Is communism really bad? Watch

Oswy
Badges: 13
#221
Report 8 years ago
#221
(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.
Libertarians promote things like 'self ownership' and 'private property' as some kind of universal 'values', or at least universally applicable, in the very same terms; as if their universal adoption generates a 'fair' society etc.

I think most of us are interested in the idea of a 'fair' society, we just don't agree on what constitutes that fairness.
2
reply
borismor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#222
Report 8 years ago
#222
(Original post by Aeolus)
Class according to Marx was determined by material wealth not skills or specialization.
Skills or specialization are the source of material wealth.
0
reply
Aeolus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#223
Report 8 years ago
#223
(Original post by borismor)
Skills or specialization are the source of material wealth.

In a capitalist society. Not in a communist one, the idea that everyting must have material value is capitalist hardwiring, if you read any marxist, or communist literature, for the most part this thinking is rejected on a base level.
0
reply
borismor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#224
Report 8 years ago
#224
(Original post by Aeolus)
In a capitalist society.
In reality.

In a society where nobody has any skills or specialization, no wealth is accumulated by anybody.

In a communist society the wealth which is produced by a certain skilled person is distributed equally among everyone, but that doesn't change the fact that his skills are the source of this wealth.

Now, what if this person demands to hold on to a greater share of his product, and refuses to work otherwise?

You can either lock him up - in which case there's no skilled person anymore, or accept it, and pave the way for capitalism.

Specialization is a threat to any communist society and will ultimately bring its end.
0
reply
Aeolus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#225
Report 8 years ago
#225
(Original post by borismor)
In reality.

In a society where nobody has any skills or specialization, no wealth is accumulated by anybody.

In a communist society the wealth which is produced by a certain skilled person is distributed equally among everyone, but that doesn't change the fact that his skills are the source of this wealth.
He is not he only one with skills and accepts that he in turn is supported by the skills of others. Take our society for instance, those who accrue massive profit could not do so at all were it not for the very existence of the society they live in. One individual cannot produce more than the means of his own labour, which, relatively is very little indeed.

A communist society understands and embraces this concept, rejecting for the most part the petty and short sighted individualism that you are displaying. Skills do not pose any threat to a communist society and these are extremely misguided criticisms that would be answered if you read even the most basic Marxist literature.
0
reply
borismor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#226
Report 8 years ago
#226
(Original post by Aeolus)
He is not he only one with skills and accepts that he in turn is supported by the skills of others.
He may not be the only one, but naturally skilled people are fewer than unskilled people, and not all of them are equally skilled.

If you want the best surgeon to operate on you, and he demands to be payed more than the other surgeons, what are you going to do about it? Either you complain about him and get him locked away, which won't do you much good, or you're going to pay him "under the table", which was exactly how the health care system worked in the USSR - poor people were operated on by students. If you wanted a real doctor, you had to pay him.

Take our society for instance, those who accrue massive profit could not do so at all were it not for the very existence of the society they live in. One individual cannot produce more than the means of his own labour, which, relatively is very little indeed.
What you're now saying is basically that the labor involved in physically assembling an iPhone has the same value as developing the scientific and engineering knowledge that's needed to design an iPhone.

This idea is the very reason why in a communist society an iPhone would simply not exist, nor the knowledge of how to build it.

A communist society understands and embraces this concept, rejecting for the most part the petty and short sighted individualism that you are displaying. Skills do not pose any threat to a communist society and these are extremely misguided criticisms that would be answered if you read even the most basic Marxist literature.
If you read the most basic capitalist literature, you'll see how a single non conformist individual can destroy an entire communist society.
0
reply
Aeolus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#227
Report 8 years ago
#227
(Original post by borismor)
He may not be the only one, but naturally skilled people are fewer than unskilled people, and not all of them are equally skilled.

If you want the best surgeon to operate on you, and he demands to be payed more than the other surgeons, what are you going to do about it? Either you complain about him and get him locked away, which won't do you much good, or you're going to pay him "under the table",

:facepalm2: This discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere productive. You lack a basic grasp of the concept altogether so I would suggest you try to read some basics before trying to debate it. Attempt to understand this, material wealth would not exist in a generally communist society. A skilled surgeon cannot be a surgeon without the society around him, and who is going to lock him up when there is no state? Also, why would the commune tolerate an individual who is trying to exploit others? If he wants to be an individual then he can do so individually, and I doubt he would survive in a state of wealth on his own. Thus we come back to my point about the worth of society.

which was exactly how the health care system worked in the USSR - poor people were operated on by students. If you wanted a real doctor, you had to pay him.
:sigh: Suddenly we come back to the USSR. Whats next, North Korea, China. Here I thought we were having an intellectual discussion.

What you're now saying is basically that the labor involved in physically assembling an iPhone has the same value as developing the scientific and engineering knowledge that's needed to design an iPhone.

