Communism!A Dream or a Ideology?

[New Hampshyre]

how can you say that equal society is hell?

Being a round peg but forced into a square hole is indeed hell.

And you're dream can't exist because you can't have a society that is both just and equal. This is why:

It is just for people to get what they deserve. No two people are the same. Since people are not the same they will inevitably deserve different things. If you force them to get equal things then you are giving them what they do not deserve, and that is unjust.

This is taking "equal" as meaning equality of results. That is typically what communists mean when they talk of equality. A more important form of equality that you can JUSTLY seek, is equality before the law.

[New Hampshyre]

I mean, lets be realistic here. Communism is a truly amazing ideology. Total, unmitigated equality. It's the best.

Why are people so hooked on the disgusting idea of equality? Equality SUCKS! It is completely unjust! People are not equal and don't deserve to be treated like it. Parasites and other scum bags of various stripes don't deserve the same treatment as the most productive and brilliant people on the planet. to want such a thing is disgusting and rather foolish.

[New Hampshyre]

Communism would probably be awesome if everybody (vast, vast majority of everybody) wanted it. That's the ideology's biggest problem. It literally can not work unless everybody wants it to.

No. No, it wouldn't. It would suck really badly. Equality of results is not something we should value, we should celebrate and reward great achievements, inventions, productivity, ect. And yes, it deserves to be celebrated monetarily because these people vastly increase the wealth of society and deserve to be made wealthy for their contributions. People should get what they deserve.

[New Hampshyre]

it is better to be that than to live in a rotten world full of exploitation and discrimination

"exploitation" is not a bad thing. We are exploiting each other right now. We are using each other for entertainment, intellectual stimulation, some competition, ect. Humans exploit one another consensually all the time. It is called cooperation, and it is one of the most healthy and beneficial aspects of human society.

Discrimination has nothing to do with communism or anything else on this thread. Communism, capitalism, socialism, these are economic systems, they have nothing to do with promoting or demoting discrimination.

[New Hampshyre]

1. Capitalism:
You get uber rich guys on the very, very top who get there at the cost of others and the rest are fucked.

Not really. In the free market wealth is created through the creation of value for others, not the taking of value from others. For example, if I write the greatest book in the world and sell it for 5 bucks to a billion people I suddenly become a billionaire. But who have I made worse off in becoming so? Not a single person. Instead I have made a billion people each a little better off since they all bought my book because it was more valuable to them then the 5 bucks they gave up. This is the standard way to create large amounts of wealth in a free market.

In order to make money by taking it from others you need the power to initiate force or fraud on them (as the government possesses). Private institutions do NOT possess this power in a free market. Often, however, the free market is sacrificed by allowing public+private collusion which allows private companies to use the govt to initiate force against the people and THAT allows them to increase their own wealth by pillaging others, but that is NOT part of capitalism. That would be State-Corporatism, or crony-capitalism.

This is mainly because unrestrained capitalism is very in tune with social darwinism, which in my opinion creates a small strong group and a majority of weaker people.

There is competition, but the wealth isn't being created at the expense of others, so some will end up competing better and becoming much wealthier then others, but that doesn't prevent others from earning as much as they are capable of. On the contrary, the success of the wealthy makes it easier for the rest to have better lives since in becoming wealthy they are also making everyone else slightly more wealthy, and they also re-invest their wealth which goes to produce more capital goods which others can use to increase their own productivity and make themselves and the rest of society better off.

This is also fairly impossible because then we would have basically no government and it would be up to the people who are higher up to decide things and even they would fight amongst each other.

Not true. Capitalism requires the upholding of property rights and individual liberty by unspecified guardians. That could be by the government, or private parties. But if they are unable to secure private property rights and individual liberty then it cannot be called capitalism.

[Communist phil]

it is better to be that than to live in a rotten world full of exploitation and discrimination

"exploitation" is not a bad thing. We are exploiting each other right now. We are using each other for entertainment, intellectual stimulation, some competition, ect. Humans exploit one another consensually all the time. It is called cooperation, and it is one of the most healthy and beneficial aspects of human society.

