NationStates Jolt Archive

That means mutating into a system that is no longer capitalist, as a monopoly no longer relies on market forces to allocate goods and resources and to determine prices. Which is why capitalism still has a need for a government- to prevent the system from such mutations.
Don't free-market capitalists tend to argue against government intervention as government intervention interferes with the "wisdom of the market" or however Adam Smith put it?

You're forgetting the simple facts of human nature that: 1. people compete; 2. people are NOT born equal; 3. people (that is, the intelligent and ambitious) strive to rise to the highest apex they are able. Thankfully, not all people are dumb and happy as you would like them to be, which would need to happen in order for a society to be egalitarian and truly communist.


And you didn't read my posts about human nature, things that you consider facts are "in fact" not facts at all:
1. It is not in human nature to compete amongs eachother it is in our societies "nature" we learn to compete (SOCIALIZATION - read most of the sociological studies and you will know what I mean), 2. agreed, we have different abilites, we do different jobs so the difference between jobs in communism is smaller than in capitalism thus makeing people more equal 3. well I consider people not being happy a bad thing, so if communism would make them happy why not?

And about personal insult, well you don't know me, in fact I'm am not a lazy bastart as you described me, I'm an A grade student and I am going to study sociology on uni and after that I intend to be a professor not becouse of the money (it is not the best paid job) but becouse I want to teach people

And my miss spelling, well try to type a sentence in slovene wich is my mothers language and then criticise when other people speak foreign languages

Don't free-market capitalists tend to argue against government intervention as government intervention interferes with the "wisdom of the market" or however Adam Smith put it?
There are all kinds, of course, but I see no need to be overly dogmatic. "Wisdom of the market" has its limits, especially in the case of monopoies (who, as I have noted already, essentially act outside the market), and some amount of government interference is obviously needed. However, excessive government interference is invariably detrimental to economy.

There are all kinds, of course, but I see no need to be overly dogmatic. "Wisdom of the market" has its limits, especially in the case of monopoies (who, as I have noted already, essentially act outside the market), and some amount of government interference is obviously needed. However, excessive government interference is invariably detrimental to economy.
Fair enough. Do you believe in the idea of democratic socialism, or do you feel that government should stop interfering once it's prevented people from having monopolies?

Don't free-market capitalists tend to argue against government intervention as government intervention interferes with the "wisdom of the market" or however Adam Smith put it?

Yes. True capitalists tend to believe that government may only intervene to protect citizens against internal and external force, fraud and theft, mint currency and provide public areas and land (roads for example) which facilitate trade and commerce.

I'm guessing the poster you quoted isn't so extreme.

We are not likely to run out of resources any time soon. What about communism makes you assume that resources will be consumed more slowly? Would not everyone work just as hard to improve the well being of society as a whole just as hard as they work to improve their own well being?

I never said that in communism reasources would be used faster. But having a complex economical system places another possible limit on growth where a limit is not needed.

And you didn't read my posts about human nature, things that you consider facts are "in fact" not facts at all:
1. It is not in human nature to compete amongs eachother it is in our societies "nature" we learn to compete (SOCIALIZATION - read most of the sociological studies and you will know what I mean), 2. agreed, we have different abilites, we do different jobs so the difference between jobs in communism is smaller than in capitalism thus makeing people more equal 3. well I consider people not being happy a bad thing, so if communism would make them happy why not?


1: If competition was not human nature, human history would not be littered with almost ceaseless war and conflict, and government wouldn't need to stop thieves - stealing wouldn't be part of their nature.

2: Eh? Difference between communist jobs is smaller? I really don't understand this point.

3: Communism would not make people happy. In the eternal words of ZZ Top - "If you believe like working hard all day then step in my shoes and take my pay". People would hate having to surrender the product of their time and effort to others against their will and potentially without compensation.

Fair enough. Do you believe in the idea of democratic socialism, or do you feel that government should stop interfering once it's prevented people from having monopolies?
Define "democratic socialism".

Don't free-market capitalists tend to argue against government intervention as government intervention interferes with the "wisdom of the market" or however Adam Smith put it?

I personally have no problem with monopolies, as long as they are not allowed to fix prices and wages. Generally, it can be assumed that, in a free market, a corporation that fixes prices at a high level will be undercut by possible consumers. If they are paying low wages, it is assumed they will lose qualified workers and their product quality would suffer.

However, I will admit that that is not always the case, and there must be some government regulation to prohibit bullying tactics and to offer benefits to small businesses.

Equality of opportunities- or equality of outcomes?
both, preferably. just different perameters of equality;)

or, kinda, for me, a redefinition of opportunities

Define "democratic socialism".
I probably can't give a clinical definition, but "welfare state" is typically a word derogatarily used to describe a democratic socialist state.

1: If competition was not human nature, human history would not be littered with almost ceaseless war and conflict, and government wouldn't need to stop thieves - stealing wouldn't be part of their nature.

3: Communism would not make people happy. In the eternal words of ZZ Top - "If you believe like working hard all day then step in my shoes and take my pay". People would hate having to surrender the product of their time and effort to others against their will and potentially without compensation.

You assume that nothing that has been done yet can be done at all? If humans can avoid wiping themselves out, then we have a huge amount of time to improve ourselves. To say that people wil always be competitive and not be able to be happy working for society is to show a lack of understanding about how people change. And that is one thing to learn from human history, that we change all the time.

I'm sure something to this effect has already been said, but herevgoes.
Communism will never work in the real world because humans are inherently lazy and greedy.

I'm sure something to this effect has already been said, but herevgoes.
Communism will never work in the real world because humans are inherently lazy and greedy.Yes, it's been said quite a few times. ;)

I'm sure something to this effect has already been said, but herevgoes.
Communism will never work in the real world because humans are inherently lazy and greedy.

NOTHING IS INHERENT!!! Sorry, but do you know how many times that rubbish is spouted? Humans, like all animals, evolve. There is nothing that is somehow built into our nature permanently.

I'm sure something to this effect has already been said, but herevgoes.
Communism will never work in the real world because humans are inherently lazy and greedy.

I just had an epiphany!!!! :D

1: If competition was not human nature, human history would not be littered with almost ceaseless war and conflict, and government wouldn't need to stop thieves - stealing wouldn't be part of their nature.

2: Eh? Difference between communist jobs is smaller? I really don't understand this point.

3: Communism would not make people happy. In the eternal words of ZZ Top - "If you believe like working hard all day then step in my shoes and take my pay". People would hate having to surrender the product of their time and effort to others against their will and potentially without compensation.

1. Our colture developed the need for competition against nature and it went on to our society, why it developed I don't know. But most of sociological theories from Durkheim on say that we get our values with socialization, to take the example of thieves, if you vouldn't know the concept of theaving or even perosnal possesion, or to have more material things would not be a value in society would someone steal, since material things (money) is a value in oure society that's why we have thievs

2. Difference in respect of a job, how much money you get for it, etc... makes snese?

3. Well capitalism represents current norms and values of society (to have as much possesion as possible) but not every one can have those, while my point was that if our value would be to help others (society) and that would make us happy, well everyone can help society acording to his/her abilites and communism give opertunity to do this

Hope this explains it

You assume that nothing that has been done yet can be done at all? If humans can avoid wiping themselves out, then we have a huge amount of time to improve ourselves. To say that people wil always be competitive and not be able to be happy working for society is to show a lack of understanding about how people change. And that is one thing to learn from human history, that we change all the time.

The assertion I was making wasn't that communism couldn't work simply because it had never worked. The assertion I was making (in response to Cool Dynasty 42's assertion) was that human nature did include the desire to rape steal and kill.

The assertion I was making wasn't that communism couldn't work simply because it had never worked. The assertion I was making (in response to Cool Dynasty 42's assertion) was that human nature did include the desire to rape steal and kill.

There is no part of human nature that cannot change.

The assertion I was making wasn't that communism couldn't work simply because it had never worked. The assertion I was making (in response to Cool Dynasty 42's assertion) was that human nature did include the desire to rape steal and kill.

Well it doesn't the sociology and psychology are on my side, we do have instict but those were more or less lost through our evolution, greed (with it theft) is what we get through socialization, read some basic sociology and you will see what I mean, I'm not just talking bull here, to ashure myself I asked my sociology teacher about that today and she agreed that this in fact is gained in our socialization

1. Our colture developed the need for competition against nature and it went on to our society, why it developed I don't know. But most of sociological theories from Durkheim on say that we get our values with socialization, to take the example of thieves, if you vouldn't know the concept of theaving or even perosnal possesion, or to have more material things would not be a value in society would someone steal, since material things (money) is a value in oure society that's why we have thievs


The stealing, killing, raping, burning instinct is not cultural. Animals kill and eat eachother all the time, and compete for resources. Animals don't have culture, they rely on instinct. If anything, culture is the opposite to this - it's what you think is instinct (civilized ideas like alturism and sympathy).


2. Difference in respect of a job, how much money you get for it, etc... makes snese?


Ah, I understand. Well yes, people become more equal if you pay them the same. Equality doesn't automatically mean morally acceptable. It could be argued that some people genuinely do deserve more than others (for example those who get up and work as oppose to those who lay around).


3. Well capitalism represents current norms and values of society (to have as much possesion as possible) but not every one can have those, while my point was that if our value would be to help others (society) and that would make us happy, well everyone can help society acording to his/her abilites and communism give opertunity to do this


But some people don't want to help society. They just plain don't want to. I, for example, want to serve myself, not others (sure, I'll serve others if they pay me and thus ultimately benefit me). It's nothing cultural, I would just be inherently unhappy being forced to work on somebody else's terms without my consent.

What's all this competition BS people are spouting?

Of course you can compete in a communist society, you compete to be the best at what you do, NOT compete for the most money. The satisfaction comes from doing a good job, once all your basic needs are met.

Human nature isn't a viable argument for or against communism because it is impossible to define, it is variable between individuals, and it is constantly evolving.

Well it doesn't the sociology and psychology are on my side, we do have instict but those were more or less lost through our evolution, greed (with it theft) is what we get through socialization, read some basic sociology and you will see what I mean, I'm not just talking bull here, to ashure myself I asked my sociology teacher about that today and she agreed that this in fact is gained in our socialization

I'm not a proffessor of sociology or anything, but it seems odd to me that greed and competitiveness would be purely products of human culture and yet animals and humans from many diverse cultures would exhibit them.

If greed and bloodlust were cultural, you'd think there'd only be a couple of civilizations bent on them, but that simply isn't so. Plus, you've got animal competition, which certainly isn't cultural.

What's all this competition BS people are spouting?

Of course you can compete in a communist society, you compete to be the best at what you do, NOT compete for the most money. The satisfaction comes from doing a good job, once all your basic needs are met.

Business competition is not the same as individual competition. Businesses as a whole rarely if ever compete as a matter of self-actualisation.

What's all this competition BS people are spouting?

Of course you can compete in a communist society, you compete to be the best at what you do, NOT compete for the most money. The satisfaction comes from doing a good job, once all your basic needs are met.

When I go on about competitiveness, I'm talking about competitiveness which stems from selfishness and greed, the desire to get more stuff or beat your enemies.

When I go on about competitiveness, I'm talking about competitiveness which stems from selfishness and greed, the desire to get more stuff or beat your enemies.

'Get more stuff' is only a goal in a materialistic society. Once your basic needs have been met materialism is less important and people seek out other ways to define themselves.

I am sure if you ask one of the Anthropologists on here they will give you some information on non-materialistic societies

The stealing, killing, raping, burning instinct is not cultural. Animals kill and eat eachother all the time, and compete for resources. Animals don't have culture, they rely on instinct. If anything, culture is the opposite to this - it's what you think is instinct (civilized ideas like alturism and sympathy).

I disagree, human "nature" is a differnt than from those of an animal, the thing is that we learn all those concepts, if not the all those sociological books based on studies that I have read were just bull shit, sorry but I trust the guy that studied our society for most of his life rather than you, no offence of course. And yes it is not an argument for communism I was just trying to destry the argument against it.

Ah, I understand. Well yes, people become more equal if you pay them the same. Equality doesn't automatically mean morally acceptable. It could be argued that some people genuinely do deserve more than others (for example those who get up and work as oppose to those who lay around).

Agreed, and those that would lay around would be deviant to that kind of society, and soicety it self has many ways to "punish" those that do not share the values, it happens the same in our society (social exclusin, stigmatism,...)

But some people don't want to help society. They just plain don't want to. I, for example, want to serve myself, not others (sure, I'll serve others if they pay me and thus ultimately benefit me). It's nothing cultural, I would just be inherently unhappy being forced to work on somebody else's terms without my consent.

That's becouse you were thought that way, those are the values you posses, I'm not saying they are bad, but if you were brought up that helping society is the most important thing and that would be your value you would.

I read the first page, but not the last twenty because it got pointless and repetitive. Communism is unfair because it doesn't allow people to get rewarded with tangible rewards for their talent and work. One could argue that if one is born without talents, they should be treated equally and given a share of the money, but then this is unfair to hte people contributing more to their society. Some people argued against Vitto's arguement that humans are not dispensable by saying that people die for their country and family sometimes. THis is because they love their family or the justness of the government. However, chances are most of his society is jerks, and forcing someone to die or give up possessions for those he hates can hardly be considered fair, although he can still choose to die for what he loves. Also, someone argued that all governments, not just communist ones, rob individual's of their rights, saying they cannot do violent or disruptive acts. That is because they are harmful and unfair to society, and it does not take anything from the individual by saying he cannot walk down the streets hitting people on the head with a club ( the person's example ). People should be allowed to do what they want as long as it does not unfairly harm others, and should be rewarded justly for their contributions to society.
The contribution they are being paid for itself in most cases should justify their reward, and money should not be redistributed to people who don't deserve it. If you invented a boon to society, you are doing society a favor, and what it gives you for the privilege of using it should not be redistrubuted to people who had their chance and blew it. Equal oppurtunity should be used, but not equal rewards to lazy dropouts and people who actually contribute to society.

I read the first page, but not the last twenty because it got pointless and repetitive. Communism is unfair because it doesn't allow people to get rewarded with tangible rewards for their talent and work.

Only if you think that working for the society is not a reward in itself.

One could argue that if one is born without talents, they should be treated equally and given a share of the money, but then this is unfair to hte people contributing more to their society.

Everyone should put in the same effort, but it is not fair to give someone more who is born luckier.

The contribution they are being paid for itself in most cases should justify their reward, and money should not be redistributed to people who don't deserve it. If you invented a boon to society, you are doing society a favor, and what it gives you for the privilege of using it should not be redistrubuted to people who had their chance and blew it. Equal oppurtunity should be used, but not equal rewards to lazy dropouts and people who actually contribute to society.

So should someone who spends their entire life trying to come up with an invention to help society, but not managing to get a breakthrough get less than someone who gets lucky first time and has a flash of inspiration?

Human nature isn't a viable argument for or against communism because it is impossible to define, it is variable between individuals, and it is constantly evolving.

I completly agree with this. Unfortunately I doubt it will stop people from going on about how human nature makes communism impossible.

I probably can't give a clinical definition, but "welfare state" is typically a word derogatarily used to describe a democratic socialist state.
"Welfare state" is itself a seriously vague term. But I think I know what you mean. My opinion- in the form it is practiced in today's Western Europe, the "welfare state" simply isn't viable, because the number of non-working welfare recipients slowly, but surely exceeds the number of workers whose taxes pay for the welfare. All signs are that this system is already crumbling- and I'm afraid the problem is the nature of the system. Can there me a different model of a "welfare state"? Well, it's a good question, but I don't know the answer yet.

