What's So Funny Bout Communism?

[frogus]

I have just read Koba The Dread (please feel free to discuss the book in here It is very good and worth reading, although it will not last long) and I feel that an important question, and one well worth asking is this -

What do you think is wrong with communism?

Why does it result in misery, death and imprisonment?

Has Communism ever worked right, and if it hasn't, could it, in theory?

[RandomThug]

In theory I could be a pimp and have millions of dollars. If I worked hard enough to get rich, then worked out 10 hours a day and became godlike musclarly.

But alas I am human, and with that come flaws. Laziness.

With Communism human flaws such as greed/lust/pity... well they come into play.

We are not supreme alien beings who can live as one equally. We are violent animals who want..

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by frogus
What do you think is wrong with communism?

In practice or in theory? In theory there is nothing wrong with communism, personal gain is not as as important as the wealth of the many. The material gain of a single person is not important. Frankly it sounds a hell of a lot better than Capitalism which is basically; who can you step on first in your quest to the top.

Why does it result in misery, death and imprisonment?

I would say it is the leaders who have put it into practice that are as much to blame as the actual theory itself. You have to wonder also at the fact that it has always been at opposition to other ideologies and countries, perfectly illustrated by Pinko fever that gripped America, if you wanted to smear someone you just called them a Communist. My brother reckons it is because they take God out of the equation but, well, I can't see you agreeing with that theory Frogus In fact I don't either.

[fable]

Originally posted by frogus
What do you think is wrong with communism?

Why does it result in misery, death and imprisonment?

The attempt to force a change in any form of government creates revolution, and the need to keep it in charge has historically resulted in repression. The only nations that are relatively free of this are very wealthy ones, who can afford to buy off their populaces with the modern equivalent of the old Roman "circuses and bread."

Has Communism ever worked right, and if it hasn't, could it, in theory?

Despite its bad rep, the European Middle Ages was a repository of all sorts of experiments in government. Fostered by a lack of communications and a breakdown in central control, small communities tried and found a variety of responses to how best to govern themselves. Some chose communism, though it would be anachronistic to assume they followed any latter day model by Marx. Unfortunately, all these experiments came to a halt during the early Renaissance, with the return of spiritual and secular empires that swallowed all.

[Boy]

Well, Communism, in its pure and uncorrupted form, is a good thing. In the ideal world of socialism, money would not need to exist: everyone would get everything from the 'central pool', or the government, which would take only enough from everyone equally to ensure that the population would run correctly. Since everyone would be equal, there would be no poverty. Everything would be smooth, and it would be like heaven.
Unfortunately, Communism is very easily corrupted. When Karl Marx created communism, as I was very satisvied to be able to write about on my SATs, ( ) was not able to preview what was going to happen to it in communist Russia and the eastern Bloc countries, and later in China and the far east. Communism has turned into a twisted form of capitalism, where only a very very select few control the entire wealth, and thus the fate, of the country in their personal bank accounts. This is not good. The main reason people become anti-capitalists is because of that reason, that a small percentage of the people control most of the cash- but at least the system works, and stays the way it was intended to be. A capitalist country, like the States for example, has a good economy that is not prone to crash very often. Since the people control the money, and not the government, they are not restricted to use it in any way, are not severely taxed, and are pretty much free to do as they please. Now, I'm not saying this is a good thing- a great deal of the population is living in near-poverty- but at least the whole economy will not simply collapse one day.

In communist Russia, for example, Communism took root very quickly. Under the iron fist of Josef Stalin and the NKVD (later the KGB) Communism could be enforced heavily and thus, the system would actually work. The principles of socialism will only work together if A) all people in the nation are entirely willing for the whole cause; or B) If they are all forced to by a higher power under threat of violence. Now, we all know that A) is impossible, thus B) is the only way to make it work. Under the NKVD, people were scared to death to do anything against the government- thus, communism worked, more or less. But as soon as the KGB started getting soft, communism went out the window. Why? Because there was no way to regulate it. When Russia eventually became Capitalist after the Berlin Wall fell and Yeltsin took power, the economic situation became a complete disaster, and the Russian Mafia took complete control. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the evil of communism- you must use evil ways to maintain it, or else it will completely implode and become even more evil. The economic situation of present-day Russia is a disaster, and it is all because of its success fifty years ago. Communism can work- if used correctly- but if used dangerously, it can ruin a country almost overnight.

