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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Having no centralized government is a much better idea than making everyone be subject to it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    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?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    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..?
    1. Then why do small businesses grow? (They do, it's not impossible)
    2. Ah, but they do! Walmart's assets worth $200 billion, and it has 1.4 million US employees. Even if we assume all of its assets are in the US, that means if each employee gives $150,000 then they can buy them all. That's a lot of money, but not implausible if they live frugally and save up for a few years. And if doing so will bring in a Glorious Communist Paradise, then it seems like it would be worth it!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    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.
    Well.... if we want to have a debate about communism. It is quite useful to define what communist position you hold since there are so many.

    I have provided anti-communist evidence by proving a link to a case study. I proposed the USSR as evidence and spoken of the laws of nature that state that mankind can only develop through competition. You have dismissed all of them for no reason.

    There is no point in you just attacking capitalism. You must come up with a solution. At the moment, you have not outlined a solution and apparently you do not have the time. I am not asking for a bible but otherwise why start this thread if you cannot even be bothered to outline your view.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sweeneyrod)
    1. Then why do small businesses grow? (They do, it's not impossible)
    2. Ah, but they do! Walmart's assets worth $200 billion, and it has 1.4 million US employees. Even if we assume all of its assets are in the US, that means if each employee gives $150,000 then they can buy them all. That's a lot of money, but not implausible if they live frugally and save up for a few years. And if doing so will bring in a Glorious Communist Paradise, then it seems like it would be worth it!
    1. Building a business isn't possible without investment, employees working on a subsistence income don't have spare money for that.
    2. This point is just wacky...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    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?
    If such a shift were possible then communism would be possible too. However, this will never be the case. 7 Billion people will almost definitely not change their fundamental nature without some Orwellian government brain washing.

    Even if the government acquired the co-operation of the people. Over time, government workers and officials would likely become corrupt or lazy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jdizzle12345)
    Well.... if we want to have a debate about communism. It is quite useful to define what communist position you hold since there are so many.

    I have provided anti-communist evidence by proving a link to a case study. I proposed the USSR as evidence and spoken of the laws of nature that state that mankind can only develop through competition. You have dismissed all of them for no reason.

    There is no point in you just attacking capitalism. You must come up with a solution. At the moment, you have not outlined a solution and apparently you do not have the time. I am not asking for a bible but otherwise why start this thread if you cannot even be bothered to outline your view.
    I have addressed both of those points you highlighted above.

    I'm a fairly typical communist, different types of communism are very similar really, at least with reference to the core issues... What type of capitalist are you?

    My key belief? The abolition of marginal exploitation, necessitating at least a very heavily regulated market. There are others but that's a big one.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    1. Building a business isn't possible without investment, employees working on a subsistence income don't have spare money for that.
    2. This point is just wacky...
    1. I'm not talking about employees working on a subsistence income (of which there are very few in the Western world, thanks to capitalism). Sam Walton, who started the largest company in the world, was not a rich capitalist to start with. The many first generation immigrants to the UK who own restaurants and shops certainly aren't either.
    2. And yet you don't have a response... I recommend reading The Machinery Of Freedom (it's free online).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jdizzle12345)
    If such a shift were possible then communism would be possible too. However, this will never be the case. 7 Billion people will almost definitely not change their fundamental nature without some Orwellian government brain washing.

    Even if the government acquired the co-operation of the people. Over time, government workers and officials would likely become corrupt or lazy.
    I'm glad we have reached this stage. Now, if the focus of people was, by nature, the greater good - surely you agree that corruption would cease to be a problem?

