Is communism really bad?

I mean, the idea looks really good, but it isn't viable at all.
People naturally take charge, therefore a higher class is automatically formed.
Plus my geography teacher said communists knew how to look after their own.

Reply 1

Chocoyo

3

I wouldn't exactly say that it's bad, they just have a different system to capitalism.
In the end, both outcomes will still be the same: the top dogs still dominate.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 2

Bowman.Hath

1

no, it was destroyed by Capitalist properganda cos it didnt suit them to share their wealth.

Basically, yes.

Communism was a perfect idea, just too bad humans who tried to implement it were, ironically imperfect themselves.

Reply 5

JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN

19

i would say Marxist communism is not only impractical but bad also. when you advocate violent revolution and the seizure of other peoples property than your intentions (however good you think them to be) are bad.

Reply 6

Installation

14

It gives gvts an excuse to take all your stuff, and frankly is usually used as an excuse for totalitarianism

Reply 7

Planar

15

More or less, yeah. However: expect oswy to come along and luddite the place and tell you communism's great

Reply 8

Gwalchgwyn

2

Its great on paper, in reality its not great. On paper everything is fair and everyone shares the wealth. In reality the leaders/dictators/governors live the high life while everyone else is stuck in factories mass producing material goods 14 hours a day.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 9

jakemittle

17

Original post by Gwalchgwyn

Its great on paper, in reality its not great. On paper everything is fair and everyone shares the wealth. In reality the leaders/dictators/governors live the high life while everyone else is stuck in factories mass producing material goods 14 hours a day.

Aye, the whole international system would have to change for it to even have a possibility of working properly

Original post by Gwalchgwyn

Its great on paper, in reality its not great. On paper everything is fair and everyone shares the wealth. In reality the leaders/dictators/governors live the high life while everyone else is stuck in factories mass producing material goods 14 hours a day.

It's actually not great on paper either because not everyone's work is worth an equal amount of value to society. Equality of outcome is a bad idea when not everyone works as hard for that outcome.

Reply 11

yahyahyahs

16

In theory, it would be the fairest system, provided everyone makes the same effort e.t.c. but even communists must realise that the work of a doctor cannot be equal to a shopkeeper. However in practice, it has been proven to be horrific. Stalinism - 'nuff said, China - even they are reverting back to the capitalist system: the number of millionaires has rocketed, further widening the class gap - I went to a Chinese holiday resort and you could definitely see the difference between the villagers and the rich Chinese in the hotel bars.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 12

Genocidal

19

In addition to all these reasons, eventually people will become tired and unmotivated because why work hard if you can't get anything for working that little bit harder? Same thing happened in the USSR.

Reply 13

Lewis :D

OP

3

Original post by yahyahyahs

In theory, it would be the fairest system, provided everyone makes the same effort e.t.c. but even communists must realise that the work of a doctor cannot be equal to a shopkeeper. However in practice, it has been proven to be horrific. Stalinism - 'nuff said, China - even they are reverting back to the capitalist system: the number of millionaires has rocketed, further widening the class gap - I went to a Chinese holiday resort and you could definitely see the difference between the villagers and the rich Chinese in the hotel bars.

This is the best reply for me - Thanks :biggrin:

Reply 14

Oswy

15

Original post by Lewis :D

I mean, the idea looks really good, but it isn't viable at all.
People naturally take charge, therefore a higher class is automatically formed.
Plus my geography teacher said communists knew how to look after their own.

There's a great little book by a very famous philosopher called G.A. Cohen called Why Not Socialism? (Princeton University Press, 2009).

In the book Cohen uses a simple example of a camping trip among friends to show how humans can and do think 'communistically' in the right contexts and that it can easily enhance their conditions and social life.

If I was to concede anything it would be that communism's problems are to do with political organisation and power not to do with economic and social arrangements.

Who wouldn't want to live in a society where everyone's basic needs are satisfied and in an atmosphere of mutual support and cooperation?

Reply 15

username196545

19

Why do you log onto TSR, and then take apart a political doctrine with 2 embarassingly simple lines?

I mean let's just stop and think... do you think that Lenin, Marx, Kropotkin, Bakunin (I know they're Anarchists, using it interchangeably here), Engals, Gramsci, Lukacs all these incredibly intelligent men, it never occurred to them "Oh it just can't work, hurr durr, people naturally take charge, we is so stupid for not knowing this!" :rolleyes:

Do you really not think they don't address these issues? Do you think in the whole of the collected works of Marx, there is no reference to this? Do you really? :facepalm:

In short, Marx states that capitalism is the ideology that perverts men. Men are not inherently greedy, selfish, domineering etc.. they're perverted by capitalism. He points to pre neolithic men, before capitalism, before the concepts of money... where everything was just collectively shared. I think it's in the German Ideology (it's been a while since I've read Marx) where he discusses how men are perverted by capitalism into being selfish etc... you manage to break away from capitalism, and eventually you can escape these ideas about taking charge, avarice, jealousy... these are all bi-products of Capitalism, man himself is inherently benevolent. Furthermore, you may not think you can't escape capitalism but you can, you have a false-conciousness. Your material life informs your ideology; "Conceiving, thinking, the mental intercourse of men, appear at this stage as the direct efflux of their material behaviour... Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life". < German ideology.

Remove the capitalism, your false conciousness goes, your ideology goes, man will no longer be selfish and individualist.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 16

llamalad200

10

communism = market failure. with communism all job related incentives disappear.

Reply 17

Oswy

15

Original post by Smack

It's actually not great on paper either because not everyone's work is worth an equal amount of value to society. Equality of outcome is a bad idea when not everyone works as hard for that outcome.

The problem with this kind of reasoning is that it tends to mix up productivity and effort. Rewarding us for our effort, regardles of how productive we were, would be a radical step in the direction of communism. More radical still would be to question the extent to which we have control over our 'effort' itself, but that's a big philosophical discussion.

What we have under capitalism is, primarily, reward according to how much capital you have (whether monetary, political, social, cultural or human). Working hard is only a small aspect of how likely you are to be rewarded and plenty of people work hard all their lives and cannot escape poverty and disadvantage under capitalism.

Reply 18

Libertinedreamer

9

Communism is good for the bottom 10% and capitalism is good for the top 10%. Tbh there is a lot more at the bottom of the ladder, but they are suitable repressed at the moment. With university fees set to rise it looks like they will stay that way!

Reply 19

Oswy

15

Original post by llamalad200

communism = market failure. with communism all job related incentives disappear.

It could easily be argued that capitalism generates disincentives, especially when people are in circumstances they are confident their hard work can't get them out of. At the same time, a society in which everyone's basic needs are met could easily free people (physically and mentally) to undertake work helpful to their community with some enthusiasm. I think it's all about how a communist society is implemented, not a communist society per se.

Is communism really bad?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you