Discrimination has nothing to do with communism or anything else on this thread. Communism, capitalism, socialism, these are economic systems, they have nothing to do with promoting or demoting discrimination.

communism demotes discrimination in both economics and social aspects of a society, , In the counterpart of communism. Capitalism is a way by which number of minorities has the power or possesses the power and wealth to rule over the weak, what that means? The rich are those who becomes richer and the weak becomes weaker.. Whereas communism abolish the existence of class, no poor and no rich..

[New Hampshyre]

there could be a hell of a lot less inequality in the world than there is now.

Why? Because inequality is an intrinsic bad? Or because some people aren't getting what their individual actions merit? And by what standard is that merit to be judged? (ie. supply and demand of their product)

[New Hampshyre]

Capitalism is a way by which number of minorities has the power or possesses the power and wealth to rule over the weak, what that means? The rich are those who becomes richer and the weak becomes weaker

Reality contradicts this assertion. 80% of American millionaires today are 1st generation millionaires. They are people who were relatively poor and through their own efforts became much more wealthy. Plenty of America's greatest entrepreneurs were raised in poverty. Heck, even Bill Clinton was raised in poverty and he became the most powerful man in the world for 8 years. If you can go from absolute bottom to absolute top like that in a single generation, then you know that the system isn't just perpetuating supposed class divisions.

[Communist phil]

Capitalism is a way by which number of minorities has the power or possesses the power and wealth to rule over the weak, what that means? The rich are those who becomes richer and the weak becomes weaker

Reality contradicts this assertion. 80% of American millionaires today are 1st generation millionaires. They are people who were relatively poor and through their own efforts became much more wealthy. Plenty of America's greatest entrepreneurs were raised in poverty. Heck, even Bill Clinton was raised in poverty and he became the most powerful man in the world for 8 years. If you can go from absolute bottom to absolute top like that in a single generation, then you know that the system isn't just perpetuating supposed class divisions.

okay, thanks for the information and enlightenment

[Sungai Pusat]

Singapore.

What is it about Singapore specifically that you like?

Probably the tight liberty we have here. Somehow, he follows the idea of 'liberty is so valuable it must be rationed.'

[Great Nepal]

Because as said before, it ignores that some skills are rarer than others and are therefore worth more. If a cleaner and expert doctor gets paid equally, why the fuck will anyone waste their time and money to be a doctor? Same applies for all high-skilled occupations so in the end, you end up with no high-skilled peoples (or very few) and lolhuge number of unskilled/ semi-skilled people.

You forget that money is not the sole reason people do what they do. Many have a passion for and take pride in what they are good at. That's not to say that I believe everyone's income should be exactly the same, because I don't, but there could be a hell of a lot less inequality in the world than there is now.

Thats why I included "(or very few)". How many will act solely on passion? Would you waste about 20 years of your life to study if you will earn same money as a cleaner who haven't used any time to learn? Infact cleaner will be richer than a doctor since cleaner will start to do work early.

[Great Nepal]

My friend and I were actually talking about this a week or so ago and this is what we realized:
Both Communism and its counterpart, Capitalism give similar yet differing results if adhering strictly and realistically to their ideals.
This is why:
1. Capitalism:
You get uber rich guys on the very, very top who get there at the cost of others and the rest are fucked.^[1] This is mainly because unrestrained capitalism is very in tune with social darwinism, which in my opinion creates a small strong group and a majority of weaker people.^[2] This is also fairly impossible because then we would have basically no government and it would be up to the people who are higher up to decide things and even they would fight amongst each other.^[3]

[1] How did uber rich guys got there? By magic? If they can anyone can simple.
[2] No, wealth is being created in expense of anyone. It is competition, some with most useful skills/intelligence will be rich. No one is stopping others from earning similar amount of money.
[3] No, there is need of government. Government need to protect property rights and stuff. However government should act as a guide not as dictator of market.

[Siromizu]

Whoa, whoa, whoa... Wait a second. Explain that bit. Don't just repeat it. Tell me the why of it.

Ok, I'll try to explain what I mean.

The way I see it, without liberty and free will humans are not any more valuable than a machine or a computer. We can think, we can be useful, but we are not valuable in our selves, we would not have intrinsic value.

