NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not going to get into deep philosophical reasons why commmunism wouldn't work, I'm just giving a quick overview.

1.) People are lazy. If you work your butt off every day, and the guy that skips work next to you still gets the same amount of stuff as you do, then pretty soon you'll call in sick whenever you oversleep. Every Day.

2.) Culture. The basic sentiment around the world, whether first originated in America or not, is that if you try hard enough, you can be anything you want. However, in communism, you must become what the government wants you to become. Everyone can't be Rock Stars, not even you William Hung.

3.) Basic Human Desire. We see shiny new car, we want shiny new car. I'm pretty sure that no one wants to own the exact same car as everyone else. We strive for more, because we want more and better things. We are willing to sacrifice some people's lives in order to advance our own.

This is not to say that communism and the like are bad, just that they can't realistically work, and frankly I'm glad it won't work. Theoretical Communism is awesome, in fact, it helps me sleep better at night. But, it will never work, so we have to focus on the Red/Blue states for now....

The inherent flaw of your argument is that it's based on solely your personal outlook. You see shiny new car, you want shiny new car. I see shiny new car, and I couldn't care less, for example.

Shiny new Ferarri, plus you wrecked you're old one and you're having THE anniversary date tonight.

Plus it comes with a free bumper sticker: "Mine is Better"

I'm not going to get into deep philosophical reasons why commmunism wouldn't work, I'm just giving a quick overview.

1.) People are lazy. If you work your butt off every day, and the guy that skips work next to you still gets the same amount of stuff as you do, then pretty soon you'll call in sick whenever you oversleep. Every Day.

2.) Culture. The basic sentiment around the world, whether first originated in America or not, is that if you try hard enough, you can be anything you want. However, in communism, you must become what the government wants you to become. Everyone can't be Rock Stars, not even you William Hung.

3.) Basic Human Desire. We see shiny new car, we want shiny new car. I'm pretty sure that no one wants to own the exact same car as everyone else. We strive for more, because we want more and better things. We are willing to sacrifice some people's lives in order to advance our own.

This is not to say that communism and the like are bad, just that they can't realistically work, and frankly I'm glad it won't work. Theoretical Communism is awesome, in fact, it helps me sleep better at night. But, it will never work, so we have to focus on the Red/Blue states for now....
a common oversight of the theory of communism is that it doesn't take into account these issues. it does - in fact, as far as i can see, the central arguements of socialism stem from how it answers these criticisms.
socialists such as Owen and Marx argued that the 'human nature' - the basic way we all behave, including our desires, our motivation, our goals - changes according to time and situation. the arguement states that we are little more than the sum of our predecessors. the basic vindication of this theory is that, if left alone, a child will grow up with similar/the same beliefs, attitude, behaviour - the same 'human nature' - as their parents. however, it is possible to take the child and teach it otherwise - teach it to behave differently from its parents. the child can be made to have the exact opposite behaviour, attitude and ideology - the opposite human nature - from their parents. thus, human nature is malleable. human nature also changes according to situation (rich people have a different mindset than desperatley poor people) and time.
communism then goes on to say that if human nature is indeed malleable, then it is possible to, according to Owen, educate the people over a long period of time to change our character - our human nature - to be compatable with the idealistic utopia envisaged in socialism/communism. he argued that if we removed all the causes of 'anti-social behaviour' in the world, such as crime and drunkeness, by making all equal, while simultaneously changing our human nature through education to work for what is best for the many, rather than the individual, we could achieve the utopia.
marx was a little more....violent, and i can't be arsed to go into that now (its 3am here). basically, you're right, communism could not work NOW, but yours are not arguements against the fundamental principles of the ideology as those problems have already been answered. it all depends on whether you believe human nature to be fixed - in all situations, at all times we cannot change the way we think, act, or behave and are inherently competative, violent and selfish creatures - or whether it be malleable.

The works of Rousseau and Hume are applicable to this arguement (well, as far as i understand for the latter... i haven't read any yet :( )

[/rant] (sorry, been studying socialism in Political Thought classes recently :) )

Your arguments make sense.

Usually communism doesn't promote a person to improve oneself, which leads to counterproductivity, loss of morale, etc. Also, even if you wish to improve yourself, you would not be rewarded for your actions.

Capitalism any better?

Hard work is rewarded, and it promotes improvement and growth of oneself...but...Capitalism also promotes greed. Greed is essential to improvement. As a result the needs of the many are ommited in place of profit.

What we need is a blending of the two in some way...

If you've ever read Marx's alienation of labor, you will see that he bases his theory on the economic theory of zero sum gain prevalent at the time. However modern ecnomic theory dictates that the amount of wealth in the world is not fixed because through trade, the discovery of resources, and technological advancement.

