Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Can we please discuss communism properly? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jdizzle12345)
    I know what empirical evidence is. Reason and evidence are two separate things. Reason requires evidence to become rational. Some evidence is not empirical, yes, but that would refer to more abstract concepts like numbers.

    I do not believe that you have provided any good reason for why communism would be superior. Or at least, one backed with a plan as to how it would work.

    I could come up with my own political ideology called mommonism, in which everyone has loads of money and everyone is happy. This is a useless ideology unless you back it up with a method or evidence as to how this can come about.

    In our argument, you haven't actually presented a solution. You simply identified some problems of capitalism and explained that it is possible that communism can work because no one has tried it properly.

    I see that you have presented some system in some other posts in the thread. However, I find many flaws in these, also. I will elaborate by replying to those.
    I have produced statistics and articles which I have used to explain my viewpoint. That is called evidence. Reason does not require evidence, that is a ridiculous thing to say, reason is a justification - just as evidence is - just because the two aren't mutually exclusive doesn't mean they cannot be separate.

    Communism is the diametric opposite of capitalism. Thus any problem with capitalism of course doubles up as an advantage of communism. I haven't the time right now to draw up a constitution for a utopian communist society, nor should I need to do so to justify the ideology. There are many ways to put communism into practice and I am not really here to argue for any specific one of these - but to promote communism as a whole.

    Interestingly enough no one has mentioned my point about the millions dying from poverty - it is glossed over here just as it is in society at large.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    Currently demand defines market trends and subsequently market trends define demand. Someone asking for a service isn't capitalism - having a market where people offer competitive prices for a service or where agencies rent out labourers is capitalism. The latter is where issues of exploitation arise.
    If I ask for a service, how am I supposed to get it other than by choosing between people offering it? Why does this choosing suddenly become exploitative when price becomes gets involved? I don't know what you mean by "agencies renting out labourers". Slavery is illegal (in my opinion a good thing). It isn't possible for anyone or anything to rent out a person, because it isn't possible to own a person. Do you mean the thing that happens when people offer a proportion of their income to an agency in exchange for that agency's labour in finding them people to offer their services too? That's just normal exchange of goods and services, which you seem to be OK with!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    How many people has communism killed? Millions. Many more than even nazism.

    Imagine if someone had said that nazism was the way forward for humanity...



    Still, I agree that, if people acted rationally, communism would be better than capitalism, although I think there are better systems.

    However... how would you implement communism? You need the people to think of humanity above their personal interests. So you will need mass indoctrinatio.

    Most people will initially be against communism; you would thus need to wait many, many, many decades, or you would be forced to have mass "disappearances" to remove capitalists, liberals, fascists, anarchists, and others. Is that something you are willing to condone?
    You seem to have an inherent nack for blaming the ideology that is abused, manipulated and extrapolated by evil people into something that it isn't.

    Blame the people and their ills, and not the ideology.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jdizzle12345)
    True, some people will gain more in capitalism than others by working harder and being smarter, but doesn't mean that everyone is unhappy.

    Furthermore, in your system, some people would gain more than others by working harder and longer. And sometimes it is impossible to ascertain how "hard" people work. Paying people according to their performance is far more objective and pragmatic. Your system is perhaps fairer in some ways (as it takes natural ability out of the equation... somehow) but it is also unfair in some ways as someone who produces 10 items should surely be paid more than someone than 5 items and shouldn't be paid proportionally less even if they are more talented.
    They should be paid for the time it took them to produce the items, not the number of items they produce. Their useful output is labour time - it is the only resource a human can offer - thus they should be compensated for the expenditure of this resource, not for the material value of their produce.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    They should be paid for the time it took them to produce the items, not the number of items they produce. Their useful output is labour time - it is the only resource a human can offer - thus they should be compensated for the expenditure of this resource, not for the material value of their produce.
    What about effort then? How do we know when someone is taking a long time to make something due to laziness or lack of aptitude?

