What do you think of Communism

[Rakhalia]

Try stepping outside of the USA, and visiting a place like Canada, or Australia, or western Europe, or NZ. In those places, the concept of working poor is almost non-existent.

Yeah bro, it's not like there's an entire reservoir of "working poor" outside of the first world who keep global capitalism running off of the exploitation exacted upon them

[Soviet-Socialist-Republics]

Communism has both its flaws and its benefits. For one, communism does have the dream of a society where everyone is equal. On the contrary, however, all states that have identified with the ideology have achieved almost nothing of its true point of it. These governments establish authoritarian and totalitarian tendencies in order for them to stay in power. It's the one enemy of all: greed. It is not only in communist countries where corrupt dictators seize power but some of the modern world's most brutal dictatorships stem from communist thought. Take the USSR for example under Stalin's reign. A totalitarian regime filled with purges, civil rights abuses, and press censorship. Sure, he did heavily industrialize the country and establish its future global dominance in the post-WW2 world, but nevertheless, he did it through despotic ways. Communism on its own (Karl Marx's and Friedrich Engel's original manifesto) may sound good on paper, but putting through the final effect is where most governments fail to succeed.

[Redwood Ridge]

Communism has both its flaws and its benefits. For one, communism does have the dream of a society where everyone is equal. On the contrary, however, all states that have identified with the ideology have achieved almost nothing of its true point of it. These governments establish authoritarian and totalitarian tendencies in order for them to stay in power. It's the one enemy of all: greed. It is not only in communist countries where corrupt dictators seize power but some of the modern world's most brutal dictatorships stem from communist thought. Take the USSR for example under Stalin's reign. A totalitarian regime filled with purges, civil rights abuses, and press censorship. Sure, he did heavily industrialize the country and establish its future global dominance in the post-WW2 world, but nevertheless, he did it through despotic ways. Communism on its own (Karl Marx's and Friedrich Engel's original manifesto) may sound good on paper, but putting through the final effect is where most governments fail to succeed.

Probably because many of its policies horribly backfire when they're put in practice.

[Kubra]

Communism has both its flaws and its benefits. For one, communism does have the dream of a society where everyone is equal. On the contrary, however, all states that have identified with the ideology have achieved almost nothing of its true point of it. These governments establish authoritarian and totalitarian tendencies in order for them to stay in power. It's the one enemy of all: greed. It is not only in communist countries where corrupt dictators seize power but some of the modern world's most brutal dictatorships stem from communist thought. Take the USSR for example under Stalin's reign. A totalitarian regime filled with purges, civil rights abuses, and press censorship. Sure, he did heavily industrialize the country and establish its future global dominance in the post-WW2 world, but nevertheless, he did it through despotic ways. Communism on its own (Karl Marx's and Friedrich Engel's original manifesto) may sound good on paper, but putting through the final effect is where most governments fail to succeed.

Probably because many of its policies horribly backfire when they're put in practice.

Policies such as which

[Redwood Ridge]

The point of revolutionaries is that they have to do more than dismantle, they have to build as well. And considering how building takes actual work, time, and effort, these types won't go any further than burning their own house down.

These people probably contribute nothing to society, they should be so grateful that humanity has achieved such prosperity that they can even have an internet connection let alone electricity. But this is what they choose to do with such blessings instead.

[Drongonia]

Try stepping outside of the USA, and visiting a place like Canada, or Australia, or western Europe, or NZ. In those places, the concept of working poor is almost non-existent.

Well that's just simply untrue.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The point of revolutionaries is that they have to do more than dismantle, they have to build as well. And considering how building takes actual work, time, and effort, these types won't go any further than burning their own house down.

These people probably contribute nothing to society, they should be so grateful that humanity has achieved such prosperity that they can even have an internet connection let alone electricity. But this is what they choose to do with such blessings instead.

You are just uselessly screaming into the void at this point, making 'points' based solely on your own preconceived notions without any backing in reality other than your vague gut feeling. And yet you somehow feel smug and superior to communists.

The actual content of your answer is so ill-founded that I cannot even coronate it with a rebuttal. If you think that anti-capitalist activists are lazy and contribute nothing to society, these working mothers and industrious students and anti-racist organisers and people from all walks, then you are no better than the racist drivel that comes out of Fox News.

