Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Can we please discuss communism properly? Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Why is this thread still going on? I mean, I've got to admire the people defending communism as a good way to run a country - that's devotion right there. History has shown us that communism doesn't work, why beat the dead horse? I know it's the stereotype of a university student: Liberal, shouts a lot, has Lenin posters etc... But really? We've all been showed that communist states are doomed to fail. You either become a dictatorial, some what fascist state, like North Korea or you slowly move to a more democratic state and introduce the ability to buy and sell houses like Cuba did a few years ago.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    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.
    Yet she is accountable to the people, a servant if you will. Yes her voice has power but doesn't mean she's permitted to abuse it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    Yet she is accountable to the people, a servant if you will. Yes her voice has power but doesn't mean she's permitted to abuse it.
    I'm sure many people would question quite how accountable she is.

    You're still yet to provide any example where a government funded project has outpaced that of one in the private sector.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    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...
    People are indeed born equal but, by the time the phrase, "From each, according to his abilities...." , is used to stop anyone from wasting societies resources in an attempt to better themselves, ie, further education, amassing enough capital to maybe start a small business, enough differences are apparent that it should be plain to anyone that equality of result is futile.

    Take any capitalist society and distribute the wealth evenly among every one. Then remove the controls needed to maintain this " equality", and the wealth would begin at once to flow back to where it was prior to the controls.

    Communism takes society in the wrong direction. There's more than enough resources in the earth to feed everyone. If a way is found to unleash everyones abilities then each one having his share of those resources would be the new norm.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    A lot of crazy systems work short term, anarcho-capitalism can work short term. However, thesesystems cannot last because people will agitate and act from within and they're flimsy systems. The premise you're putting forward is that the only reason these systems failed is because other people had different ideas, which henceshows the weakness of the ideology in the real world. What? The Kurds which areat war and have lasted 5 years at most? War communism worked for a few years inspite of being a **** system which heavily impacted the proletariat that the Bolsheviks supposedly championed.
    Calling what happened in Spain 1936-7 a ‘crazy system’only shows massive ignorance on this topic. Like I said, people were living fine and free from the exploitation of capitalism and fascism. There’s plenty of evidence out there showing how they lived. And like I said, it never failed due to an inherent problem with anarchist ideology, it failed because of massive fascist influence, capitalist influence and of course Stalinist influences. You’re trying to say because they were overwhelmed by exterior forces, that means their entire ideology and principles which they were living by are nullified? Just because other forces had better forces, equipment,etc, it doesn’t automatically mean that the anarchist ideals and ways of living are a ‘weakness in the real world’. Obviously there could have been betterorganisation in terms of defence, but my point is that how they lived was admirable and if successful could have made a much better future on a much wider scale. A lesson can be learned here for the future.

    I’ll quote Orwell (who was actually there) again in his book Homage to Catalonia

    "I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss,etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no oneowned anyone else as his master."
    And as for the Kurds, they are fighting ISIS and are at war, so that automatically makes how they live and the principles they have in place nullified? That’s pretty weak logic.

    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    Oh dear, you're aware that almost all insurgent groups have this? The Mujahedeen had these, and they were a rebel group. So were the roundheads during the English civil war.
    Really? Were the Mujahedeen revolutionary leftists? Once again you’re showing ignorance, go and look at how they live andwhat they stand for. And it’s interesting how you bring up the roundheads, one of the factions were the Diggers who lived upon what could now be called anarchist principles and aimed to reform the pre-existing social order of the time with an agrarian lifestyle based around their view for the establishment of small egalitarian rural communes.



    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    You don't think that these nomadic groups had hierarchies? Even the last of these groups,known as habiru in the near east, often had kings and hierarchies like that.Hierarchies are literally classes. Look at the similar tribal groups in theamazon today, these quite clearly have class hierarchies, even if they don't have firm legal codes solidifying it.


    They didn’t for the majority of modern human existence, which is what i'm talking about. I'm talking about hunter-gatherers. The Habiru for instance were only around very recently when looking at the scale of things. And multiple anthropologists and researchers say otherwise.