It is only through sentience that we achieve free-will and true liberty because it is at this point that we can create meaning for our own lives. We can give ourselves personal goals and values to seek. It is when this first occurs that purpose first enters the universe. All non-sentient existence in the universe just churns about following the laws of physics, or instinct, or programming without any purpose except for what we sentient beings give to it. We can give these things use-value. They are useful in achieving our goals and promoting our values. Such as when we use a computer and the internet to further a person's personal value of learning or exercising curiosity, or simply plain entertainment and happiness.

People often seek for a "higher power" to give purpose and planning to the universe. But they've possessed that "higher power" all along, it was their free-will. You don't need omnipotence or omniscience or anything like that to give the universe purpose, you just need the free-will to decide what its purpose should be. We sentient beings are the ones that give the universe planning and meaning.

Did I explain it to your satisfaction Siromizu? And what do you think of it if I did?

Fundamental disagreement there. Humanity does not truly have free will. We live as slaves to convoluted instinct and inevitable reactions to circumstance and environment. As the inevitable and ultimately instinctual reactions to circumstance and environment that we have are not readily identified before they occur, it seems as though we are making choices, based on our own freedom of thought. That which we do not know, or do not think of, still does exist, though, and so our concept of free will can at best be called an illusion. That aside, you have given no reason as to why this illusion should make invented meanings any less artificial. There is no reason to think that, by merit of simply holding the illusion that we, as humans, have some choice and freedom (even though we really don't) in our short, inconsequential lives, our lives suddenly become any less short or inconsequential. Even thinking and being useful, we do not have intrinsic value - nothing does - but only the value that we invent for ourselves (or that others imagine for us).

If we can accept and establish that a human is not, ultimately, so different from a rock, in terms of intrinsic or inherent value (and you admit yourself that a human without "free will" and liberty does not have intrinsic value), then how does the human capacity for thought (and illusion of freedom) suddenly change this? Even if I think, and ascribe value to myself, and to the things around me, I am unable, by definition, to affect the intrinsic value of either myself or my surroundings - I can only influence the imagined value in my own mind, and attempt to sway the minds of others.

In any case, there is no such thing as intrinsic value, since value is a construct within the human mind, and existence would continue without such a construct. To say that the human mind's construct of value is what allows existence to have intrinsic value at all, is to put the cart before the horse. Without sufficient reasoning as to the specifics of why you say this, it strikes me as something of a non-sequitur, even ignoring the flaws in the premise.

[The Merchant Republics]

You forget that money is not the sole reason people do what they do. Many have a passion for and take pride in what they are good at. That's not to say that I believe everyone's income should be exactly the same, because I don't, but there could be a hell of a lot less inequality in the world than there is now.

Thats why I included "(or very few)". How many will act solely on passion? Would you waste about 20 years of your life to study if you will earn same money as a cleaner who haven't used any time to learn? Infact cleaner will be richer than a doctor since cleaner will start to do work early.

I've said it before, I don't think the problem will be finding doctors in this magical equal world, the problem will be finding Janitors and Miners and other people to work the dirty thankless jobs. I'm certain that many doctors would enjoy their work even if they just received the basics, the same is true of any career which has the admiration that a doctor has, even more dangerous one's like police.

The issue is that our world doesn't work with just doctors, policemen, firemen, writers, artists and all those other dream careers; we need people to do the jobs that no one wants to do, building, cleaning, farming, manufacturing; money is the only motivator which can make people willingly take dirty and thankless jobs. People with the skills to become doctors will become doctors because they want to be doctors or even if they don't then eventually social pressure for their rare skills will eventually force some to enter the field (a skills market by proxy). The problem with an "equal society" is that nearly everyone has the skill to be a a janitor or miner but no one would ever choose to be one (at least not nearly enough to fill demand), social pressure won't help here because there isn't everyone to press.

If you want an experiment; form a group of several and set out a complicated objective with many individual tasks (like a society), you will find people to do the easy stuff (to ease by), you will find people to do the hard stuff (as a challenge), but see how many volunteer to do the worst and dirtiest part, not a challenge for them, but not easy or quick. You will quickly need to compluse someone to do it. Money is the only means by which people can be entranced to do these menial jobs without violence.

[Great Nepal]

Thats why I included "(or very few)". How many will act solely on passion? Would you waste about 20 years of your life to study if you will earn same money as a cleaner who haven't used any time to learn? Infact cleaner will be richer than a doctor since cleaner will start to do work early.