    Furthermore, how about an isolated generation brought up with values conducive to communism - could that bring about this attitude shift?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sweeneyrod)
    1. I'm not talking about employees working on a subsistence income (of which there are very few in the Western world, thanks to capitalism). Sam Walton, who started the largest company in the world, was not a rich capitalist to start with. The many first generation immigrants to the UK who own restaurants and shops certainly aren't either.
    2. And yet you don't have a response... I recommend reading The Machinery Of Freedom (it's free online).
    1. The odd sensational story doesn't count as proof. The owners of these restaurants and shops have had to invest money into them. Just because they're immigrants doesn't meant they don't have any money. Actually, subsistence income is very common - at least to the extent that people can't afford to create a worthwhile business.

    2. I didn't address it because I didn't think it was necessary - how many Walmart workers do you honestly think have $150,000 to spend on a business venture? You seem to be very privileged and cushioned.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    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?
    Certainly, if there were a social evolution where every man treated the needs and wants of other people as just as important as their on, Communism would be possible.

    But I counter with this question: In such a situation, why would Communism be necessary?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    Certainly, if there were a social evolution where every man treated the needs and wants of other people as just as important as their on, Communism would be possible.

    But I counter with this question: In such a situation, why would Communism be necessary?
    Communism wouldn't need to be implemented in this situation, it would be the natural system.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Communism is the worst way. I much prefer capitalism and democracy.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    Communism wouldn't need to be implemented in this situation, it would be the natural system.
    In which case, it's not Communism. Communism implies bureaucratic rule, which implies waste(A neighbor in Alfreton has far more understanding of the needs of his neighbor than a central authority in London). This is better than using resources to ship other resources to a central location where it will then carefully be divided out.

    Consider the United Order as conceived by Joseph Smith of the Mormon Church 17 years before Marx wrote his manifesto - Do some research on it - Is that, and the Law of Consecration, the sort of thing you're thinking of when you say Communism?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yes we can.

    It's evil and hates ambition and prosperity and results in misery for everyone involved apart from the one person at the top enforcing it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    In which case, it's not Communism. Communism implies bureaucratic rule, which implies waste(A neighbor in Alfreton has far more understanding of the needs of his neighbor than a central authority in London). This is better than using resources to ship other resources to a central location where it will then carefully be divided out.

    Consider the United Order as conceived by Joseph Smith of the Mormon Church 17 years before Marx wrote his manifesto - Do some research on it - Is that, and the Law of Consecration, the sort of thing you're thinking of when you say Communism?
    It's in the right ballpark.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MeYou2Night)
    Yes we can.

    It's evil and hates ambition and prosperity and results in misery for everyone involved apart from the one person at the top enforcing it.
    How beautifully rationalised.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    It's in the right ballpark.
    I agree with it 100%, then:

    1) It is not being forced, but rather is entered in to voluntarily.
    2) It is being done by people who have agreed in a very broad sense what is and is not important, which means culture clashes(Such as between Conservative and Liberal US for a very visually well-known example) is non-existent.
    3) It may be left at any time.

    All of those points are very important - Marx envisioned a collective rule that demonized the rich. The United Order simply makes the Rich obsolete. I, personally, don't want a mansion in Beverly Hills. If someone did, good on them. They need to be able to care for it with the help of their neighbors. If they are so beloved that enough people come from miles around to care for it, they can keep it.

    And I would be happy for them.

    Notice the difference in Bureaucracy - Currently, Mormons make substantial donations to disaster relief and poverty relief and education. If I were so inclined, I could go to my Bishop and say, "I don't have enough to make ends meet this month." and he would take me to the Bishop's Storehouse, get me food, clothing and a welcoming hand. This is decided locally with funds local members provide, and those that require that help do their best to get out of that need for constant help - And the local Church Employment Specialist helps them if they're looking for work, the Education specialist helps them if they need training and so on and so forth.

    All done voluntarily - The Bishop isn't paid for administrating the funds, nor the Employment specialist. There is no force, just a united joy in helping others and a firm belief that what is done is correct.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  6e97df25d12d68a29b7ec02eee243f6d8e9e9b57e6b7d4cddfa1f27512e3847c_large.jpg
Views: 122
Size:  84.5 KB
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • 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.