.

i personally believe that if acommunist government were to run for 150 years, it would be the most succesful government in the world
Agree or Disagree? WHy?
Disagree - how do you plan on preventing the erosion of civil liberties, which have seemingly eroded everytime there's a communist revolution?

i personally believe that if acommunist government were to run for 150 years, it would be the most succesful government in the world
Agree or Disagree? WHy?

Communism will only work when it is small, voluntary, and outside of any sort of governmental control.

Disagree - planned economies always crumble within years, after 150 years, that nation would be on the economical level of Liberia, down from the booming industrialised nation communism is made for.

Disagree - how do you plan on preventing the erosion of civil liberties, which have seemingly eroded everytime there's a communist revolution?
The erosion of those civil liberties take place due to the single person (or persons) in power remove them. Under a true Communist regime there would be no such problem as there would be no single leader rather everything would be controlled by the whole, so why would they remove their own civil liberties?
It's for that reason that a true Communist society won't function, at least not within my lifetime. If the human race survives long enough though, it might actually grow up enough to realise the dream...

Though I think communism is pretty good, my personal belief is that anarchy is the ideal form of government. It's just that anarchy is even less realistic than communism. :(

Anarchy works, the Amish would qualify as would the various communes in Spain prior to the Spanish Civil War.

Well, when you actually get to the logical conclusion of Marx's dialectic, there's only a little difference between Communism and Anarchy.
I know, but unfortunately the end result of Marxism in practise is closer to fascism than anarchy.

Communism will only work when it is small, voluntary, and outside of any sort of governmental control.
Err...communism is a form of government. I think you mean national governmental control or something along those lines.

Anarchy works, the Amish would qualify as would the various communes in Spain prior to the Spanish Civil War.
Yes, it works in small situations, just like communes. In fact, I think there is a city in Denmark, if I recall, that is currently anarchist. But I'm referring to large-scale anarchy.

Anarchy works, the Amish would qualify as would the various communes in Spain prior to the Spanish Civil War.
how in the world would the amish qualify??
they live by very strict very harshly enforced rules

In theory, true communism is the best type of government there is.
In reality, it can't work. People have no incentive to strive for excellence, and as a result, productivity declines and nobody works hard. The obvious alternative to this is to force people to work hard, but then your government becomes tyrannical.

What he said.

how in the world would the amish qualify??
they live by very strict very harshly enforced rules

Anarchy != no rules.

Anarchy = no rulers.

I'll pass on whether the Amish fit this description or not.

I partially disagree because human nature would make us be lazy.
But if you mixed socialism w/ capitalism.....well that is what I would like. :)

:headbang: the problem is ppl.
i mean, if ur gonna be opressive and terrorize ur ppl, make sure it isnt too overt, an toss the ppl a bone or two every once in a while.

no not really..

ask DA

Err...communism is a form of government. I think you mean national governmental control or something along those lines.

True communism has no government. It is swept away by the "dicatorship of the poletariat" as Marx calls it. Once they step down, there is no government as we know it today. I've read some of Marx's stuff. Communism is supposed to be sufficient without a government.

Of course, I always wonder why the "dicatorship of the poletariat" would be more induced to give up power any more than any other governmental structure. Which is why communism ends up being so close to fascism. Everything else important is swept away. The only thing left is the state. And any and all methods will be used to preserve the state, including depriving people of standard civil rights. If you think American prudes are bad, you should have seen the Soviet Union. They sent homosexuals to the gulag.

i personally believe that if acommunist government were to run for 150 years, it would be the most succesful government in the world
Agree or Disagree? WHy?
Disagree. Why? Mao Tse-tung+Josef Stalin=approx. 130 million dead. Is that reason enough?

Disagree - planned economies always crumble within years, after 150 years, that nation would be on the economical level of Liberia, down from the booming industrialised nation communism is made for.
Not true, communism fails, planned economies don't.

