Communism: Persuade Me

[Herskerstad]

Communism itself is not evil, but it does however stand out as evil's greatest asset.

I'll contend that capitalism is "evil's greatest asset". And religion.

Then what system would be ideal in your mind? Provide an historical example, provided that it is not a pie in the sky type of communism that is too unpractical to function.

Will be fun to read about that utopia while I eat well, do charitable work to aid the homeless and sell my labor which is being priced quite high these days.

[Liberiani]

I have been watching this thread for a bit and there are a couple things that need to be cleared up a bit.

1) No one will work for the betterment of those around you to your own debtrament. You might want to claim a noble soul for all those here but it would just be a lie. NO ONE would get up every single day to throw themselves on the social grenade unless forced. The forced aspect is what makes the system evil to its core. Communism is focused exclusively on 'the greater good' and has no respect for the individual if it does not fit into the planners objectives.

2) Capitalism is all about respecting the individuals right to voluntary exchange. No person is forced to do anything they do not see in their interest. (BTW we Americans have not been capitalists for a long long long time).

3) Wanting to keep your own stuff is not evil. Wanting to take someone elses stuff, by force, is evil.

4) Profit is a good thing. It means someone has developed something you and I want so we spend money on it.

[Scocialist Provinces]

I'll contend that capitalism is "evil's greatest asset". And religion.

Then what system would be ideal in your mind? Provide an historical example, provided that it is not a pie in the sky type of communism that is too unpractical to function.

Will be fun to read about that utopia while I eat well, do charitable work to aid the homeless and sell my labor which is being priced quite high these days.

Off the top of my head, borgia comes to mind. Abusing the burdens known as religion and faith to create an extereemist capatalist state.

[Australien]

I have been watching this thread for a bit and there are a couple things that need to be cleared up a bit.

1) No one will work for the betterment of those around you to your own debtrament. You might want to claim a noble soul for all those here but it would just be a lie. NO ONE would get up every single day to throw themselves on the social grenade unless forced. The forced aspect is what makes the system evil to its core. Communism is focused exclusively on 'the greater good' and has no respect for the individual if it does not fit into the planners objectives.

2) Capitalism is all about respecting the individuals right to voluntary exchange. No person is forced to do anything they do not see in their interest. (BTW we Americans have not been capitalists for a long long long time).

3) Wanting to keep your own stuff is not evil. Wanting to take someone elses stuff, by force, is evil.

4) Profit is a good thing. It means someone has developed something you and I want so we spend money on it.

Erm, you haven't cleared anything up, you've just completely misunderstood the very thing you're arguing against.

Communism lacks a government, there is no government to force you to do anything.

[Qatarab]

Well there is actually a government in communism. What you refer to is anarchistic communism which Karl Marx said would happen after workers got together,set up a type of temporary government then after some time realized that the time of a need for a government was up and it was disbanded. It was a process to anarchism.

[Australien]

Well there is actually a government in communism. What you refer to is anarchistic communism which Karl Marx said would happen after workers got together,set up a type of temporary government then after some time realized that the time of a need for a government was up and it was disbanded. It was a process to anarchism.

Exactly.

[Michael VII]

Even fundamentally the whole idea of communism is wrong, unethical and barbaric. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", means that overall, either everyone will prosper in a good season, and everyone will starve in a bad season. So, the idea is that everyone gets an equal share of everything, yet it is an obvious need in society to protect yourself and your family first, regardless of the people around you. So, if you don't have enough to provide some for everyone in the country, you just get less to eat, and if you provide more than enough, your needs are perceived as average and you get less to eat anyway. Example, War Communism in Russia during the Great Depression, everyone starved. Also, the economy starves regardless in a communist countries because of the lack of International Trade, and as the surplus of money is shared equally, meaning that everyone is as equally poor and hungry.

Also, the idea that people are free under communism doesn't work, because there is still only one autocratic leader who controls all and keeps all, hence the Russian Civil War against the Bolsheviks because Lenin was running everything. There was no economy, not enough resources and poorly planned government, the only reason why they survived so long was because all along the Bolsheviks were controlling the Duma, causing it to be ineffective and given the very unpopular Tsarist government meant that the Communists were inevitably going to take over.

Communists are naive, thinking that it forms a perfect society where everyone is equal. But that is the exact opposite of what really happens, everyone is equally poor and afflicted apart from the leaders of the Bolshevik party. It is just an autocracy waiting to fall. Capitalism is the only fair form of government, and also it is the only way to prosper both economically and peacefully.

Communists: Tell me this...Where is a form of actual communism on the earth today where the system runs peacefully and effectively? When you have no answer, just tell me and I will happily convert you to Capitalism.

[Michael VII]

Also, the fact that in the USSR, Brain surgeons only earned 0.5% more than garbagemen, which was also next to nothing compared to what the Bolshevik leaders were receiving. The fact that Brain Surgeons train so hard to be allowed to earn as much as they do compared with the flunks of garbagemen is admirable. No one should take away their effort they put in by mocking it by way of income.