    For instance Richard Turnbull wrote of the Mbuti pygmies of Congo:
    There were no chiefs, noformal councils. In each aspect of…life there might be one or two men or women who were more prominent than others, but usually for good practical reasons…The maintenance of law was a cooperativeaffair’
    Ernestine Friedl, ananthropologist, reported that
    There was no…private landownership and no specialisation of labour beyond that of sex… People made decisions about the activities for which they were responsible. Consensus was reached within whatever group would be carrying out a collective activity’
    Richard Lee, another anthropologist, also found that the !Kung people of the Kalahari ( aka theBushmen) –
    are a fiercely egalitarian people, and they have evolved a series of important culturalpractices to maintain this equality, first by cutting down to size the arrogantand boastful, and second by helping those down on their luck to get back in thegame’
    Those are just some studies, there are many more. I’ve already posted multiple sources showing research from more anthropologists, scientists, etc, on page 12 of this thread from another poster who wanted evidence. I’m going to trust multiple anthropologists and scientists over some random student on the internet who has bought into the pessimistic capitalist belief that humans were complete savages and have always been selfish and greedy.

    Really what it boils down to is capitalists (and fascists for that matter) not wanting to accept facts and don’t want to believe that humans cannot be selfish and greedy because it completely contradicts the principles of capitalist thought and reality. They would rather distort history tosuit their narrative in order to help maintain the capitalist unequal status quo.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    What is the true end and best aim/scenario for communists, genuine question.

    I mean like what is their ideal society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by THE EPIC Panda)
    Why is this thread still going on? I mean,I've got to admire the people defending communism as a good way to run acountry - that's devotion right there. History has shown us that communismdoesn't work, why beat the dead horse? I know it's the stereotype of auniversity student: Liberal, shouts a lot, has Lenin posters etc... But really?We've all been showed that communist states are doomed to fail. You eitherbecome a dictatorial, some what fascist state, like North Korea or you slowlymove to a more democratic state and introduce the ability to buy and sellhouses like Cuba did a few years ago.

    This thread is filled with multiple fallacies and your comment adds to that ,but I appreciate your admiration. History shows there have been plenty of examples which clearly suggest that the basic structures and principles of anarchism/communism are feasible as practice shows and can work. I have posted some examples in this thread so you can look at them if you want.

    And liberal? Do you know what a liberal is? There’s a massive difference between a communist / anarchist and a liberal. A liberal still wants to live in a capitalist society, still supports the state, still supports class divisions in society, etc. Maybe lookover a political theory book before throwing false assumptions around.

    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    There's more than enough resources in the earth to feed everyone.
    Exactly, and the economic system which the majority of the world is under now(capitalism) does not allow the resources to be distributed and allows the majority of the resources ( wealth, power, other supplies, etc) to be pitted in the hands of the few, while many suffer.

    And once again you are looking through your small capitalist based lense. People would work for their community, pride, etc, especially if the society which they live within is providing them with everything they need as well as a good work place. Not everything has to involve capital and not everyone’s minds would be dominated by capital as they are today.

    (Original post by Mathematising)
    If I'm honest I'm not sure if it's worthdiscussing on TSR. Most here seem to be strongly anti-communist which means one has to spend all their time defending it instead of discussing differentvariations of it.
    I understand it is difficult but don’t let people give you a defeatist attitude. Differing points of view are always worth discussing. I would say socialist and communist/anarchist thoughts absolutely are necessary for discussion considering all of the inequality and injustice within the capitalist world. Plus notice how they all get so defensive and resort to personal attacks, there's a reason for that. It's the same in real life. Remember that.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    innately selfish? as opposed to...nurtured to be selfish?
    if we were *innately* not selfish, why would we ever be *nurtured* to be selfish?
    and have you ever interacted with a baby or young child? they are the most selfish members of our species of all...
    Exactly.

    Furthermore, as the selfish child grows and perhaps learns to restrain his own selfishness, he will see the selfishness in others and quickly realize it is in his best interests to put his future welfare in his own hands.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJlover)
    What is the true end and best aim/scenario for communists, genuine question.

    I mean like what is their ideal society.