Oh by the way, another reason why Communism cannot work. I don't know- nor do I care- whether or not the Communist idea is compatible with "human nature" (whatever that is)- but it certainly is absolutely incompatible with the nature of industry and economy.

(Below I am copying an old post of mine written for another board)

"A country run by the workers" as envisioned by Marx and others, is an oxymoron. Workers cannot run anything, they have to stop being workers and become managers and bureaucrats in order to do so. This is one of the main contradictions between Marxism/Communism and the economic reality- in order for any complex structure to be run efficiently, it has to be run and supervised by professionals, which inevitably creates a class of professional managers who will rule this structure- which means re-introduction of the class system, with bureaucracy being the new ruling class. Whether the professionals in question come from a worker background or a banker background makes no difference. In order to create a "state run by the workers", you have to create a society structure with minimum complexity, where all people are interchangeable and each can do their neighbor's job. That, in turn, will require dismantling all production cycles that demand specialization. In other words, a proper Marxist state has to go back to pre-industrial technologies, if not into the caves. The need for a ruling group of bureaucrats can only be eliminated if we reverse back to the tribal society structure, with all that it entails.
There is only one way to avoid the emergence of a new ruling class in the Communist society- by avoiding professional management. But whether as individuals or as a collective entity of any kind, people not sufficiently educated in economy cannot effectively run a factory, let alone the economy of a state. Attempting to replace professional management with "workers rule" will inevitably result in all the same illnesses from which the Soviet system suffered. Not to mention that such system would immediately render the science dead. Specialization and the resulting inequity, in ALL aspects of society's functioning, is inevitable. It is, if you wish, the price of scientific and technological progress.

both, preferably. just different perameters of equality;)
You do, of course, realize that any attempt of practically implementating equality of outcomes would be inherently unjust?

That's becouse you were thought that way, those are the values you posses, I'm not saying they are bad, but if you were brought up that helping society is the most important thing and that would be your value you would.

No really, it's not. It's a gut reaction, not a refined, taught concept. What's mine is mine, whether I'm a modern capitalist brought up in the 20th century or a prehistoric tribesman wandering through the wilderness.

"Only if you think that working for the society is not a reward in itself."


Okay, but people shouldn't be forced into thinking themselves that the only reward for their labor/brilliance is the honor, nay the privilage, of contributing to a society. There is a lot wrong with that logic, people may feel satisfaction in helping themselves, those they love, or those who never got a chance, not those that had the same oppurtunity as themself and failed.


"Everyone should put in the same effort, but it is not fair to give someone more who is born luckier."

2 main and only scientifically proven factors in someone's personality is genetics and upbringing. Intelligence and reason can be given to someone through eiter one of these, and what other source would laziness and ambition have? What it comes down to: Is it Fair to redistribute everything no matter on contribution to society, or is everyone born exactly equal and should be treated as such, even though in a society where people need to work for rewards, some would fail. If someone is born luckier, should they be handicapped so the stupid wouldn't feel stupid, and have the same chance as them? That way, they both suffer, the intelligent could not contribute to society as much and reap rewards, and the stupid could not, but couldn't before. But, who would want that? People born with worse genes can make up for it, and often do, but studying and working. Equal oppurtunity, not complete equality is fair.


"So should someone who spends their entire life trying to come up with an invention to help society, but not managing to get a breakthrough get less than someone who gets lucky first time and has a flash of inspiration?"


The person researching their whole lives would probably find out some facts which may help inventors in the future create, these researchers are paid in capitalist societies. Also, creating a boon to mankind would probably take originality and intelligence, but hardly luck.
Worlds are explored where people try to express their ideas of complete equality by Ayn Rand and Kurt Vonnegut. Try them.

So, theoretically, people would be given some medical tests to determine the optimal calorie intake, and then given credits towards food at a local grocery store?

Would that be suitable?


Yeah, that's pretty much the gist of it. Plus job requirements and age would be taken into account as well.

So one person is of little value? I do not like analogies that compare humans to inanimate objects.


Do you believe each human in each suburb in the US, doing some job that holds little value, are still valuable? Probably not? What you have to ask is "what will I contribute to the world?" and if you have nothing to give but your seed, then there are 3 billion people just like you who don't need to exist. My thoughts on humanity? If you are just another person, then you really aren't needed. So my conception of the value of the individual only goes so far as their use. Sounds a bit cruel, but really, would the world be worse off if we had half as many people living in it? Probably not. I think some people have little value, but a large percentage have none. But I don't think it is fair to decide who is worth something to the world or not, in your immediate circle, everyone probably has a small impact.

The Flaw is not in the basis of Communism, it is in humans. Communism has not succeded because humans naturally look out for their own best intrests over that of others. Overall people are selfish. Which is unfortunate. As much as we may like to say and think that we would put what is best for society above that which is best or even nessecery for our own self is hard in practice.

The Flaw is not in the basis of Communism, it is in humans. Communism has not succeded because humans naturally look out for their own best intrests over that of others. Overall people are selfish. Which is unfortunate. As much as we may like to say and think that we would put what is best for society above that which is best or even nessecery for our own self is hard in practice.

That's not a flaw for humans. It's what humans do best!

I am sorry. The truth is the world never has seen a communist country. At most there has been Dictorships, Socialist States, and Totalertism, BUT never Communism.

Communism is a system of society that has no government. Everyone in the society works for everyone. Money is absent in this society and only bartering is the way of trade. The world has never seen a communist state because A) to become a communist state a socialist government needs to hold power to organize all. From there the government dissapears little by little. BUT in history from socialism people went into dictorships, never Communism.
My Sourse for this info can be found in DAS KAPITAL, By Karl Marx.

:)

So what you are saying is that the indivisual is greater than the masses. This ideology has the same faults you assign to communism. I am more important than everyone esle. Therefore I should be able to steal if it benefits me, but valuing the indivisual devalues ALL the indivisual in the other group. So in essence you are arbitarily selecting an indivisual and lacing his values above others.
Not lets look at your interpretation, that devaluing indivisual leads to devaluing the whole. This is false since the indivisual is still important because the make up a community. Only when there is conflict between small interests and and larger interests do we value the larger entity. Keep in mind however that this applies when the interests have the same impact not something outrageous like the majority wanting more land so the kill minorities since the interests are inherently different (life vs luxsury) communism would advocate the minority view since it would better balance out inequalities.

To address the competition issue look at it this way- if i dont work well then i harm my own society and if others espouse that ideal it leads to suffering so i do good out of self interest.

I would like to play a little "Socialist devils advocate" here.

The foundation of the left is to serve the individuals. Capitalism sacrifices individual rights by enforcing a strict hierarchical structure in which a few control many. Furthermore, whereas the ultimate aim of communism is to establish complete equality and democracy, capitalism is predicated on maintaining inequality! It needs it to work. Poverty is essential to capitalism and therefore you are, effectively, asking the poor to "sacrifice" themselves for the bennefit of your system.

But then, that's the way systems like capitalism work, isn't it? When companies fire thousands, or governments cut benefits, it's always done "for the economy". Poverty and starvation is allowed because any fix would "hurt the economy". The individual rights of billions are sacrificed "for the economy"...

If any ideology is willing to sacrifice individuals for the sake of a nebulous theory ...it's yours!

Collectivism verse Individualism is a myth; Communism is extreme individualism. You can continue being a grubby little wage slave who's personality is dominated by the consumerist culture, where commodities make up your counscience (false counsciencness as Marx called it). Or you can fight to be free and have your own individual, unalienated, unexploited self.

Almost every Socialist revolution; Russia, China, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, North Korea were either Stalinist or Leninist revolutions; in countries that did NOT have a developed industrial proletariat; but rather a peasentry; which is reactionary in nature.

If you ask me it is not that power "corrupts" but it alieantes. Marx points out the existence of the state itself as a determined portion of society necessarily must alienate it from society as a whole. That is, if the state is representative of the bourgeoisie, it is alienated from the proletariat, if it is representative of the proletariat it is alienated from the previous or older bourgeoisie, more is designed to take back from them what has been exploited from the working class of previous ages.

I believe this alienation indefinitely leads to what you would consider "corruption." That is why the goal should be to consistently equalize the people -- more, the power should be at the hands of that vast majority. This is to say, the political power must be completely held by the proletariat, the majority working class. Any centralization which obfuscates their power or diminishes their direct control further alienates those in power from those people as well.

Communism itself cannot be achieved without the most pure and direct forms of democracy held by ALL. Socialism maintains the previous class antagonisms and thus seeks to destroy the classes by equalizing the role and forces of all individuals and putting an end to exploitation of one individual by another.

It is the reason you even bother to come on here and ask this question. If you took any time to actually read about communism and understand what it was actually about, these quesitons would have been answered, and you would know the nature of communism. Whether you read Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc... you will find it impossible for communism itself to be characterized by any means of inequality and for that matter any means of control over the people. Socialism is a completely different issue, and is of course, up for a much broader interpretation.

Only when there is conflict between small interests and and larger interests do we value the larger entity. Keep in mind however that this applies when the interests have the same impact not something outrageous like the majority wanting more land so the kill minorities since the interests are inherently different (life vs luxsury) communism would advocate the minority view since it would better balance out inequalities.


In Communism, everyone would be a member of the working class; in sense, no classes, no minorities or majorities.

Communism is global. The existing communist parties and previous communist parties may have indeed been communists, but they never claimed to have achieved communism... they understood, like we do, that communism is beyond the horizon of socialism. And many of them even understood their countries needed to fall back to less desirable systems to eventually rise up with socialism. This was Lenin's purpose for the NEP. This consciousness is what separates the communists, seemingly, from most other political organizations. But sometimes these people are wrong. They overestimate productive capacity, move TOO swiftly, etc.

Equality is the goal of communism. You cannot achieve true democracy unless you have total equality this means no division by race, sex, class, nation, etc. Communism is nationaless, borderless, stateless... it makes no distinction between black or white people, male or female, etc. Until you have achieved this equality you cannot consider yourself to have communism -- and to my knowledge NO communist party has ever made such a claim.

First, I'm going to offer an appology to some people I was trying to reply to earlier. Jolt just keeps eating my posts, and I keep forgetting to copy them before sending, so I'm just going to move on. The questions will come up again anyways, so, eh. Really sorry guys, just don't have the time to keep going back to those. The only reason I'm on here is because it helps to clear my head for massive essay writing.

Now, to reply to Revionia

1) Sticking to the party lines is not playing the Devil's Advocate, it's playing the preacher.

2) Direct Democracy is based on the notion that everyone's opinion's are equally valid. Thus the doom of Athens. The US is a republic because it was recognized that not everyone's opinion is equally valid, but they should still be able to have the power to eject someone from office who is working against their interests. How can someone have a more valid opinion? Some people still think the world is flat. 'Nuff said.

3) Capitalism, even pure capitalism, does not RELY on poverty. Poverty is the result of people in the lower rungs of society relying on capitalism. Capitalism is for active, able, and exceptional people. This is why socio-capitalism is my favorite model. It recognizes that a large portion of society can't make it on their own, whether through bad luck, bad genetics, bad choices, or being lazy. Communism, on the other hand, pretends that people are equal in something other than the law. This is provably wrong. Humans vary greatly. I'm smarter, stronger, faster, better-educated, more adaptable, and healthier than some people born in to similar situations. I am, generally speaking, better than them. I'm worth more to the world than they are. I have more potential, and more importantly, I will USE that potential. There are many people who are, similarly, better than I am. Objectively. Provably. Even accounting for non-genetic luck and background. Sometimes it isn't so clear: I am, for instance, not as intelligent as Einstein. I would, however, be able to snap him in half. However, if I was to go in to the same field, he wins. He's better. I'm not going to drag him down to make myself feel better.

4) Communism isn't individualism. It eliminates many forms of expression. All communism does is drag the more able down so that the less able don't feel bad about being less able. Socio-Capitalism is another matter. It doesn't enforce individualism, but it allows for risks to be taken to attempt it.

5) Your wage slave BS doesn't really work since millions of people live in mansions thanks to wages. Oh no, my poor folks, with their boat and plane trips and horses and acreage and random jewelry purchases! Evil evil wages! Paid for working! NOOOO! My poor mom, especially, with the wine her boss serves everyone on Fridays! Vile oppressor!

6) Power merely brings one's true self out.

7) The vast majority, through only partial fault of their own, are idiots, and thus dangerous if given full power. The vast majority form a MOB.

8) Communistic inequality is determined by what job(s) you have. Some people fill water coolers, some people sweep sewers. Inequality also happens because the minorities will be in even more danger than usual. Impossible my ass. Don't make absolute statements without absolute proof.

9) Eliminating minorities without mass ethical problems is a pipe dream. People who prefer capitalism will, naturally, be a screwed minority in a communistic nation. While, ironically, that's not so in a capitalist nation, because here, nobody really cares if you have a commune.

So what you are saying is that the indivisual is greater than the masses.


If the individual is not the whole point, it's stupid for that individual to join a society.


This ideology has the same faults you assign to communism. I am more important than everyone esle. Therefore I should be able to steal if it benefits me,



Oy.

This is a Christian argument point, dude, sad.

Theft is to be avoided because a society with theft threatens my own possessions in the long run, and thus damages me. Setting an example keeps me from making society worse for me.


but valuing the indivisual devalues ALL the indivisual in the other group.


No. Their value remains whatever it is. My value, to me, personally, is just greater than their value to me.


So in essence you are arbitarily selecting an indivisual and lacing his values above others.


Arbitrary nothing. My ultimate concern in existance is myself. My being in society is because society, so long as it respects me as an individual, is useful to me.


Not lets look at your interpretation, that devaluing indivisual leads to devaluing the whole. This is false since the indivisual is still important because the make up a community.


Communism tells me that I'm not supposed to care about myself anymore than I care about some random lazy bastard I've never met. It tells me I'm not supposed to value my family any more than I value your family. It tells me that the people I love are to be no more important to me than the kid smoking pot behind the bleachers.

Sorry, but I'll trust my own judgement on worth.


Only when there is conflict between small interests and and larger interests do we value the larger entity.


If Everyone in the world but me would live an extra day by torturing me to death, you can all go jump off a damned cliff if you think you have a right to give me up to those days. It's my choice, no matter the benefit you may find in it.


Keep in mind however that this applies when the interests have the same impact not something outrageous like the majority wanting more land so the kill minorities since the interests are inherently different (life vs luxsury) communism would advocate the minority view since it would better balance out inequalities.


What if killing the minority would grant a proven benefit to society that wasn't wholly material? Would communism advocate that? Would a million die so a hundred billion may live longer?


To address the competition issue look at it this way- if i dont work well then i harm my own society and if others espouse that ideal it leads to suffering so i do good out of self interest.

Not everyone will care about society, and smart people would just sneak and horde for themselves.

Yeah, that's pretty much the gist of it. Plus job requirements and age would be taken into account as well.

So are you just looking for a mother? I mean why have any responsibility?

Do you believe each human in each suburb in the US, doing some job that holds little value, are still valuable? Probably not? What you have to ask is "what will I contribute to the world?" and if you have nothing to give but your seed, then there are 3 billion people just like you who don't need to exist. My thoughts on humanity? If you are just another person, then you really aren't needed. So my conception of the value of the individual only goes so far as their use. Sounds a bit cruel, but really, would the world be worse off if we had half as many people living in it? Probably not. I think some people have little value, but a large percentage have none. But I don't think it is fair to decide who is worth something to the world or not, in your immediate circle, everyone probably has a small impact.

You made a steller point for capitalism. Some people just cannot offer as much utility to society as others. Would it not be unjust to penalize those who offer a great utility to society in order to prop up those who don't? Would it not also be unjust for government to cast down judgements and estimates on what a person can contribute and at what level their contribution is valued?