[smass]

Communism is a great theoretical model for government - it falls apart because of its assumptions (or lack there of) about human nature.

The fact is that the will of a few can easily control the group - the larger the group (population) the more this is evident. If 99% of the folks are on board with communism and 1% are not - the 1% will corrupt the entire system.

Communism works much better with smaller groups - entire nations - not likely...

In addition it ignores the law of natural selection - but then darwinian theory should probably be its own subject of debate...

By the way - communism rocked in Civ II

[Aegis]

Communism, in theory, is perfect, and that is why it can never work. Nothing on this planet is supposed to be perfect. there needs to be flaws in the desgins of everything, otherwise it is just a dream. While I would like to believe communism to be within the grasps of the people, it never will be. Part of this is because people are imperfect, thus even if someone went into power with the ideals of a communist state, it wouldn't last long, because they would inevitably become corrupt. In the case of Communist Russia, They never even used Communism. It wasa form of State Tyranny, switched over from the Absolutism left by the Romanov family. While the Provisional government, led by Kerensky, claimed to be more democratic, it was the begining of the new form of state tyranny, which was continued, and made worse, after the Bolshevik's came to power.

Interestingly enough, Marx wasn't even interested in created the marvel of political theory that he did. He was actually just an economist, who want to learn the ways of money and trade in an imperilist era. In the process, he took inspiration from philosophes like Voltaire, and Rousseau, and even the works of Thomas Moore, and his writings of the Utopian society. But, because of where this inspiration was gained, is the main flaw of it being put into practice. He took his inspiration from a 'Utopian dream' and thus the imperfection in the perfection.

Anyway, I could get into more detail, but my hands hurt. I thought it would pay off to do my final project on Communism...

[Scayde]

Am I the only dissenter? Communism, even in theory, is horribly flawed. The reason it will not work is me, and others like me.

I wish to excel. I want to be the best at what ever I do. I want to have the best ideas, sell the most product, invent the better mousetrap, so to speak. I want to reap the rewards of my effort, and keep what I earn. I want the grand house, the three cars, the vacations that make my friends envious. And what is more, I know most of you do too !
I say Good For You !!!

I fail to see the beauty in a theory which allows the masses to benefit from the efforts of the few. Why should I put forth my best effort when I will not be rewarded accordingly. My neighbor and I have the same standard of living, even though I work much harder, take more risks, and am more intelligent and creative than he is? Communism says we should "share in the fruits of 'my' labor? PSHAW !!! That we receive the same reward? No Thank you !!! Let the cream rise to the top. Let the rabble be left behind to beg for my scraps, or apply to me for work, as they may see fit. Do not say to me that I owe anyone a dime, simply because they are in need.

I do not want a government that decides how I should best use my talents to satisfy the needs of the masses. I want to hang out my shingle and take my chances. Let the value of my product, the services I render, and the manner in which I satisfy my customer decide the wage I may charge.

I prefer a standard of living that supplies me with much more than the basic necessities. I like the idea of class stratification. I enjoy the fact that i can afford a house keeper, and at the same time she is better off than she would have been if she were not working for a living But guarantee a check on the dole simply because she is in need ? Heaven forbid!!!

[RandomThug]

And with that scayde takes my somewhat short and rather vauge post and expands on it perfectly.


Thank you.

[Tybaltus]

Originally posted by frogus
I have just read Koba The Dread (please feel free to discuss the book in here It is very good and worth reading, although it will not last long) and I feel that an important question, and one well worth asking is this -

What do you think is wrong with communism?