Communism is leftist thrash that is completely unrealistic. Anyone who is still Communist today(after being informed of all the failed attempts of Communism in history) is a waste of flesh and bones....

Well, communism is inherently flawed.

1. No popular movement has ever been accomplished without a leader. Never. And with a leader, there is always an imbalance of power. Espescially if the leader continues to hand down the power to his lieutenants.

2. The usual lazy people argument. We all know it to be true, why should I re-iterate it here.

3. With your democracy thing, do you mean a direct democracy? Because if you mean a representative system there is also a power imbalance, and if you mean direct democracy, well, there's problems with that.
-The sheer logistics of a worldwide direct democracy are enought to drive one nuts.
-The people are most certainly not gifted with the ability to always make the right decision. I mean, after all the witch hunts of the middle ages were actually popular actions. Hell, the Jesuits attempted to stop them in fact.
-To count the votes is naturally a system in which the power imbalance exists. Also in the implementation of the will of the voters.
4. Violation of the right to life, liberty and property.
5. Chance for a demagouge. We all know about this one as well, I need not explain it further.

Well, communism is inherently flawed.

1. No popular movement has ever been accomplished without a leader. Never. And with a leader, there is always an imbalance of power. Espescially if the leader continues to hand down the power to his lieutenants.

2. The usual lazy people argument. We all know it to be true, why should I re-iterate it here.

3. With your democracy thing, do you mean a direct democracy? Because if you mean a representative system there is also a power imbalance, and if you mean direct democracy, well, there's problems with that.
-The sheer logistics of a worldwide direct democracy are enought to drive one nuts.
-The people are most certainly not gifted with the ability to always make the right decision. I mean, after all the witch hunts of the middle ages were actually popular actions. Hell, the Jesuits attempted to stop them in fact.
-To count the votes is naturally a system in which the power imbalance exists. Also in the implementation of the will of the voters.
4. Violation of the right to life, liberty and property.
5. Chance for a demagouge. We all know about this one as well, I need not explain it further.

No, the implementation is flawed. The USSR's leadership was corrupted by the power and trust given to them by the public, making it into a sham communist state.

One day there may be a socialist or communist government that does actually work, but now? We are still too power hungry a race of beings to not be corrupted.

The above may not fit exactly with the discussion, but it's what I wrote months ago on a similar thread and seemed to fit pretty good.

6. The danger of content. For, if a people become too content, their happiness leads to stagnation, and stagnation is bad. Stagnation leads to destruction.

7. The failure of even small communal societies, such as the Zoar Village or Oneida Community in the US. Don't even call the Paris Commune a success because it lasted like what, two months?

My eyes are bothering me really really badly, I shall have to go, I'd love to elaborate, but I can barely see for some reason. Yech.

No, the implementation is flawed. The USSR's leadership was corrupted by the power and trust given to them by the public, making it into a sham communist state.

One day there may be a socialist or communist government that does actually work, but now? We are still too power hungry a race of beings to not be corrupted.

The above may not fit exactly with the discussion, but it's what I wrote months ago on a similar thread and seemed to fit pretty good.
I said nothing about the USSR,. I'm just expounding upon the common complaints about communist theory. You're reading way too much into my statement.

How do you know humanity will change? I mean, over the last 5000 years it hasn't changed. All societies have been hierarchical in nature. And I'll contest that it is in our genetic code that humanity attempts to order society in this way.

True communism has no government.
No, that is the eventual goal of Marxism, but not actual communism. The goal of communism is collectivism, which is similar to anarchy but even less realistic. "True" communism, as you put it, would have collective government, my second favourite, also just as impracticable. But measuring communism using the biaxial governmental system would put it at complete economic control by the government and no social control. Economic control is half of the government, however, so it really is circumstancial on the specific commune (since anything larger obviously deviates from communism).

Communism is leftist thrash
Could I then argue that fascism is rightist trash?

I think you're both kinda right.