In a true free market capitalism, you receive a return of goods and services exactly equal to the amount of utility you provide to the economy. If you purchase an oven, and sell it to people at a fair market price, you should receive your initial investment, plus your labor, plus any risk you assumed for providing this good to society back to you in the form of money.

And you want democracy, instead of having government specified prices and wages, every consumer and every worker helps decide the prices and wages of the whole economy with every financial and economic decision they make.

Do you know how a capitalism makes communism obsolete? Because capitalism automatically adopts the principles of communism if this great altruistic revolution everybody wants to happen actually occurs. If the great producers in the nation finally become more enlightened and begin to want to work for the benefit of others, wealth redistribution happens through charity, as the poor begin to receive money and spend it on themselves. When everyone eventually makes the same decision, that everyone should recieve all they need, then capitalism will provide that same egalitarian economy that communism is supposed provide.

And why won't communism work? Because communism seeks to enforce this altruistic revolution on to all the people prematurely. This will certainly require that dissidents to the communist goal will be forced to accept views which they don't believe.

Well stated, Vittos.

The problem with just about ANY system is the people involved. Ultimately, THAT is where things break down. This is why freedom is useful. Individuals have more control over their own lives, so that, if the majority ends up corrupt, they can still ignore them and do good.

Whoa, hold on...

Do people still believe that communism can work? Someone help the newb out here.

Some people also believe that the earth is flat...

Some people also believe that the earth is flat...

Bah?

Bah?

And some people think that magic exists...

*jumps in at the deep end*

No form of government can truly work while privacy exists.

~pr0ph37~

Would it not also be unjust for government to cast down judgements and estimates on what a person can contribute and at what level their contribution is valued?Yes, because it's unjust for anyone to do so.

And you want democracy, instead of having government specified prices and wages, every consumer and every worker helps decide the prices and wages of the whole economy with every financial and economic decision they make. Except that not all decisions are made in the same manner. It would not be the same as casting your vote to determine a fair price.

Do you know how a capitalism makes communism obsolete? Because capitalism automatically adopts the principles of communism if this great altruistic revolution everybody wants to happen actually occurs. If the great producers in the nation finally become more enlightened and begin to want to work for the benefit of others, wealth redistribution happens through charity, as the poor begin to receive money and spend it on themselves. When everyone eventually makes the same decision, that everyone should recieve all they need, then capitalism will provide that same egalitarian economy that communism is supposed provide.Except that capitalism also provides the opportunity for them to slide back and create the class system again. Which is the point of communism, not that people have to be altruistic, but that they either can be democratic or they can live outside of society. Most people would find it in their best interest to live within society...this goes back to the "enlightened self interest" that I mentioned earlier.

The Flaw is not in the basis of Communism, it is in humans. Communism has not succeded because humans naturally look out for their own best intrests over that of others. Overall people are selfish. Which is unfortunate. As much as we may like to say and think that we would put what is best for society above that which is best or even nessecery for our own self is hard in practice.
If a system is not compatible with human nature, the flaw cannot be that of human nature. This is a lousy attempt to defend the indefensible. Seriously, ANY system would be successful if you could shape the human nature to accomodate the ideology. Slavery would make a wonderful social system if people could be happy while enslaved. Racial segregation could be a perfect way to run a society if the people of color could enjoy being discriminated against. Same with Communism- it would work perfectly if only those pesky humans could live happily while being deprived of property and privacy (and if we are to go via the Orthodox Marxist route- also deprived of family and children, and of the right to choose jobs). But human nature is a given, my friend. It's unchangeable. And therefore it is the ideologies that cannot work with it who are at fault.

Whoa, hold on...

Do people still believe that communism can work? Someone help the newb out here.

A great deal have moved on to anarcho-communism, which is pretty much the same as regular communism, except the altruistic revolution comes about naturally in the society, and democratically through the government. Another large group believes in market socialism, which is pretty much capitalism with limits on wealth (I don't really disagree with market socialism).

There are really very few true revolutionary communists left I surmise.

Except that not all decisions are made in the same manner. It would not be the same as casting your vote to determine a fair price.

1. What do you mean, "not all decisions are made in the same manner."

2. You are right that it is not the same. The free market solution is much, much more efficient. It gives people a chance to make well informed votes. It gives people the opportunity to vote on what affects them specifically, while maintaining a motivation to vote. It incorporates everyone in the economy. It automatically tallies itself and is constantly running.

Except that capitalism also provides the opportunity for them to slide back and create the class system again.

Oh, that pesky "choice" issue again. It seems to irk communists.

Which is the point of communism, not that people have to be altruistic, but that they either can be democratic or they can live outside of society.

That may be the worst political oxymoron that I have ever heard. How can a nation be democratic, while holding a policy that kicks out dissenters to the government?

Most people would find it in their best interest to live within society...this goes back to the "enlightened self interest" that I mentioned earlier.

Yes, it is the logical decision to enter into the social contract. However, the social contract is starting to not be a choice in the world, and communism puts a gun to your head and says "decide".

No really, it's not. It's a gut reaction, not a refined, taught concept. What's mine is mine, whether I'm a modern capitalist brought up in the 20th century or a prehistoric tribesman wandering through the wilderness.

I see you don't belive me, ok you are entitled to your own opinin, but please if you have time check a litle bit about socialization and what actually is in human "nature", becouse almost nothing is in the thing you called "human nature"

I know I'm repeating myslef but it's just that you really don't understand, what you consider to be a gut reaction is actually not, it is the pattern of behaviour you got during your life, belive me I take a great interest in this things and most of the studies say that we do have predispositions but that our actions are mostly depending on what we learn in life. Some psychological theories go even so far to claim that even learn emotions, wich I think is only true for certain emotions.

I also have a quetion for Vittos Ordination, after all that has been said, do you still think that Communism is inherently faulty and will never work, or do you allow that in certain conditions communism could work?

If a system is not compatible with human nature, the flaw cannot be that of human nature. This is a lousy attempt to defend the indefensible. Seriously, ANY system would be successful if you could shape the human nature to accomodate the ideology. Slavery would make a wonderful social system if people could be happy while enslaved. Racial segregation could be a perfect way to run a society if the people of color could enjoy being discriminated against. Same with Communism- it would work perfectly if only those pesky humans could live happily while being deprived of property and privacy (and if we are to go via the Orthodox Marxist route- also deprived of family and children, and of the right to choose jobs). But human nature is a given, my friend. It's unchangeable. And therefore it is the ideologies that cannot work with it who are at fault.

Well I ancient greece slavery was consideredl for their society, actually great thinkers of that time (Aristotel, Platon,...) consideredand them necesary. The family had to take care of the slaves, to provide them with food and shelter, so it was in many cases better to be a slave than a free man, since you knew that you had a home and something to eat.

Although to us this sounds like something every smart person would resist, but hay, they had different coulture, different society and their morals an values allowed this while ours don't.

So here we see a difference of coulture and how really we learn how to live, and that "nature" is very limited. So is selfishness and greed, we get those patterns of behavior through our life.

OK, I'm going to stop with this now, except if someone has questions, if you belve me then the argument that communism can't work becouse of the human nature falls, but if you don't... well, it's your loss.

1. What do you mean, "not all decisions are made in the same manner."Some decisions are made with informed decisions, some aren't. Let's take the market example. In medicine, some medicines are essential for some people to survive. In essence, it is a "buy this or die" scenario. Do you really think the medicine manufacturers are going to give "fair market prices" on such medicine?

2. You are right that it is not the same. The free market solution is much, much more efficient. It gives people a chance to make well informed votes. It gives people the opportunity to vote on what affects them specifically, while maintaining a motivation to vote. It incorporates everyone in the economy. It automatically tallies itself and is constantly running.
More efficient doesn't necessarily mean better. Debate also gives people a chance to make well informed votes. I would argue that, while capitalism does give the chance to give well informed votes, it doesn't in practice, since you are much more likely to hear the advertising of a product talking it up than to hear a review of the product's faults.

Oh, that pesky "choice" issue again. It seems to irk communists.

I don't view the idea of "owning" something that you don't use a choice that a person can make. So naturally I would be irked by the concept.

That may be the worst political oxymoron that I have ever heard. How can a nation be democratic, while holding a policy that kicks out dissenters to the government?The policy would not be kicking out dissenters to the government. A person would be quite free to voice a dissenting opinion and hold unpopular views, so long as they lived by the rules of society. The difference would be that if someone decided that they didn't want to share the product of their labor equally with society, then society is not under any obligation to support them. So either they can convince society (or certain people within it) to support them, leave and support themselves, or starve to death. People would still have the option of staying within society, but I don't think anyone would be willing to starve to death simply to avoid living outside of society.

Yes, it is the logical decision to enter into the social contract. However, the social contract is starting to not be a choice in the world, and communism puts a gun to your head and says "decide".I would not support a system of communism that uses violence in such a manner.

"Welfare state" is itself a seriously vague term. But I think I know what you mean. My opinion- in the form it is practiced in today's Western Europe, the "welfare state" simply isn't viable, because the number of non-working welfare recipients slowly, but surely exceeds the number of workers whose taxes pay for the welfare. All signs are that this system is already crumbling- and I'm afraid the problem is the nature of the system. Can there me a different model of a "welfare state"? Well, it's a good question, but I don't know the answer yet.Fair enough. Would you support a viable welfare state?

"A country run by the workers" as envisioned by Marx and others, is an oxymoron. Workers cannot run anything, they have to stop being workers and become managers and bureaucrats in order to do so. This is one of the main contradictions between Marxism/Communism and the economic reality- in order for any complex structure to be run efficiently, it has to be run and supervised by professionals, which inevitably creates a class of professional managers who will rule this structure- which means re-introduction of the class system, with bureaucracy being the new ruling class. Whether the professionals in question come from a worker background or a banker background makes no difference. In order to create a "state run by the workers", you have to create a society structure with minimum complexity, where all people are interchangeable and each can do their neighbor's job. That, in turn, will require dismantling all production cycles that demand specialization.
Not exactly. While it is good to not become over-specialized in something, it isn't necessary for everyone to be interchangeable. Take, for instance, a doctor. Now, there are various reasons why people enter the medical field, but the fact remains that some people do so because they like it and because they want to help people. So most jobs (if not all of them) would be filled by people who like those jobs.
Therefore, if you fill jobs with what people like to do, this doesn't create a separate class system. If it did, then people who like to play chess in their spare time would be in a different class than people who like to play basketball (both are decisions made by people based on what they like to do.)

I am sorry. The truth is the world never has seen a communist country. At most there has been Dictorships, Socialist States, and Totalertism, BUT never Communism.

Communism is a system of society that has no government. Everyone in the society works for everyone. Money is absent in this society and only bartering is the way of trade. The world has never seen a communist state because A) to become a communist state a socialist government needs to hold power to organize all. From there the government dissapears little by little. BUT in history from socialism people went into dictorships, never Communism.
My Sourse for this info can be found in DAS KAPITAL, By Karl Marx.

:)
I agree. I haven't yet read Das Kapital (I really should) but I have read the Mannifesto(sp?).
BTW, today is Karl Marx's 186th birthday. Happy birthday Karl.

Some decisions are made with informed decisions, some aren't. Let's take the market example. In medicine, some medicines are essential for some people to survive. In essence, it is a "buy this or die" scenario. Do you really think the medicine manufacturers are going to give "fair market prices" on such medicine?

I personally believe health care should be universally provided. Due to copyright laws and government regulation it is impossible for there to be competitive pricing in much of the healthcare industry. So it is a source of problems.

More efficient doesn't necessarily mean better. Debate also gives people a chance to make well informed votes.

The information gathering process does not change. People are still free to debate the correct choice under a free market system of price making. The only thing that changes is the voting structure. All the points I made about the free market as a voting system still stand, and they stand well against a government issued democratic process to determine fair prices and wages for every good and service on the market.

I would argue that, while capitalism does give the chance to give well informed votes, it doesn't in practice, since you are much more likely to hear the advertising of a product talking it up than to hear a review of the product's faults.

It is very easy to find information on the faults of large and valuable goods and services. The only goods that one would have trouble finding information on are small and disposable goods that one will buy multiple times, and in that situation the consumer will be very well informed for the subsequent decisions.

I don't view the idea of "owning" something that you don't use a choice that a person can make. So naturally I would be irked by the concept.

How about owning something that you don't need? Or the choice of what you will use and what you won't.

The policy would not be kicking out dissenters to the government. A person would be quite free to voice a dissenting opinion and hold unpopular views, so long as they lived by the rules of society. The difference would be that if someone decided that they didn't want to share the product of their labor equally with society, then society is not under any obligation to support them. So either they can convince society (or certain people within it) to support them, leave and support themselves, or starve to death. People would still have the option of staying within society, but I don't think anyone would be willing to starve to death simply to avoid living outside of society.

Trotsky was right, a singular society of the nature you are stating would crumble under capitalistic pressures. What happens when a group of people leave the society and form their own capitalistic society? It is nearly guaranteed that they can offer their own goods at a price comparable if not better than that of the communist society. Would the people who do share their labor with everyone else be forbid from dealing with these sources of goods that exist outside of the society?

Another point:

I have noticed a great deal of communists saying that "true" communism has never been acheived (that definitely seems to help my initial post). They claim that a democracy is required for a true communism. So in regards to my initial point, that communism will never work as it devalues the individual, do the communists in here not believe that the devaluation of the individual undermines democracy. What value does democracy have if the individual is unimportant?

Fair enough. Would you support a viable welfare state?
Show me one- and I'll tell you. At the moment, I do not believe a welfare state can realistically be viable in the long term.


Not exactly. While it is good to not become over-specialized in something, it isn't necessary for everyone to be interchangeable. Take, for instance, a doctor. Now, there are various reasons why people enter the medical field, but the fact remains that some people do so because they like it and because they want to help people. So most jobs (if not all of them) would be filled by people who like those jobs.
Therefore, if you fill jobs with what people like to do, this doesn't create a separate class system. If it did, then people who like to play chess in their spare time would be in a different class than people who like to play basketball (both are decisions made by people based on what they like to do.)
There's a lot of problems with this view, I will only outline the main ones:

1)The moment you allow specialization of any kind, you allow the creation of a professional elite, which in essense restores the class system. Most importantly, if you allow professional management, you immediately have a new ruling class on your hands. Even if they do not formally own the "property of the people", they are the ones who exclusively
command it (like in the good old Israeli comedy "Sallah Shabbati": the matress belongs to the kibbutz, but only the chairman sleeps on it). Which means that under the Communist system, the ruling class will own almost 100% of means of production- far more than under capitalism

2)What makes you think that "most jobs (if not all of them) would be filled by people who like those jobs"? I find it far more likely that, just like now, there would be a disproportionally high demand for some jobs and extremely low demand for others. There are even jobs that absolutely no one is going to like. Who, pray tell, will clean the toilets? Machines? Suppose- but who will clean and repair the machines? Who will put on the dirty rubber boots and walk knee deep in shit if the machine gets a circut and is stuck in the middle of a pool of feces? Can you find enough people who like this kind of job to maintain all the country's toilets?

The only solution here is forced labor, and Marx understood it very well. Which is why in the Communist Manifesto he suggests exactly that- banning people from leaving dirty ungrateful jobs. He calls for the "Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture". Why "especially for agriculture"? To keep the peasants from fleeing to the cities in search of better jobs, obviously.


