What exactly is wrong with Communism? Watch

This discussion is closed.
mathperson
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#181
Report 7 years ago
#181
(Original post by MTR_10)
If communism means abolishing the class system in favour of equality, then what exactly is wrong with it? Up until now, communism has always been associated with poverty. What if, a world superpower say America for example (or China in the future) resorts to communism. If Britain joins them (and the Commonwealth countries do as well) and the EU then pretty much over half of the world will live in communism. As this spreads, poverty in Africa will be abolished, extreme wealth will be dissolved into the system and the world will potentially stop fighting over wealth and individual gain. The world will be driven by 'the system' and not the 'individual'. New countries will open themselves up to the rest of the world. Borders will be opened and everyone will live as one.
if you're one of these far left nuts who thinks that's what communism will bring, you're wrong.
Communism brings poverty - look at how Russia has been left. Not to mention that it killed more of it's own people in ww2 than fascism.
0
Hy~
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#182
Report 7 years ago
#182
(Original post by Oswy)
You're just trying too hard to rubbish socialism by associating it with Nazis and it doesn't fly. Not even among the mainstream of political philosophy or political history will you find many, if indeed any, who think that the Nazis were interested in core socialist aspirations, which, as I've already pointed out, are about the egalitarian organisation of society; political, social and economic. So stop humiliating yourself dude. Even a more narrowly economic reading, if you prefer, has socialism as production, distribution and exchange being under the collective power of the people, or community, as a whole. And that definition is pretty close to the Oxford Concise offering; look it up if you don't believe me. Either way, Nazism's stark political and social anti-egalitarianism along with its economic arrangements squarely focused on the interests and objectives of the (essentially military) regime and its leadership, destroy your position.
The untenability of your position is keenly demonstrated by your surprisingly hasty descent into vacuous insults.

Firstly, I don't have any normative aversions - to anything, National Socialism included. So I'm not trying to "rubbish socialism", and in fact I don't even have to because it has already been shown to be impossible by economists in the 1920s. I could just talk about the calculation problem if I wanted to "rubbish socialism". Secondly, most political philosophers and historians are utter utter morons and quite obviously so, ESPECIALLY in the mainstream. John Rawls, anyone? So even if your unsubstantiated assertion was true, I wouldn't care. Thirdly, way to ignore everything I wrote. Socialism is not exclusively left wing, it does NOT need to be aimed at for egalitarian purposes. Either you're going to have to invent a new word for the Nazi economic system (and if it includes the word "capitalism" then I'll say no more, you'll have completely discredited yourself and you'd expose your complete lack of understanding about how the system they had functioned), or accept that it was socialist.

Your attempt to politicise an economic system is, as I said, just an attempt to make your position unarguable. Do you understand the inherent normativity about all political positions? I suspect you do. There is no point arguing about them, and your efforts at transposing the economic system that socialism is into the political realm is not going to spare socialism from the economists.

You are a leftist and you are a socialist, but the two are quite different things.
0
MTR_10
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#183
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#183
(Original post by mathperson)
if you're one of these far left nuts who thinks that's what communism will bring, you're wrong.
Communism brings poverty - look at how Russia has been left. Not to mention that it killed more of it's own people in ww2 than fascism.
But if communism was introduced on a global scale it would be different. If a first world country resorted to communism (and others subsequently followed) then the system would have far more power and the inequality leveled out. There would be no capitalist society capable of opposing it. This would not be poverty. It would be a first world lifestyle for everyone.
0
Ocassus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#184
Report 7 years ago
#184
(Original post by MTR_10)
But if communism was introduced on a global scale it would be different. If a first world country resorted to communism (and others subsequently followed) then the system would have far more power and the inequality leveled out. There would be no capitalist society capable of opposing it. This would not be poverty. It would be a first world lifestyle for everyone.
Because a society which is broadly successful based purely on their economic system is going to go; 'Hey, lets try this for a change'! :rolleyes:

Besides, if a first world country did it, all the powerhouses of that economy, the entrepreneurs, the business men, the people with high aspirations, will move to another first world country where they can try to get rewarded justly (objectively in this case) for their work.
If you managed to create a globalised Socialist economy they obviously wouldn't be able to do this, but then you'd have these people living in absolute misery, probably unwilling to commit their resources to the system, which will ultimately lose out because the highest quality skills and intellect are denied it.
0
mathperson
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#185
Report 7 years ago
#185
(Original post by MTR_10)
But if communism was introduced on a global scale it would be different. If a first world country resorted to communism (and others subsequently followed) then the system would have far more power and the inequality leveled out. There would be no capitalist society capable of opposing it. This would not be poverty. It would be a first world lifestyle for everyone.
oh it would be different if there was noone opposing it, I bet!