Better the anti-capitalist activist than the Shell ceo, who, worse than nothing, earns his enormous keep by burning the planet and calling it a contribution. But apparently, you only consider tearing down a forest as work, as opposed to tearing down oppressive systems.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

You have to understand the difference between the two types of scarcity: scarcity in the economic sense, meaning that there is a finite supply of resources which take labour to turn into goods, is just part of the natural order. However, scarcity in the more regular sense means that there is 'not enough' of something, or that the supply side of the equation is low. This is not necessarily natural. Capitalism in general creates that scarcity in some instances, since it increases prices. Creating abundance is actually against the interests of capitalists, which is why is does not happen. Not only does it lower direct prices, but if there were abundance, people would have to worry less about work and their labour would grow more expensive.

Then we get to the solutions of various economic systems. Here, we hit a few problems. First, you mix up socialism and communism without regard for the difference. Subsequently, you assume that socialism (and therefore communism) is about state control and central planning. Then, you assume that socialism allocates and equal quantity of commodities to all consumers, not fulfilling everyone's demands. This is, however, a situation that you created, not taking into account actual socialist ideology.

So, first of all, speaking about communism: since producers are not hampered by markets and prices, producers are free to create abundance and thus escape the artificial scarcity that exists under capitalism. If the demands of people are not met, then production can be increased, which under capitalism only happens if the increased demand is profitable to fulfil. You claim that capitalism 'lessens demand' by increasing prices, but this is of course not true. It reduces the capacity of some people to fulfil their demands, thus freeing up supply to fulfil the demands of the wealthy. Thus, it fails to fulfil the demands of some while fulfilling the demands of others. I don't see why that is preferable to even the faulty explanation of socialism you give, let alone the actual expected results of implementing a socialist or communist economy.

Think about this: since the 1800s, human capacity to produce has expanded incredibly. Then why, even after increasing both the world population and world productivity, is there still so much poverty? Should we not be able to create enough for all by now? This can only have to explanations: either somehow increased production is not enough to satisfy the increased demand (doubtful, taking into account the advances in production capacity) or the scarcity we see today is of an artificial nature, because without scarcity there would be no need for markets.

There is an essential difference between demand and desire in economics. Demand implies a willingness to pay the required price, desire does not. Therefore, the rising costs will decrease demand while having minimal or no effect on desire. My desire for a Rolls Royce Silver Cloud is very high, my demand is nil.

As to poverty, it is true that productivity has increased greatly since 1800. It is equally true that poverty has decreased greatly in that same period. If graphed, they would show an inverse relationship. Both curves will approach a desired point, but can never reach it as the slope increases; poverty will never reach 0 and productivity will never reach infinity.

Okay, but you do realise that if you take demand as an important metric (instead of what you call desire) then your reasoning is circular? To break it down:

Claim: "Capitalism is better than socialism because under capitalism, all demand can be satisfied because of changing prices while under socialism, this does not happen"
If you define 'demand' as 'the desire for a good combined with the ability t pay for it', then yes, all desire is automatically met. But that is a definition that, by definition, favours a system that limits someone's ability to access to goods based on wealth. If you don't take into account luxury cars but take instead a look at food, you see the failing here: "Under capitalism, if there is not enough food, then demand will be lowered by increasing prices". But as you say, desire remains unchanged (not strange, since the alternative is starvation). If demand is so limited by the ability to pay, then it is not a useful metric to determine if people actually need something.

This is maybe a complex answer, but it is vitally important that we don't defend capitalism by using metrics that serve to strengthen capitalism.

As for the latter point: productivity will not reach infinity, but we don't need infinite production to eliminate all poverty. In fact, if you define poverty simply as the inability to access basic needs (such as healthcare, housing and good) then we already prduce enough to meet everyone's needs, even without socialist restructuring of production. There is enough food and housing in the world for everyone already. We just distrubute it unfairly, which creates poverty. But the idea that poverty is just a part of nature is unfounded and not supported by any facts.

[Civia Welephilostopia]

Communism is cringe. The only reason China Survives is becuase of the breaking of the iron rice bowl. They still are totalitarian but their economic system has shifted from state quotas of communism to the more economics driven markets of places such as the US.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Communism is cringe. The only reason China Survives is becuase of the breaking of the iron rice bowl. They still are totalitarian but their economic system has shifted from state quotas of communism to the more economics driven markets of places such as the US.

China is not communist. It is state capitalist.

[Rightus]

A naive idea. I believe it will become corrupt before it achieves it's goals.