Generally, the Communist Manifesto is a pretty terrifying document, and those who say that a true Communist society is a society with no government are either complete idiots or have never actually read Marx. What Marx really suggested was a ruthless, extremely repressive totalitarian system of total enslavement. Here is the list of Marx's recommendations, quoted from the Manifesto word-to-word. Emphasis mine:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. (In other words, assigned residence. People won't be free to choose where they want to live)

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.



In other words, centralization of everything in the hands of the state, coupled with forced labor. Of course the Soviet Union wasn't a true Communism- they were way too humane for real Marxism!

what political or economic system does not subdue the individual in some way/shape or form? That is what systems do.

Except of course. for the one singular individual at the highest point in a dictatorship. We have never seen a communist state, and i dare say none of us have any idea what it will finally look like when it evolves, but rest assured it will evolve and we will unknowingly be living inside it. As for all the other comments in this thread, i tend to agree with you all. Thanks for the brain candy.

Oh yes and remember 6 billion - 1, is and always will be of less importance than 6 billion. Therefore, the individual is ultimately important even in communism, and collective societies.

I personally believe health care should be universally provided. Due to copyright laws and government regulation it is impossible for there to be competitive pricing in much of the healthcare industry. So it is a source of problems.Good. I figured that you might, judging from your Political Compass score. And I agree, that would be lightyears ahead of what we have now.


The information gathering process does not change. People are still free to debate the correct choice under a free market system of price making. The only thing that changes is the voting structure. All the points I made about the free market as a voting system still stand, and they stand well against a government issued democratic process to determine fair prices and wages for every good and service on the market.Except, of course, for market discrepancies. It could be argued that they're inconsequential in comparison, though.


It is very easy to find information on the faults of large and valuable goods and services. The only goods that one would have trouble finding information on are small and disposable goods that one will buy multiple times, and in that situation the consumer will be very well informed for the subsequent decisions.Oh, I agree that it's fairly easy to find information on such things, but that isn't how most people do things.


How about owning something that you don't need? Or the choice of what you will use and what you won't.Hm. It can be difficult to define what a "need" is. Some people would say that the only things that people need are the things that are biological requirements to survive. Other people, such as myself, think that some things are more important, such as entertainment. I believe that people need some form of entertainment, as boredom can make people do crazy things.
As far as choosing what you'll use and what you won't, while decisions based on use would be the primary goal, there are a couple of different ways to being the process. One could be that the first person/society to get to a certain spot of land/building gets to use it and everyone else who wants to use it has to work around them. Another could be that the person/society who will use a certain spot of land/building more often gets to use it and everyone else has to work around them. There would be talks and discussions between conflicting groups to try to work a compromise.


Trotsky was right, a singular society of the nature you are stating would crumble under capitalistic pressures. What happens when a group of people leave the society and form their own capitalistic society? It is nearly guaranteed that they can offer their own goods at a price comparable if not better than that of the communist society. Would the people who do share their labor with everyone else be forbid from dealing with these sources of goods that exist outside of the society?Possibly. The way that I see it, in the initial stages a society would be forming in the midst of a more capitalistic country. Of course, the people forming it would be the people who want to, and at this point it would perhaps require the will of the people to be altruistic and look out for the common good. I think that once the society gets going, people who support such societies, but initially weren't interested in forming them would see that things are much better, and start to form their own. At this stage, of course, the society would have to deal with capitalism, as it would still be part of the capitalistic country, and would have to abide by its laws (such as taxes).
By the end, however, (and there are a lot of steps) there wouldn't be any more capitalistic societies, because people would voluntarily choose to leave them. But certainly attempts could be made to establish a capitalistic society, but there are a couple of stumbling blocks. While I realize that there are people who believe in capitalism and are willing to sacrifice their immediate gain for the cause, they would have a difficult time in getting others to work for them, as few people would be willing to work for a boss and get less there than they do in the communist society. (This is primarily why I believe that once a few communist societies get going, the surrounding capitalist ones would slowly disintegrate and form communist societies of their own.) Another stumbling block would be that people seeking to establish a new capitalist society would have to build it from scratch. Combine the two stumbling blocks, and I don't think there would be a point where the capitalist society offers competing goods and services.

what political or economic system does not subdue the individual in some way/shape or form? That is what systems do.

Except of course. for the one singular individual at the highest point in a dictatorship. We have never seen a communist state, and i dare say none of us have any idea what it will finally look like when it evolves, but rest assured it will evolve and we will unknowingly be living inside it. As for all the other comments in this thread, i tend to agree with you all. Thanks for the brain candy.

Oh yes and remember 6 billion - 1, is and always will be of less importance than 6 billion. Therefore, the individual is ultimately important even in communism, and collective societies.

Society, by its nature must subdue the individual. Capitalism is just the least subjegating societal breakdown we have invented yet.

1)The moment you allow specialization of any kind, you allow the creation of a professional elite, which in essense restores the class system. Most importantly, if you allow professional management, you immediately have a new ruling class on your hands. Even if they do not formally own the "property of the people", they are the ones who exclusively
command it (like in the good old Israeli comedy "Sallah Shabbati": the matress belongs to the kibbutz, but only the chairman sleeps on it). Which means that under the Communist system, the ruling class will own almost 100% of means of production- far more than under capitalismI think you'll have to give me a more specific example. While I do agree that it could be a problem, most managers can be replaced by a direct democracy of the workers in the factory/store, etc. Furthermore, if people do decide a manager is needed, it would be on the same principle as a delegate - the manager could be recalled at any time for any reason.

2)What makes you think that "most jobs (if not all of them) would be filled by people who like those jobs"? I find it far more likely that, just like now, there would be a disproportionally high demand for some jobs and extremely low demand for others. There are even jobs that absolutely no one is going to like. Who, pray tell, will clean the toilets? Machines? Suppose- but who will clean and repair the machines? Who will put on the dirty rubber boots and walk knee deep in shit if the machine gets a circut and is stuck in the middle of a pool of feces? Can you find enough people who like this kind of job to maintain all the country's toilets?As far as cleaning toilets goes, and perhaps most of the other jobs, there would be a couple of options. Someone could be convinced to do the job, but it's unlikely. So either people would have to clean their own toilets (a possibility) or, perhaps set aside a day of the week where all of the toilets would be cleaned, and have a few people to do it. Then those people wouldn't have to clean any toilets until the list gets back around to them. (Another possibility.) Or there could be another solution, depending on whatever society decides.

The only solution here is forced labor, and Marx understood it very well. Which is why in the Communist Manifesto he suggests exactly that- banning people from leaving dirty ungrateful jobs. He calls for the "Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture". Why "especially for agriculture"? To keep the peasants from fleeing to the cities in search of better jobs, obviously.

Generally, the Communist Manifesto is a pretty terrifying document I don't agree with everything in the Manifesto, (I'm an anarcho-communist) so I can concede some of those points to you. I do, however, agree with some of the principles of communism, which is why I'm defending them.

Another point:

I have noticed a great deal of communists saying that "true" communism has never been acheived (that definitely seems to help my initial post). They claim that a democracy is required for a true communism. So in regards to my initial point, that communism will never work as it devalues the individual, do the communists in here not believe that the devaluation of the individual undermines democracy. What value does democracy have if the individual is unimportant?
I disagree, although I can see how you might get that idea from most communists, and most people in this thread. But I view the individual as being of the utmost importance, which is why I seek to equalize power (at least as much as possible).

I think you'll have to give me a more specific example. While I do agree that it could be a problem, most managers can be replaced by a direct democracy of the workers in the factory/store, etc.
No it can't. A large number of incompetent people does not replace professional judgement. For a structure like a modern factory to be run effectively, knowlege of economics, law and other disciplines is required- which creates the need for specialization.


Furthermore, if people do decide a manager is needed, it would be on the same principle as a delegate - the manager could be recalled at any time for any reason.
Which would immobilize the manager. The bunch of incompetent people (not stupid, mind you, but incompetent, as in without sufficient knowlege in the field) will not necesserily be able to adequately judge the manager's actions. Populism would then come into play- and I am sure you can imagine the rest.


As far as cleaning toilets goes, and perhaps most of the other jobs, there would be a couple of options. Someone could be convinced to do the job, but it's unlikely. So either people would have to clean their own toilets (a possibility)
Is it? Imagine a megapolis like New York. Imagine the New York sewer system. Do you find it a "possibility" that the sewer system of New York would be divided into sections and each New Yorker would clean his/her two yards?


or, perhaps set aside a day of the week where all of the toilets would be cleaned, and have a few people to do it. Then those people wouldn't have to clean any toilets until the list gets back around to them. (Another possibility.)
Who are these few people going to be? Are you going to divert nuclear scientists, whose day of work is kind of more important for society than a waiter's, for nationwide toilet cleaning sessions? What about the huge loss of wealth from this kind of distractions? Disrupting production cycles, delaying research?


Or there could be another solution, depending on whatever society decides.
There aren't many options.


I don't agree with everything in the Manifesto, (I'm an anarcho-communist) so I can concede some of those points to you. I do, however, agree with some of the principles of communism, which is why I'm defending them.
Anarcho-Communist? Sorry, but I don't see how it is better than a normal Communist... if the word normal even applies to Communists of any kind :p


Oh and btw, the greatest weakness of Marxism is its idiotic definition of work. Even the neo-Marxists like Adorno had to admit that Marxist scheme is completely inadequate when describing the capitalist system.

I disagree, although I can see how you might get that idea from most communists, and most people in this thread. But I view the individual as being of the utmost importance, which is why I seek to equalize power (at least as much as possible).

It fails to equalize.

Read this famous, really short story: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

Another view can be seen in Brave New World, but that's a full novel.

This is the kind of BS communism would result in.

To make the genius the equal of the fool, you must cripple the genius and take away their freedom to be fully who they are, while leaving the fool their full wit. If all the world's a slave, nobody is their own master.

Good. I figured that you might, judging from your Political Compass score. And I agree, that would be lightyears ahead of what we have now.

I am too socially liberal to be a libertarian and too economically conservative to be a liberal. I have a feeling that there are a lot of people like me.

Except, of course, for market discrepancies. It could be argued that they're inconsequential in comparison, though.

What do you mean by discrepancies?

Oh, I agree that it's fairly easy to find information on such things, but that isn't how most people do things.

If people don't inform themselves, why would a government issued direct democracy work any better? I think the last couple of decades have shown just how vulnerable democratic voting processes are to the same marketing plans that exist in our economy. In fact, I would say that in American society, the entities competing for votes in our democratic system have the most extensive marketing plans.

Hm. It can be difficult to define what a "need" is. Some people would say that the only things that people need are the things that are biological requirements to survive. Other people, such as myself, think that some things are more important, such as entertainment. I believe that people need some form of entertainment, as boredom can make people do crazy things.
As far as choosing what you'll use and what you won't, while decisions based on use would be the primary goal, there are a couple of different ways to being the process. One could be that the first person/society to get to a certain spot of land/building gets to use it and everyone else who wants to use it has to work around them. Another could be that the person/society who will use a certain spot of land/building more often gets to use it and everyone else has to work around them. There would be talks and discussions between conflicting groups to try to work a compromise.

What is the most efficient and effective way of determining an individual need?

Possibly. The way that I see it, in the initial stages a society would be forming in the midst of a more capitalistic country. Of course, the people forming it would be the people who want to, and at this point it would perhaps require the will of the people to be altruistic and look out for the common good. I think that once the society gets going, people who support such societies, but initially weren't interested in forming them would see that things are much better, and start to form their own. At this stage, of course, the society would have to deal with capitalism, as it would still be part of the capitalistic country, and would have to abide by its laws (such as taxes).

This is what I was saying about Capitalism making Communism obsolete.

I will, for the sake of this argument, assume that you agree that revolutionary communism suffers from a faulty transition. Now, from your post it appears that you believe that the transition to communism would only occur by democratic process within a capitalist system. Then, with the acceptance of pockets of communism within capitalism, people will become more altruistically enlightened and will join the pockets or create new pockets of communism until finally the whole of society will have accepted this communal way of life. If this is incorrect, please correct me. If it is correct, then explain at what point in this transition is any state control of property rights ever needed?

By the end, however, (and there are a lot of steps) there wouldn't be any more capitalistic societies, because people would voluntarily choose to leave them. But certainly attempts could be made to establish a capitalistic society, but there are a couple of stumbling blocks. While I realize that there are people who believe in capitalism and are willing to sacrifice their immediate gain for the cause

No reason for me to stop other than to chuckle over the irony of capitalists sacrificing profits for the sake of capitalism.

they would have a difficult time in getting others to work for them, as few people would be willing to work for a boss and get less there than they do in the communist society. (This is primarily why I believe that once a few communist societies get going, the surrounding capitalist ones would slowly disintegrate and form communist societies of their own.)

It is also debatable whether workers would recieve more within the socialist societies, as well. Communist companies would provide a steady market pressure on capitalist businesses to provide fair wages and avoid artificial overhead profits. Since capitalist companies can be assumed to work more efficiently, due to the individual profit motive that stock ownership offers and the reward for expertise, it can be assumed that they will generate more revenue. If these companies produce more revenue and pay a fair market wage, I would think that capitalist businesses in developed markets would be more likely to pay higher wages.

Another stumbling block would be that people seeking to establish a new capitalist society would have to build it from scratch. Combine the two stumbling blocks, and I don't think there would be a point where the capitalist society offers competing goods and services.

The nature of capitalism is to take labor and materials and to convert them to a marketable good or service, so the need to build from scratch is not a problem for a capitalist society.

I disagree, although I can see how you might get that idea from most communists, and most people in this thread. But I view the individual as being of the utmost importance, which is why I seek to equalize power (at least as much as possible).

I will agree with you to an extent, but I think we disagree on to what extent we need to equalize power. I believe that no entity, whatsoever, whether it be an individual or the collective will of society should have the power to coerce anybody outside the reasonable functioning of upholding the peace and ensuring legal contracts. No one should be able to take anything away from anyone else without expressed consent.

I believe we can agree that people are born with various levels of ability and utility. If efforts are made by the state to equate the return on the labor provide, they take away from those who have greater ability. That is why communism is faulty to me. If it comes to a point in a capitalist society where the more able believe that they should give their added return to those who are less able through charity, so be it, but do not force them.

No it can't. A large number of incompetent people does not replace professional judgement. For a structure like a modern factory to be run effectively, knowlege of economics, law and other disciplines is required- which creates the need for specialization.Economics and law aren't sciences, and depend upon the specific country/area that they're implemented in. In an anarchist society they would be kept as simple as possible in order to keep the society as elastic as possible.


Which would immobilize the manager. The bunch of incompetent people (not stupid, mind you, but incompetent, as in without sufficient knowlege in the field) will not necesserily be able to adequately judge the manager's actions. Populism would then come into play- and I am sure you can imagine the rest.
Perhaps.

Is it? Imagine a megapolis like New York. Imagine the New York sewer system. Do you find it a "possibility" that the sewer system of New York would be divided into sections and each New Yorker would clean his/her two yards?I don't know that there would be a need for there to be a society with as many people as New York. However, in a case where there is such an integrated system of plumbing, perhaps a better solution would be to divide the work based upon time instead of area.


Who are these few people going to be? Are you going to divert nuclear scientists, whose day of work is kind of more important for society than a waiter's, for nationwide toilet cleaning sessions? What about the huge loss of wealth from this kind of distractions? Disrupting production cycles, delaying research?An idea of determining who they would be would be to randomly generate a list, determine how many workers you'll need, and then once those workers are done move them to the bottom of the list.
As far as waiters go, I don't know that there would be much demand for them. (Not sure about nuclear scientists, either.) But in most cases each job is equally important as the next. A doctor can't do his job without the custodian doing his first.