Also, even if you wish to improve yourself, you would not be rewarded for your actions.

Is this not limiting the idea of reward to monetary reward?

Greed is essential to improvement.

Tell thatt to the Christians.

Your arguments make sense.

Usually communism doesn't promote a person to improve oneself, which leads to counterproductivity, loss of morale, etc. Also, even if you wish to improve yourself, you would not be rewarded for your actions.

Capitalism any better?

Hard work is rewarded, and it promotes improvement and growth of oneself...but...Capitalism also promotes greed. Greed is essential to improvement. As a result the needs of the many are ommited in place of profit.

What we need is a blending of the two in some way...

Yeah, like some form of welfare state.........

Europe kicks ass.

It has always seemed to me that the basic flaw of Communism is that power cannot be effectively managed in it, and it eventually becomes concentrated in the hands of the few, forming a despotism or oligarchy that eventually grows corrupt, and with them, the form of communism they practice grows corrupt as well. American thinkers acknowledge this as fact; I'm not sure how this idea is seen outside of our little island.

yes but communism can work on a small scale.
take the kibutzs' in israel (a small group of people working and living together in a comunity). they all get paid the same ammount. they all know each other and trust that they every one will pick up the work load. they work whereasl arge scale comunism fails because no one wants to really work and they don't get any more for doing better.

That's why an idiot's communism wouldn't work. It has nothing to do with anything serious, like an actual communism. I don't understand why people keep repeating these same few points over and over as if they're some new insight, seemingly in the hope that they apply to a subject about which the speaker/writer/typer evidently has thought little and learned nothing.

It just seems weird to me.

Pure Metal : Amen.


We are malleable as human beings... step out of your preconceptions and try to be objective a little... communism is the best system for all human beings, because everybody is equal.

Consumerism, mass consumerism. That is why communism wouldn't work. If we were weened off the corporate tit, it may work.

With that said, I think capitalism is just fine, we just need a more efficient market, with better government regulations.

Consumerism, mass consumerism. That is why communism wouldn't work. If we were weened off the corporate tit, it may work.

With that said, I think capitalism is just fine, we just need a more efficient market, with better government regulations.
And capitalism means inequality

Regarding Europe... it seems it has a great heritage and the modern world owes much of its scientific and intellectual advancement to this great continent. But it is the future of Europe that concerns me. As population of Europeans declines with declining fertility, Muslim immigration is rapidly replacing the diminishing European population. Now, for the time being, Muslims remain a minority, but let me ask you, once a majority is reached will Shariah come into existance (and intolerance)? Not every Muslim country has shariah, but the fact that many implement restrictions on religious freedom in the present day concerns me (though Christian countries did the same in the past, today Christianity has reconciled itself with the principles of liberal democracy). Is intolerance the future of Europe? This may be off topic, but I just want to get some general opinions on the matter.

And capitalism means inequality

No more than communism when it is run right.

A capitalists dream is when there is no entity or person that has any economic power.

Is this not limiting the idea of reward to monetary reward?

silly bwo. don't you know that all possible rewards are monetary, and any differentiation in material rewards requires a distribution like that seen in the united states of america?

No more than communism when it is run right.

A capitalists dream is when there is no entity or person that has any economic power.

so who would have the economic power ? Come on... that no entity or person has the economic power means that there is no economic power at all.

Too lazy to read more then the first few posts ...

A purely communist goverment would not work very well. You have to have a combination of the two.

Well you know my opinion by reading my nickname.

Well you know my opinion by reading my nickname.

You're honest, at least ;)

"1.) People are lazy. If you work your butt off every day, and the guy that skips work next to you still gets the same amount of stuff as you do, then pretty soon you'll call in sick whenever you oversleep. Every Day."

If you do what you want to do then It would be no problem. I would get up in the morning if I was doing what I would wanted too. We only look at monitary reward, But there are many other possible rewards.


2.) Culture. The basic sentiment around the world, whether first originated in America or not, is that if you try hard enough, you can be anything you want. However, in communism, you must become what the government wants you to become. Everyone can't be Rock Stars, not even you William Hung.

In a true communist society the government goes not dictate what you can be because the state would not exist. You would choose what you would want to be.

3.) Basic Human Desire. We see shiny new car, we want shiny new car. I'm pretty sure that no one wants to own the exact same car as everyone else. We strive for more, because we want more and better things. We are willing to sacrifice some people's lives in order to advance our own.

I would not sacrifice anyones life to advance my own. Your Crazy.