I've said it before, I don't think the problem will be finding doctors in this magical equal world, the problem will be finding Janitors and Miners and other people to work the dirty thankless jobs. I'm certain that many doctors would enjoy their work even if they just received the basics, the same is true of any career which has the admiration that a doctor has, even more dangerous one's like police.

The issue is that our world doesn't work with just doctors, policemen, firemen, writers, artists and all those other dream careers; we need people to do the jobs that no one wants to do, building, cleaning, farming, manufacturing; money is the only motivator which can make people willingly take dirty and thankless jobs. People with the skills to become doctors will become doctors because they want to be doctors or even if they don't then eventually social pressure for their rare skills will eventually force some to enter the field (a skills market by proxy). The problem with an "equal society" is that nearly everyone has the skill to be a a janitor or miner but no one would ever choose to be one (at least not nearly enough to fill demand), social pressure won't help here because there isn't everyone to press.

If you want an experiment; form a group of several and set out a complicated objective with many individual tasks (like a society), you will find people to do the easy stuff (to ease by), you will find people to do the hard stuff (as a challenge), but see how many volunteer to do the worst and dirtiest part, not a challenge for them, but not easy or quick. You will quickly need to compluse someone to do it. Money is the only means by which people can be entranced to do these menial jobs without violence.

As you said "those who have the skill", how do they get the skills? By learning and using 20+ year of their life. First generation under equal society could work since there are already people who have those skills, but what about after second or third generation? Why will anyone waste 20+ years if they will get same things as they would if they were a cleaner?

[The Merchant Republics]

I've said it before, I don't think the problem will be finding doctors in this magical equal world, the problem will be finding Janitors and Miners and other people to work the dirty thankless jobs. I'm certain that many doctors would enjoy their work even if they just received the basics, the same is true of any career which has the admiration that a doctor has, even more dangerous one's like police.

The issue is that our world doesn't work with just doctors, policemen, firemen, writers, artists and all those other dream careers; we need people to do the jobs that no one wants to do, building, cleaning, farming, manufacturing; money is the only motivator which can make people willingly take dirty and thankless jobs. People with the skills to become doctors will become doctors because they want to be doctors or even if they don't then eventually social pressure for their rare skills will eventually force some to enter the field (a skills market by proxy). The problem with an "equal society" is that nearly everyone has the skill to be a a janitor or miner but no one would ever choose to be one (at least not nearly enough to fill demand), social pressure won't help here because there isn't everyone to press.

If you want an experiment; form a group of several and set out a complicated objective with many individual tasks (like a society), you will find people to do the easy stuff (to ease by), you will find people to do the hard stuff (as a challenge), but see how many volunteer to do the worst and dirtiest part, not a challenge for them, but not easy or quick. You will quickly need to compluse someone to do it. Money is the only means by which people can be entranced to do these menial jobs without violence.

As you said "those who have the skill", how do they get the skills? By learning and using 20+ year of their life. First generation under equal society could work since there are already people who have those skills, but what about after second or third generation? Why will anyone waste 20+ years if they will get same things as they would if they were a cleaner?

You misunderstand what I mean, people are willing to work hard for their dreams, doctors are in a well-regarded and desired profession, people will regardless of money want to become doctors, because everyone loves doctors, they have prestige and power over life and death, prestige and power are very real motivators for hard work, people do not need to know that doctors pay well to become doctors, they will become so because they will enjoy the work. Indeed what I am saying is that a communist society would not work in any generation, because if you suddenly released everyone from working for a living (or at the very least to work according to the demands of the market), no one would want to work in the dirty and thankless jobs which no society can do without, they would either take the challenging but rewarding or the easy and quiet, no one will take an unrewarding career.
It doesn't matter that someone would make the same money as a cleaner, because they would genuinely prefer to be a doctor. The reward of joining those prestigious and "altruistic" careers like medicine, art, politics, military and teaching is apart from the material market demand for them, teaching and military jobs are not rewarding in terms of pay. Yet more then enough people want to do them, because they are "paid" in self-fulfilment and the prestige for their profession. A similar example to medicine is art, art is not a profitable career unless you are exceptionally talented, art takes years of practice and training to become good at, yet the world is filled with trained artists, who work other jobs to pay the bills. Even parenthood for example, people have children despite the sheer amount of work involved and no potential monetary reward, the reason is that they derive emotional profit from it.

