Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    In what way?
    Explain why it isn't applicable and solely operates as an ideal. It is a common assumption that communism only works in theory but that assumption is rarely challenged.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    Explain why it isn't applicable and solely operates as an ideal. It is a common assumption that communism only works in theory but that assumption is rarely challenged.

    How do you ensure that the fundamental principle is applied, when necessarily people with power are required to apply it. They will surely abuse this power sooner or later and take more than what they need and not give all that they can.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    How do you ensure that the fundamental principle is applied, when necessarily people with power are required to apply it. They will surely abuse this power sooner or later and take more than what they need and not give all that they can.
    Well sure if you assume people will always abuse power... Then again one can assume anything. Don't throw historical examples at me either - none of these situations were as simple as communism failing but a culmination of many factors including external interference.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    Well sure if you assume people will always abuse power... Then again one can assume anything. Don't throw historical examples at me either - none of these situations were as simple as communism failing but a culmination of many factors including external interference.
    Not always. I am just saying, as time goes on, it's a matter of probability, of there being many individuals all biologically programmed to seek out what is best for them. Capitalism recognises that the individual cares, first and foremost, about the individual, it seems communism tries to circumvent this.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    Well sure if you assume people will always abuse power... Then again one can assume anything. Don't throw historical examples at me either - none of these situations were as simple as communism failing but a culmination of many factors including external interference.
    It's pretty easy to say something will work when you say disregard all prior evidence.

    Absolute power corrupts absolutely, you will dismiss this but it shows that people with more power are more likely to abuse it.
    http://www.fairobserver.com/region/n...olutely-29493/
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    Explain why it isn't applicable and solely operates as an ideal. It is a common assumption that communism only works in theory but that assumption is rarely challenged.
    There have already been points mentioned in this thread. For instance if everyone were to be equal then there would need to be an authority to ensure everyone stayed equal, instantly breaking the premise that everyone is equal. Beyond that there are to me issues of fairness with regards to personal rewards for the work people are willing to put in.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Not always. I am just saying, as time goes on, it's a matter of probability, of there being many individuals all biologically programmed to seek out what is best for them. Capitalism recognises that the individual cares, first and foremost, about the individual, it seems communism tries to circumvent this.
    Without wishing to be rude we have already had the 'humans are innately self-interested' argument several times in this thread. Please refer to those posts to see my response to what you have stated.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    It's pretty easy to say something will work when you say disregard all prior evidence.

    Absolute power corrupts absolutely, you will dismiss this but it shows that people with more power are more likely to abuse it.
    http://www.fairobserver.com/region/n...olutely-29493/
    This is for people who are brought up in a position of wealth or power and thus have these malevolent behavioural patterns conditioned into them by their upbringing. Even so, authoritarianism isn't necessarily required for communism to succeed - a constitutional republic could also work (albeit with a very powerful constitution).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    There have already been points mentioned in this thread. For instance if everyone were to be equal then there would need to be an authority to ensure everyone stayed equal, instantly breaking the premise that everyone is equal. Beyond that there are to me issues of fairness with regards to personal rewards for the work people are willing to put in.
    The argument that authority produces inequality is actually rooted in fallacy. The thought process is 'that person can tell me what to do, therefore we are not equal'. However, if the people holding authority are themselves subject to regulation and their own laws then authority doesn't produce inequality but merely a body of arbitration through which judicial matters can be passed.

    In our country Theresa May is in a position of authority yet she is subject to the same laws as everyone else - no one would consider her to be unequal to anyone (except economically as a result of wealth inequality).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    This is for people who are brought up in a position of wealth or power and thus have these malevolent behavioural patterns conditioned into them by their upbringing. Even so, authoritarianism isn't necessarily required for communism to succeed - a constitutional republic could also work (albeit with a very powerful constitution).
    There will have to be people who have the power to enforce the rules so unless they are not allowed to have children there will be people who grow up with power and it throughout the animal kingdom you will see parents protecting their young in any way possible.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Artyom17)
    I have made a detailed post giving you evidence from anthropologists, scientists and researchers but apparently it is being 'reviewed' (I think because it has numerous links in it) so it's not showing for now. Much of this will make more sense by looking at that post. You can look at the wikipedia page for 'Hunter-Gatherer' and look at the various sources for more information and research conducted by anthropologists and scientists.