This idea is the very reason why in a communist society an iPhone would simply not exist, nor the knowledge of how to build it.
This is hilarious logic.

If you read the most basic capitalist literature, you'll see how a single non conformist individual can destroy an entire communist society.

Perhaps you could suggest me some of the capitalist literature and we could discuss it?
1
reply
Emaemmaemily
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#228
Report 8 years ago
#228
(Original post by Camlon)
Really, when did you list the economical factors that doesn't make old China communist, apart from the ones I listed.

Did you talk about what would make your welfare system so radically different and answer my question if politicans want their welfare system to be misused?

Did you say anything about the ones who can not work long hours and will under your system not get a wage. You said specifically that the ones who don't work hard enough will not get a wage. I don't twist your words, but I take what you say litteraly. If you mean something else, then you need to express yourself differently.

You can stop. That is simple, don't answer me, but don't lie.
I never lied. I already said that there'd be a system to help those who CANNOT work, so bringing it up again as if they would starve was just ignoring that I'd already answered.
Those who can't work won't have to, but those who just won't will either get over it and work, or go hungry.
There would just have to be a more effective system then there is now, but we're talking about an entirely different society, so that's easily possible.

I don't need to list economic factors to prove that China isn't true communist. It just isn't, and you know it. There is still a government in place, which is a HUGE thing proving this. Some of the way it's economy is run resembles that of communism, but it isn't true communism in general and THAT is what's important... You need all parts of communism together, and most probably almost worldwide for it to actually work.
So my point that we've never actually had true communism yet, and therefore cannot use past attempts to argue that it doesn't work, still stands.
As I've explained before... society is not ready yet, but it's possible for the future.

Now seeing as other people have said everything I have, over and over again, as well as me... THIS is why I can't be bothered to argue with you any more.
Because we explain it, and you either don't understand (how mind-sets will be completely different if you are raised in a completely different society), or refuse to listen.

Please don't write back if you're just going to repeat things that I've already disproven or explained to you. It's getting really annoying.
1
reply
borismor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#229
Report 8 years ago
#229
(Original post by Aeolus)
Perhaps you could suggest me some of the capitalist literature and we could discuss it?

The virtue of selfishness.
0
reply
borismor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#230
Report 8 years ago
#230
To all those who say "but the USSR/China/NK/Cuba/Cambodia were not really communist" - consider the Israeli Kibutz.

The original Israeli Kibutz was just about as communist as you can ask for. Shared property, democratic votes, the children were indoctrinated to believe in the socialist ideal, and still they failed - today most of them are privatized, and I won't even go into the studies about the severe animosity among the members and the psychological damage that was caused to children that were brought up there.

It doesn't work.
0
reply
Bambi2803
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#231
Report 8 years ago
#231
OK I have a question by way of analogy


Say I'm going to make a cake. I make all these plans with nice recipes and ingredients etc. Yet when it comes through to acting out on the plan I set the oven on fire. No cake. No worries I try again. Oven gets set on fire again. And again every time I try

Eventually I would realise that although the cake might taste nice in the hypothetical situation that I could eat it, I will never be able to because the process of making that cake is beyond me.

Likewise, when you have seen the measures people have undergone to attempt communism (and failed according to all the good marxists on this esteemed forum) and, in people's own words here, not achieved true communism, why would you think that communism is a good idea if the methods needed to reach it will inevitably result in famine and murder?
0
reply
Brandmon
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#232
Report 8 years ago
#232
(Original post by borismor)
The virtue of selfishness.
Since when was that a virtue? That is like saying that ignorance is a virtue.
0
reply
arabcnesbit
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#233
Report 8 years ago
#233
(Original post by borismor)
The virtue of selfishness.
Ayn Rand isn't too popular on here. I was severely mocked the last time I suggested someone read some of her literature.
0
reply
borismor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#234
Report 8 years ago
#234
(Original post by Brandmon)
Since when was that a virtue? That is like saying that ignorance is a virtue.
a) That's the name of the book.

b) What you've just said demonstrates how absurd it is to claim that we're all hardwired to think in "capitalist terms".

c) It is a virtue, you've just been hardwired to think in collectivist terms.
0
reply
borismor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#235
Report 8 years ago
#235
(Original post by arabcnesbit)
Ayn Rand isn't too popular on here. I was severely mocked the last time I suggested someone read some of her literature.
Yeah, I know that.

What's funny is that so many people here tell me that we're all brainwashed and controlled by capitalism.
0
reply
arabcnesbit
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#236
Report 8 years ago
#236
(Original post by borismor)
Yeah, I know that.

What's funny is that so many people here tell me that we're all brainwashed and controlled by capitalism.
The thing I find most interesting is that no-one rarely understands what capitalism is.

