Is communism really bad?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by imperial maniac
Slap your geography teacher round the face and point out the human rights abominations in China.
Some people are so retarded.
Some people are so retarded.
He meant with regards to health care
Original post by borismor
As some people on this thread argue, under communism you wouldn't even want to better yourself. Wanting to better yourself is a capitalist conspiracy to make you feel unhappy. In this case, what do you need freedom of choice for? Nothing. Your entire existence becomes dedicated to the group you belong to, and you essentially become a mindless, selfless ant.
Pretty much like a Borg drone.
Pretty much like a Borg drone.
Well yeah, and I suppose I get that re: "bettering yourself" (though there is, of course, more to bettering oneself than increasing their personal belongings - education and enlightenment, for example, which, whilst I daresay possible in a communist society, would be somewhat an issue if too many people wanted to do that and not enough clean the streets!) but I dunno about freedom. The idea that you would no longer care if you're an artist or a doctor or an engineer or a road sweeper seems unlikely, but even if it were ok, that wouldn't mean people were free, it just means they don't care that they aren't.
I agree though. Borg etc.
Original post by CyclopsRock
Well yeah, and I suppose I get that re: "bettering yourself" (though there is, of course, more to bettering oneself than increasing their personal belongings - education and enlightenment, for example, which, whilst I daresay possible in a communist society, would be somewhat an issue if too many people wanted to do that and not enough clean the streets!) but I dunno about freedom. The idea that you would no longer care if you're an artist or a doctor or an engineer or a road sweeper seems unlikely, but even if it were ok, that wouldn't mean people were free, it just means they don't care that they aren't.
I agree though. Borg etc.
I agree though. Borg etc.
Doctor? Engineer?
These things do not exist in a true communist society. These things take specialization, and specialization causes class division.
A true communist society is completely agrarian. There's no question as to what profession to take.
All these people saying 'real communism has never happened' grow the hell up. Even in Russia, a place with a huge urban and rural proleteriat, when they tried to encourage collectivisation the result was massive famine, murder and imprisonment. Five year plans resulted in faulty targets, lying, huge amounts of deaths. The same is true in China, Cambodia, North Korea and anywhere that has implemented communism.
And I suppose all the armchair revolutionaries will neg me but I have had family that grew up under fascist and communist rule and those who remember it would do anything not to reexperience. Capitalism is the worst system... apart from all the others.
And I suppose all the armchair revolutionaries will neg me but I have had family that grew up under fascist and communist rule and those who remember it would do anything not to reexperience. Capitalism is the worst system... apart from all the others.
I was always under the influence it was till i took Politics at college. I mean my dad being the rich prat that he is always spoke bad of it, Daily Mail speak bad of it and the overall media speaks bad of it. So i can't blame people for thinking its bad. But it really isn't.
Capitalism forces people to compete and 'do over' each other doesn't it?
Anyway i love the idea of it (neg rep x100) but i really do think its a utopian idea.
And just to clear it up China and the USSR weren't true Communist countries.
Capitalism forces people to compete and 'do over' each other doesn't it?
Anyway i love the idea of it (neg rep x100) but i really do think its a utopian idea.
And just to clear it up China and the USSR weren't true Communist countries.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by jismith1989
I don't see how it could prove your point, maybe you could elucidate. Rather than a blind appeal to authority, you may as well use your authority to educate me. 
I accept that the extent to which practical polities subscribe to theoretical doctrines is inevitably going to be spectral rather than binary, but people don't seem to give this same courtesy when discussing capitalism -- i.e. China is quickly written off a capitalist country etc. etc. I'd imagine that it's an inevitable rhetorical technique to define a country by what one sees as its worst traits though, and one which none of us are immune to.
I accept that the extent to which practical polities subscribe to theoretical doctrines is inevitably going to be spectral rather than binary, but people don't seem to give this same courtesy when discussing capitalism -- i.e. China is quickly written off a capitalist country etc. etc. I'd imagine that it's an inevitable rhetorical technique to define a country by what one sees as its worst traits though, and one which none of us are immune to.