[Trotskylvania]

Also, the fact that in the USSR, Brain surgeons only earned 0.5% more than garbagemen, which was also next to nothing compared to what the Bolshevik leaders were receiving. The fact that Brain Surgeons train so hard to be allowed to earn as much as they do compared with the flunks of garbagemen is admirable. No one should take away their effort they put in by mocking it by way of income.

The USSR was hardly a model of classless equality. The skilled workers, academics and functionaries of state and economy received considerably better monetary and non-monetary compensation for their work. Of course, given your butchery of the series of events that led up to, and transpired ruing the Russian Revolution, I'm not surprised you'd be ill-informed on this matter as well.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

it is impossible to remove social classes altogether. Society consists of three main segments, the High, the Middle and the Low. Now matter how many times you attempt to abolish the social classes, they will always manifest themselves. Society is like a gyroscope, it always reverts back to the same place. ( This was from George Orwell's book, 1984)

In addition, communism economically is impracticle and leads to wastage. If everything is owned by the state, then how do you ensure competition and quality control? There is also going to be a wastage of resources since many industries will have the belief that since the state is providng the resources, they should not care about what they do with it. In addition, with the need to fulfill quotas imposed by the government, you will see shoddy work being put into the manufacturing of goods. Managers are not going to care about the quality of these goods as long as they fulfill their quotas. The result? Another potential Chinese melamine milk scandal in the making.

[Farsionia]

Not gonna debate anything, but I'd just like to point out that George Orwell was a socialist, you Nazi dirtbag.

Alright, I admit that I mean to be polite. I just wanted to use the word "dirtbag". No offense to anyone.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Not gonna debate anything, but I'd just like to point out that George Orwell was a socialist, you Nazi dirtbag.

Alright, I admit that I mean to be polite. I just wanted to use the word "dirtbag". No offense to anyone.

I'm not a Nazi, first thing you need to know. I'm more of a fascist. Big difference between the two. Just because I have the word " Aryan" does not mean you must start thinking its a Nazi country.

Secondly, I know that George Orwell is socialist, I just referenced from his book.

[Sanguinthium]

wow. just wow.

Communism HAS NO GOVERNMENT. how can something be political IF THERE ARE NO POLITICS?

Ukraine is not in the russian federation. it is its own country. it USED to be a soviet republic. i am speaking of the russian federation, also a former soviet republic.

Stalin was not a communist he was a AUTHORITARIAN DICTATOR.

The KGB was not the secret police in the time period you described; it was the NKVD. that dissolved in 1954. it was replaced by the KGB.
when Brezhnev rose, the issues of speech lessened and lessened, until Gorbechev legalized it entirely in the 80s.

i will clarify on my statement that a large portion of russians miss the USSR;
a large portion believe in communism, and although the communist party of the soviet union is illegal, the communist party of the russian federation is thriving. a large portion of the population consider themselves communist.

IMO, the abolition of politics (eventual or immediate) is a pretty political issue to me. Also, I would think that even the utopian communist society would have some degree of politics, even if such practices are formally abolished.

I'm fully aware that Ukraine is independent now. I was merely pointing out that others beside the west hate the USSR. The Ukraine, above probably all others, would have the best reason for doing so.

Stalin was an authoritarian dictator, true, but he considered himself a communist, as did the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union may have been a nicer place post-Stalin (how could it not be?), but few can deny that the KGB were...intrusive upon the populace...to say the least.

However, I will agree that it is evident that there is still a strong communist presence in the modern Russian Federation. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is a popular force.

CPRF is the only legal communist force; in the early 90s yeltin made the CPSU illegal.
The Nazi's called themselves national socialists, and yet condemned the communist movement and sent communists (reds) to the death camps with jews fags and retarded people.
the republican party (if your an american, you will know what i speak of) calls itself the "grand old party" despite the fact its only serious competitor (democrats) predate it by almost 60 years.
i think its relatively obvious that just because i call myself something doesnt mean i AM something; it is however inarguable that Stalin brought the russian people from economic obscurity to a world superpower. Stalin is the reason the Russians got the Atom bomb as early as they did (mid 50s)

My dad came from the soviet union; born in 67, and his dad told him all about the stalin era; almost every citizen of the union had been arrested at one point or another, and most of them freed. stalin used criminals and political undesirables to build the volga canal, etc.

[Kongra]

Even fundamentally the whole idea of communism is wrong, unethical and barbaric. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", means that overall, either everyone will prosper in a good season, and everyone will starve in a bad season. So, the idea is that everyone gets an equal share of everything, yet it is an obvious need in society to protect yourself and your family first, regardless of the people around you.

Firstly, why is communism barbaric for sharing the good and the bad equally while capitalism isn't barabric for letting those who cannot protect themselves founder? Secondly, what is the moral reasoning for your family to get precedence over everyone else other than personal prejudice?

Also, the economy starves regardless in a communist countries because of the lack of International Trade, and as the surplus of money is shared equally, meaning that everyone is as equally poor and hungry.