Its only killed 100 million people, lets give it another chance!!!

Communism is a tried and failed system that does not function to make things better for people but in fact makes them worse.

Also, its limits on personal liberty are intolerable.


Communism is a failed attempt at the sort of socialism which enjoys broad and deep success in places like scandinavia and canada.

Could I then argue that fascism is rightist trash?

Fascism is never to be compared with Communism. The two are never to be compared simply because Fascism is a political system that WORKS. In fact the only way for a Fascist nation to not work is if it is being overwhelmingly invaded by other nations who hold an irrational hate against it(as WWII has showed) So in short even though Fascism might be a political system that is hated by many, it has stablized and strengthened every country that has embraced it. Communism on the other hand has never had any possitive effects on any nation that has embraced it(or attempted to embrace it).

Yes it would- If it stems from capitalism as Marx predicted.

The one thing all "communist" nations of the 20th century and today hold in common is that they bypassed completely the capitalist stage of development and were never free societies to begin with. This is the reason that a brutal dictatorship results.

If it were to come about in a nation with a democratic tradition, the results would be wildly different. The likelihood of this happening is questionable though.

Fascism might be a political system that is hated by many, it has stablized and strengthened every country that has embraced it.

Yeah, tell that to the Germans.

Yeah, tell that to the Germans.
From a national standpoint, he is wholly correct. Nazism brough Germany out of the pit it was in and just overall improved the nation. Then there was the whole humanitarian aspect, but from a pragmatic viewpoint, it actually is a very good system of government.

From a national standpoint, he is wholly correct. Nazism brough Germany out of the pit it was in and just overall improved the nation. Then there was the whole humanitarian aspect, but from a pragmatic viewpoint, it actually is a very good system of government.

Oh, yes, but it works only so far as others are willing to tolerate it. :p

Though it is a point. The reason it's so scary is because it *does* work, albeit in the most evil way possible.

Communism won't work, no matter how you set it up, because at its basic, root tennant, it assumes people will voluntarily give up what they have to help their neighbors and everyone will share everything. This flies in the face of human nature which to grab all I can for myself (and maybe my family and friends). If you have to "force" people to "share the wealth" then you become a police state. Love all, share all, nice theory, but it won't work.

Communism won't work, no matter how you set it up, because at its basic, root tennant, it assumes people will voluntarily give up what they have to help their neighbors and everyone will share everything.
Interesting...that's why there are fully functioning communes, right?

Communism won't work, no matter how you set it up, because at its basic, root tennant, it assumes people will voluntarily give up what they have to help their neighbors and everyone will share everything. This flies in the face of human nature which to grab all I can for myself (and maybe my family and friends). If you have to "force" people to "share the wealth" then you become a police state. Love all, share all, nice theory, but it won't work.

Ah, but if at our roots we truly wished to grab all for ourselves, why did we even bother to cooperate and form cities? Why didn't the human race just go around beating up people with clubs and stealing their food (and possibly women) for all eternity?

One day, perhaps humanity will realise that cooperation is more productive than selfishness. We are capable of it.

This has been done before. Oh well...

Communism wouldn't work because the government would't be efficient enough to organize and delegate out decisions without a leader(plus everything else Andalucie said). Imagining that you have to vote everytime a new ruling is taken out. Eventually, it would avert to fascism.

The only true communists are the Borgs. Collective minds joined to each other.

Communism won't work, no matter how you set it up, because at its basic, root tennant, it assumes people will voluntarily give up what they have to help their neighbors and everyone will share everything. This flies in the face of human nature which to grab all I can for myself (and maybe my family and friends)..
I'm suspicious of anyone who claims to know about human nature. This applies if one claims that man is by his nature competitive or if one claims he is by his nature co-operative. The reason, simply said, is that we cannot observe a human being outside of a particular environment, so how much of what you call human nature is actually determined by the society you live in and how much is actually determined by innate characteristics, is next to impossible to know for sure. So, perhaps we're competitive because the environments we were raised in reinforces competition. Even if you consider those raised behind the Iron Curtain, I don't suppose that Soviet Police states really helped reinforce being nice and co-operating with others.