Personally I think the world would be a better place if I were incharge, people would be free, I wouldn't take people's crap and the world would be a better place after the initial gunshots.

You're deluded mate, get real, stop allowing yourself to be swallowed by some greasy haired communists that you're no doubt hanging around with, and get on with your life.
0
Bumbl
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#186
Report 7 years ago
#186
(Original post by Hy~)
Socialism is not exclusively left wing, it does NOT need to be aimed at for egalitarian purposes. Either you're going to have to invent a new word for the Nazi economic system (and if it includes the word "capitalism" then I'll say no more, you'll have completely discredited yourself and you'd expose your complete lack of understanding about how the system they had functioned), or accept that it was socialist.
The terminus technicus is collectivism with socialism and national socialism being subgroups of it.

Also have a look at my post a bit up this page.
0
Don John
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#187
Report 7 years ago
#187
(Original post by Democracy)
Let's try this again, this time I'll break it down for you CGP stylie:

Wages are given to extent of contribution. (HINT: This means that you do not get money "regardless of quality" or for absence of productivity!)

People are paid, according to how much they labor.

The individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it.



I know its very tempting to think you're the don after you've completed your AS level economics exam, but please do remember that some of us actually know what we're talking about (and have the sources to prove it).

As for the USSR, as I said here that example is null and void since "it was a dictatorial state where workers rights and the proletariat were trampled on by state bureaucrats who simply took capitalism out of the hands of private individuals, and put it in the hands of party apparatchiks".

"Jeez" read a history book :rolleyes:
So if communism is so great, then why is not being used in a large scale? Because it doesn't work. It didn't work in Russia, and China is only communist de jure.
0
channy
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#188
Report 7 years ago
#188
(Original post by Democracy)
Because we are living in the era of capitalism. It's like asking a 13th century feudal peasant why they weren't living in a corporatist or capitalist society. We're just not there yet.



Leninism/Stalinism/State capitalism do not communist society make :no:



China, that one party dictatorship which has been sharting on worker's for the past 60 years? Given that socialism and communism hold egalitarianism and the rights of the proletariat at their core, and the Chinese regime doesn't, the two are in fact diametric opposites and nothing even approaching similar.

China, the USSR, Cuba and all these other dictatorships can call themselves "communist" for all I care, just remember that North Korea calls itself "democratic". But I don't see you going off on misinformed rants about how democracy "doesn't work" :thumbsup:
Why is everyone so ****ing stupid?

...I'm so ronery.
0
Nepene
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#189
Report 7 years ago
#189
(Original post by Democracy)
Because we are living in the era of capitalism. It's like asking a 13th century feudal peasant why they weren't living in a corporatist or capitalist society. We're just not there yet.
This presumes that communism is the future. You can't predict the future. Far more likely many multinational corps are the future.

What changes do you imagine that will make communism probable?
0
Oswy
Badges: 13
#190
Report 7 years ago
#190
(Original post by Hy~)
...most political philosophers and historians are utter utter morons and quite obviously so, ESPECIALLY in the mainstream. John Rawls, anyone?...
When people start calling major thinkers like John Rawls 'morons' I'm confident that what they have to say about philosophy, or history for that matter, isn't worth my effort.
Vozhak
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#191
Report 7 years ago
#191
(Original post by Democracy)
Proletariat (at least in Marx's day) = (made up the) majority of society
Dictatorship of the proletariat = majority rule.