Why does it result in misery, death and imprisonment?

Has Communism ever worked right, and if it hasn't, could it, in theory?

OK. Ill be as basic as I can be in my opinions, as Im sure we all dont want to hear me blabber on and on.


Whats wrong with Communism? -People corrupt it too much to turn it into a dictatorship. The leader doesnt accept all the responsibilities and keep his head about.

Why does it result in misery, death and imprisonment?-Simply because of the humans in charge and their dictatorships. It doesnt have to end that way, it just many times it does, because the leader cant respect his own power.

Has Communism ever worked right? -Yes. Yes it has. China. China became a world power because of it. They didnt abuse communism and Mao was a genious. Hence, China has become one of the superpowers. In the time that the USA stopped paying attention to China to Nixon's re-opening of China, they increased productivity, money, and population. And such a dramatic population growth means things are going well.

Why China? Well because they didnt attempt to expand communism like the USSR did. And since the USSR tried to capture so many different cultures and try to expand, it was bound to collapse. China just kept it in one cultural region and kept their goals straight. Communism can be a very effective government when used right. But once the civilians get spoiled with Democracy (Heh. Im not complaining! ) Then it becomes very hard to convert back to communism.

So yes, it can definetly work in theory.

[dragon wench]

I couldn't resist the colour, given the subject !

On a serious note..... I have spent a lot of time looking at Communist theory by virtue of the degree I am working on and, as I am sure most people here have guessed from my more sober posts, my politics lie considerably to the left of centre. With all due respect to those with differing beliefs ....I think inequality to be fundamentally abhorent. IMO an economic system wherein people can amass vast wealth on the backs of those who have actually produced it is sickening to the core.

All that being said, however, I admit that I am really not sure I could live in a collectivist community. I am very much an individual and I can be, on occasion, extremely selfish... *sigh*

Perhaps it are basic human traits like this that help to corrupt what is, in theory, a humane and just social and economic system.

Of course...power, as stated by others, is also a potent tool of corruption as well. Nonetheless, the seductive lure of power is hardly unique to Communism...

[Chanak]

Communism is one of worst human ideas ever to claw it's way to the surface from the depths of the psyche. It has cost more lives than we dare consider; it has caused more misery and suffering than most people care to recognize.

The concept that all people are "equal" does not exist in reality. That we all have a right to live, yes. But we are not equally gifted. A good example of this:

A group of men are running. The fastest runners are out front; the slower runners fall behind. The faster runners are forced, by gunpoint, to fall back with the slowest runner. Where is the equality in this? Some people run faster than others...

As Scayde has pointed out, not all people are capable of achieving the same things, at the same level of success. Communism - and socialism in general - creates a cookie cutter mold in which all in the society are pressed through in order to all be the same. Something is horribly wrong with this. Why? The human spirit is chained...and not all human beings are the same.

Communism (I also include Socialism) wishes to alter reality by creating a society in which "all are equal." Good grief. Have you ever seen such thing exist anywhere, at any time? Some work harder than others; some take more risks, and are willing to gamble and take chances. Others, however, do not elect to do this, for they lack the desire or the ability to succeed. Communism actually punishes the achievers by robbing them of the fruits of their labors.

In Communism, mediocrity is the norm. Individual excellence is encouraged...and the fruits of that excellence are then taken from the individual by the State. No real personal achievement is possible, thereby robbing the individual of the desire to excel. I liken this to being imprisoned...some fates are worse than death. Enslavement is such a fate.

Why hasn't Communism worked? Any system that robs an individual of self-worth, and self-esteem, is inexorably doomed to fail. The moral, or ethical, state of the governed has nothing to do with the failure of Communism across the world. Even in theory - on paper - Communism, and Socialism as well, squashes the human spirit by enslaving the stronger to provide for the weaker. This is clear in the tenets of this philosophy. It was flawed from the beginning.