    Communists(marxists,leninists, etc) and anarchists(anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalists,etc) have the same goal of a classless, stateless society where workers completely own he means of production(factories, warehouses, etc etc). They just have differing ways of getting to this goal. It would be a society where all are equal, where no longer the working class are exploited by a minority class, where working conditions would not be terrible in order to save profits, where no one starves or dies of preventable diseases because 'profits' were not available, and where everyone works for the common good of all, rather than the profit needs of the few greedy, etc. It would be close to how modern humans lived for many years(in egalitarian communes) but much better with all what is known and developed now. Of course capitalists(as well as fascists ) pretentiously will claim it isn't, this is to be expected, if it actually happened they would not be in power and would not be able to hoard onto masses of wealth and resources at the expense of the workers and masses.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Artyom17)
    Calling what happened in Spain 1936-7 a ‘crazy system’only shows massive ignorance on this topic. Like I said, people were living fine and free from the exploitation of capitalism and fascism. There’s plenty of evidence out there showing how they lived. And like I said, it never failed due to an inherent problem with anarchist ideology, it failed because of massive fascist influence, capitalist influence and of course Stalinist influences. You’re trying to say because they were overwhelmed by exterior forces, that means their entireideology and principles which they were living by are nullified? Just because other forces had better forces, equipment,etc, it doesn’t automatically mean that the anarchist ideals and ways of livingare a ‘weakness in the real world’. Obviously there could have been betterorganisation in terms of defence, but my point is that how they lived wasadmirable and if successful could have made a much better future on a much wider scale. A lesson can be learned here for the future.
    REEE You're ignorant because my ideology has only worked in wartime and weird situations.


    Yes, I know that they survived under the system. The fact that the ideology failed BECAUSE of other ideologies shows that the ideology sucks, because if it was a good one people would adapt that system and it would overpower the system, wouldn't it? If people would benefit from the system they would choose the system, wouldn't they?

    "Could" doesn't mean "would". These systems aren't sustainable in peacetime because people are ambitious. I don't want to be the same as the tramp who does **** all with their life, and most people agree with me. I don't want to share my resources or "means of production" with somebody arbitrarily and forcing people to do that violates their freedom, and therein lies the problem with marxism. It's just the have nots crying that they aren't the haves, and then being surprised that when they have the haves stuff they can't make it work the way the haves did, because the haves knew how to get to and maintain the means of production.

    (Original post by Artyom17)

    And as for the Kurds, they are fighting ISIS and are at war, so that automatically makes how they live and the principles they have in place nullified? That’s pretty weak logic.



    Really? Were the Mujahedeen revolutionary leftists? Once again you’re showing ignorance, go and look at how they live andwhat they stand for. And it’s interesting how you bring up the roundheads, one of the factions were the Diggers who lived upon what could now be called anarchist principles and aimed to reform the pre-existing social order of the time with an agrarian lifestyle based aroundtheir view for the establishment of small egalitarian rural communes.
    I don't believe I ever said these ideas were null, I think I said there are far far better systems about.

    I cannot believe you would make such a stupid statement. The Mujahadeen were obviously not ****ing marxists you cretin, what I am saying is that they are a rebel group, and that they had settlements. My point was that most rebel groups have self-sustaining settlements regardless of ideology, and communism creating that isn't anything special. The rest of that paragraph is irrelevent.

    (Original post by Artyom17)
    They didn’t for the majority of modern human existence, which is what i'm talking about. I'm talking about hunter-gatherers. The Habiru for instance were only around very recently when looking at the scale of things. And multiple anthropologists and researchers say otherwise.
    Habiru were an example. Yes, well done, you have pinpointed a few societies that are fully egalitarian. That doesn't mean by any means that all were. In fact, I could say that the groups that adopted a hierarchy were, in fact, able to advance and succeed. I mean, these pygmies are inconsequential in terms of power compared with other peoples that have hierarchies. I would even go as far to say that abandoning these communistic ideas was what ultimately what led to the growth of civilisation. Even if we accept the premise that everybody is capable of sitting in circles and singing kumbaya and sharing everything, the delegation of tasks and the growth of formal aristocracy and dedicated thinkers allowed us to develop intellectually to the point where we can even have this conversation.

    (Original post by Artyom17)
    I’m going to trust multiple anthropologists and scientists over some random student on the internet who has bought into thepessimistic capitalist belief that humans were complete savages and have always been selfish and greedy.