So arguing that there would be no doctors in a communist society is fruitless, of course there would be doctors, like there would be artists and soldiers, teachers and particularly politicians, the principle reason why the society falls isn't that there is no one to do the jobs which take dedication, lack of money won't make people less ambitious to reach their dreams. An equal and communist society would have no lack for such careers that are rewarding outside of the market, it's the jobs which are ugly, laborious and inglorious that would find no willing workers. That is the problem with communism, not no doctors, but no bed pan cleaners, not a lack of artists, but a lack of paint makers, nor a lack of teachers, but a lack lumberjacks for wood to make their books, not a lack of soldiers, a lack of farmers to feed them.

The Soviet Union did not send people to paint or heal in the gulags, they sent them to mine salt. The market is the only non-violent means to bring people to do the job that no one likes to do.

[The Parkus Empire]

Communism is Jessica Alba giving you a blowjob, philosophically speaking.

[The Merchant Republics]

Communism is Jessica Alba giving you a blowjob, philosophically speaking.

I know exactly what you mean by this .

Though personally I think it's neither desirable nor attainable, much like getting french kissed by Frankenstein.

[The Parkus Empire]

Communism is Jessica Alba giving you a blowjob, philosophically speaking.

I know exactly what you mean by this .

Though personally I think it's neither desirable nor attainable, much like getting french kissed by Frankenstein.

I see dead people and bourgeoisie sentiment.

[The Merchant Republics]

I know exactly what you mean by this .

Though personally I think it's neither desirable nor attainable, much like getting french kissed by Frankenstein.

I see dead people and bourgeoisie sentiment.

so true

[New Hampshyre]

Fundamental disagreement there. Humanity does not truly have free will.

Yep, if you don't accept the concept of free-will then my argument falls apart. But then, so does everything in society. Without free-will there can be no morality and no immorality since no one can choose to do something that is immoral or moral, they have no control over their own actions. There can be no justice or injustice because these things only apply to sentient beings and without free will we cannot be considered sentient beings. Just like a lion is not unjust when he kills an antelope and an asteroid is not unjust when it hits a planet and extinguishes most of the life on the planet, humans would not be unjust if the caused genocides since they aren't in control of their own actions. There can be no value in society. Without free-will there is no value, there is only things that we are pre-programmed to seek out. These things have no more value, without a final intrinsic good for all the things we seek out to culminate in, there cannot be a true purpose in our valuing anything. Without free-will and value in society then there is no reason to do anything. There is no reason to breath, there is no reason to help anyone, there is no reason to punish criminals, especially since they never chose to do anything wrong in the first place, there is no reason for you to be arguing here since there can be no value in it, and you aren't even choosing the words you write. A human life without free will is the ultimate irony of being in a prison without any walls. You're mind and body are free to do great things, reaching into outer space or the deepest parts of the ocean, delving into the most mysterious parts of the human mind or the nearly incomprehensible physics of black holes, and yet we aren't actually FREE to do even the smallest most Infinitesimal of things such as choosing what to have for breakfast.

I don't believe it. That seems ludicrous to me. But, lets say, for kicks, that we may have no free-will. in that case, we've created a Pascal's Wager type situation. Wwe have two possible "choices", and each choice can have 2 outcomes depending on whether we truly have free will or not:

We have Free will:

1) We choose to believe in free will: We will act on true premises and we will seek to maximize true intrinsic values that really do exist and the universe becomes a better place for it.

2) We choose not to believe in free will: We are incorrect in our premises and so we do not seek to maximize intrinsic values, even though they do exist, because we've managed to fool ourselves into believing that they don't.

In this case we are better off if we believe we have free-will.

We do not have free will:

1) We don't "choose" to believe in free will but somehow this conversation of ours leads our pre-destined selves to believe we do and so we futily try to maximize illusionary values. Since value and dis-value cannot truly exist we are no better nor worse off than before.

2) We don't "choose' to not believe in free will but somehow this conversation leads our pre-destined selves to not believe in it and so we don't futily try to maximize illusionary values, but we still aren't any better or worse off since no value or dis-value can exist without free-will.