Well now you are delving into the complexity of the thing and so reveal yourself that nothing can be as simple as a label like true communism or true capitalism. Such things are largely utopian in scale and simplicity. One could write an entire series of books (and many have) on the failure of Lenin's gamble and the incredibly complicated series of events, variables and decisions that led to the tyranny or Stalin, Mao or any of those individuals who many call communist. Even the question did socialism fail at all is rather wishy washy until one can explain what they feel socialism is or even what capitalism is. The answer would vary from one individual to the next. Socialism for some is compromise for another and the same goes for any political ideology. As far as I am concerned the USSR, China, NK etc..etc.. Are not socialist or communist. You may feel they are, which is why I am puzzled you are even arguing the impracticality of 'socialism' in a thread that deals with such simplistic absolutes. Evidently you do know what you are talking about, many, certainly on this forum do not, auch broad brushes are not conducive in any way to a productive debate on the issue. But then, neither is a forum run on succinct back and forth like TSR. So perhaps we are all wasting our time?
This is the sort of simplistic rubbish I am talking about by the way.
Original post by Bambi2803
All these people saying 'real communism has never happened' grow the hell up. Even in Russia, a place with a huge urban and rural proleteriat, when they tried to encourage collectivisation the result was massive famine, murder and imprisonment. Five year plans resulted in faulty targets, lying, huge amounts of deaths. The same is true in China, Cambodia, North Korea and anywhere that has implemented communism.
(edited 13 years ago)
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.
People naturally take charge, therefore a higher class is automatically formed.
Plus my geography teacher said communists knew how to look after their own.
watch the first 4 episodes of Season 3 of Battlestar Galactica... you'll see why communism is a bad idea. Use the cylons as metaphors
Original post by Aeolus
Well now you are delving into the complexity of the thing and so reveal yourself that nothing can be as simple as a label like true communism or true capitalism. Such things are largely utopian in scale and simplicity. One could write an entire series of books (and many have) on the failure of Lenin's gamble and the incredibly complicated series of events, variables and decisions that led to the tyranny or Stalin, Mao or any of those individuals who many call communist. Even the question did socialism fail at all is rather wishy washy until one can explain what they feel socialism is or even what capitalism is. The answer would vary from one individual to the next. Socialism for some is compromise for another and the same goes for any political ideology. As far as I am concerned the USSR, China, NK etc..etc.. Are not socialist or communist. You may feel they are, which is why I am puzzled you are even arguing the impracticality of 'socialism' in a thread that deals with such simplistic absolutes. Evidently you do know what you are talking about, many, certainly on this forum do not, auch broad brushes are not conducive in any way to a productive debate on the issue. But then, neither is a forum run on succinct back and forth like TSR. So perhaps we are all wasting our time?
This is the sort of simplistic rubbish I am talking about by the way.
This is the sort of simplistic rubbish I am talking about by the way.
Call me simplistic all you want but communism is an inherently failed system. You can spiel all you want that Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, whatever aren't "true" communism and split hairs Judean people's front style all you want but you cannot deny that in the name of communism unspeakable atrocities were caused and communist supporters such as yourself justified and continue to justify them. I look forward to your response on the computer that evil capitalism has created for you. Until then comrade!
Original post by Bambi2803
Call me simplistic all you want but communism is an inherently failed system. You can spiel all you want that Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, whatever aren't "true" communism and split hairs Judean people's front style all you want but you cannot deny that in the name of communism unspeakable atrocities were caused and communist supporters such as yourself justified and continue to justify them. I look forward to your response on the computer that evil capitalism has created for you. Until then comrade!
Urgh, read my post again, I adressed you point about true communism.
If you feel the same way then don't reply.Well you argue USSR is not socialist. I find that laughable to be quite frank. "True Communism" is a misnomer. Just because banks fail instead of making continuous profit do I argue that's not 'true capitalism' because capitalism should always be about ever-increasing profit?
What would be true communism then? And how would it be preferable to our current system?
What would be true communism then? And how would it be preferable to our current system?
Original post by Bambi2803
Well you argue USSR is not socialist. I find that laughable to be quite frank. "True Communism" is a misnomer. Just because banks fail instead of making continuous profit do I argue that's not 'true capitalism' because capitalism should always be about ever-increasing profit?