    Really what it boils down to is capitalists (and fascists for that matter) not wanting to accept facts and don’t want to believe that humans cannot be selfish and greedy because it completely contradicts theprinciples of capitalist thought and reality. They would rather distort history tosuit their narrative in order to help maintain the capitalist unequal status quo.
    That's fine, but the fact you're using capitalist beliefs as an ad hominem shows you have accepted Communism as a religion, and are henceforth less than able to think logically on this.

    The butthurt here is strong.

    Right, sure, these "sit in circles and sing kumbaya" societies do work, but, and this is the crucial bit, they aren't as good as other societies. That is why they don't persist in a world where societies are more complicated than a few illiterate tribesmen hunting and gathering. There is a damn good reason why we remember the Sumerians over the ****ing forest pygmies, and that is because even the earliest city states were able to produce more than them.

    When it comes down to the fifth stage of marxist stage theory, your "utopia", I would suggest that the same thing would occur. Even if you could stamp out wrongthink, you would have serious issues. If the proletariat owns the means of production equally, that means that the proletariat is more liable to produce something stupid with the means of production than under a capitalist system. Under a capitalist system, the company would go bankrupt or otherwise learn from said mistake. Under a fully communist system, where everybody owns the means of production, the people who made the decision are more likely to not have a goddam clue what went wrong, since most people don't know the intricacies of running a certain kind of company (I would have no idea where to start with running a supermarket, for instance), and thus we wouldn't develop as much as a society.

    I understand that there may well be delegated leaders to run these operations (Although this group could form into a class). However, all of the people are effectively investors in the means of production by giving it to them, aren't they? Therefore, it is possible to have democratic decisions to do stupid **** with the means of productions. In Capitalism, only investors who buy stock in a company or otherwise coordinate it make decisions, and these people are more likely to have a working knowledge of economics than some random person off the street. Hence, decisions are less likely to be stupid and when stupid **** does happen learning occurs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    REEE You're ignorant because my ideology has only worked in wartime and weird situations.
    Once again, anarchist/communist principles and egalitarian ways of life have been prelevant throughout human history in various societies. So 90%+ of modern human existence is a‘weird situation’?

    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    Yes, I know that they survived under the system. The fact that the ideology failed BECAUSE of other ideologies shows that the ideology sucks, because if it was a good one people would adapt that system and it would overpower the system, wouldn't it? If people would benefit from the system they would choose the system, wouldn't they?
    They didn’t merely ‘survive’, they lived well free from the issues within capitalist and fascist society. Orwell can attest to this and commended the way they lived, hence why I have quoted him numerous times. Not only Orwell, but multiple other historians have detailed how they lived and how they achieved applying anarchist egalitarian principles within their society. Do I have to do research and think for you?

    Secondly, once again, the logic of '‘your ideology fails and sucks because it got overrun by superior exterior forces’' is weak logic. As I said, they put many anarchist principles into place and lived by them and were living fine, any society where the overwhelming majority of people are living well is not ‘failing’. Plus then you can look at anarchist theory by multiple theorists (Kropotkin, Bakunin, etc etc) and see that their aims and goals are for workers freedom from exploitation and misery ,and more similar goals. Hardly something that merely ‘sucks’.

    For your other point on how
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    if it was a good one people would adapt that system and it would overpower the system, wouldn't it? If people would benefit from the system they would choose the system, wouldn't they?
    Do you seriously expect the ruling classes to have just given up everything they own? All the resources, power, wealth, etc that they hoarded at the expense of everyone else, you expect them to just allow all of it to be distributed and shared? The ruling class can manipulate society and did do, and cause false class consciousness too(much like it does today). You do realise that there was literally a revolution in Spain because people were fed up, right? The ruling class obviously is not just going to do nothing against the threat they were posed with and so they organised and helped to repel the revolutionaries in the form of fascism. They were able to organise to great effect obviously, because they were the ruling class and had masses of power,wealth, resources, etc.