One day, perhaps humanity will realise that cooperation is more productive than selfishness. We are capable of it.
If only, if only. We are not ants, as awesome a collective government even mildly relative to formican organisation would be.

If only, if only. We are not ants, as awesome a collective government even mildly relative to formican organisation would be.

Not at all, if it was decentralised and communal on a local level.

Even if you consider those raised behind the Iron Curtain, I don't suppose that Soviet Police states really helped reinforce being nice and co-operating with others.

Heheh. That would be brainwashing wouldn't it? I thought they did. Love the motherland!

Not at all, if it was decentralised and communal on a local level.
No, we will still never even be mildly analogous to ants. We can come pretty close to a comparison, but it would take radical differences in the human psyche to get to an ant level.

No, we will still never even be mildly analogous to ants. We can come pretty close to a comparison, but it would take radical differences in the human psyche to get to an ant level.

Tsk, I don't want to be like an ant. We are all individuals, but we can transcend selfishness and create a cooperative society. There will always be differences, and society can never be "perfect" but I belive we can have something close to it while retaining individuality, if not individual ownership.

Heheh. That would be brainwashing wouldn't it? I thought they did. Love the motherland!
Love the motherland for sure...or else. As for cooperating, it's hard to do when you're encouraged to turn in anyone who thinks the wrong way, and any of your "comrades" might do you the same favour.

Tsk, I don't want to be like an ant.
Well then, your loss. Ants are the most incredible organisms on the face of this planet, and anyone who doesn't want to be like them in in denial. DENIAL, YOU HEAR ME?!?!

IMO, the reason communism fails is due to division of labor problems. Why should I be motivated to bust my @ss for years studying to be a scientist, while my neighbor gets a job as a garbage man post-high school, only to make the same amount of money as me. Also, not everyone can have the glamour job as an actor or have some other sinecure-type position!

Why should I be motivated to bust my @ss for years studying to be a scientist, while my neighbor gets a job as a garbage man post-high school, only to make the same amount of money as me.
Because science is so fecking interesting? For good scientists, money is not an issue.

IMO, the reason communism fails is due to division of labor problems. Why should I be motivated to bust my @ss for years studying to be a scientist, while my neighbor gets a job as a garbage man post-high school, only to make the same amount of money as me. Also, not everyone can have the glamour job as an actor or have some other sinecure-type position!

What's more rewarding? Contributing to science and having your name remembered in history, or shovelling rubbish?

(And under communism, hollywood doesn't exist, i'm afraid.)

Because science is so fecking interesting? For good scientists, money is not an issue.

exactly...look at the problem facing US and western europen scietific institutions--the US can only fill about 55% of grad student opening in the natural sciences with domestic students. science pays very well here (you even get paid pretty well to be in grad school), what do you think would happen if there was no monetary incentive to pursue high level jobs such as these? your scientific program would be crippled unable to compete with capitalist nations.

(And under communism, hollywood doesn't exist, i'm afraid.)


ok, insert some other "glamorous job"

exactly...look at the problem facing US and western europen scietific institutions--the US can only fill about 55% of grad student opening in the natural sciences with domestic students. science pays very well here (you even get paid pretty well to be in grad school), what do you think would happen if there was no monetary incentive to pursue high level jobs such as these? your scientific program would be crippled unable to compete with capitalist nations.

The Soviet Union, while a poor example of socialism IMO, boasted many brilliant scientists. I don't see how that point is valid?


ok, insert some other "glamorous job"

I can't think of any that would exist in a non-capitalist system. Music, literature, acting, etc. would all become hobbies persued completely for the love of it.

One day, perhaps humanity will realise that cooperation is more productive than selfishness. We are capable of it.