[Civia Welephilostopia]

Communism is cringe. The only reason China Survives is becuase of the breaking of the iron rice bowl. They still are totalitarian but their economic system has shifted from state quotas of communism to the more economics driven markets of places such as the US.

China is not communist. It is state capitalist.

Exactly my point, if they hadn't done that they wouldn't be a contender against the US

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

A naive idea. I believe it will become corrupt before it achieves it's goals.

As opposed to capitalism, which is already corrupted.

China is not communist. It is state capitalist.

Exactly my point, if they hadn't done that they wouldn't be a contender against the US

So all flaws of China are down to communism, and any strength it has is down to capitalism?

Conventient.

[Sanasalia]

Not my preferred system, but I wouldn't mind living under one.
Democratic socialisms are my call-to but honestly capitalist & marxist governments don't affect me that much.
I'll live my day to day life and have my wishes about the government but truly it does not come up to me, atleast not yet.

[Civia Welephilostopia]

A naive idea. I believe it will become corrupt before it achieves it's goals.

As opposed to capitalism, which is already corrupted.

Exactly my point, if they hadn't done that they wouldn't be a contender against the US

So all flaws of China are down to communism, and any strength it has is down to capitalism?

Conventient.

No I am saying that the fact that they have those problems to worry about is becuase of their prosperity.

[Redwood Ridge]

The point of revolutionaries is that they have to do more than dismantle, they have to build as well. And considering how building takes actual work, time, and effort, these types won't go any further than burning their own house down.

These people probably contribute nothing to society, they should be so grateful that humanity has achieved such prosperity that they can even have an internet connection let alone electricity. But this is what they choose to do with such blessings instead.

You are just uselessly screaming into the void at this point, making 'points' based solely on your own preconceived notions without any backing in reality other than your vague gut feeling. And yet you somehow feel smug and superior to communists.

The actual content of your answer is so ill-founded that I cannot even coronate it with a rebuttal. If you think that anti-capitalist activists are lazy and contribute nothing to society, these working mothers and industrious students and anti-racist organisers and people from all walks, then you are no better than the racist drivel that comes out of Fox News.

Better the anti-capitalist activist than the Shell ceo, who, worse than nothing, earns his enormous keep by burning the planet and calling it a contribution. But apparently, you only consider tearing down a forest as work, as opposed to tearing down oppressive systems.

Leftists really like to throw the term CEO around like it's the catch all term for "the final boss of capitalism we have to destroy". Which really gives away how weak their grasp on how any of this work actually is.

A CEO is just the top level manager for what the business does. Sure... for a sole proprietor this role is probably performed by the owner. But a 60+ year old multi-million dollar company that has gone public? You can literally be hired as a CEO. All you have to do is convince a board of all the people who bought a significant stock in the company that you're the best person to pilot their enterprise.

The shareholder is the final boss, and he's the final boss because he's doing exactly what socialists insist he should be doing. Taking his fortune, and spending it to create things that improve the lives of the rest of society so much that they're willing to give back their own money to partake of it. The only difference is leftists insist this process shouldn't be voluntary, they (people who suck at money) should decide how it gets spent, the shareholder should get nothing in return, and the people on the receiving end should take it for granted.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The shareholder is the final boss, and he's the final boss because he's doing exactly what socialists insist he should be doing. Taking his fortune, and spending it to create things that improve the lives of the rest of society so much that they're willing to give back their own money to partake of it.

This is the modern version of the myth of noblesse oblige and like noblesse oblige it is but a pleasant myth

[Redwood Ridge]

The shareholder is the final boss, and he's the final boss because he's doing exactly what socialists insist he should be doing. Taking his fortune, and spending it to create things that improve the lives of the rest of society so much that they're willing to give back their own money to partake of it.

This is the modern version of the myth of noblesse oblige and like noblesse oblige it is but a pleasant myth

People forget a lot of shareholders are also pension funds. They're grandma and grandpa's retirement fund not just a random guy trying to get rich.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

This is the modern version of the myth of noblesse oblige and like noblesse oblige it is but a pleasant myth

People forget a lot of shareholders are also pension funds. They're grandma and grandpa's retirement fund not just a random guy trying to get rich.

They are vastly inferior in political power compared to the thousands of oligarchs out to enrich themselves.