Problem? :confused:
what about when the tyranny of the majority needs to be subverted to protect certain minorities such as GLBT people, non-whites, mentally and physically disabled people and so on....?
0
Nepene
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#192
Report 7 years ago
#192
(Original post by Democracy)
Given that communism and socialism hold egalitarianism to be paramount, discrimination of this sort would not be seen in a communist society...dividing people along the lines of class, religion, race, etc are hallmarks of fascism.

Not to mention that the transitionary socialist period would be a constitutional republic, hence the individual's rights are protected.
Surely, communism loves to divide by class. Communism utterly despises the rich and the middle classes in favour of the workers, and does its best to eliminate the rich and the middle classes because they're hoarding all the wealth. Hence, huge class wars which promote huge amounts of discrimination.

Plus, communism has tended to be atheistic. Most of the major communism thinkers hated religion, and communist countries have tended to use that dividing line to purge religious individuals.

It's notable to look at Lenin's harsh actions towards religion. I know a lot of communists who don't accept every current communist country as anything to do with them love Lenin.

" Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism."
0
dring
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#193
Report 7 years ago
#193
(Original post by MTR_10)
If communism means abolishing the class system in favour of equality, then what exactly is wrong with it? Up until now, communism has always been associated with poverty. What if, a world superpower say America for example (or China in the future) resorts to communism. If Britain joins them (and the Commonwealth countries do as well) and the EU then pretty much over half of the world will live in communism. As this spreads, poverty in Africa will be abolished, extreme wealth will be dissolved into the system and the world will potentially stop fighting over wealth and individual gain. The world will be driven by 'the system' and not the 'individual'. New countries will open themselves up to the rest of the world. Borders will be opened and everyone will live as one.
The big problem with communism is that it doesn't work, except perhaps in small communities voluntarily participating.

What you seem to want here is not much to do with communism, but would be better termed the 'happy clappy hugalong society'. Unfortunately, people just don't think like that.
0
Hy~
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#194
Report 7 years ago
#194
(Original post by Oswy)
When people start calling major thinkers like John Rawls 'morons' I'm confident that what they have to say about philosophy, or history for that matter, isn't worth my effort.
Your concession is noted.

As for Rawls, apart from the general metaphysical problems with his work (and this is what I was referring to, for some reason modern philosophers tend to just ignore them and write a whole load of rubbish, hence "morons"), there are also glaring problems outside of that. The one that comes to my mind right away is his arrival at the difference principle from the original position; he has to make a hidden and impossible assumption of infinite risk aversion to arrive at it, when in fact it's the wealthier people that tend to be more risk averse (due to perceiving greater possible loss and, due to diminishing marginal utility, expecting lesser possible reward) and not the poorest. I mean, which group buys more lottery tickets?