In a capitalistic democracy, people will behave selfishly, however, the entire group will be working towards the same goal, which is happiness and a higher standard of living. And when the collective all works toward the same thing, progress will be made.

I like a to use an analogy of a river. When you break down the current of a river you get it down to molecules, all of them completely apathetic to the molecules surrounding them. Their only goal is to travel the path of least resistance. There is no need for them to not act selfishly as they are all working towards the same end, and even though they may vary in their path, they will all move in the same direction. If they were all forced to cooperate and move as one the stream would be too rigid to progress as freely.

Unless you raise effort by democratic mandate. In today's world violent revolutions are bound to fail, but if the culture slowly changes we may yet have a good government. Communism would need to be adjusted to take advantage of self-interest rather than the other way around.

And in doing so create a government with more power than the people, and therefore turn it into something that is not communism.

There is no actual way for communism to exist based on human nature (or at least the little that we know of it). There will always be dissent among the populace unless the group of people being governed is very small and like-minded (50-200 people max), and as long as there is dissent among the people, there will be alternatives that arise, and eventually take power. The only way to stop this is to strengthen the central government, and turn it into something else.

If you decided to solve the problem of a large group of people and go with the small, like-minded groups of people, then you will not only cripple your advancement by shutting out alternative opinions, but will also cause problems for yourself further down the road, like when it comes time to have children. The only way to keep from a group of dissenting population is to only reproduce within the small group, and thereby cause eventual inbreeding.

Then there is one more option, and that is to stifle any dissention among the populace. This has been tried in several countries to date. Maybe you know one of them? China perhaps? Cuba for another? This also leads to the overall collapse of the communist state by giving power over the people to the government.

As you can see, communism is a nice dream, but it is impossible.

In a capitalistic democracy, people will behave selfishly, however, the entire group will be working towards the same goal, which is happiness and a higher standard of living. And when the collective all works toward the same thing, progress will be made.

They aren't all working towards the common good. They are working for their own benefit, and the most successful in a capitalist society do not care about the well-being of others if it does not benefit them. That is how the system works, and it is fundamentally wrong. Those who are left behind, have their children involuntarily left behind, and so on.

And an interesting analogy, though I myself prefer to stick to concrete arguments. :)

They aren't all working towards the common good. They are working for their own benefit, and the most successful in a capitalist society do not care about the well-being of others if it does not benefit them. That is how the system works, and it is fundamentally wrong. Those who are left behind, have their children involuntarily left behind, and so on.

And an interesting analogy, though I myself prefer to stick to concrete arguments. :)

My point was that people do not have to work for the common good for the common good to be advanced. You are correct that they won't care about the well being of others, but everything that they take in must be produced by someone else, and there is a fair exchange, for the most part. With government regulation to maintain as fair an exchange as possible, there will be advancement on both sides. Collectivism, on the other hand, will never work because the society is too rigid to advance.

Collectivism is also a slippery slope, as the more uniform the behavior is, the more powerful the force is. So what you will be faced with is a slow erosion of the individual in favor of the whole, and I believe that destroys the purpose of collectivism.

My point was that people do not have to work for the common good for the common good to be advanced. You are correct that they won't care about the well being of others, but everything that they take in must be produced by someone else, and there is a fair exchange, for the most part. With government regulation to maintain as fair an exchange as possible, there will be advancement on both sides. Collectivism, on the other hand, will never work because the society is too rigid to advance.

It depends on your definition of advancement, I guess. I view focusing your life upon the acquisition of more goods as petty, therefore I don't feel that a collectivist society is inherently impossible. I am confident that if we reach a certain point in technological development, stagnation won't matter- we can eliminate starvation, injustice, and keep society flowing smoothly, perhaps utilising automated industry for the goods and modern luxuries we require. I'm not an expert on what the structure of such an economy would be, so i'll stick to the basic ideals, lol. A return to the basics of life, perhaps, but with modern conveniences. Learning and education would be done out of a desire to learn and not out of a desire to earn more than the next guy. We would help our brothers in need and have the same favor returned. That is what I view as advancement- is any more really necessary?