    Isn’t it obvious? For instance, in primitive society, the "economy" worked on a tribal basis and people gathered and collected what the tribe needed(food and other resources) and it was subsequently shared among the tribe, otherwise the tribe would perish. This happened due to the environment they were within. Then you can look at feudalistic society and see how people viewed the nobility and the various hierarchies to be a ‘natural occurrence’ – once again because that was the society they were presented with. Then you can look at capitalism and how people believe that it is natural for everyone to be greedy, selfish and competitive , however, this is only believe as a direct result of capitalist society actively promoting and rewarding these specific traits. The proof is a simple observation of society and its inequalities. You can also look at feral children, for instance.




    Because material/environmental conditions allowed people to start to form it as a system. Capitalism has not been around for long, at all, especially when you look at how long modern humans have been here. Before capitalism was feudalism, before feudalism were slave societies, then when you go back enough, you have primitive hunter gatherers living in communes. As stated , capitalism came long after hunter-gather communes and the enviromental conditions were already there allowing capitalism to come into being. Those conditions being the already unequal, massively hierarchical feudalistic society. So people did not just stop being egalitarian, the various conditions were already there for various new ways of living to come into place. Humans were living in hunter gatherer communes for the majority of existence as mentioned long before classes or states existed, however approx. 10,000 years ago there was a transition from transition from hunting/gathering to agricultural production and thus various factors came into play which caused inequalities within society such as a surplus of labour.

    The point is, human beings lived in communes with egalitarian principles for the majority of existence and it is only recently(in terms of modern human existence) that circumstances within the environment have caused human society to differ and effectively become more unequal. This is the whole reason why I brought this up, because capitalists(and fascists for that matter) love to ignore human historical reality and subscribe to the pessimistic view that we are all naturally selfish and greedy, despite overwhelming research by anthropologists showing otherwise.




    Who’s ‘we’ ? A simple observation of reality shows masspoverty, unemployment, homelessness, starvation, famine, etc. Even in the west there are millions in poverty, on the streets, having to use food banks, etc, and you can look at research into this by charities for instance and see statistics and what is clear is even in the west people are still struggling and barely getting by. I’m also constantly seeing reports about how more and more children and living within poverty, more people becoming homeless, etc. And this is just in the west, it’s much worse throughout the world, with many not even able to get clean drinking water. It all comes down to the economic system(capitalism) that the world is under which allows massive amounts of resources to be pitted in the hands of the few whilemany suffer. People within capitalist society have to work in terrible conditions, extremely long hours, on poor pay. Look at how people suffer within sweatshops and factories for instance, all for the profit interests of capitalist corporations.

