Is communism really that bad? Watch

This discussion is closed.
jhines
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#181
Report 8 years ago
#181
What about jobs? on the face of it it appears to be a good idea, however a lot of people would just opt to do the easy jobs, as after all in true communism why would people want to work hard for the same money as someone putting in barely any effort? people would not bother trying in school/uni as it wouldn't make a difference to how much you would earn in the future, or the size of your house or quality of life. so yes, i think true communism would be bad.
0
Darkademic
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#182
Report 8 years ago
#182
Why a Socialist Economy is Impossible
0
oliver5084
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#183
Report 8 years ago
#183
Communism is a good idea (almost utopian) in theory.... Yet in de facto it really doesn't work...
0
nihility
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#184
Report 8 years ago
#184
(Original post by Darkademic)
You ignorant ****.

In a purely communist state, everyone starves.

Also, I've lived in China, and my girlfriend is Chinese. I dare say I have more experience of it than you do. The leftist perception of sweatshops is far from accurate.
im ignorant?
youre the one condoning sweatshops. thats always gonna be a hard position to defend.
FAR from accurate?
so are they little havens of free market entrepeneurship?
or perhaps dark satanic mills that suck the soul from the most vulnerable members of society?
0
Darkademic
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#185
Report 8 years ago
#185
(Original post by nihility)
youre the one condoning sweatshops. thats always gonna be a hard position to defend.
Not when the alternative is worse.
0
nihility
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#186
Report 8 years ago
#186
(Original post by Darkademic)
Not when the alternatives are worse.
equal pay under communism?
explain how this is worse.
0
Darkademic
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#187
Report 8 years ago
#187
(Original post by nihility)
equal pay economic collapse and starvation under communism?
explain how this is worse.
Fixed.
0
nihility
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#188
Report 8 years ago
#188
(Original post by Darkademic)
Fixed.
either debate properly or dont bother. theres a chat forum on this site.
0
C.Davy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#189
Report 8 years ago
#189
(Original post by hahaohwell)
which causes 8 million people to die each year from poverty,
how many people did Stalin and Mao kill?
0
nihility
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#190
Report 8 years ago
#190
(Original post by C.Davy)
how many people did Stalin and Mao kill?
neither stalin nor moa were properly communist.
look up stalinism and moaism.
but either way they couldnt have managed 8 million a year.
0
Darkademic
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#191
Report 8 years ago
#191
(Original post by nihility)
either debate properly or dont bother. theres a chat forum on this site.
There's little point in debating seriously with someone who believes communism is a superior alternative to anything.

Furthermore, the choice was between a low-wage (by Western standards) job in a sweatshop, and no job at all. Your argument is that you shouldn't make life better for anyone unless you can make everyone equal (or reach some arbitrary minimum level of improvement).
0
nihility
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#192
Report 8 years ago
#192
(Original post by Darkademic)
There's little point in debating seriously with someone who believes communism is a superior alternative to anything.

Furthermore, the choice was between a low-wage (by Western standards) job in a sweatshop, and no job at all. Your argument is that you shouldn't make life better for anyone unless you can make everyone equal (or reach some arbitrary minimum level of improvement).
how shrill and childish. better than nazism maybe?:confused:
i dont see how a communist society would equal - no job at all. please explain.
how did i argue that you shouldnt make life better for people? that is my argument? thats what communism is about, making life easier and more secure for the working man.
sure some sweatshop runners might feel sad they are now the same as everyone else but tbh tough ****.
0
Aeolus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#193
Report 8 years ago
#193
(Original post by Darkademic)
There's exploring ideas, and then there's conflating two diametrically opposed concepts, as you are doing.
i should hardly expect you to be capable of understanding all of this bearing in mind you get your political philosophy from the dictionary. :rofl:

What nonsense is this? We're talking about the Chinese government. The Chinese government is... wait for it... a GOVERNMENT. Whether the members of said government own distinct private property is completely irrelevant, the government as a collective STATE (non-private) entity is the agent of wealth redistribution.
Im not repeating myself again. This is a copy paste explaining why the Chinese governemnt was not communist, and was instead state capitalist.

The term “State Capitalism” is frequently used in two different ways: first, as an economic form in which the state performs the role of the capitalist employer, exploiting the workers in the interest of the state. The federal mail system or a state-owned railway are examples of this kind of state capitalism. In Russia, this form of state capitalism predominates in industry : the work is planned, financed and managed by the state; the directors of industry are appointed by the state and profits are considered the income of the state.
0
hunagdi
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#194
Report 8 years ago
#194
Only anarchism can free the human spirit from the power of the state and exploitation from the rich.
0
C.Davy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#195
Report 8 years ago
#195
(Original post by nihility)
neither stalin nor moa were properly communist.
look up stalinism and moaism.
but either way they couldnt have managed 8 million a year.
in that case then no true communist state ever has existed and worked well.
0
werd123
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#196
Report 8 years ago
#196
In an ideal world Communism would work perfectly. Unfortunately human nature (we're naturally competitive and selfish) doesn't really allow it But in an ideal world it would work yes
0
Darkademic
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#197
Report 8 years ago
#197
(Original post by Aeolus)
i should hardly expect you to be capable of understanding all of this bearing in mind you get your political philosophy from the dictionary.
No, I get my words from the dictionary, that's what dictionaries are for. As I said, you are using a self-contradictary concept.

(Original post by Aeolus)
Im not repeating myself again. This is a copy paste explaining why the Chinese governemnt was not communist, and was instead state capitalist.
Simply giving me your definition again does not make the term any less self-refuting.

By your definition, all societies are capitalist, making the concept redundant. The defining qualities of capitalism are private ownership and a lack of state-intervention in the economy. If capitalism may also include state ownership, and state intervention in the economy, then the concept becomes meaningless.
0
Ocassus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#198
Report 8 years ago
#198
Communism = bad, thats All I am going to say.
0
ForeverIsMyName
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#199
Report 8 years ago
#199
(Original post by Aeolus)
The term “State Capitalism” is frequently used in two different ways: first, as an economic form in which the state performs the role of the capitalist employer, exploiting the workers in the interest of the state. The federal mail system or a state-owned railway are examples of this kind of state capitalism. In Russia, this form of state capitalism predominates in industry : the work is planned, financed and managed by the state; the directors of industry are appointed by the state and profits are considered the income of the state.
The emboldened reads like a definition of socialism, you realise? You know the USSR wasn't famous for its neoliberal policies :p:
0
Darkademic
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#200
Report 8 years ago
#200
(Original post by nihility)
how shrill and childish. better than nazism maybe?
i dont see how a communist society would equal - no job at all. please explain.
how did i argue that you shouldnt make life better for people? that is my argument? thats what communism is about, making life easier and more secure for the working man.
sure some sweatshop runners might feel sad they are now the same as everyone else but tbh tough ****.
You argued that you shouldn't make life better for people because you oppose sweatshops, which improve the standard of living of those who work in them.

Communism fails; it makes economic calculation impossible, leading to stagnation, collapse and ultimately starvation and death.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (427)
37.85%
No - but I will (87)
7.71%
No - I don't want to (76)
6.74%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (538)
47.7%

Watched Threads

View All