    It would give people an incentive to take longer to do their work. Thus, actually giving people incentive to be more inefficient. Similarly to how some government sectors purposefully encourage waste so that they will get a higher budget next quarter.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sweeneyrod)
    If I ask for a service, how am I supposed to get it other than by choosing between people offering it? Why does this choosing suddenly become exploitative when price becomes gets involved? I don't know what you mean by "agencies renting out labourers". Slavery is illegal (in my opinion a good thing). It isn't possible for anyone or anything to rent out a person, because it isn't possible to own a person. Do you mean the thing that happens when people offer a proportion of their income to an agency in exchange for that agency's labour in finding them people to offer their services too? That's just normal exchange of goods and services, which you seem to be OK with!
    It isn't legal to own someone but it is legal to effectively hold them financially captive. The flaw in your argument is that it works the other way round. The labourer is employed by the agency and people hire the agency to get work done. The agency then sends out the labourer who does all the work. The labourer is paid an amount and the agency takes a sizeable cut. The agency has in no way earned this cut as the labourer did all the work. Thus all of the payment should go to the labourer.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    Interestingly enough no one has mentioned my point about the millions dying from poverty - it is glossed over here just as it is in society very large.
    Millions aren't dying from capitalism, they are dying in spite of capitalism. You can see this by comparing e.g. infant mortality rates in pre-capitalist societies with modern ones. Sure, there still exists poverty to be reduced (although many of the people you think of as poor, e.g. those working in sweatshops are far far richer than their ancestors were, and far far richer than they would be without capitalism). But from history you can see that the most successful method to date of reducing poverty has been capitalism, both when pre-capitalist societies become capitalist or when communist societies become capitalist (see Deng Xiaoping).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    It isn't legal to own someone but it is legal to effectively hold them financially captive. The flaw in your argument is that it works the other way round. The labourer is employed by the agency and people hire the agency to get work done. The agency then sends out the labourer who does all the work. The labourer is paid an amount and the agency takes a sizeable cut. The agency has in no way earned this cut as the labourer did all the work. Thus all of the payment should go to the labourer.
    If that was the case, labourers (being free individuals under capitalism) would leave the agencies that employ them and do the same work as before, but get payed more in exchange. Alternatively, they could form their own companies that wouldn't take a cut of the labourers' wages. In fact, they could quite easily buy the companies that employ them. So why don't they do any of those things?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    What do you think of nazism?
    Not sure what I think of it, but I know that national socialism nowhere says in stone that other races have to be killed by the millions. Blame the Nazis who did that to meet their propaganda aims of restoring working class Germans jobs and Aryan superiority, and not nationalism or socialism.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Commie *******
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    I have produced statistics and articles which I have used to explain my viewpoint. That is called evidence. Reason does not require evidence, that is a ridiculous thing to say, reason is a justification - just as evidence is - just because the two aren't mutually exclusive doesn't mean they cannot be separate.

    Communism is the diametric opposite of capitalism. Thus any problem with capitalism of course doubles up as an advantage of communism. I haven't the time right now to draw up a constitution for a utopian communist society, nor should I need to do so to justify the ideology. There are many ways to put communism into practice and I am not really here to argue for any specific one of these - but to promote communism as a whole.

    Interestingly enough no one has mentioned my point about the millions dying from poverty - it is glossed over here just as it is in society at large.
    You produced one article to provide evidence for a point that I wasn't even disputing..

    In this instance, of course reason requires evidence! How else to you intend to provide a compelling argument without appealing to evidence. Politics is not like mathematics or science where you can reason your way to victory. It requires evidence. You have provided an argument without a shred of relevant evidence and as a result, it is not compelling.

    Any problem of capitalism does not double up as an advantage of communism. Communism is not the exact opposite of capitalism. Especially since there are so many different forms of both. Furthermore, the system that you speak about in other posts actually sounds like a primitive form of capitalism.

    You are acting as if you could draw up a constitution for a utopian communist society that could be implemented and work successfully. You are not that big-headed, are you? If you could draw up such a manifesto then I believe you would be sitting in 10 Downing Street, right now. Communism sounds great as it is so idealistic and appeals to many teenagers but the problem is that it is very difficult to come up with a system that would work in any way.

    "Nor should I need to". You very much DO need to. This thread alone shows how much people disagree with it. Furthermore, you can consult nearly any economist and they will disagree with you to. So I beg you to write this manifesto to prove them all wrong.