Oh and btw, the greatest weakness of Marxism is its idiotic definition of work. Even the neo-Marxists like Adorno had to admit that Marxist scheme is completely inadequate when describing the capitalist system.How does Marxism define work? I've read the Manifesto, but am unfamiliar with other Marxist theory.

It fails to equalize.

Read this famous, really short story: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

Another view can be seen in Brave New World, but that's a full novel.

This is the kind of BS communism would result in.

To make the genius the equal of the fool, you must cripple the genius and take away their freedom to be fully who they are, while leaving the fool their full wit. If all the world's a slave, nobody is their own master.I've read them both. Both good stories. As far as Harrison Bergeron goes, it's unnecessary to go to the extent that they went to in that story. You can't completely remove all differences between people (not that I would want to) without doing what they did in that story. I don't think removing all of the differences between people is necessary, just the manmade ones.

you dont need to destroy differences between people for communism, you only need to teach humanity an "social mind", so everyone works for the community and not for himself. Its an evolutionary thing, so you first need socialism, the phase of learning how to live in communism (over many generations to come)

I am too socially liberal to be a libertarian and too economically conservative to be a liberal. I have a feeling that there are a lot of people like me.Yes, there are a lot of moderates. It's unfortunate, moderates are more difficult do debate with. ;)



What do you mean by discrepancies?Hmm...sort of hard to say. I hear occasionally about market errors and that it will correct itself in time, however I am unable to give a specific example. Let me get back to you on that one.

If people don't inform themselves, why would a government issued direct democracy work any better? I think the last couple of decades have shown just how vulnerable democratic voting processes are to the same marketing plans that exist in our economy. In fact, I would say that in American society, the entities competing for votes in our democratic system have the most extensive marketing plans.People would be informing themselves immediately before casting the vote, and would hear both pro and con sides juxtaposed next to each other. It would be essentially like the Presidential debate, except that people would be debating ideas instead of leaders.
And I agree that the entities competing for votes have the biggest marketing plans, but they're hand-in-hand with big business.



What is the most efficient and effective way of determining an individual need?By asking the individual. Or do you mean on a large scale?


This is what I was saying about Capitalism making Communism obsolete.

I will, for the sake of this argument, assume that you agree that revolutionary communism suffers from a faulty transition. Now, from your post it appears that you believe that the transition to communism would only occur by democratic process within a capitalist system. Then, with the acceptance of pockets of communism within capitalism, people will become more altruistically enlightened and will join the pockets or create new pockets of communism until finally the whole of society will have accepted this communal way of life. If this is incorrect, please correct me. If it is correct, then explain at what point in this transition is any state control of property rights ever needed?A faulty transition could be one way of describing it, but even if the transition were perfect I don't believe that the ends would justify the violent means. So, yes, democracy is the only way I envision it working.
The initial people would be altruistically enlightened, yes, but subsequent people wouldn't necessarily be.
As far as state control of property goes - most property in a capitalist system isn't taken by the government. Whatever wasn't taken by the government would be taken by the communist society within the capitalist one. I envision the society first becoming a city, then a state, then its own country, assuming more and more duties (and therefore getting more taxes) in the meantime. So state control of property would begin immediately.


No reason for me to stop other than to chuckle over the irony of capitalists sacrificing profits for the sake of capitalism.It would be funny, but I've heard sillier ideas.


It is also debatable whether workers would recieve more within the socialist societies, as well. Communist companies would provide a steady market pressure on capitalist businesses to provide fair wages and avoid artificial overhead profits. Since capitalist companies can be assumed to work more efficiently, due to the individual profit motive that stock ownership offers and the reward for expertise, it can be assumed that they will generate more revenue. If these companies produce more revenue and pay a fair market wage, I would think that capitalist businesses in developed markets would be more likely to pay higher wages.It's possible. It would take a hell of a lot of companies willing to do this, though.


The nature of capitalism is to take labor and materials and to convert them to a marketable good or service, so the need to build from scratch is not a problem for a capitalist society.Perhaps, though it would take a while.

3) Capitalism, even pure capitalism, does not RELY on poverty. Poverty is the result of people in the lower rungs of society relying on capitalism. Capitalism is for active, able, and exceptional people. This is why socio-capitalism is my favorite model. It recognizes that a large portion of society can't make it on their own, whether through bad luck, bad genetics, bad choices, or being lazy. Communism, on the other hand, pretends that people are equal in something other than the law. This is provably wrong. Humans vary greatly. I'm smarter, stronger, faster, better-educated, more adaptable, and healthier than some people born in to similar situations. I am, generally speaking, better than them. I'm worth more to the world than they are. I have more potential, and more importantly, I will USE that potential. There are many people who are, similarly, better than I am. Objectively. Provably. Even accounting for non-genetic luck and background. Sometimes it isn't so clear: I am, for instance, not as intelligent as Einstein. I would, however, be able to snap him in half. However, if I was to go in to the same field, he wins. He's better. I'm not going to drag him down to make myself feel better.


Can I call you an idiot? Okay, you're an idiot.

So the millions of people in Africa, Asia and South America that are starving working in American sweatshops are "lazy"? Where a majority of the world lives on less than one dollar a day? How can they acheive their "potentional" and "individuality" in this system of oppression? THEY CAN'T.

Its even more obivous here; its wage slavery outright, they live in misery thanks to capitalist oppression. Wage slavery has almost everyone in the world under control; in first world it is alot less obvious, but when the economy takes a dip, you lose your job, your at the line in the soup kitchen and begging for a job when the rich drive past in a limo, you'll see it.

4) Communism isn't individualism. It eliminates many forms of expression. All communism does is drag the more able down so that the less able don't feel bad about being less able. Socio-Capitalism is another matter. It doesn't enforce individualism, but it allows for risks to be taken to attempt it.

5) Your wage slave BS doesn't really work since millions of people live in mansions thanks to wages. Oh no, my poor folks, with their boat and plane trips and horses and acreage and random jewelry purchases! Evil evil wages! Paid for working! NOOOO! My poor mom, especially, with the wine her boss serves everyone on Fridays! Vile oppressor!

6) Power merely brings one's true self out.

7) The vast majority, through only partial fault of their own, are idiots, and thus dangerous if given full power. The vast majority form a MOB.

8) Communistic inequality is determined by what job(s) you have. Some people fill water coolers, some people sweep sewers. Inequality also happens because the minorities will be in even more danger than usual. Impossible my ass. Don't make absolute statements without absolute proof.

4) Yes it is, you are no longer alienated from the means of production in Communism; man is elevated above the commidity, the commidity no longer rules man, but man rules commidity (basic Marxism), the conscience of man is made by the commidity right now (consumerism ect.) in capitalism, in Communism, as Marx saw it, Man will return to his true self.

5) Idiot, does the majority of the world live in mansions? The starving kids in Africa? The Indian and Chinese laborers that make your clothes? NO. They are wage slaves! As for America; theres the theory of "labor aristrocracy" formulated by a certain V.I Lenin

6) What the hell does that mean?

7) Not true in the Paris Commune or Spanish Revolution in 1936

Can I call you an idiot? Okay, you're an idiot.

This thread has been clean so far, don't ruin it with this trash.

Its even more obivous here; its wage slavery outright, they live in misery thanks to capitalist oppression. Wage slavery has almost everyone in the world under control; in first world it is alot less obvious, but when the economy takes a dip, you lose your job, your at the line in the soup kitchen and begging for a job when the rich drive past in a limo, you'll see it.

50% of all American household own stock, I don't think that they feel they are experiencing slave labor. And maybe when you retire at age 45 because of hard work and wise investments you will see the benefits of capitalism.

To those people who claim that the average worker's identity will be crushed and his work become nothing but the bare minimun, you did not reflect back to Marx on his ideas of Alienation and Objectification.
The worker is meant to produce an item that is an externalization of his being (his uniqueness, if you will). If early Marxist ideology took root, then workers would be allowed to make their craft something of splendid quality, since they would theoretically strive to make their craftwork the best. The capitalist controlling the worker caused the alienation of the worker from his craft, this is when you have those "average quality" items produced. 'Communist' Russia inadvertantly alienated its workers because they took a more scientific Marxist approach. So, if a commune is wanting high quality work, it must allow its laborers to control their craft, or else it will not be pleasing to do work anymore.
But i must agree with everyone when saying that it takes a small region to become a communist society first. But you also must realize that a capitalist socirty does not spring into a communist society quickly. Russia foolishly did this and because of it, the infrastructure became weak. Socialism is required beforehand. This will establish a solid infrastructure which can in the future, lead to a commune provided that the government can flex, and not kill itself in a beaurocracy, of course, that's just my opinion on his philosophy.

also to help offset this argument, we totally forget to bring scarcity into this whole fray. Scarcity is manipulated by capitalism, which drives our modern economies. The problem with communism is that there are only limited resources, and these resources need to get to everyone. That is inherently the TRUE flaw of communism.

Yes, there are a lot of moderates. It's unfortunate, moderates are more difficult do debate with. ;)

They do tend to keep it civil though. That is what is great about these types of threads, it is rare to run into a reaction radical.

People would be informing themselves immediately before casting the vote, and would hear both pro and con sides juxtaposed next to each other. It would be essentially like the Presidential debate, except that people would be debating ideas instead of leaders.

Yes, but that method is completely unfeasible when determining wages and prices.

And I agree that the entities competing for votes have the biggest marketing plans, but they're hand-in-hand with big business.

It would be very uncommunistic of you to assume that politicians only run for the monetary benefits of having the job.

By asking the individual. Or do you mean on a large scale?

And capitalism solves the problem by asking the individual. Over the grand scale, each consumer helps determine prices by making the yes or no decision of whether the good is worth the price. If they decide that it is not worth the price, then the company either lowers the price, gets forced out by competition which offers a lower price, or the product is taken off of the market. No democratic system of pricing could be more efficient and pervasive than that.

A faulty transition could be one way of describing it, but even if the transition were perfect I don't believe that the ends would justify the violent means. So, yes, democracy is the only way I envision it working.
The initial people would be altruistically enlightened, yes, but subsequent people wouldn't necessarily be.

It can be assumed, I suppose, that people who are raised to be altruistic will accept altruism as a way of life. So I think that if altruism was established as necessary societal trait, subsequent generations would generally also accept it.


As far as state control of property goes - most property in a capitalist system isn't taken by the government. Whatever wasn't taken by the government would be taken by the communist society within the capitalist one. I envision the society first becoming a city, then a state, then its own country, assuming more and more duties (and therefore getting more taxes) in the meantime. So state control of property would begin immediately.

But a completely altruistic community within a capitalism would not need state control of property. The members of the community could privately decide what they needed to live and would be easily able to forfeit the non-necessities privately. Individuals who were completely altruistic but were in need would not take more than they need. There would be no need for government regulation whatsoever.

Rousseauia, the problem with your initial point is that there are only so many desirable jobs open, and very few people will be able to work on something they love. Most of our major goods are made by assembly line workers, that are not afforded much opportunity to concentrate on their "craft".

down with the communist pigs, capitalism rules

Can I call you an idiot? Okay, you're an idiot.


Thank you for proving yourself to have the argumentative skills of Rush Limbaugh right off the bat. Going to call me a liberal pinko commie next?


So the millions of people in Africa, Asia and South America that are starving working in American sweatshops are "lazy"?


I said "through bad luck, bad genetics, bad choices, or being lazy" jackass.

OR.

Learn to read.


Where a majority of the world lives on less than one dollar a day?


People have been surviving long before the dollar was invented.

Do you know what happens if you throw, say, me out in to the world?

I start killing things and eating them to survive. In fact, many intelligent people have figured this out, and there's even a market now for 'bush meat'. Their only problem is that poachers have seriously limited some of the animals, so they're protected. Elephants would keep everyone fed if they weren't so close to extinction. Or are you suggesting that modern humans are shit compared to cave men and chimps? I can make a stone knife, can't you?


How can they acheive their "potentional" and "individuality" in this system of oppression? THEY CAN'T.


You have to show that the oppression there is due to capitalism, and would fail to exist in communism, for your statement to have any meaning in this discussion.

Last I checked, the problems in Africa are a blend of religion, organized crime, and military takeovers.


Its even more obivous here; its wage slavery outright,


Yes. We do so suffer under the cars and horses our wage slavery brings us. Woe is me.


they live in misery thanks to capitalist oppression.


Usually it's a result of illegal practices and people being stupid.

Do you have any idea how many people in 'poverty' have cable TV and video games?


Wage slavery has almost everyone in the world under control; in first world it is alot less obvious, but when the economy takes a dip, you lose your job, your at the line in the soup kitchen and begging for a job when the rich drive past in a limo, you'll see it.

Actually the people with the limos around here are the kids of the Indian Gaming Casinos. Appearantly wage slaves like to gamble a lot. Another stupid thing people do to themselves.

And guess what, for the most part, there's, GASP, unemployment. You know. Welfare.

Most of the people dying in the streets in the US are people who Reagan kicked out of the asylums, or people who won't keep looking for jobs, people who get on drugs, or who otherwise make really bad decisions.

communism is based on the belief that the good of the many is more important than the good of the few. in other words,the wealth is more evenly distributed than it would be in a dictatorship or a capitalist society. in theory,this is a very good idea. it means noone goes without,and wealth does not create a powerbase to abuse others. an example of this would be the system they used on the tv series STNG.

unfortunately,it doesnt work as it should. neither does democracy or any other form of government. why? because most humans are selfish and lazy by nature.
regardless of what form of government you use,someone always finds a way around the rules,and eventually,it becomes corrupt.

capitalism is an elitist form of rule. it has one of the biggest wealth gaps between the rich and the poor. the few elite live on the efforts of the masses.
democracy says that the will of the people(the majority) rules. the problem is,the will of the people is usually not selfless and kind. this is why the majority thought slavery was good at one time. the will of the people also has a tendency to create a mob mentality that lashes out against any minority. the minority are people who still have certain rights,but these rights are usually voted away by the majority. they are not protected,not listened too,and are usually left to fend for themselves. this is hardly the ideal form of government,although it does please the most people in that nation.

until the human race grows up and stops being selfish and greedy,no form of government will ever work as good in practice as it does in theory....

stick that in your pipe and smoke it! :)

4) Yes it is, you are no longer alienated from the means of production in Communism; man is elevated above the commidity, the commidity no longer rules man, but man rules commidity (basic Marxism), the conscience of man is made by the commidity right now (consumerism ect.) in capitalism, in Communism, as Marx saw it, Man will return to his true self.


You appearantly have no idea how much art supplies cost. Do people who express themselves THROUGH materials get screwed over in communism? Will people who express themselves through water sports, like sailing, be screwed over? You do realize that, for many people, they work solely so they can afford their favorite, expensive leisure actviity?

Will nobody ever get to climb Mt. Everest again, or fly around the world, or go to a theme park?

What about movies? Do you have any idea how expensive movies are?

What about the internet? Your computer and your modem are MATERIAL.

Do you own video games? Material. Do you own a TV? Material. Do you own extra clothing? Material. Do you have toys? Material. Do you have art? Material. Do you have non-vocal music? Material. Do you own CDs of music? Material.


5) Idiot,


Can I call you Rush?


does the majority of the world live in mansions?


The majority believes in magic. You have to have a better argument than "they're the majority".


The starving kids in Africa?


I do my part by not helping the Christians make it worse. To do more than that requires me killing missionaries on sight, which will get me arrested.


The Indian and Chinese laborers that make your clothes?


Do they own computers so they can bitch on the internet about capitalists?

And, by the by, I try to avoid sweat shop products. I'll never buy Old Navy or GAP, for instance.


NO. They are wage slaves! As for America; theres the theory of "labor aristrocracy" formulated by a certain V.I Lenin


I notice you have to leave the US to find problems with capitalism.