    Another point on this is that claiming an ideology to suck and fail because of other ideologies is really illogical. Look at human history, there have been slave societies, feudal societies, etc, do you think that any beliefs slaves had who rose up sucked,merely because the ruling order of the time was able to repel the slave attacks? Was feudalism a good, fair system because the nobles were able to keep control over the poor peasants because they ruled and thus had power and mass resources? Did any peasant rebellion beliefs and ideology simply ‘suck’ and ‘fail‘ to you because they became overwhelmed? Did oppressed black americans 'fail' in their beliefs for emancipation just because the American state was enforcing discriminatory laws and people were actively racist? These are just some examples highlighting the ignorance of this logic. Just because there is a ruling order that is in place, it does not make that ruling order the ‘correct’ way of things.

    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    "Could" doesn't mean "would". These systems aren't sustainable in peace time because people are ambitious. I don't want to be the same as the tramp who does **** all with their life, and most people agree with me. I don't want to share my resources or "means of production" with somebody arbitrarily and forcing people to do that violates their freedom, and therein lies the problem with marxism. It's just the have nots crying that they aren't the haves, and then being surprised that when they have the haves stuff they can't make it work the way the haves did, because the haves knew how to getto and maintain the means of production.
    But they did make it work in Spain. Like I said, there were issues with defence and organisation, but people lived communally and were happy and workers had control. Once again you’re showing massive ignorance on the topic. You’re writing as though the system wasn’t sustainable because of some innate problem with it and the ideological principles it based its society upon. This is simply not true. It was due to exterior forces. I’m talking in circles here. Seriously, read some historical books that cover the Spanish Revolution and how the republicans lived if you actually want to be enlightened rather than just writing ignorance. And really, you want to talk about ‘force’, capitalism restricts working class freedom and forces them to be wage labourers/ slaves and get exploited for it.

    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    I don't believe I ever said these ideas were null, I think I said there are far far better systems about.
    When you blatantly ignore the principles upon which they live by and instead just state how they "are at war and have lasted 5 years at most" to me that shows that you are missing the initial point made on purpose. Also it’s pretty pretentious and disrespectful to claim that there are ‘better systems’ for the Kurds to live by. They live by libertarian socialist principles such as direct democracy, sustainability, equality, etc. Principles evidently missing in capitalist society. Capitalist society which by the way, has been responsible for many of the problems in the Middle East.

    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    I cannot believe you would make such a stupid statement. The Mujahedeen wereobviously not ****ing marxists you cretin, what I am saying is that they are a rebel group, and that they had settlements. My point was that most rebel groupshave self-sustaining settlements regardless of ideology, and communism creating that isn't anything special. The rest of that paragraph is irrelevent.
    I was stating examples of societies with anarchist/communist principles and you brought up the Mujahedeen for some reason. Your reason being that "they were a rebel group" and "had settlements" … so? My point initially was that groups and societies have been based upon revolutionary leftist principles, hence why I brought he Zapatistas up. You said "Oh dear, you're aware that almost all insurgent groups have this?" when no, the Mujahedeen do not follow revolutionary left principles, they don’t view the world on a material basis, they don’t have class consciousness, etc. If you apparently acknowledge this, why even bring them up? To just make a point that there are non-leftist groups that live in settlements, so?

    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    Habiru were an example. Yes, well done, you have pinpointed a few societies that are fully egalitarian. That doesn't mean by any means that all were. Infact, I could say that the groups that adopted a hierarchy were, in fact, able to advance and succeed. I mean, these pygmies are inconsequential in terms ofpower compared with other peoples that have hierarchies. I would even go as farto say that abandoning these communistic ideas was what ultimately what led to the growth of civilisation. Even if we accept the premise that everybody is capable of sitting in circles and singing kumbaya and sharing everything, the delegation of tasks and the growth of formal aristocracy and dedicated thinkers allowed us to develop intellectually to the point where we can even have this conversation.
    It’s not merely a ‘few’ societies. You can look at the works of the multiple anthropologists I have mentioned in this thread, you can see even more on page 12 in the thread. All of the anthropologists, scientists and researchers view that for the majority of modern human existence, people lived within communes with egalitarian principles. And social hierarchy is responsible and has been responsible for many of the problems within society.