?
?
I told you not to reply unless you could comprehend what I had written.Tough question really. It's hard to deny that many of Marx's ideas were outstanding and offered more equality than capitalism has or ever can. Sadly, true marx-style communism/socialism has never really been achieved, but rather been taken into the hands of people who manipulated it and created a common poverty for the majority, as opposed to a common wealth like Marx proposed.
I dream about a utopian Socialism personally, where money is not important because our life pursuit is passion, not money. Obvioiusly this is an idealism that seems near impossible to really get, especially in my lifetime, but I suppose this is what Marx ultimately wanted.
As already mentioned, a ideology from 150 years ago probably isn't the answer today, but nor is capitalism. I think they can go hand in hand, because in reality you need a bit of competition, like markets etc. What it really comes down to is how far we let people fall behind in this 'competition' for example I find it ludicrous that homeless/poverty exists in the western world. So whilst people should be free to pursue money, we shouldn't be in a place where people should have more money than they can ever use, whilst others suffer because they were born into poverty and can't afford healthcare, the chance to better themselves etc.
There's no real 'best system' in reality though.
I dream about a utopian Socialism personally, where money is not important because our life pursuit is passion, not money. Obvioiusly this is an idealism that seems near impossible to really get, especially in my lifetime, but I suppose this is what Marx ultimately wanted.
As already mentioned, a ideology from 150 years ago probably isn't the answer today, but nor is capitalism. I think they can go hand in hand, because in reality you need a bit of competition, like markets etc. What it really comes down to is how far we let people fall behind in this 'competition' for example I find it ludicrous that homeless/poverty exists in the western world. So whilst people should be free to pursue money, we shouldn't be in a place where people should have more money than they can ever use, whilst others suffer because they were born into poverty and can't afford healthcare, the chance to better themselves etc.
There's no real 'best system' in reality though.
If I'm correct, then communism will work if
1. All people lose their selfishness and do not take themselves into account anymore. No matter if they hate their jobs, or if they are sick. They will work as hard as they can.
2. If somehow people educate themselves to right jobs or they care so much about the society that they educate themselves to jobs they hate. Hence, then you won't have any problems getting anough workers.
3. There is no one who is planning to overtake the state, or corrupt the government like has happened in all previous attempts.
and at last, but not least.
4. There exist very few bad people, hence no one is going to take advantage of the stateless government and starting to rob people. A stateless government will have huge problems to deal with a gang of 100 people.
So why do communism fail, because its asumptions are riddiculus and if they fail to be true, then it's going to fail. Bambi2803 has a good point, it's communists like yourself that have caused these horrible regimes and every attempt at getting closer to communism has just caused more misery and starvation. Just look at the Great Leap Forward in China or the communal farming in Soviet.
1. All people lose their selfishness and do not take themselves into account anymore. No matter if they hate their jobs, or if they are sick. They will work as hard as they can.
2. If somehow people educate themselves to right jobs or they care so much about the society that they educate themselves to jobs they hate. Hence, then you won't have any problems getting anough workers.
3. There is no one who is planning to overtake the state, or corrupt the government like has happened in all previous attempts.
and at last, but not least.
4. There exist very few bad people, hence no one is going to take advantage of the stateless government and starting to rob people. A stateless government will have huge problems to deal with a gang of 100 people.
So why do communism fail, because its asumptions are riddiculus and if they fail to be true, then it's going to fail. Bambi2803 has a good point, it's communists like yourself that have caused these horrible regimes and every attempt at getting closer to communism has just caused more misery and starvation. Just look at the Great Leap Forward in China or the communal farming in Soviet.
(edited 13 years ago)
The biggest problem with communism is that it and proponents assume that there are some kind of universal 'values' (moral or ethical) which can be reached through a collectivist economic system; things like 'fairness', 'satisfactory work' and such.
The weaknesses being that (1) universal values do not exist and, (2) a collectivist economic system cannot work.
Aeolus is correct however, one cannot have a 'communist state' as those words contradictory, so say 'X country is an example of why communism does not work' is probably not the wisest approach. Communism is an inherently anti-state ideology, so suggesting China or the USSR are good examples of 'communism' is wrong, since in both cases the revolutionaries obviously attempted to use state apparatus to create a collectivist economic system.