    Even in Britain look at how workers in Sports Direct and Amazon have been treated. Plus I’ve read all sorts of reports of warehouse workers struggling. This is in Britain today, nevermind Victorian times. And you want to tell me things are getting better? Reality shows otherwise. I could easily bring up all sorts of research here showing these atrocities but I’m too tired now. A simple google search will enlighten you if you want to be enlightened that is.All of this is a product of capitalism and it is everywhere, even in social democracies like those in Scandinavia. Capitalism is inherently an unequal system. Now capitalism is withholding from the majority of people a vast improvement of their living standards, by allowing all resources to be kept in the hands of the few. The point is, there could be a better world where there is no such thing as a ‘poor’ person at all.
    Capitalism is inherently unequal because people are inherently unequal.
    Communism won't work for the same reason.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    There will have to be people who have the power to enforce the rules so unless they are not allowed to have children there will be people who grow up with power and it throughout the animal kingdom you will see parents protecting their young in any way possible.
    Well that's assuming you allow power to be hereditary - no sane person would advocate that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    Capitalism is inherently unequal because people are inherently unequal.
    Communism won't work for the same reason.
    People are inherently unequal? You mean to say that people are not born equal - that one child is born with a greater value than another? I could use that logic to argue for the holocaust...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    Well that's assuming you allow power to be hereditary - no sane person would advocate that.
    Not necessarily, that research in some parts was split by wealth/power while growing up not what they have today.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Not necessarily, that research in some parts was split by wealth/power while growing up not what they have today.
    Well under communism there wouldn't be wealth inequality - power in the context you are using it implies a by-product of wealth (as in the power to buy expensive things or the power to make people do what you want). While growing up no child would have a larger amount of wealth or power - they could only attain AUTHORITY (not just out and out general power) by due process as an adult and at any rate would not benefit unfairly in any way from this authority.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    Well under communism there wouldn't be wealth inequality - power in the context you are using it implies a by-product of wealth (as in the power to buy expensive things or the power to make people do what you want). While growing up no child would have a larger amount of wealth or power - they could only attain AUTHORITY (not just out and out general power) by due process as an adult and at any rate would not benefit unfairly in any way from this authority.
    The authoritative power would come from the parents who protect their young, you say they wouldn't benefit but the evidence shows that people abuse power
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    The authoritative power would come from the parents who protect their young, you say they wouldn't benefit but the evidence shows that people abuse power
    Which is why (although I disagree and have justified that stance) it could be made impossible for individuals to abuse power - either by strict regulation, an exhaustive constitution or by giving lots of different individuals small amounts of power - so no single individual could gain sufficiently by abusing their power to make it worthwhile.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    Which is why (although I disagree and have justified that stance) it could be made impossible for individuals to abuse power - either by strict regulation, an exhaustive constitution or by giving lots of different individuals small amounts of power - so no single individual could gain sufficiently by abusing their power to make it worthwhile.
    Who is going to have the power to ensure people aren't going to abuse the power, then who is going to ensure they don't abuse the power and on and on? Someone is always going to need to have the greater power.

    If someone has power and then is able to slowly increase their power by targeting others who have power slowly then that would cause problems.

    How many individuals? No matter how many people have the power then it can be abused against those who don't unless everyone has the power then it would be just as effective as no one having the power.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Who is going to have the power to ensure people aren't going to abuse the power, then who is going to ensure they don't abuse the power and on and on? Someone is always going to need to have the greater power.

    If someone has power and then is able to slowly increase their power by targeting others who have power slowly then that would cause problems.

    How many individuals? No matter how many people have the power then it can be abused against those who don't unless everyone has the power then it would be just as effective as no one having the power.
    What you have described is a democracy and, I must stress once again, communism doesn't have to be antonymous with democracy. This whole hypothetical line of conversation has stemmed from the point that some form of authoritarianism would probably be required for the installation of communism - it is important to note that democracy would be the intended direction for such a society to progress towards.

    Actually, someone doesn't always need to have a greater power - that's where constitutions come in. Constitutions cannot exhibit self-interest because they are inanimate documents and so simply express a list of legislature. If this document is exhaustive enough it can be made so that interpretation is barely necessary and so judgement can be passed simply through what the constitution decrees. Furthermore, if the constitution itself contains rules for the handling of those who break its rules there wouldn't even need to be a higher power to adjudge sentencing - the step would literally be from someone committing a miscreant act to being punished.

    And ALL of this is assuming that people would still act in self-interest in a society that doesn't encourage (read require) it. I have no wish to go back into the debate of innate self-interest vs altruism - but I don't see how anyone proved humans to be innately selfish (I'll accept that no one proved them to be altruistic either - but in the absence of a clear outcome maybe we can agree not to assume that humans are either).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    The argument that authority produces inequality is actually rooted in fallacy. The thought process is 'that person can tell me what to do, therefore we are not equal'. However, if the people holding authority are themselves subject to regulation and their own laws then authority doesn't produce inequality but merely a body of arbitration through which judicial matters can be passed.

    In our country Theresa May is in a position of authority yet she is subject to the same laws as everyone else - no one would consider her to be unequal to anyone (except economically as a result of wealth inequality).
    Sure, they are subject to regulation, but by whom, and who is to say they are incorruptible? You end up with the age old problem of "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?".

    And I would consider her unequal, purely due to the weight her voice has in changing our country.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.