A true communist society would only function If we advance our thinking. Plus it would have to be far more technologically advanced then we are now.

so who would have the economic power ? Come on... that no entity or person has the economic power means that there is no economic power at all.

Read up on the free market, and get back to me.

Mr Vittos Ordination is right. I've taken economics, In a true free-Market no person is more important.

No more than communism when it is run right.

A capitalists dream is when there is no entity or person that has any economic power.

nah. capitalism - private ownership of the means of production and a system of wage labor - necessarily results in a ridiculously skewed distribution of wealth. there is no other way capitalism could be.

In a true free-Market no person is more important.

not unless you go the with the anticapitalist free market of the mutualists and individualists.

not unless you go the with the anticapitalist free market of the mutualists and individualists.

Explain this to me.

nah. capitalism - private ownership of the means of production and a system of wage labor - necessarily results in a ridiculously skewed distribution of wealth. there is no other way capitalism could be.

In a perfect free market, wages are determined by value of the work, and no one is prohibited from the goods and services they want to purchase.

In a perfect free market, wages are determined by value of the work, and no one is prohibited from the goods and services they want to purchase.

or rather wages would be determined by the supply of labor available and the demand for certain skills, and nobody would be forced by the state to not buy things they wanted.

but nobody ever got rich working for somebody else. the real wealth is in ownership and all of the evidence says that without some sort of leveling mechanism, it becomes more and more concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.

the 'right' to buy anything you want doesn't amount to much more than a sick joke when 90%+ of your income goes directly to providing basic food and shelter for yourself.

and, of course, nearly 100% of your income eventually winds up back in the hands of the same rich elite that pays you in the first place. wealth is 'sticky' for those that have a lot already. not so for the overwhelmingly vast majority of us.

Explain this to me.

check out my man kevin carson
http://www.mutualist.org/index.html

or rather wages would be determined by the supply of labor available and the demand for certain skills, and nobody would be forced by the state to not buy things they wanted.

Yes, the wages would be determined by their value on the free market. As for the second part, what do you mean and what is your point.

but nobody ever got rich working for somebody else. the real wealth is in ownership and all of the evidence says that without some sort of leveling mechanism, it becomes more and more concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.

So you are proposing that we give the wealth to the government, and have everyone work for the government? How does that improve your standing, or society in general?

the 'right' to buy anything you want doesn't amount to much more than a sick joke when 90%+ of your income goes directly to providing basic food and shelter for yourself.

In a perfect free market, that low income is what your labor is worth, no more, no less. So if you are forced to spend 90% on basics, you either provide more labor or deal with it.

and, of course, nearly 100% of your income eventually winds up back in the hands of the same rich elite that pays you in the first place. wealth is 'sticky' for those that have a lot already. not so for the overwhelmingly vast majority of us.

And they turn around and pay most of it back to you in wages.

The inherent flaw of your argument is that it's based on solely your personal outlook. You see shiny new car, you want shiny new car. I see shiny new car, and I couldn't care less, for example.

Personal outlook is the whole point. Not everybody's outlook on life is the same. That's waht's great about a democratic, capitalistic society. We can all choose what we want out of life, and work to get it. Granted, not everyone gets it. Like it was stated, not everyone can be a rock star. Heck, not everyone can be an engineer. But the point is that, unless you have really horrible luck, you can do mostly what you want.

It might also be noted that it takes a large number of people to gum up the works in capitalism (think Lebenon 20 years ago), while it takes only a few people to bring everything to a screeching halt in communism (see Soviet Union). Capitalism is based on the idea that everyone works for themselves, and we all get the benefits. Communism is based on the idea that we all work together, even if we don't want to.

nah. capitalism - private ownership of the means of production and a system of wage labor - necessarily results in a ridiculously skewed distribution of wealth. there is no other way capitalism could be.

Wealth will be unequal in a capitalist society, yes. That's inevitable. But the standard of living will be significantly better for all factions of society too. In essentially capitalist countries like the US and the UK, yes, there are a group of people who own luxury mansions with swimming pools and so on and so forth. However, in America, a lot of the poor are overweight, not starving.

Compared to other countries of recent history and the modern world, ones with totalitarian economics like Cuba, the USSR while it existed, post 1974 Ethiopia and so on, the very definition of poverty is different. The number of people who are actually unable to feed themselves in the western, capitalist world is very small. That's because in the US and the UK we didn't send our farmers to Kolkoz's and treat them like slaves, determining how much they earned and how much they produced, we left them alone and let them trade their produce freely with us. Instead of hamstringing their livestock and burning their crops, they prospered and so did we.

Shiny new Ferarri, plus you wrecked you're old one and you're having THE anniversary date tonight.