Guess what. There's different ways to utilize things.

As for Labor, Labor in the US has a damned good union, right up there with the carpenter's union my dad is in.


6) What the hell does that mean?


It means that, by and large, people are asses, they're usually just too weak to risk proving it.

This is why mobs are so dangerous. You give a bunch of people a sudden burst of power, and they turn in to the assholes they never even knew they were.


7) Not true in the Paris Commune or Spanish Revolution in 1936

Oh, wow. Two examples out of all of human history. OOOOH.

Majority, bucko. Not all.

Well-stated, Quasaglimoth.

unfortunately,it doesnt work as it should. neither does democracy or any other form of government. why? because most humans are selfish and lazy by nature.

Not true, many people enjoy helping those around them and many people enjoy hard work. I agree with many of the communists in here, that the dissatisfaction with the capitalistic rat race has caused a great deal of disenfranchisement that causes people to appear lazy. Also, if people were so inherently greedy that they would purposefully harm others to further their own good, society would have broken down before it got a good start.

regardless of what form of government you use,someone always finds a way around the rules,and eventually,it becomes corrupt.

Yes, government corruption will always be there. Many of the communists on here have complained about the brainwashing and marketing of capitalism, but they fail to recognize that government does the same thing, often even more effectively.

capitalism is an elitist form of rule. it has one of the biggest wealth gaps between the rich and the poor. the few elite live on the efforts of the masses.

No, the few elite live off of their own money and own efforts. The poor and middle class live off of their own money and efforts.

democracy says that the will of the people(the majority) rules. the problem is,the will of the people is usually not selfless and kind. this is why the majority thought slavery was good at one time. the will of the people also has a tendency to create a mob mentality that lashes out against any minority. the minority are people who still have certain rights,but these rights are usually voted away by the majority. they are not protected,not listened too,and are usually left to fend for themselves. this is hardly the ideal form of government,although it does please the most people in that nation.

The majority can be harsh and shift into a mob mentality. However, it is rare for a society to maintain an unfair status quo when not pressed to it.

Bump

(the other communism thread is getting hits)

I will agree with you to an extent, but I think we disagree on to what extent we need to equalize power. I believe that no entity, whatsoever, whether it be an individual or the collective will of society should have the power to coerce anybody outside the reasonable functioning of upholding the peace and ensuring legal contracts. No one should be able to take anything away from anyone else without expressed consent.Be careful about using the word "coercion". It's typically how anarchists define capitalism. I'd go into further detail, but as you're a moderate, most of the coercion is eliminated.
As far as taking something from someone else without expressed consent, I agree that nobody should do that, but obviously we disagree to what extent property should be protected.


I believe we can agree that people are born with various levels of ability and utility. If efforts are made by the state to equate the return on the labor provide, they take away from those who have greater ability. That is why communism is faulty to me. While on one hand that is true, that they take away from those who have greater ability, many of the people who are rich didn't become rich through their ability, but through other means. (Yes I realize many people worked hard to become rich.) The other point is that if you evened out wealth throughout the country, the vast majority would benefit from that transition.

My entire point is that, if the rights of each single individual are subdued, it is impossible to maintain the rights of the whole.

I will reverse the question to you, if one individual is does not have value, how does six billion individuals have value?

Yes, the body is made up of cells, and if you killed them all you'd have dead body. But communism will never kill everyone: that's just stupid.

But if you got cancer, you wouldn't hesitate to have it removed, would you? Some of the cells pose a threat to the survival of the body, so they are removed. If some people pose a threat to society, they should be dealt with (not necessarily removed immediately: you'd rather have treatment than surgery, but if it didn't work, you'd have the surgery)

Yes, but that method is completely unfeasible when determining wages and prices.There are other ways. Each commune (the farming commune, the mining commune, etc.) could elect a delegate to submit proxies and vote on each issue. (I could go into further detail of what a proxy is if you'd like.



It would be very uncommunistic of you to assume that politicians only run for the monetary benefits of having the job.But it completely lines up with my anarchist beliefs :). Actually, while some of them are in it for the money, many of them do want to help. Helping means getting elected, which unfortunately usually means buying a lot of ads, which means getting a lot of money. Usually big corporations donate most of the money to campaigns.


[/quote=vittos ordination]
And capitalism solves the problem by asking the individual. Over the grand scale, each consumer helps determine prices by making the yes or no decision of whether the good is worth the price. If they decide that it is not worth the price, then the company either lowers the price, gets forced out by competition which offers a lower price, or the product is taken off of the market. No democratic system of pricing could be more efficient and pervasive than that.[/quote]Fair enough, I will concede that part of "the wisdom of the market" to you.


It can be assumed, I suppose, that people who are raised to be altruistic will accept altruism as a way of life. So I think that if altruism was established as necessary societal trait, subsequent generations would generally also accept it.Yes, that's true, I was thinking of something else, though. If I started a commune here in Pittsburgh, it might become successful. And then other people might want to start one in Phoenix, not necessary because of altruism, but because they would believe they'd be improved by it.


But a completely altruistic community within a capitalism would not need state control of property. The members of the community could privately decide what they needed to live and would be easily able to forfeit the non-necessities privately. Individuals who were completely altruistic but were in need would not take more than they need. There would be no need for government regulation whatsoever.That's true, if everyone were altruistic, that would happen in a capitalistic society. However state control of property helps to ensure participation in the society for longer periods of time, which would help the success of the society. Also it helps to keep people from "selling their share" in that society. Of course, few people are 100% altruistic (hard to quantify altruism) so things would mess up if some people were 100% altruistic and some were only 50% so.

1) Human nature has not been studied in a controlled environment due to ethical issues. As such, we can only study chimps and history and make assumptions. As such, unless you're making a statement based on that information, you're full of bull.

Anthropologists don't just study chimps and history, and they don't just study "primitives" either - that is, in fact, a thing of the past. Anthropologists nowadays major on subjects like "family life in rural areas", "future projection of urban teenagers" and, yes, "altruism versus greed". This last aspect is heavily debated, mind you. Most anthropologists believe that altruism and cooperation do exist among humans. Mostly, the "selfishness" has been proposed as "what actually happens in nature". That's only true for the most part. In reality, that image has been culturally constructed by scientists who wanted that aspect to be true - social darwinists, for example.
And another thing: the adding of historical anthropology has contributed immensely on the knowledge of the family life, economic culture, gender-shifts, and, most importantly, on possible explanations of a cultural matter. Yay for me, as I'm a proud historian ;)

2) Many people feel that life is useless without happiness. Slaves get to be alive. That doesn't mean they're alright. I'll stick to the old saying, "Give me liberty, or give me death." and add, "I'm a better shot than you are, biznitch."

Sadly, "happiness" is not the same as "liberty". And it never will be. Nowadays, most people find happiness in their Laurent-Garnier shampoo, or their big screen TV. And they're willing to use their elbows, cheat, lie and generally be greedy and selfish to get it. You think that's a good thing? Far be it for me to prohibit people from being happy by spending - but I do believe that it is a general cultural evolution that's on a selfdestructive path. I'm not saying revolution should be enacted - just saying that evolution is needed before we get screwed big-time. People need to see the general picture of things, not just what's in their wallet and what they can buy/be with that.

No, the thread must not die! Bump.

No, the thread must not die! Bump.

Amen, tovaritsj

No, the thread must not die! Bump.
workers of the thread, untie!*



*dyslexic communists ;)

I agree on principle with the idea of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need", and I agree with the redistribution of wealth in society in order to shrink and preferably end the huge gap between the rich and poor. Too many people are blind to the problems of capitalism and the poverty of the wage slave - particularly the one who for whatever reason loses his job and his wage. In theory, communism is ideal but I have issues with it in practise and in method, particularly as revolutions often just lead to civil war and even more repressive counter-revolutions or dictatorships. Then again, revolutions don't just happen for no reason, and people involved must have genuinely felt they had "nothing to lose but their chains" for them to risk their lives in armed revolt. These people are labelled as traitors, but what were they betraying but a nation that exploited them to breaking point?

But revolution as a method hasn't succeeded in bringing about communism. Stalinist "communism" was pretty much just an extreme form of capitalism, in which the wealth was still concentrated in the hands of the few, only the few were the state officials rather than businessmen.

Basically I think of myself as a democratic socialist, and I think it's important for people concerned with social justice to do as much as is possible through the existing political system, before getting all wound up about things like starting revolutions and abolishing all private property.

So tell me again.... why wouldn't communism work?

Actually, I read most of this thread and it's actually made me convinced that there is an inherrent flaw in communism. The fact that it seems to be based on altruism at an exteme level does not sit well with me.

The other thing is a few posts ago someone said that if we give back the craftmanship to people then they will make better produce - sorry can't find the quote right now - how would this work? Granted - for specialist thingss like rings or jewelry sure, but how much better can a 'craftsman' make ordinary goods, like cups or clothes, than a factory with machines?

I'm not sure at all about life without a state: how well would it work and for how long? It's more important to ensure the state as democratic as possible, and to make it something that provides the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people.

I don't think it would last for long either, although theoretically, the longer it lasted, the longer it would be likely to last if it worked...

Anthropologists don't just study chimps and history, and they don't just study "primitives" either - that is, in fact, a thing of the past.


Dude, go back to school.

Guess what class I'm finishing up this semester?

Anth161: Human Evolution.

Oops.


Anthropologists nowadays major on subjects like "family life in rural areas", "future projection of urban teenagers" and, yes, "altruism versus greed".


Altruism isn't the opposite of greed. Spiteful behavior is.


This last aspect is heavily debated, mind you. Most anthropologists believe that altruism and cooperation do exist among humans.


No effing duh. It also exists in apes and monkies to various degrees. Altruism is all over the chimps and babboons.


Mostly, the "selfishness" has been proposed as "what actually happens in nature".


All conscious actions are ultimately selfish. Altruism is essentially based on having less self-oriented values. Saving your sister so she can have more kids with similar genes as yours, et cetera.


That's only true for the most part. In reality, that image has been culturally constructed by scientists who wanted that aspect to be true - social darwinists, for example.


The original social darwinist movement was assenine. Altruism is an evolved feature in humans and other animals. They just wanted an excuse to be asses.


And another thing: the adding of historical anthropology has contributed immensely on the knowledge of the family life, economic culture, gender-shifts, and, most importantly, on possible explanations of a cultural matter. Yay for me, as I'm a proud historian ;)


Yes. And you can get knowledge of why things work the way they do, now, with information studied from millions of years ago.


Sadly, "happiness" is not the same as "liberty". And it never will be.


Happiness is a reaction. Liberty just gives you more options in accessing that reaction.


Nowadays, most people find happiness in their Laurent-Garnier shampoo, or their big screen TV.


They are at liberty to be useless. They even have the liberty to willingly be slaves to some pervert.


And they're willing to use their elbows, cheat, lie and generally be greedy and selfish to get it. You think that's a good thing?


This is what laws are for.

And it's a natural thing. Lifeforms are assholes.


Far be it for me to prohibit people from being happy by spending - but I do believe that it is a general cultural evolution that's on a selfdestructive path.


There are documented incidents of primates raping females out of frustration over a loss of power.

Lifeforms are assholes.


I'm not saying revolution should be enacted - just saying that evolution is needed before we get screwed big-time. People need to see the general picture of things, not just what's in their wallet and what they can buy/be with that.

Problem is, this requires eugenics. And the majority are against it. We'd have to kill off all the stupid people, and then kill off the smart people who had too many mental problems (And that's a lot...) or who were innately jerks.

Be careful about using the word "coercion". It's typically how anarchists define capitalism. I'd go into further detail, but as you're a moderate, most of the coercion is eliminated.

I am very close to being an anarchist and I am capitalist so be careful about using the word anarchists. Anyway, I do admit that Capitalism can open the door to coerced contracts when the government is not doing its job. But if government isn't doing its job, then Communism is the last thing we need.

As far as taking something from someone else without expressed consent, I agree that nobody should do that, but obviously we disagree to what extent property should be protected.

I doubt we will get anywhere on that front.


While on one hand that is true, that they take away from those who have greater ability, many of the people who are rich didn't become rich through their ability, but through other means. (Yes I realize many people worked hard to become rich.) The other point is that if you evened out wealth throughout the country, the vast majority would benefit from that transition.

I get very uneasy at the mention of utilitarianism and benefiting the many at the expense of the few, because a utilitarian direct democracy will be very, very dangerous to the minority, and you never know when you might end up in the minority.

But if you got cancer, you wouldn't hesitate to have it removed, would you? Some of the cells pose a threat to the survival of the body, so they are removed. If some people pose a threat to society, they should be dealt with (not necessarily removed immediately: you'd rather have treatment than surgery, but if it didn't work, you'd have the surgery)

That has to do with the judicial system and the maintenance of the social contract. It really has nothing to do with my statement, as people who work purposefully to hurt society should be removed from said society, no matter what government or economic system is in place.

I agree on principle with the idea of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need", and I agree with the redistribution of wealth in society in order to shrink and preferably end the huge gap between the rich and poor. Too many people are blind to the problems of capitalism and the poverty of the wage slave - particularly the one who for whatever reason loses his job and his wage. In theory, communism is ideal but I have issues with it in practise and in method, particularly as revolutions often just lead to civil war and even more repressive counter-revolutions or dictatorships. Then again, revolutions don't just happen for no reason, and people involved must have genuinely felt they had "nothing to lose but their chains" for them to risk their lives in armed revolt. These people are labelled as traitors, but what were they betraying but a nation that exploited them to breaking point?

But revolution as a method hasn't succeeded in bringing about communism. Stalinist "communism" was pretty much just an extreme form of capitalism, in which the wealth was still concentrated in the hands of the few, only the few were the state officials rather than businessmen.

Basically I think of myself as a democratic socialist, and I think it's important for people concerned with social justice to do as much as is possible through the existing political system, before getting all wound up about things like starting revolutions and abolishing all private property.

I don't mind some socialistic policies, but Communism is obsolete.

A revolutionary Communism requires continuous violence and oppression to maintain the state, while if a societal revolution to complete altruism did take place, capitalism would adapt to handle that, as well.

So tell me again.... why wouldn't communism work?

Actually, I read most of this thread and it's actually made me convinced that there is an inherrent flaw in communism. The fact that it seems to be based on altruism at an exteme level does not sit well with me.

Hooray!

The other thing is a few posts ago someone said that if we give back the craftmanship to people then they will make better produce - sorry can't find the quote right now - how would this work? Granted - for specialist thingss like rings or jewelry sure, but how much better can a 'craftsman' make ordinary goods, like cups or clothes, than a factory with machines?

Exactly, sure those people who are artisans who truly enjoy the products they make will not be hurt by a communism, but the number of jobs like that are few. Most industrial jobs involve working on a product that one will never actually see in the finished form unless one purchases it.

Read The Giver, and you'll know why Communism will never work.

I am very close to being an anarchist and I am capitalist so be careful about using the word anarchists. Anyway, I do admit that Capitalism can open the door to coerced contracts when the government is not doing its job. But if government isn't doing its job, then Communism is the last thing we need.I will try to be careful about that. :) Incidentally, how long has it been since you've taken the Political Compass test?


I get very uneasy at the mention of utilitarianism and benefiting the many at the expense of the few, because a utilitarian direct democracy will be very, very dangerous to the minority, and you never know when you might end up in the minority.Oh, I agree that doing something simply because it will benefit the majority isn't a good thing, especially when it's done at the expense of the minority. I do believe, however, that everyone ultimately benefits from shared resources, even those who might not initially benefit because they have more ability.