    I do not know what to say about your point about poverty. I know it occurs. You need to find the time in your busy day to come up with your great manifesto that frees the world of poverty and successfully implements communism and then we'll take you seriously.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain analogy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sweeneyrod)
    If that was the case, labourers (being free individuals under capitalism) would leave the agencies that employ them and do the same work as before, but get payed more in exchange. Alternatively, they could form their own companies that wouldn't take a cut of the labourers' wages. In fact, they could quite easily buy the companies that employ them. So why don't they do any of those things?
    1. They couldn't enter the market with the larger agency presenting too well established competition.
    2. They don't have enough expendable capital to buy big businesses..?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sweeneyrod)
    Millions aren't dying from capitalism, they are dying in spite of capitalism. You can see this by comparing e.g. infant mortality rates in pre-capitalist societies with modern ones. Sure, there still exists poverty to be reduced (although many of the people you think of as poor, e.g. those working in sweatshops are far far richer than their ancestors were, and far far richer than they would be without capitalism). But from history you can see that the most successful method to date of reducing poverty has been capitalism, both when pre-capitalist societies become capitalist or when communist societies become capitalist (see Deng Xiaoping).
    I hope it's not necessary to point out to you that almost all modern day societies are capitalist (including impoverished ones). At any rate it is largely the fault of massive globalised companies operating within the impoverished countries and manipulating them for profit.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    To the OP:

    We live in a world defined by scarcity of resources - There is a limited amount of land, a limited amount of PS4s, a limited amount of gold and a limited amount of everything.

    Communism shifts the distribution of wealth from the Market to the Government. This creates a rule by bureaucracy and the troubles this creates can be seen in both the Soviet Union and China(Of which you will say, "That's not Communism!" and of which I will respond, "It is the closest to Communism our world has ever come.").

    If you want to change the world, a governmental revolution is not the way - It requires either a technological advance that moves from scarcity to plenty or a social evolution that renders scarcity meaningless because of our own satisfaction with our resources.

    Both are possible, and under both situations, communism is meaningless.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    This is a fallacy - too many people assume this.
    Human nature definition-
    the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioural traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans.
    If it's shared by all humans then it's innate and thus inherited. It cannot change. Moron.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jdizzle12345)
    You produced one article to provide evidence for a point that I wasn't even disputing..

    In this instance, of course reason requires evidence! How else to you intend to provide a compelling argument without appealing to evidence. Politics is not like mathematics or science where you can reason your way to victory. It requires evidence. You have provided an argument without a shred of relevant evidence and as a result, it is not compelling.

    Any problem of capitalism does not double up as an advantage of communism. Communism is not the exact opposite of capitalism. Especially since there are so many different forms of both. Furthermore, the system that you speak about in other posts actually sounds like a primitive form of capitalism.

    You are acting as if you could draw up a constitution for a utopian communist society that could be implemented and work successfully. You are not that big-headed, are you? If you could draw up such a manifesto then I believe you would be sitting in 10 Downing Street, right now. Communism sounds great as it is so idealistic and appeals to many teenagers but the problem is that it is very difficult to come up with a system that would work in any way.

    "Nor should I need to". You very much DO need to. This thread alone shows how much people disagree with it. Furthermore, you can consult nearly any economist and they will disagree with you to. So I beg you to write this manifesto to prove them all wrong.

    I do not know what to say about your point about poverty. I know it occurs. You need to find the time in your busy day to come up with your great manifesto that frees the world of poverty and successfully implements communism and then we'll take you seriously.
    What a pointless thing to say. How is it impossible to have a debate about political theory without producing an extensive document detailing every feature of a society? All you have done is belittle my argument, even having the audacity to suggest I cannot provide adequate justification for it - despite your own inability to produce either pro-capitalist or anti-communist evidence.

    Apologies for mixing you up with a different poster, you all coalesce into one body of generic capitalist defence which has stood without being questioned for far too long at the expense of millions of lives.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrKmas508)
    Human nature definition-
    the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioural traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans.
    If it's shared by all humans then it's innate and thus inherited. It cannot change. Moron.
    Actually, 'moron', it being shared doesn't prove it to be innate - merely it proves that all humans have at some point acquired it. It could very well be societal conditioning and you know it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Having no centralized government is a much better idea than making everyone be subject to it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    To the OP:

    We live in a world defined by scarcity of resources - There is a limited amount of land, a limited amount of PS4s, a limited amount of gold and a limited amount of everything.

    Communism shifts the distribution of wealth from the Market to the Government. This creates a rule by bureaucracy and the troubles this creates can be seen in both the Soviet Union and China(Of which you will say, "That's not Communism!" and of which I will respond, "It is the closest to Communism our world has ever come.".

    If you want to change the world, a governmental revolution is not the way - It requires either a technological advance that moves from scarcity to plenty or a social evolution that renders scarcity meaningless because of our own satisfaction with our resources.

    Both are possible, and under both situations, communism is meaningless.
    Rule by bureaucracy is very much possible but it requires the co operation of the people. Successful communism would require the people to put the greater good above themselves. Surely you agree that if this shift were possible so too would be communism?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

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.