Communism does not exclude international trade. The communist bloc's internalized trading scheme was less of an economic policy and more of a political one due to tensions between East and West.

Communists are naive, thinking that it forms a perfect society where everyone is equal. But that is the exact opposite of what really happens, everyone is equally poor and afflicted apart from the leaders of the Bolshevik party. It is just an autocracy waiting to fall.

Capitalists are naive, thinking the free market is omniscient and creates a perfect society where everyone is free. But that is the exact opposite of what really happens. Workers are exploited by the rich and are held by the balls during times of economic uncertainty. It's a plutocracy just waiting to fail. See? I can hurl baseless insults too!

Communists: Tell me this...Where is a form of actual communism on the earth today where the system runs peacefully and effectively? When you have no answer, just tell me and I will happily convert you to Capitalism.

I find it funny that pro-capitalists always trumpet about how there has never been a successful communist nation but when asked about the lack of a successful true capitalist nation they pull out the "doesn't exist =/= impossible" card.

[Skartphishe]

Persuade me to become a Communist supporter using all the good things about Communism.

Can't think of any good things but if you don't become a good communist we'll either shoot you in the head or work you to death.

[Bataloqr]

The only good communist is a dead communist!


Obvious joke is obvious.=> Obvious joke is obvious.

*squints* I hate tiny print...

Anyway, actual communism as outlined by Marx is working class (aka: mob, prolitariate) rebelling against an all-powerful aristocracy after the latter strips the former of wealth, power and autonomy. The idea of establishing a "temporary" dictatorship to ease the nation into a state of "anarchy" (not by its classical conotation) is an unfortunate miscalculation that brings too much bad press to what is in fact a surprising good idea.

In its truest form, the early USA was in fact the first Marx-Communist nation in the world, predating even Marx's coining of the term. And as time passed, the world has come to realize that "Mob rule" as the former British Empire called it is in reality the best known form of government for its stability and its plasticity (two sides of the same coin).

Leninist and Stalinist Russia is Facism masquerading as Communism as in the USSR people became servants of the State while Communism is the State in service of the people.

Obviously this is all a simplification of terminology but in general, it should be accurate for a lay person.

[Grave_n_idle]

For what ?

Why?

The removal of the bourgeois doesn't create a vacuum for the creative process and the individual venture into the means of production.

It's just that you can't own workers or operate for the sake of profit instead of improvement.

Do you just like owning people or...?

Because only a market economy can allocate resources efficiently.

While that might have been true for large interconnected groups, in the past - it's never been true for small groups, and it's no longer true for large groups. Technology has finally reached a level where efficient resource distribution is entirely possible.

[Hydesland]

Technology has finally reached a level where efficient resource distribution is entirely possible.

Source.

[Grave_n_idle]

Even fundamentally the whole idea of communism is wrong, unethical and barbaric. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", means that overall, either everyone will prosper in a good season, and everyone will starve in a bad season.

Sorry, I simply couldn't read any further.

How is failure to plan or stockpile resources in any way intrinsic to that mantra?

[The Merchant Republics]

Are you suggesting that economic relationships are not an important element in understanding historical change?

If there is one thing that I agree with Marx on it's that.

It's fairly clear that the world is run first and foremost on economics.

[Grave_n_idle]

Technology has finally reached a level where efficient resource distribution is entirely possible.

Source.

Read your techy journals? We even have names for this phenomenon creeping slowly into the public consciousness. "Sky drive", "cloud", "dropbox", just for example. Continuous remote access to centralised data handling. Just the sorts of tools that would be needed.

[Bataloqr]

Technology has finally reached a level where efficient resource distribution is entirely possible.

Source.

Cargo Planes, Heavy Freight ships, Cargo Trucks, Railroads etc. With all the options it's actually a given.

[Grave_n_idle]

Source.

Cargo Planes, Heavy Freight ships, Cargo Trucks, Railroads etc. With all the options it's actually a given.

Right, but the rate determining step is actually tracking the 'need' and coordinating the response - and that technology is also now readily available.

[Bataloqr]

Cargo Planes, Heavy Freight ships, Cargo Trucks, Railroads etc. With all the options it's actually a given.

Right, but the rate determining step is actually tracking the 'need' and coordinating the response - and that technology is also now readily available.

Yeah, I completely forgot about the internet ... which is particularly ironic since I'm using a Wi-Fi connection as I write this right now...

[Hydesland]

Read your techy journals? We even have names for this phenomenon creeping slowly into the public consciousness. "Sky drive", "cloud", "dropbox", just for example. Continuous remote access to centralised data handling. Just the sorts of tools that would be needed.

But it needs to be such that a few technocrats, assessing a bunch of subjective values of a population of millions, susceptible to massive measurement error from people lying on surveys requesting their needs, which also currently still take years to administer and audit in an industrialised country (e.g. see the census in UK), and planning accordingly, is somehow better than millions of people spread all across the country who are far less susceptible to asymmetric information and corruption, all planning for themselves or their firm/charity/coop/household etc...