But yeh, whatever. Don't care about Rawls, his junk has been refuted a hundred times over and the statists still worship him. There's not much left of him except maybe a few toes, Nozick took the head.
0
Jampolo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#195
Report 7 years ago
#195
We would be better of in a communism state, equal distribution of income, zero unemployment, everyone is a peer!
0
Cuban chandigarh
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#196
Report 1 year ago
#196
Well yes in theory communism is a perfect society. The problem is with us. Some people are saying a society in which we are all equal wouldn't work because we are not equal. To some extent, this is true. One person said that some people would be content to be a farmer, whereas others would want to rise to the top and be rich. Someone else said that stopping people from doing that would go against the values of a perfect society. That is the problem, because if they try that then they are no better than the soviet union or north korea. This is also true. But communism doesn't have to be about everyone being the same. A perfect society for me would, among other things, encourage diversity, play to people's strengths. As of incentive, isn't the fact that they are helping the country as a whole incentive enough? Lets assume this is so. So far, it seems as though money and personal gain have taken a back seat. So why not get rid of it? Money and personal gain go hand in hand, and if one is not needed, then the other isn't. That's right, get rid of money. Now, someone asked who's in charge? What about everyone? No overall leader, no committee, or at least if there is one then it would be very large. Now lets talk sustainability. Obviously, it would be perfectly renewable/sustainable/eco-friendly (remember this is a perfect society). Did you know that most food farms throw away things like carrots because they aren't perfectly straight, thinking people wouldn't buy that? That happens worldwide, so that amounts to a LOT of food. This society wouldn't do that. Meat/dairy: grown in a lab (yes it is possible, it has been done recently) because farming animals is unethical. Pesticides: no spraying or any of that because it harms other insects as well. Ok we're getting a bit off track. Obviously finding jobs for people would play to their strengths e.g people good at designing would be given the option to go into designing etc etc. Infrastructure: everyone can vote, should they wish, on every decision the country makes. Rights: everyone would have the right to protest, free speech, privacy, freedom of movement, etc.
0
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#197
Report 1 year ago
#197
Beehives and ant colonies are Commie regimes.
0
flipper1r
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#198
Report 1 year ago
#198
A professor at a university managed to convert all of his students away from communism through one small experiment. He decided that instead of having individual grades, the class would have a shared grade that was an average of everyone's grade. After a few weeks the class grade plumeted as the most intelligent students stopped trying as they knew they would not get rewarded.
tldr: communism removes all incentive for work and innovation. That should be a good enough reason even without the tyranny and the millions of people who have died as a result of communism.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
mjk123
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#199
Report 1 year ago
#199
(Original post by MTR_10)
If communism means abolishing the class system in favour of equality, then what exactly is wrong with it? Up until now, communism has always been associated with poverty. What if, a world superpower say America for example (or China in the future) resorts to communism. If Britain joins them (and the Commonwealth countries do as well) and the EU then pretty much over half of the world will live in communism. As this spreads, poverty in Africa will be abolished, extreme wealth will be dissolved into the system and the world will potentially stop fighting over wealth and individual gain. The world will be driven by 'the system' and not the 'individual'. New countries will open themselves up to the rest of the world. Borders will be opened and everyone will live as one.
Who will rule over, sorry, I mean, govern the communist society?
0
apathyslastkiss
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#200
Report 1 year ago
#200
(Original post by Aj12)
Communism conjours images of the soviet union in people's minds even though this is not communism. Despite many attempts it has also never been successful and large scales and always descends into Tyranny.
Why is the Soviet Union "not communism"? I can understand that it might not look exactly like Marx's vision in the Manifesto, but it's still communism. It's a form of communism, based upon Marx's teachings. Do you believe that Marx's philosophy is pure and good and that it's just been the few, bad-apple dictators who got it wrong? If that's so, I'd urge you to reconsider. Communism can only work if everyone buys into it. That's how the structure has to be. Everyone has to comply with the terms of the state in order to make it work--you can't 'opt-out' without a communist state. Since you can't 'opt out', it is necessary to have a strong, centralized government that can regulate everything for everyone. This by nature makes the system vulnerable to totalitarianism.

No political system is going to work perfectly, and that's because human beings are messed up. We are all flawed, and vulnerable to temptations of power, wealth, etc. No system can completely safeguard against this, as all systems, being man-made, will have chinks and blind spots which make it possible for some humans to take advantage of things for personal gain, and the oppression of others. But Communism isn't even the 'better option'. There are no examples of Communism working out really well, anywhere. Capitalism has its flaws, too. There are certainly lots of examples of people abusing the system and oppressing others. However, in a conservative, capitalistic system, there is a higher emphasis on individual rights. If you safeguard individual rights (not collective rights), then freedom more often than not will follow in greater quantity.

I like this analogy:

In Communism, it's like everyone gets to play a sport, but you all have to play football. That's the sport that has been deemed appropriate for everyone, and there is no other option. There's a soccer field, and you're on it. That means you have to take the position you can/or have been assigned to within that game. If you don't play along, the team fails. If this happens, you must be removed from the team (however that may look, it's not pretty...)

In Capitalism, there's football, but there's also baseball, rugby, water guns, cricket, AND the option for you to create your own sport. You're all on a huge field that can accommodate different games, and you get to go where you are most able to succeed. It's true, there will be bullies on that field who come by and maybe smack your bottom with a cricket bat and make life difficult for you. But ultimately, you remain free and have SOME options.
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! (219)
39.32%
No - but I will (38)
6.82%
No - I don't want to (37)
6.64%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (263)
47.22%

Watched Threads

View All