    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    That doesn't mean by any means that all were
    No, it does mean it that actual anthropologists have studied this topicextensively and come to conclusions which determine that humans did live likethis. Stop attempting to distort history to suit your own biases. Once again I trust the works and research of multiple anthropologists and scientists who have literally dedicated their lives to studying this, than some random student who doesn’t seem to understand ‘objectivity’. I’m not even being biased here, my main point in bringing this up was to prove that humans can be egalitarian and have lived in societies that didn’t involve traits which we see prevalent in capitalist society(greed, selfishness, etc). Look at the links I have provided or look into this yourself, but truth isn’t very nice when it contradicts your entire world view is it?


    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    The butthurt here is strong.
    I’m pretty calm actually. Usually you can tell who the bothered one is in any debate when they start resorting to petty personal insults like ‘cretin’.

    (Original post by TercioOfParma)

    When it comes down to the fifth stage of marxist stage theory, your "utopia", I would suggest that the same thing would occur. Even if you could stamp out wrongthink, you would have serious issues. If the proletariat owns the means of production equally, that means that the proletariat is more liable to produce something stupid with the means of production than under a capitalist system. Under a capitalist system, the company would go bankrupt or otherwise learn from said mistake. Under a fully communist system, where everybody owns the means of production, the people who made the decision are more likely to not have a goddam clue what went wrong,since most people don't know the intricacies of running a certain kind of company (I would have no idea where to start with running a supermarket, for instance), and thus we wouldn't develop as much as a society.
    I do not believe in your pessimistic view that workers are stupid. People can organise themselves and have done historically without capital even being involved. You’re just looking at things through your narrow capitalist oriented lense. People would work for their community, for their pride, for motivation, for self-preservation. Work in a socialist society would be different to how it is perceived in capitalist society. Workers wouldnot feel alienated. The reason workers do not enjoy work in capitalist society is because they do not own the means of production and live in a society based upon profit rather than need.

    On the supermarket comment, you’re acting as though the economic model society is based upon is the reason why somebody can managea supermarket. It isn’t. People can and would learn things without capital even being involved. We have all been to school haven’t we? You could make this distinction to all aspects throughout society and relate it to all sorts of jobs, for example a teacher would learn how to teach because they enjoy teaching , a doctor would learn medicine because they want to help people, etc, and they would enjoy it even more because the society they live within is providing them with everything they need as well as a good work place. Once again I’ll bring up primitive communes, people worked together and got whatever tasks done because it was necessary for survival. Not everything has to involve capital and not everyone’s minds would be dominated by capital as they are today.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    Communism is the correct way forward for humanity. Few would agree with me, at least not to this extremity, but I can assure you that it is. Please feel free to discuss this - it is very close to my heart.
    It's great in ideology - problem is if you try to implement it in the real world it falls apart.
    Doctors won't study for years to work 8x harder than cleaners and earn the same pay.
    If someone can do a job and get payed $X or not do the job properly and get payed $X they won't bother to do it properly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ValerieKR)
    It's great in ideology - problem is if you try to implement it in the real world it falls apart.
    Doctors won't study for years to work 8x harder than cleaners and earn the same pay.
    If someone can do a job and get payed $X or not do the job properly and get payed $X they won't bother to do it properly.
    No, it doesn't. I've already made multiple examples of anarchist/communist principles being present within various societies historically. This suggests it is possible. Yes it has never been implemented on a full scale , that is down to capitalists and fascists preventing it being implemented on a full scale(through force, coups, propaganda, etc) as well as the theory being distorted and not being put properly into practise.

    People would become doctors because they want to help people and for self-preservation, material gain wouldn't even come into it. A true socialist society would be completely different to how we percieve things like this in capitalist society. Plus like I have already said, they would want to do it even more because the society they live within is providing them with everything they need as well as a good work place.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ValerieKR)
    It's great in ideology - problem is if you try to implement it in the real world it falls apart.
    Doctors won't study for years to work 8x harder than cleaners and earn the same pay.
    If someone can do a job and get payed $X or not do the job properly and get payed $X they won't bother to do it properly.
    Well in the UK doctors don't get paid a whole lot more than cleaners and we still have an abundance of them...
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    Well in the UK doctors don't get paid a whole lot more than cleaners and we still have an abundance of them...
    That's junior doctors, and are they happy about it?
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • 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

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