Plus it comes with a free bumper sticker: "Mine is Better"

Then you are a dumbass for wrecking your car?

Capitalism is based on the idea that everyone works for themselves, and we all get the benefits. Communism is based on the idea that we all work together, even if we don't want to.Wrong. In both systems people must work.
First thing, communism is not about giving everybody the same wage whatever their work. It is not about making everybody the same size either.

To the original poster : you should read some books and then make up your own mind.

Shiny new Ferarri, plus you wrecked you're old one and you're having THE anniversary date tonight.

Plus it comes with a free bumper sticker: "Mine is Better"

I still don't care. I don't drive, see, and nor do I wish to own or require a penis extension in any form. I probably wouldn't want that date anyway if it's with a person that would only love me for the car. I'm sure it would really help my self-esteem and outlook upon life immensely. :rolleyes:

Personal outlook is the whole point. Not everybody's outlook on life is the same. That's waht's great about a democratic, capitalistic society. We can all choose what we want out of life, and work to get it. Granted, not everyone gets it. Like it was stated, not everyone can be a rock star. Heck, not everyone can be an engineer. But the point is that, unless you have really horrible luck, you can do mostly what you want.Democratic Capitalism isn't catering to my beliefs and personal outlook though, is it? I can't exactly run off and alienate myself from the system and do whatever I want now, can I?


It might also be noted that it takes a large number of people to gum up the works in capitalism (think Lebenon 20 years ago), while it takes only a few people to bring everything to a screeching halt in communism (see Soviet Union).

Same is true of all dictatorships. No surprise there. However, I would argue that it would only take a few people to bring everything to a screeching halt in the USA and other western democracies. I mean, it almost happened in the Great Depression, didn't it?

Capitalism is based on the idea that everyone works for themselves, and we all get the benefits.

Unless you look at the third world, in which case we get the nice benefits, and they can work for us. As a matter of fact- How many people (proportionally) actually do work for themselves and have their own successful enterprise that pays more than a living wage?

Communism is based on the idea that we all work together, even if we don't want to.

And, the problem is what? How is working together a bad thing? As a matter of fact, in the ideal system, you can feel free to go and do your own thing away from everyone else too. It's just that you might find things a bit more difficult and decide to come back to the group.

Democratic Capitalism isn't catering to my beliefs and personal outlook though, is it? I can't exactly run off and alienate myself from the system and do whatever I want now, can I?


You can run off and do what you want to a greater extent than in a society which forces you to work everyday for a government-mandated pay packet. Sure, in places like the states and the UK they still make you pay tax, but that's no fault of capitalists. Socialists are the ones who want increased government spending and higher taxation.


And, the problem is what? How is working together a bad thing? As a matter of fact, in the ideal system, you can feel free to go and do your own thing away from everyone else too. It's just that you might find things a bit more difficult and decide to come back to the group.

The problem is being forced to work together. And if as you describe people could bunk off all the time, everyone would do it if they still recieved a living wage, and nothing would ever get done.

democratic capitalism? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Like we haven't seen this 40 billion times before...I just don't care anymore....

You can run off and do what you want to a greater extent than in a society which forces you to work everyday for a government-mandated pay packet. Sure, in places like the states and the UK they still make you pay tax, but that's no fault of capitalists. Socialists are the ones who want increased government spending and higher taxation.

No, I can't. I'm still forced to work in a dead-end job (having not been born with substantial wealth, I estimate my odds of escaping from such a life to be pretty damn low), still forced to educate myself (and pay to do so) for the sole purpose of gettting a less dead-end job (rather than the desire to learn itself), still forced to bow down to laws that are created without my personal say, still forced to support my country's soldiers fighting a war that I never thought was a good idea (otherwise I might be branded as *gasp* un-Australian). I'm also still forced to smile about it all, and watch something like Australian Idol to forget about things...or else people might think i'm weird. Ah, modern post industrial capitalism, an ideology that expounds and frowns upon individualism at the same time. I couldn't care less about tax. It's a necessary evil in our current society, and provided the current government spends the money wisely (of which i'll be the first to raise my hand and claim that they do not) I'm perfectly fine with it. It's the structure of society and the realisation that i'm not actually free at all that gets to me. Just because it's slightly better than some of the alternatives out there doesn't mean that it's good, or even acceptable.

(I'm not a real fan of state-socialism either, but the social-democratic system in place in many European countries I regard as many times superior to that of the USA and the like.)

The problem is being forced to work together. And if as you describe people could bunk off all the time, everyone would do it if they still recieved a living wage, and nothing would ever get done.

Not necessarily. It depends all on the structure of the community. The idea is to generate a quality of life high enough that people do not feel the need to run off and do their own thing.