I'm not sure at all about life without a state: how well would it work and for how long? It's more important to ensure the state as democratic as possible, and to make it something that provides the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people.How well it would work and for how long would depend upon the willingness of the people to make it work. I think it would take a lot of work on their part, and that most people might not want to do it. I do, however, believe that some people can make it work if they're cut out for it.

What about free market economics with no corporate tax...just set income tax at 90%.

Yes, the body is made up of cells, and if you killed them all you'd have dead body. But communism will never kill everyone: that's just stupid.

But if you got cancer, you wouldn't hesitate to have it removed, would you? Some of the cells pose a threat to the survival of the body, so they are removed. If some people pose a threat to society, they should be dealt with (not necessarily removed immediately: you'd rather have treatment than surgery, but if it didn't work, you'd have the surgery)

You see people as no more than cells in part of a social body? What a horrible, callous world view.

I will try to be careful about that. :) Incidentally, how long has it been since you've taken the Political Compass test?

I shall update it now.

Oh, I agree that doing something simply because it will benefit the majority isn't a good thing, especially when it's done at the expense of the minority. I do believe, however, that everyone ultimately benefits from shared resources, even those who might not initially benefit because they have more ability.

Since communism cuts out the excesses, those with the most ability will be limited in the amount of goods that they can recieve in exchange for their input. Therefore, it can be said that they will have labor stolen from them by the state. Whether you agree with that last sentence is another matter, though.

Since communism cuts out the excesses, those with the most ability will be limited in the amount of goods that they can recieve in exchange for their input. Therefore, it can be said that they will have labor stolen from them by the state. Whether you agree with that last sentence is another matter, though.

It will only be 'stolen' if the people are unwilling to participate in the commune, and are not giving their labour freely to the state.

It will only be 'stolen' if the people are unwilling to participate in the commune, and are not giving their labour freely to the state.

I understand that. However, if they are willing to give their labor or their wages away freely to society, charity will handle that within a capitalist system as well.

It will only be 'stolen' if the people are unwilling to participate in the commune, and are not giving their labour freely to the state.

People are selfish by nature and wish to gain from the fruits of thier labor. If the state takes it, the individual gains nothing. The system storms into nothing but a nice little Animal Farm.

What about free market economics with no corporate tax...just set income tax at 90%.

Free market economics really goes out the window with such punitive taxation. I don't mind taxation so much, though, as long as it provides utilities for those who pay for it.

People are selfish by nature and wish to gain from the fruits of thier labor.

I don't know how many times I have to say this to absolutely everyone I talk to about this but selfishness is not a permantent part of human nature, as human nature has NO permanent aspects. There is nothing in us that cannot be changed. The only way it will stay is if people keep saying that it will stay. There are people in the world who would be happy to give their labour away, and collect a fair share from everyone's labours, rather than just from their own. I for one would be happy to do that.

I don't know how many times I have to say this to absolutely everyone I talk to about this but selfishness is not a permantent part of human nature, as human nature has NO permanent aspects. There is nothing in us that cannot be changed. The only way it will stay is if people keep saying that it will stay. There are people in the world who would be happy to give their labour away, and collect a fair share from everyone's labours, rather than just from their own. I for one would be happy to do that.

Selfishness is inherrent in all lifeforms. Would you rather you died or two people you didn't know? I know that's a ridiculous question but it makes the point that at some level there will be some selfishness.... It's basically genetic.

Would the amount of labour you give have any bearing on how much you recived form the communal pot? And how would you compare one job with another? I have a feeling that things like scientific research and basically jobs which don't immediatley provide any services would be deemed less worthy than being a farmer for example.

Selfishness is inherrent in all lifeforms. Would you rather you died or two people you didn't know? I know that's a ridiculous question but it makes the point that at some level there will be some selfishness.... It's basically genetic.

At the same time, look at the fact that in most advanced lifeforms, there is a built in reaction for mothers to be willing to die for the young for example. While you're right that the desire for self perservation is very deep in all lifeforms, pure selfishness is not. There are some things that are deep inside us, some of which encourage selfishness and some which encourage selflessness. Regardless of that though, all of us also have the ability to overide those insincts.
To continue with your example of life preservation, the fact that some people can overide it more than others shows that it is possible for that ability to change, and so there is nothing from stopping everyone from becoming purely sefless and utilitarianist except time and effort.
Also of course, evolution means that instincts can change to fit an environment. If it is advantagouss for humanity to become less selfish, then will will.

Would the amount of labour you give have any bearing on how much you recived form the communal pot? And how would you compare one job with another? I have a feeling that things like scientific research and basically jobs which don't immediatley provide any services would be deemed less worthy than being a farmer for example.

The amount of labour you give is whatever you can give. The amount you receive is what you need, plus your share of whatever society can spare after everyone has what they need to survive. You no longer need a personal motivation to work hard so that you receive more, because you know that if you work hard, others will also be working hard, so that evryone gets more.
As for how 'worthy' jobs are, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean would people be more likely to become farmers because they would feel they were helping the community more, or do you mean that farmers would be more highly respected?

I don't know how many times I have to say this to absolutely everyone I talk to about this but selfishness is not a permantent part of human nature, as human nature has NO permanent aspects. There is nothing in us that cannot be changed. The only way it will stay is if people keep saying that it will stay. There are people in the world who would be happy to give their labour away, and collect a fair share from everyone's labours, rather than just from their own. I for one would be happy to do that.
110% agreed. me too.

and even if selfishness is currently inherent to our nature and seemingly 'natural' (a la what Bonemeal said), there is no reason why it must stay this way if human nature can change.

I have a feeling that things like scientific research and basically jobs which don't immediatley provide any services would be deemed less worthy than being a farmer for example.
this is only a bad thing if you accept that 'progress' is high (unsustainable) economic growth and scientific advancement.

Selfishness is inherrent in all lifeforms. Would you rather you died or two people you didn't know? I know that's a ridiculous question but it makes the point that at some level there will be some selfishness.... It's basically genetic.


OK, I know I said I'll stop with trying to disprove this claims, but no it is not genetic, if you would be brought up that dying for two strangers that are members of your society is a good and necesary thing, you would do that.

To prove: In certain eskimo societies, if a sick or eldery person is holding back the tribe or is somehow in the way, commits suicide by going into snow uprotected and dies of cold. On that most sociologists base that we get those values and norms by socialization. If I would do that is irrelevant since I was brought up in our colture and have our values and norms.

Hope this makes some sense.

OK, I know I said I'll stop with trying to disprove this claims, but no it is not genetic, if you would be brought up that dying for two strangers that are members of your society is a good and necesary thing, you would do that.

To prove: In certain eskimo societies, if a sick or eldery person is holding back the tribe or is somehow in the way, commits suicide by going into snow uprotected and dies of cold. On that most sociologists base that we get those values and norms by socialization. If I would do that is irrelevant since I was brought up in our colture and have our values and norms.

Hope this makes some sense.

Good point.

Human nature should not be brought into this argument, as the entire purpose of society is for people to escape from nature.

Good point.

Human nature should not be brought into this argument, as the entire purpose of society is for people to escape from nature.
the malleability of human nature is one of the central precepts of communism. it has to be in the arguement.

I understand that. However, if they are willing to give their labor or their wages away freely to society, charity will handle that within a capitalist system as well.

Yes, I accept that. Since the purpose of this thread was to prove that communism cannot work, do you have anything else to add to show that the free giving of labour/wages aspect would not work in communism or do we agree that it works (regardless of how well it works) in both systems?

Yes, I accept that. Since the purpose of this thread was to prove that communism cannot work, do you have anything else to add to show that the free giving of labour/wages aspect would not work in communism or do we agree that it works (regardless of how well it works) in both systems?

The argument of human nature does not matter for this argument. Under a capitalistic system, this revolution of human nature will not occur without government help. The second government begins trying to influence the individual's way of life it opens the door for all sorts of government expansion, and the government starts moving away from the completely democratic style of government that communism requires.

the malleability of human nature is one of the central precepts of communism. it has to be in the arguement.

Society and government should not be in the business of molding human nature; It should be in the business of fostering human growth. Communism would require society to begin suppressing and corralling human growth.

The argument of human nature does not matter for this argument. Under a capitalistic system, this revolution of human nature will not occur without government help. The second government begins trying to influence the individual's way of life it opens the door for all sorts of government expansion, and the government starts moving away from the completely democratic style of government that communism requires.

Human nature doesn't need government help to change! It's been changing for centuries perfectly well on its own.

Communism would require society to begin suppressing and corralling human growth.

Why would it?

That is commendable, but are you willing to cause other's rights to but given up to?? that is the one catch I see.

as a socialist, i value my rights as an individual, but i am willing to subdue those rights if it benefits more people than just myself.

no, i don't see the individual as particularly important. what makes you, 1 person, any more important than the 6 billion others? through simple numbers, the welfare of the 6 billion is more important than the welfare of the one. hence the welfare of society is more important than the individual.

it is because i don't think i am important in the least that means i am more than happy to believe this.
i don't accept killing in the name of society, in the name of communism (why i am not a revolutionist), but these principles of socialism still stand

Human nature doesn't need government help to change! It's been changing for centuries perfectly well on its own.

Why would it?

Communism requires 100% altruism. It supresses any human nature that is at odds with altruism.

Communism requires that difference of opinion in regards to such things as altruism be squashed entirely.

Guess what: Society has rebels because it has been incapable of fully squashing different mindsets. Communists are proof of this.

And you know what? That's a good thing. A lack of variety makes a species vulnerable to sudden change.

Communism requires 100% altruism. It supresses any human nature that is at odds with altruism.

It doesn't need 100% altruism. It needs as much altruism as is possible. The less it has, the less effective it will be. And I don't think that we can have communism until most of the parts of human nature that are at odds with altruism have gone, taken away not forcibly by the government, but willingly by the people. As such, there will be no need for any supression.

Communism requires that difference of opinion in regards to such things as altruism be squashed entirely.

Guess what: Society has rebels because it has been incapable of fully squashing different mindsets. Communists are proof of this.

And you know what? That's a good thing. A lack of variety makes a species vulnerable to sudden change.

In some ways, but not in all. How could altruism ever be a bad thing?

It doesn't need 100% altruism. It needs as much altruism as is possible. The less it has, the less effective it will be. And I don't think that we can have communism until most of the parts of human nature that are at odds with altruism have gone, taken away not forcibly by the government, but willingly by the people. As such, there will be no need for any supression.

Without 100% altruism there will be oppression.

I cannot imagine a situation in a capitalistic society where altruistic behavior will be fostered.

I lived 21 years under a communist rule. It was a nightmare. Communists from Western Countries don't know anything about its true face. For Poland, communism brought only poverty.

I lived 21 years under a communist rule. It was a nightmare. Communists from Western Countries don't know anything about its true face. For Poland, communism brought only poverty.

Don't you know that it is better for everyone to be poor than to just have some people be poor?

Not exactly : )

Now Poland doesn't differ much form Western countries but would You believe that my mother had to stand in a line a couple of hours [hey and it was Warsaw- in other cities it tooke even more] just to finally grab a chain of toilet paper rolls? :p
She was so happy :rolleyes:



Well, now I laugh at it, but this image still haunts me.

Not exactly : )

Now Poland doesn't differ much form Western countries but would You believe that my mother had to stand in a line a couple of hours [hey and it was Warsaw- in other cities it tooke even more] just to finally grab a chain of toilet paper rolls? :p
She was so happy :rolleyes:



Well, now I laugh at it, but this image still haunts me.

Now this is really scary for me, as I generally don't realize that I need toilet paper until it is too late. :eek:

Communism is not a bad idea at all. Communism is basically an idea of a perfect Utopian civilization where everyone and everything is equal. Whilst this is impossible due to human nature, that doesnt mean that it is a bad idea, it means that human nature is fucked up. Surely therefore it is not the fault of the idea but the fault of the individual? I believe it is one of the most noble and humanitarian ideas ever presented. I realize it was carried out with dire consequences and that it could never work due to human nature, but for all we know there is an entirely Communist race out there sumhere were they have created the perfect utopia, something humanity can never achieve, and something i almost feel embarassed about being part of this race for. No matter what happens, humanity will become morally corrupt and the plan will be destroyed from the inside out. Therefore as i said before it is not the plan that is corrupt but the human execution of a utopian dream!

Communism is not a bad idea at all. Communism is basically an idea of a perfect Utopian civilization where everyone and everything is equal. Whilst this is impossible due to human nature, that doesnt mean that it is a bad idea, it means that human nature is fucked up. Surely therefore it is not the fault of the idea but the fault of the individual? I believe it is one of the most noble and humanitarian ideas ever presented. I realize it was carried out with dire consequences and that it could never work due to human nature, but for all we know there is an entirely Communist race out there sumhere were they have created the perfect utopia, something humanity can never achieve, and something i almost feel embarassed about being part of this race for. No matter what happens, humanity will become morally corrupt and the plan will be destroyed from the inside out. Therefore as i said before it is not the plan that is corrupt but the human execution of a utopian dream!

It's not human nature, it's the society that a person is placed in that causes them to be greedy. Just compare the Native Americans and the Europeans prior to their meeting in the Americas. Europeans acted much like people in capitalistic countries do today, but the Native Americans would help each other at every chance to benefit everyone in their tribe.

The native indians may have helped eachother and i respect that and i am again disgraced by the way the europeans treated the Native Indians as i am a very pragmatic person. I believe in equality and peace but due to human nature, u know as well as i do, that is very, very unlikely. There will always be a radicalist group trying to disrupt the peace. There will always be corruption and division. And i hate it. Its such a negative view, but we have to stand back and evaluate the past and the present. It aint looking promising!

I lived 21 years under a communist rule. It was a nightmare. Communists from Western Countries don't know anything about its true face. For Poland, communism brought only poverty.

I'm sorry that you lived under such a regime. I do not support any communist government that has yet existed, but I do not believe that the system is an inherently flawed one, I believe that the reason things have always gone so badly wrong is that people have tried to rush inot communism, and in doing so have lost democracy.

Without 100% altruism there will be oppression.


No. Why would there be? It is inevitable that one or two people will act slightly selfishly, and I do not think that they would need to be punished or oppressed for it. Society can cope with a few who do not completly pull their weight.

At the same time, look at the fact that in most advanced lifeforms, there is a built in reaction for mothers to be willing to die for the young for example. While you're right that the desire for self perservation is very deep in all lifeforms, pure selfishness is not. There are some things that are deep inside us, some of which encourage selfishness and some which encourage selflessness. Regardless of that though, all of us also have the ability to overide those insincts.
To continue with your example of life preservation, the fact that some people can overide it more than others shows that it is possible for that ability to change, and so there is nothing from stopping everyone from becoming purely sefless and utilitarianist except time and effort.
Also of course, evolution means that instincts can change to fit an environment. If it is advantagouss for humanity to become less selfish, then will will.

While we can over-ride much of the selfishness that pervades our lives, i'd be carefull of the 'mothers that die for their young' example. There are theorys that this sort of thing has evolved not through altruism but through a genetic selfishness. As the young carry 50% of the mothers genes, often, the survival of the children out weigh the genetic benefits of the survival of the mother. This behaviour can therefore proliferate throughout the species as genes which cause the - on the face of it - altuistic reaction for the mother to swap her life for that of her children, then proceed to the next generation through the survival of the children. I should pont out that this means really that it's the genes that are selfish rather than the mother but it works out to be the same thing in practice. Obviously genes themselves as units of information can't be selfish but the effect they produce could be. Read Richard Dawkins excellent book "selfish genes" for more examples.