[Rakhalia]

They're grandma and grandpa's retirement fund not just a random guy trying to get rich.

i'm quite unreservedly serious in saying that when you tally it up all the reasoning, it'd be a good thing if they don't get their retirement fund either

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

This is the modern version of the myth of noblesse oblige and like noblesse oblige it is but a pleasant myth

People forget a lot of shareholders are also pension funds. They're grandma and grandpa's retirement fund not just a random guy trying to get rich.

I guess you can find me a figure on how much profit, in a percentage, of an average publicly traded company goes to pension funds.

You are just uselessly screaming into the void at this point, making 'points' based solely on your own preconceived notions without any backing in reality other than your vague gut feeling. And yet you somehow feel smug and superior to communists.

The actual content of your answer is so ill-founded that I cannot even coronate it with a rebuttal. If you think that anti-capitalist activists are lazy and contribute nothing to society, these working mothers and industrious students and anti-racist organisers and people from all walks, then you are no better than the racist drivel that comes out of Fox News.

Better the anti-capitalist activist than the Shell ceo, who, worse than nothing, earns his enormous keep by burning the planet and calling it a contribution. But apparently, you only consider tearing down a forest as work, as opposed to tearing down oppressive systems.

Leftists really like to throw the term CEO around like it's the catch all term for "the final boss of capitalism we have to destroy". Which really gives away how weak their grasp on how any of this work actually is.

A CEO is just the top level manager for what the business does. Sure... for a sole proprietor this role is probably performed by the owner. But a 60+ year old multi-million dollar company that has gone public? You can literally be hired as a CEO. All you have to do is convince a board of all the people who bought a significant stock in the company that you're the best person to pilot their enterprise.

The shareholder is the final boss, and he's the final boss because he's doing exactly what socialists insist he should be doing. Taking his fortune, and spending it to create things that improve the lives of the rest of society so much that they're willing to give back their own money to partake of it. The only difference is leftists insist this process shouldn't be voluntary, they (people who suck at money) should decide how it gets spent, the shareholder should get nothing in return, and the people on the receiving end should take it for granted.

I’m ending this conversation here. You have such a limited understanding of either the economy or socialism that it is no use talking to you about this. That combined with your constant condescension and purposeful misrepresentation of my points makes me end it here.

[Redwood Ridge]

People forget a lot of shareholders are also pension funds. They're grandma and grandpa's retirement fund not just a random guy trying to get rich.

They are vastly inferior in political power compared to the thousands of oligarchs out to enrich themselves.

And the solution isn't only in ostracizing and depriving them of their resources. Lowering barriers of entry, and encouraging more competitors to enter the market, will weaken the position of the current market players. Which entails promoting personal responsibility, competence, and entrepreneurship.

[Redwood Ridge]

They're grandma and grandpa's retirement fund not just a random guy trying to get rich.

i'm quite unreservedly serious in saying that when you tally it up all the reasoning, it'd be a good thing if they don't get their retirement fund either

We get it, you hate your parents.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

They are vastly inferior in political power compared to the thousands of oligarchs out to enrich themselves.

And the solution isn't only in ostracizing and depriving them of their resources. Lowering barriers of entry, and encouraging more competitors to enter the market, will weaken the position of the current market players. Which entails promoting personal responsibility, competence, and entrepreneurship.

do you honestly think the modern kings and princes will deign themselves to sharing their things or graciously permit the plebs to enjoy not starving?
like dude, we tried all that "personal responsibility" thing with victorian workhouses... and they weren't exactly great or designed to not eliminate the poor by starvation

[Betoni]

As for the latter point: productivity will not reach infinity, but we don't need infinite production to eliminate all poverty. In fact, if you define poverty simply as the inability to access basic needs (such as healthcare, housing and good) then we already prduce enough to meet everyone's needs, even without socialist restructuring of production. There is enough food and housing in the world for everyone already. We just distrubute it unfairly, which creates poverty. But the idea that poverty is just a part of nature is unfounded and not supported by any facts.

Can you actually show this to be true? With you know, facts. Can you then show the class how distributing all of that fairly would work in practice? You have a finite amount of labour to go around, right? Some of that labour must be allocated to transferring good from place A to place B. Distributing resources more fairly, would presumably put more demand on transferring of goods, right? Is that not then less labour involved in production? Even more of a problem, if you take into account the initial cost of setting up this more fair system of distribution, no? Then there is the equation of using more natural resources to transfer goods around and keeping up with current production if not more, which means more CO2 emissions and pollution. Does all of that just magically cease to be a problem after the revolution? Or am I just being an idiot?