[C Elegans]

I agree with RandomThug, Scayde's post demonstrated perfectly why communism cannot work, at least not in the materialistic and egocentric society we currently have.

Unlike some other posters I am unsure whether the human nature makes it impossible for us to live in communism-like economies, since there are many examples of native cultures that has been organised that way. However, I do think it is totally impossible to combine communistic systems in our Western modern mass-society, since it is largely based on the individual defining himself by things you can buy for money. Identity, happiness, success, life satisfaction- many of these variables are measured in material wealth, especially in the US but increasingly in Europe and Asia as well.

Originally posted by Scayde
I wish to excel. I want to be the best at what ever I do. I want to have the best ideas, sell the most product, invent the better mousetrap, so to speak. I want to reap the rewards of my effort, and keep what I earn. I want the grand house, the three cars, the vacations that make my friends envious. And what is more, I know most of you do too !
I say Good For You !!!

I couldn't agree more with the first part of this paragraph, and disagree more with the latter part. The drive to be special, to do something special, to be an individual and differ from others in a positive way, is very common, so common in culture it may even be a characteristc of human nature. However, the will to excel does not at all need to be connected to material wealth, wanting others to be envious of us, and having more wealth than we need. So this is where I totally disagree with you. There are many rewards in this world for excelling, and luckily, people are different, and not everybody share the same wishes as you do.

Why should I put forth my best effort when I will not be rewarded accordingly. My neighbor and I have the same standard of living, even though I work much harder, take more risks, and am more intelligent and creative than he is?

Again, different people feel that different things are a reward. But apart from that, let's say you were born with a higher cognitive g-factor and more stubborn and robust personality traits and you were raised in a better socioeconomic climat that your neighbour. Why are you worth more things than he is? I'm not sure I understand this.

Let the cream rise to the top. Let the rabble be left behind to beg for my scraps, or apply to me for work, as they may see fit.
<snip>
I prefer a standard of living that supplies me with much more than the basic necessities.
<snip>
I like the idea of class stratification. I enjoy the fact that i can afford a house keeper, and at the same time she is better off than she would have been if she were not working for a living

I honestly don't know what to say. There are so many reasons for class stratification, none of which I find fair in any way, or based on merit or personal qualitites. The cream does not rise to the top because of their merits, but for many, many different reasons, part of which are based on the suffering and exploitation of others. I will never be able to understand how people can feel the wish to consume more than they need while 1/5 of the world is starving, and tens of thousands die of starvation every day?

Sharing the resources of our planet has nothing to do with communism, it is a question of humanism.

[Maharlika]

Just to add on something...

...nice points, everyone.

As for me, I think Communism doesn't strive for excellence and improvement because of the lack of social institutions that would motivate people to do more than what is needed.

The way I see it, living in a communist set up is just living simply --- but without a life.

I don't think I would like to live "mechanically."

[Scayde]

Originally posted by C Elegans
I agree with RandomThug, Scayde's post demonstrated perfectly why communism cannot work, at least not in the materialistic and egocentric society we currently have.

I couldn't agree more with the first part of this paragraph, and disagree more with the latter part. The drive to be special, to do something special, to be an individual and differ from others in a positive way, is very common, so common in culture it may even be a characteristic of human nature. However, the will to excel does not at all need to be connected to material wealth, wanting others to be envious of us, and having more wealth than we need. So this is where I totally disagree with you. There are many rewards in this world for excelling, and luckily, people are different, and not everybody share the same wishes as you do.

Do not be misled, I too posses the "nobler" incentives, the drive for personal excellence, the realization of my own potential, personal growth, etc. But why is it so politically un-suave to admit that one enjoys the finer things in life. The remark about the envy of my friends having been made with tongue in cheek, I wished to illustrate the grand style in which I would love to live. I would hazard to say though, that everyone in this forum has more wealth than they need. This comment is highly subjective. One person's middle class is another person's destitution, and yet embarrassingly rich to another.