Collectivism is also a slippery slope, as the more uniform the behavior is, the more powerful the force is. So what you will be faced with is a slow erosion of the individual in favor of the whole, and I believe that destroys the purpose of collectivism.

Perhaps. Maybe time shall tell.

what's the problem with communism?

Human nature.

It is in theory a great system. Enter human nature and it is corupt and dictatorial.

My 800th post.

IMO, the reason communism fails is due to division of labor problems. Why should I be motivated to bust my @ss for years studying to be a scientist, while my neighbor gets a job as a garbage man post-high school, only to make the same amount of money as me.

As said: because you *like* to be a scientist. And probably because you *dislike* being a garbage man. In theory you should under communism get a job you can perform, enjoy and that contributes something to the collective.
And what would you want more money for ? Everything is in principle provided after all. Only relevant if you wish to go abroad..

But as one person pointed out: the Borg is the only 'communist like' (though horribly twisted) system that actually seems to work. And that is fiction...
Maybe one could get the system to work by putting computers in charge. Of course one can ask him/herself if that truly is what humanity wants. And you then shift the problem of powerhungry politicians to hackers. Politicians are at least visible..

I've contributed several arguments to the cyclical appearance of "Why do you all hate communism so much, it's wonderful" threads, and they've mostly already been stated in this thread by others. All the usual stuff like private property being a human right, the dire economic consequences of communism and so on.

However, there are a couple of fresh items I'd like to point out regarding some of the things said in this thread.

Firstly, I saw someone say that communism was possible without the hideous degeneration of civil rights that pretty much all communist nations have taken part in. That's impossible, because the nation's Kulaks or equivalent will have to be stripped of their wealth. Though one might argue that this in itself is not morally objectionable (though I would suggest that it is), if any people being taken from decide to fight for their property, which some probably will, the agents of government instructed to take the property will have to use force.

Some people might even defend their property to the death, in which case murder would be required on the part of the communists. Bingo, you have hideous human rights abuse.

The other thing that relies on flawed reasoning is the assumption that a democrating communist society is possible. But if people were stripped of their property for the greater good by order of an elected government, how long do you reckon that government would legitimately stay in power? Enough factions of society exist who hold either hardline capitalist opinions or at least moderate stances that this government would quickly be removed by the will of the majority.

Take Lenin's initial rise to power as a perfect example. Primarily, he proposed a partially elected government, but as soon as the votes had been counted, he realised that the combined force of Mensheviks and moderates outnumbered the Bolsheviks significantly, thus it was scrapped.

For people who suggest that the majority of people would be better off under communism, ask yourself this: If those who support capitalism or moderate socialism are a minority, why have communists not been instantly voted into power? Taking my own nation as an example, though a communist party of great britain exists, I don't think they have even a single representitive in parliament. People will always vote for a moderately capitalist economy because it can reward them the best.

communism hasnt been around for 150 years with a real communist leader so it has never had a chance to shine, and whats wrong with equality and state run everything

i personally believe that if acommunist government were to run for 150 years, it would be the most succesful government in the world
Agree or Disagree? WHy?

Because it removes personal freedom and personal responsibility. It also lack a motivational construct for those who have no natural desire to acheive their potential.

communism hasnt been around for 150 years with a real communist leader so it has never had a chance to shine, and whats wrong with equality and state run everything

What's wrong with state run everything? You have no problem with the government deciding where you work, what you do, how much you get payed, whether you live or die, how much food you get?

There's no problem with equality as far as equality under the law is concerned, in the sense that everyone should be subject to the same laws and regulations, but there is a problem with forced equality of pay.

The problem comes when you kill everyone who has superior wealth and give it to everyone who doesn't.