In this case you aren't any better or worse off no matter what we do.

These 4 options leave only 1 possible positive result, and that was in believing in free will (or even just acting as if you did) and only 1 negative result, and that was in not believing or acting as if you believed in free will. Therefore, regardless of what you believe is true about our free will, you should at least grant that society should act as if humans really have free will and so my theory about the source of human intrinsic value still stands as at least a good guide for which all societies should be run since they can't be hurt by it, and they can only achieve true value through it.

[CTALNH]

Free will=cure=Dictatorship of the Proletariat=No free will=Revolution=No every one likes having free will

''Hey we have free will we will not obey you''
''Who said that''
''I did''
''Bang''
''Are you equal?''
''No''
''Ratatatatat''
''Now you are''
That's why I like communism you make everyone equal either they want it or not

[Greater Tezdrian]

Free will=cure=Dictatorship of the Proletariat=No free will=Revolution=No every one likes having free will

''Hey we have free will we will not obey you''
''Who said that''
''I did''
''Bang''
''Are you equal?''
''No''
''Ratatatatat''
''Now you are''
That's why I like communism you make everyone equal either they want it or not

That was one of the worst, most poorly conceived, irrational arguments I have ever come across. Pro-communist arguments in general lack substance, but that was a sad parody of rational thinking. Try to add to your ideological reasonings, not detract from them with asinine comments.

[Concordeia]

As you said "those who have the skill", how do they get the skills? By learning and using 20+ year of their life. First generation under equal society could work since there are already people who have those skills, but what about after second or third generation? Why will anyone waste 20+ years if they will get same things as they would if they were a cleaner?

You misunderstand what I mean, people are willing to work hard for their dreams, doctors are in a well-regarded and desired profession, people will regardless of money want to become doctors, because everyone loves doctors, they have prestige and power over life and death, prestige and power are very real motivators for hard work, people do not need to know that doctors pay well to become doctors, they will become so because they will enjoy the work. Indeed what I am saying is that a communist society would not work in any generation, because if you suddenly released everyone from working for a living (or at the very least to work according to the demands of the market), no one would want to work in the dirty and thankless jobs which no society can do without, they would either take the challenging but rewarding or the easy and quiet, no one will take an unrewarding career.
It doesn't matter that someone would make the same money as a cleaner, because they would genuinely prefer to be a doctor. The reward of joining those prestigious and "altruistic" careers like medicine, art, politics, military and teaching is apart from the material market demand for them, teaching and military jobs are not rewarding in terms of pay. Yet more then enough people want to do them, because they are "paid" in self-fulfilment and the prestige for their profession. A similar example to medicine is art, art is not a profitable career unless you are exceptionally talented, art takes years of practice and training to become good at, yet the world is filled with trained artists, who work other jobs to pay the bills. Even parenthood for example, people have children despite the sheer amount of work involved and no potential monetary reward, the reason is that they derive emotional profit from it.

So arguing that there would be no doctors in a communist society is fruitless, of course there would be doctors, like there would be artists and soldiers, teachers and particularly politicians, the principle reason why the society falls isn't that there is no one to do the jobs which take dedication, lack of money won't make people less ambitious to reach their dreams. An equal and communist society would have no lack for such careers that are rewarding outside of the market, it's the jobs which are ugly, laborious and inglorious that would find no willing workers. That is the problem with communism, not no doctors, but no bed pan cleaners, not a lack of artists, but a lack of paint makers, nor a lack of teachers, but a lack lumberjacks for wood to make their books, not a lack of soldiers, a lack of farmers to feed them.

The Soviet Union did not send people to paint or heal in the gulags, they sent them to mine salt. The market is the only non-violent means to bring people to do the job that no one likes to do.

But in a communist society, if everyone is paid within a rough range of $100,000 - $500,000 (or it's equivalent worth in goods and services) for the jobs that they do, then that means that people who are doing the dirty work are getting paid many times more than they would be in a capitalist system. That seems like a pretty sweet motivator to me.

[Jakaragua]

there could be a hell of a lot less inequality in the world than there is now.

Why? Because inequality is an intrinsic bad?

Yes, it's relative wealth that makes us happy.