Again, different people feel that different things are a reward. But apart from that, let's say you were born with a higher cognitive g-factor and more stubborn and robust personality traits and you were raised in a better socioeconomic climate that your neighbor. Why are you worth more things than he is? I'm not sure I understand this.

"I" am not worth anything other than that by which I appraise myself. My cadaver will sell for approximately the same amount as his. I judge a person's worth to be equal to his ability to contribute. If I own a patent which no one else owns, yet everyone wants to benefit by, I deserve the reward for having thought of it. I should not be required to "share" it for the "benefit" of my fellow man. If this is what anyone would propose, I would say he is promoting thievery.

I honestly don't know what to say. There are so many reasons for class stratification, none of which I find fair in any way, or based on merit or personal qualities. The cream does not rise to the top because of their merits, but for many, many different reasons, part of which are based on the suffering and exploitation of others. I will never be able to understand how people can feel the wish to consume more than they need while 1/5 of the world is starving, and tens of thousands die of starvation every day?

Sharing the resources of our planet has nothing to do with communism, it is a question of humanism.

Come now CE, Your posts demonstrate that you enjoy a standard living at least equal to, if not better than mine, yet the socioeconomic system being championed would have all of the wealth in the world redistributed equally among all people, thus ensuring everyone's standard of living to be equal. Are you so sure you would be ready to give up all you have and take what meager trappings were redistributed back to you to satisfy your basic need of survival? If you would still be expected to put forth the same amount of effort, the same quality of work, would you be eager to do this? And if this is truly your belief, why wait for communism to take hold. Why not do this act of altruism as an individual, without insisting the rest of the populace join you?

My comments are a harsh reflection of the basic survival instinct present in all animals. Capitalism is a reflection of nature. Survival of the fittest. I make no apologies for my belief system.

Example: Take a factory which employees 200 people. Everyone's wage is determined by seniority. It makes no difference if worker A does a better job than worker B, they both make the same wage. Worker A is driven, energetic, and takes great pride in doing a good job. Worker B is lazy, dishonest, slothful, and has no personal incentive to put forth more effort than is the minimum requirement. Worker B and A will both get the same raise, and make the same income for as long as they remain at Company X. Eventually, Worker A will most likely leave the company. If he is not allowed to do this, such as in a Communistic country, his production will drop off, he will become depressed, ill, resentful, angry. If his now "Poor Attitude" is reprimanded often and severely enough, he will eventual fall silent, and plod along at the Basic minimum requirement.........Now you have not 1 but 2 worker B's

But let's say worker A is allowed to leave and find work elsewhere. At Company Y the employees are rewarded on an individual basis. Their raises are determined by their output, their contribution to the company if you will. Worker A is rewarded not only with a raise commiserate to his productivity, but he is allowed to invest a portion of it back into the company. Now when Worker A does well, he is doubly rewarded. Initially with a raise, and secondarily, with stock options such that when the company does well, due in part to his personal efforts, he does well. It is a symbiotic relationship.

[Nightmare]

My business teacher puts it nicely... Both Marx (communism) and Adam Smith (capitalism) had excellent ideas about a perfect society, but both failed to take into account human nature (greed and the like). That is why both cannot truely exist...they are impossible to achieve by humans.

EDIT - I agree with both in theory...

Communism: everyone is equal, and everyone shares everything. Not a dictatorship-ruled state, ruled by everyone.

Capitalism: Everyone will share the wealth (the original idea of capitalism), everyone will be rich, everyone will be happy.

Both result in a a utopia, theorically.

Problem with communism: Eventually, human nature makes some rise about the others, and forms a dictatorship. And, as well all know, power corrupts.

Problem with capitalism: as with communism, no one works together and distributes wealth. Exploitation is the name of the game. Ethics disappear.

@Scayde, I can see where you come from with your idea of "The strong to rise about the rest", but I don't agree with it, at all. To each their own, though. I just don't agree with it because in life, from a "Strong to rule to the weak" scenario, in my life, I'm the "weak".