The amount of labour you give is whatever you can give. The amount you receive is what you need, plus your share of whatever society can spare after everyone has what they need to survive. You no longer need a personal motivation to work hard so that you receive more, because you know that if you work hard, others will also be working hard, so that evryone gets more.
As for how 'worthy' jobs are, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean would people be more likely to become farmers because they would feel they were helping the community more, or do you mean that farmers would be more highly respected?

I think I would need a personal motivation to work hard if I knew I was going to be able to survive on what other people gave me anyway. How would I know that others would be working hard if I were working hard?

People like farmers would be able to provide goods which were usefull. How usefull the job was would surley have an effect on what people thought should be contibuted to that person. If I were for example an entertainer who gave nothing concrete to society wouldn't someone else be annoyed that I was getting basically 'free stuff'? Could you have entertainment under communism? Could you have any job which did not provide a solid measurable amount of goods like for example teaching?

Communism is not a bad idea at all. Communism is basically an idea of a perfect Utopian civilization where everyone and everything is equal. Whilst this is impossible due to human nature, that doesnt mean that it is a bad idea, it means that human nature is fucked up. Surely therefore it is not the fault of the idea but the fault of the individual? I believe it is one of the most noble and humanitarian ideas ever presented. I realize it was carried out with dire consequences and that it could never work due to human nature, but for all we know there is an entirely Communist race out there sumhere were they have created the perfect utopia, something humanity can never achieve, and something i almost feel embarassed about being part of this race for. No matter what happens, humanity will become morally corrupt and the plan will be destroyed from the inside out. Therefore as i said before it is not the plan that is corrupt but the human execution of a utopian dream!

Humans are not perfect, and do not need to be perfect for communism to work. They need to be a lot better than they are now, and it iwll take a long time, but that does not mean it is impossible. Don't take a defeatist attitude.

No. Why would there be? It is inevitable that one or two people will act slightly selfishly, and I do not think that they would need to be punished or oppressed for it. Society can cope with a few who do not completly pull their weight.

It can be assumed that at least a portion of the members of society who contribute more labor will not be pleased to give up the wages that their labor merits. Those individuals will be suppressed and effectively stolen from.

Society can cope with a few who do not completly pull their weight.

look for examples of this in...any society you may think of.

While we can over-ride much of the selfishness that pervades our lives, i'd be carefull of the 'mothers that die for their young' example. There are theorys that this sort of thing has evolved not through altruism but through a genetic selfishness. As the young carry 50% of the mothers genes, often, the survival of the children out weigh the genetic benefits of the survival of the mother. This behaviour can therefore proliferate throughout the species as genes which cause the - on the face of it - altuistic reaction for the mother to swap her life for that of her children, then proceed to the next generation through the survival of the children. I should pont out that this means really that it's the genes that are selfish rather than the mother but it works out to be the same thing in practice. Obviously genes themselves as units of information can't be selfish but the effect they produce could be. Read Richard Dawkins excellent book "selfish genes" for more examples.

Ok. I stand corrected, there is very little instinct for altruism. But I stand by saying that more and more now, we can overide our instincts.

I think I would need a personal motivation to work hard if I knew I was going to be able to survive on what other people gave me anyway. How would I know that others would be working hard if I were working hard?

You might well need personal motivation, but then you and me are from a time when I believe we are not ready for communism yet. Hopefully, the people of the future would be able to trust one another more. After all, people can rely on others now. We just need to extend our sense of trust and community until it encompasses the whole human race.

People like farmers would be able to provide goods which were usefull. How usefull the job was would surley have an effect on what people thought should be contibuted to that person. If I were for example an entertainer who gave nothing concrete to society wouldn't someone else be annoyed that I was getting basically 'free stuff'? Could you have entertainment under communism? Could you have any job which did not provide a solid measurable amount of goods like for example teaching?

People would not be given things according to how much they put in. 'To each according to his need.' You could do what you like. It would be your responsibility to do something that you thought was helping society, but that does not mean you have to produce solid goods.

Humans are not perfect, and do not need to be perfect for communism to work. They need to be a lot better than they are now, and it iwll take a long time, but that does not mean it is impossible. Don't take a defeatist attitude.
Sorry for the negativity but you gotta admit its a long, long way off. Itll be aeons before we develop socially far enough so that we can adopt Communism successfully. The world isnt ready. Its not defeatist, its more a kind of disappointment!

As many have said communism is what I think the most ideal society. I mean everyone gives in to the community what they can and get back what they need. The problem is that there are always people who are greedy for power or wealth. Some people just wouldnt accept being equal with everyone.

Communists do not value their rights as individuals because

-There is much poverty in the world

-To eliminate this poverty, the lower standards of living must be raised, and to do this, hgiher standards of living must regretably be lowered.
-The same follows as above with the rights of individuals.
-Communists feel that for everyone to be mostly free and wealthy enough to survive, some of the more ludicris rights that people deserve they feel because they were born in a 1st world country (such as privacy, a free economy and leisure time) have to be sacrificed for the greater good, so that everyone can be free, fed andnot have to look upon their rich neighbours with envy because their neibours were born arbitrarily with gifts such as greater intelligence, beauty, or superior physical strength

As many have said communism is what I think the most ideal society. I mean everyone gives in to the community what they can and get back what they need. The problem is that there are always people who are greedy for power or wealth. Some people just wouldnt accept being equal with everyone.

Thats why countries seeking communism have to go through a period of socialism before they can proceed into what is, plainly, the ideal society. The socialist period is intended to a) brainwash the greed and personal ambition out of individuals b) brainwash the individualism out of individuals c) make the first generation of the countrys communist phase used to hardship, and thus less likley to be discontent once they have been fed and housed

Sorry for the negativity but you gotta admit its a long, long way off. Itll be aeons before we develop socially far enough so that we can adopt Communism successfully. The world isnt ready. Its not defeatist, its more a kind of disappointment!

Exactly. Communism itself is a great idea, but we as humans haven't evolved enough for it to happen. It's just a theory right now as one person will always want to rise above everyone else. But at the same time, it couldn't work as it's a sort of anarchy. How is the wealth supposed to be divided equally for all with no real central goverment? These kind of questions will keep us from obtaining perfect communism for a good while.

Originally Posted by Athel
I lived 21 years under a communist rule. It was a nightmare. Communists from Western Countries don't know anything about its true face. For Poland, communism brought only poverty.

Dude, I was born and raised in a communist society (yugoslavia) and we were MUCH MUCH better off with communism that the shit that the west has put on us now,

under a commie regime, how do you get the workers to work?
under stalin it was a gun.
But if there is no market incentive, how then?
a sense of duty?

i think the mixed economy is the way.
so bits of communist organisations in a market economy.

Comunism has a BIG flaw.China won't have this because it isn't fully communist(it has capitolism).People don't have to work very hard to get money.Therefore it will loose the ability to creat anything really important.It wil loose by military.Also you can't wipe out religion.It's like taking surgar out of 100% pure water.

You see people as no more than cells in part of a social body? What a horrible, callous world view.Yes, it is. And in his opinion, some of them are cancer. It's no wonder that people think so little of communism.

I doubt we will get anywhere on that front.
Perhaps not. But I do have to ask: why do you believe that people should have the right to own things that they don't use?

People would not be given things according to how much they put in. 'To each according to his need.' You could do what you like. It would be your responsibility to do something that you thought was helping society, but that does not mean you have to produce solid goods.

But other people would also have to recognise that you were doing something to help society. It would have to be reached by concensus which jobs were deemed worthy of helping society.

Yes, the body is made up of cells, and if you killed them all you'd have dead body. But communism will never kill everyone: that's just stupid.

But if you got cancer, you wouldn't hesitate to have it removed, would you? Some of the cells pose a threat to the survival of the body, so they are removed. If some people pose a threat to society, they should be dealt with (not necessarily removed immediately: you'd rather have treatment than surgery, but if it didn't work, you'd have the surgery)

Sorry but I have to defend what seems to me to be a fairly good analogy of how communism would work.

The cells (people) go about there daily lives reproducing, adding to societys 'stockpile' and taking what they need. The cells are mostly specialised to perform jobs (like humans in a way) and they do this and society works as a whole. Thats not to say it's perfect because it has illnesses and problems. For example if you get too many cells (people) producing waste which is not recycled, the body (society) as a whole suffers.

Some people are bad. Whether this is a product of the society we live in today or a darker side of human nature I have no idea. My guess is people have been killing each other long before the need for material goods were around. Either way, if one of your cells became cancerous you would have it removed the same as if one of the people in your society tried to overtake and destroy the society in which you lived. - Even if you didn't kill them you would incarcerate them effectively removing them from society. People who committed lesser crimes would be punished accordingly, the same way that illness are treated with varying degrees of strength. Sometimes some TLC is enough.

Ideally under communism there would be no crime because there would be no jelouosy because there would be no material possesions and no desire to mess up society by causing problems but as I say.... human nature is what it is. We're certainly not ready for that type of society now and I don't know if we ever will be.

Anyway, It's a good analogy and if it comes across as a callous world veiw thats just because the world is a bit crap.

Perhaps not. But I do have to ask: why do you believe that people should have the right to own things that they don't use?

Resources that don't get used go to waste, people don't want to waste, so people have ample motive not to own things that they don't use.

If they do happen to expend their wages on something they don't use, then it is their own problem, but it is also their right. To take away some property negates some form of utility they have provided to society in the past, as in a free market, one only gains income equal to the utility provided to society.

Sorry for the negativity but you gotta admit its a long, long way off. Itll be aeons before we develop socially far enough so that we can adopt Communism successfully. The world isnt ready. Its not defeatist, its more a kind of disappointment!

I agree, it is a long way off. I wasn't saying that saying that was defeatist. I said to say that it can never be acheived is defeatist. As long as it is possible, it is worth trying to bring the world closer to being ready in any way we can.

Communists do not value their rights as individuals because

-There is much poverty in the world

-To eliminate this poverty, the lower standards of living must be raised, and to do this, hgiher standards of living must regretably be lowered.
-The same follows as above with the rights of individuals.
-Communists feel that for everyone to be mostly free and wealthy enough to survive, some of the more ludicris rights that people deserve they feel because they were born in a 1st world country (such as privacy, a free economy and leisure time) have to be sacrificed for the greater good, so that everyone can be free, fed andnot have to look upon their rich neighbours with envy because their neibours were born arbitrarily with gifts such as greater intelligence, beauty, or superior physical strength

The answer is for the rich people to choose to give some of their wealth away, and lower their living standards slightly. In this way, they maintain their rights but choose not to exercise them.

Ideally under communism there would be no crime because there would be no jelouosy because there would be no material possesions and no desire to mess up society by causing problems
Translation: under Communism, there would be no individual desires, therefore there would be no individuality. Think a hive society

Translation: under Communism, there would be no individual desires, therefore there would be no individuality. Think a hive society

Jealousy is not that same as individual desires.

Jealousy is not that same as individual desires.

Would you say that it would possible for everyone to receive an equal portion of societies product, all the while having individual desires met?

Jealousy is not that same as individual desires.
Actually, it is an inevitable outcome of having individual desires. People want personal freedom- and that includes the freedom to want things for themselves. The only way to eliminate jealousy is by eliminating individuality.

Would you say that it would possible for everyone to receive an equal portion of societies product, all the while having individual desires met?

Yes I would, because I believe that while we will always have individual desires to an extent, we can use collective desires more and more so that our individual desires are not as great.

[QUOTE=The Holy Womble]Actually, it is an inevitable outcome of having individual desires. People want personal freedom- and that includes the freedom to want things for themselves. The only way to eliminate jealousy is by eliminating individuality.]

Individuality isn't purely about wanting thigs for yourself. It's about being an individual. If people are overly materialistic, then yes, they may see the desire of material things and the aquisition of wealth as the only way top distinguish them from someone else. I would like to think they are better ways to make yourself an individual.

Yes I would, because I believe that while we will always have individual desires to an extent, we can use collective desires more and more so that our individual desires are not as great.

What does that mean? Define collective desires, and explain how they cancel out individual desires.

Actually, it is an inevitable outcome of having individual desires.


Jealousy is not the outcome of having individual desires if your desires are fulfilled soon enough.

What does that mean? Define collective desires, and explain how they cancel out individual desires.

The desire to do something that will give something to all of humanity, rather than just to yourself.

The desire to do something that will give something to all of humanity, rather than just to yourself.

So it all comes down to the idea of pervasive altruism, you think it is possible, I don't.

Translation: under Communism, there would be no individual desires, therefore there would be no individuality. Think a hive society
A hive society. Ok im thinking Borg here. The Borg are basically one giant entity with mindless drones that do the will of the Queen. Are you saying that people under communism would be mindlessly following one leader?! Again humans may be foolish and always pull the 'i was just following orders' but if asked to destroy every other community in the world, i would doubt they would do it! Have you ever heard the story about at the end of WW2 the German POW being marched down the main street in Moscow and Russian women flocking to give them bread and cigarettes because they were in a bad state. This is true human compassion to an enemy that was willing to wipe them out. Sure this shows that even though Soviet propaganda made the Nazis look bad and even possibly worse than they did that people took it upon THEMSELVES to go and help these men. Surely this shows individuality in a communist societ which u call a 'hive society'. That doesnt sound very Borg to me!

So it all comes down to the idea of pervasive altruism, you think it is possible, I don't.

I think that virtaully pervasive altruism is possible. It will never be perfect, but it only has to work to a certain extent before communism becomes workable.

Resources that don't get used go to waste, people don't want to waste, so people have ample motive not to own things that they don't use.I was referring more to, for instance, a landlord owning buildings but other people living in them. The landlord wouldn't be using the buildings, but he would own them. But they wouldn't be wasted, either, as he'd charge rent for them.

I was referring more to, for instance, a landlord owning buildings but other people living in them. The landlord wouldn't be using the buildings, but he would own them. But they wouldn't be wasted, either, as he'd charge rent for them.

The buildings are pool capital from the wages for previous labor. The profit earns from the rental is money for the time risk he takes on.

I posted this in the other thread, but it wasn't really addressed to anyone in particular so I thought it would make a decent thread starter.

Communism is not based on a good idea, whatsoever. It is based on the idea that the society is a valuable entity and is tantamount to the individual. It sets a precedent that the will of the individual is of lesser importance than the overriding will of the state, and therefore will always open up the door for suppression of the individual and oppression of dessenters. The results of communism are obvious, as over 100 million people have been killed by communist governments over the last century.

So by saying that Communism is based on a good idea is, in effect, saying that you do not value your rights as an individual.


It's also widely believed that communism will never work because the only way it could ever truly be effective is if the entire planet was Communist. That would never happen.

A hive society. Ok im thinking Borg here. The Borg are basically one giant entity with mindless drones that do the will of the Queen. Are you saying that people under communism would be mindlessly following one leader?! Again humans may be foolish and always pull the 'i was just following orders' but if asked to destroy every other community in the world, i would doubt they would do it! Have you ever heard the story about at the end of WW2 the German POW being marched down the main street in Moscow and Russian women flocking to give them bread and cigarettes because they were in a bad state. This is true human compassion to an enemy that was willing to wipe them out. Sure this shows that even though Soviet propaganda made the Nazis look bad and even possibly worse than they did that people took it upon THEMSELVES to go and help these men. Surely this shows individuality in a communist societ which u call a 'hive society'. That doesnt sound very Borg to me!

I think it's less of a hive society and more of a collective idealism. People wouldn't necessarily have a 'leader' in the sense that we use it today. There would be bodies of different organisations which would work out between themselves what would be best. Do we really follow our leaders nowadays anyway? The difference between the Borg and Communism is that the Borg is a dictatorship ruled by one mind where everyone does what the borg queen says.