I'm not entirely sure how communists propose the institution of the communal form of society they espouse (because I believe humanity, as a species, has evolved beyond that) without it falling apart and probably killing millions (if not billions), as seen by other attempts at collectivist economic systems, but I'm sure one will be around soon enough to explain.
The weaknesses being that (1) universal values do not exist and, (2) a collectivist economic system cannot work.
Aeolus is correct however, one cannot have a 'communist state' as those words contradictory, so say 'X country is an example of why communism does not work' is probably not the wisest approach. Communism is an inherently anti-state ideology, so suggesting China or the USSR are good examples of 'communism' is wrong, since in both cases the revolutionaries obviously attempted to use state apparatus to create a collectivist economic system.
I'm not entirely sure how communists propose the institution of the communal form of society they espouse (because I believe humanity, as a species, has evolved beyond that) without it falling apart and probably killing millions (if not billions), as seen by other attempts at collectivist economic systems, but I'm sure one will be around soon enough to explain.
Original post by Bambi2803
All these people saying 'real communism has never happened' grow the hell up. Even in Russia, a place with a huge urban and rural proleteriat, when they tried to encourage collectivisation the result was massive famine, murder and imprisonment. Five year plans resulted in faulty targets, lying, huge amounts of deaths. The same is true in China, Cambodia, North Korea and anywhere that has implemented communism.
And I suppose all the armchair revolutionaries will neg me but I have had family that grew up under fascist and communist rule and those who remember it would do anything not to reexperience. Capitalism is the worst system... apart from all the others.
And I suppose all the armchair revolutionaries will neg me but I have had family that grew up under fascist and communist rule and those who remember it would do anything not to reexperience. Capitalism is the worst system... apart from all the others.
I think your definition of 'communism' needs reshaping (I suggest everything in this book, for a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto). The USSR, China, North Korea were not communist at all, please don't think they are.
Original post by OllieS
I think your definition of 'communism' needs reshaping (I suggest everything in this book, for a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto). The USSR, China, North Korea were not communist at all, please don't think they are.
At least according to this article, they were very close to being communist.
Original post by borismor
At least according to this article, they were very close to being communist.
I don't see how. They took most of the steps described as short term measures to achieve a 'stateless and classless society', but if you look how stateless and classless Russia, China and probably North Korea's societies are/were, you see they don't achieve that aim at all.
You can call East Germany socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism; first paragraph), after all, it called itself socialist. You can also call it democratic, after all it called itself democratic.
Original post by D.R.E
The biggest problem with communism is that it and proponents assume that there are some kind of universal 'values' (moral or ethical) which can be reached through a collectivist economic system; things like 'fairness', 'satisfactory work' and such.
The weaknesses being that (1) universal values do not exist and, (2) a collectivist economic system cannot work.
The weaknesses being that (1) universal values do not exist and, (2) a collectivist economic system cannot work.
I agree with your point. However, since universal values do not exist, then surely conventional values would be sufficient for such a system?
Original post by borismor
Doctor? Engineer?
These things do not exist in a true communist society. These things take specialization, and specialization causes class division.
These things do not exist in a true communist society. These things take specialization, and specialization causes class division.
Class according to Marx was determined by material wealth not skills or specialization.
A true communist society is completely agrarian. There's no question as to what profession to take.
This is ridiculous and follows from your flawed premise.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- How do I deal with my on and off step dad?
- Am i a bad gf?
- Need relationship advice
- His English is bad?
- What makes an unsatifactory academic reference?
- how to get over my anxiety around them
- am i a bad person for lying?
- MA in Creative Writing
- Do I break up with her
- EO Decision Maker - Civil Service Interview
- MPharm placement experiences
- Bonham Carter House as a postgrad?
- MyEdSpace
- in my 2 year of adult nursing at uni but I’m not enjoying, thinking of paramedic
- Can a Premier League team win all these in one season or is it impossible?
- Birkbeck University or University of Greenwich (Masters)
- Scared of where I am living
- Why can’t I just want to date people
- Campus vs City unis
- loreto grammar sixth form
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