[Aegis]

Originally posted by Scayde

Example: Take a factory which employees 200 people. Everyone's wage is determined by seniority. It makes no difference if worker A does a better job than worker B, they both make the same wage. Worker A is driven, energetic, and takes great pride in doing a good job. Worker B is lazy, dishonest, slothful, and has no personal incentive to put forth more effort than is the minimum requirement. Worker B and A will both get the same raise, and make the same income for as long as they remain at Company X. Eventually, Worker A will most likely leave the company. If he is not allowed to do this, such as in a Communistic country, his production will drop off, he will become depressed, ill, resentful, angry. If his now "Poor Attitude" is reprimanded often and severely enough, he will eventual fall silent, and plod along at the Basic minimum requirement.........Now you have not 1 but 2 worker B's

But let's say worker A is allowed to leave and find work elsewhere. At Company Y the employees are rewarded on an individual basis. Their raises are determined by their output, their contribution to the company if you will. Worker A is rewarded not only with a raise commiserate to his productivity, but he is allowed to invest a portion of it back into the company. Now when Worker A does well, he is doubly rewarded. Initially with a raise, and secondarily, with stock options such that when the company does well, due in part to his personal efforts, he does well. It is a symbiotic relationship.[/color] [/b]

This example is somewhat flawed. What you don't seem to realize, is that in communism, people are distributed to areas were they excel. A someone who was skilled in medicine, whould go into health practices, while someone who was skilled with trade skills would become a blue collar worker. In addition, they would be reallocated if they failed to perform to the standerds set by the state. It is exactly the same as a Capitilist state, only in a communist state, the problem can actually be removed without worker B turning around, and taking the company for all it's got for wrongful termination.

In addition, in a Communist state, what do you have to strive to acheive? Why do you need more wealth? Something that people commonly forget about Communism is that the state controls more then just wages. they also set a state wide price range. In other words, the loaf of bread you buy at the corner store would cost exactly the same as the loaf of bread you buy at a Wal Mart. Because the need to become better then your neighbour is removed, it is easier to survive.

As the Communist belief goes "The communist belief is Give what you can, receive what you need, or from each, according from his ability, to each according to his need." the state will give you everything you need to survive. That doesn't mean you won't be getting the fruits of your labour. What you are given would be on top of what you earn. but, because you are being supported by everyone, as everyone is being supported by you, what you keep for yourself is notcieably less, but rightly so. When you think of Communism, don't think that you have enough to live, and that is it. That is a stereotype of Communism, and one that should be dispelled in the west.

@Tybs: Contrary to what you said, Communism in China does not work. In fact, it is not even true communism (nor is it in N. Korea, N. Vietnam, or Cuba), it is Soviet Socialism, or State Tyranny. China is under a dictatorship, regardless of how you slice it. If it were what Communism was supposed to be, then the west would be seeing less chinese imigrants then it does.

[Scayde]

Why would anyone want to be supported by another person, unless he is inherantly lazy. I would far prefer to take my chances on my own, than be part of the communist distribution system. I have been to China.I studied there...Every store sold the same wares, every artist produced the same thing, there was no individualism, no "unique flaws or passion" in their work...as an artist myself, I found this very depressing.

[Nightmare]

Just another note: Actually communism has never actually existed. I think what most people like about the theory is that: the theory. Not the attempts at practicing it (all of which failed).

[Scayde]

Originally posted by Gaxx_Firkraag


@Scayde, I can see where you come from with your idea of "The strong to rise about the rest", but I don't agree with it, at all. To each their own, though. I just don't agree with it because in life, from a "Strong to rule to the weak" scenario, in my life, I'm the "weak".

But by the same token, should the strong be exploited by the weak? Should they be coerced into giving away their sweat, in order that "all " may share in the fruits of their labor? I disagree with those who say that 'greed' is the reason that communism fails. There is also the problem of sloth....those who would all to happily sit idly by while another toiled in the sun...