They confuse fascist economic policy with that of capitalism.

Current global economic policy is in fact neo-fascist, not capitalist.
0
reply
Emaemmaemily
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#237
Report 8 years ago
#237
(Original post by borismor)
To all those who say "but the USSR/China/NK/Cuba/Cambodia were not really communist" - consider the Israeli Kibutz.

The original Israeli Kibutz was just about as communist as you can ask for. Shared property, democratic votes, the children were indoctrinated to believe in the socialist ideal, and still they failed - today most of them are privatized, and I won't even go into the studies about the severe animosity among the members and the psychological damage that was caused to children that were brought up there.

It doesn't work.
The Kibbutz wasn't true communism.
the Kibbutz are not in any way, shape or form, communist; not only because they exclude Arabs (which you yourself concede), but because they operate under a state.
^^ These important things make a huge difference. You cannot be communist if you operate under a state.
0
reply
Aeolus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#238
Report 8 years ago
#238
(Original post by borismor)
The virtue of selfishness.

Objectivism, really? Rand's ideology in essence is essentially social and economic darwinism; you could say an extreme interpretation of aristotelian conception of natural societal good without the benevolent ubersmench. An objectivist axiom could be Galt's oath in atlas shrugged: "I swear--by my life and my love of it--that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Unfortunately for Rand, and yourself, unless you are willing to believe in a far more utopian and unrealistic human being, the consequences of such fundamental ethical systems are perverse. If just one of her noble and honorouble characters was any less than so alot of her work would be far more interesting and dramatic. If we were to apply said axiom the present world it would mean many, many millions of people starving to death in the most wealthy and developed countries. There would be nothing to stop the sefl-interested exploitation and enslavement of mankind. Or perhaps the complete destruction of the enviroment for the interests of a few indivivduals. There would be no welfare state, no charity, no nothing. You criticise what you interpret as the consequences of a socialist society suffocating competition and then quote this at me. Have you even read it? Is it really how you define your views? When I asked for capitalist literature I thought you would say Friedman or Hayek. This is like a Marxist, or a communist suggesting something as extreme or distorted as Mao.So, do you subscribe to Galt's oath? Is that how you believe we should all live our lives?
0
reply
Aeolus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#239
Report 8 years ago
#239
(Original post by borismor)
To all those who say "but the USSR/China/NK/Cuba/Cambodia were not really communist" - consider the Israeli Kibutz.

The original Israeli Kibutz was just about as communist as you can ask for. Shared property, democratic votes, the children were indoctrinated to believe in the socialist ideal, and still they failed - today most of them are privatized, and I won't even go into the studies about the severe animosity among the members and the psychological damage that was caused to children that were brought up there.

It doesn't work.

You should really read somthing basic on Marxism. What have you read out of interest?
0
reply
arabcnesbit
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#240
Report 8 years ago
#240
(Original post by Aeolus)
Objectivism, really? Rand's ideology in essence is essentially social and economic darwinism; you could say an extreme interpretation of aristotelian conception of natural societal good without the benevolent ubersmench. An objectivist axiom could be Galt's oath in atlas shrugged: "I swear--by my life and my love of it--that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Unfortunately for Rand, and yourself, unless you are willing to believe in a far more utopian and unrealistic human being, the consequences of such fundamental ethical systems are perverse. If just one of her noble and honorouble characters was any less than so alot of her work would be far more interesting and dramatic. If we were to apply said axiom the present world it would mean many, many millions of people starving to death in the most wealthy and developed countries. There would be nothing to stop the sefl-interested exploitation and enslavement of mankind. Or perhaps the complete destruction of the enviroment for the interests of a few indivivduals. There would be no welfare state, no charity, no nothing. You criticise what you interpret as the consequences of a socialist society suffocating competition and then quote this at me. Have you even read it? Is it really how you define your views? When I asked for capitalist literature I thought you would say Friedman or Hayek. This is like a Marxist, or a communist suggesting something as extreme or distorted as Mao.So, do you subscribe to Galt's oath? Is that how you believe we should all live our lives?
I think you may have read the socialist worker's review of Ayn Rands work and not actually read it yourself?

You are wrong on a few important matters.

She believed in a bill of human rights, so exploitation or enslavement wouldn't be allowed. Both people can only enter a contract freely.

Since everything would be owned by someone i.e the sea, the sky, everything, who would let you pollute their land, sea or sky? The environment would be better protected than it is currently.

There would indeed be charity. She encouraged it. Charity is voluntary the welfare state is not since you force people to pay tax under the threat of force.

I don't subscribe to any single ideology as i'm sure you don't either but if you're going to condemn a viewpoint, at least get your facts straight.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
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! (558)
37.78%
No - but I will (115)
7.79%
No - I don't want to (103)
6.97%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (701)
47.46%

Watched Threads

View All