Is communism really bad? Watch

im so academic
Badges: 13
#81
Report 8 years ago
#81
(Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
Why do you log onto TSR, and then take apart a political doctrine with 2 embarassingly simple lines?

I mean let's just stop and think... do you think that Lenin, Marx, Kropotkin, Bakunin (I know they're Anarchists, using it interchangeably here), Engals, Gramsci, Lukacs all these incredibly intelligent men, it never occurred to them "Oh it just can't work, hurr durr, people naturally take charge, we is so stupid for not knowing this!" :rolleyes:

Do you really not think they don't address these issues? Do you think in the whole of the collected works of Marx, there is no reference to this? Do you really? :facepalm:

In short, Marx states that capitalism is the ideology that perverts men. Men are not inherently greedy, selfish, domineering etc.. they're perverted by capitalism. He points to pre neolithic men, before capitalism, before the concepts of money... where everything was just collectively shared. I think it's in the German Ideology (it's been a while since I've read Marx) where he discusses how men are perverted by capitalism into being selfish etc... you manage to break away from capitalism, and eventually you can escape these ideas about taking charge, avarice, jealousy... these are all bi-products of Capitalism, man himself is inherently benevolent. Furthermore, you may not think you can't escape capitalism but you can, you have a false-conciousness. Your material life informs your ideology; "Conceiving, thinking, the mental intercourse of men, appear at this stage as the direct efflux of their material behaviour... Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life". < German ideology.

Remove the capitalism, your false conciousness goes, your ideology goes, man will no longer be selfish and individualist.
What's wrong with being an individualist?
2
reply
faber niger
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#82
Report 8 years ago
#82
(Original post by Aeolus)
This is simplistic. North Korea also calls itself a democratic republic. Would you denounce my rejection of this label as fallacious?
But we have democratic republics with which to compare it, that's the point. We can say that America is more of a true democratic republic than North Korea. We can't say that country X is more of a true communist state than North Korea; we can only suggest that potential country Y would be more of a true communist state than North Korea, which is much less persuasive.

So what about my second point: Could it not be that no 'true' communist countries exist precisely because the very ideology is impracticable?

(Original post by Oswy)
That's just poor logic. Whether or not a particular society is 'communist' should, if we're being intelligent, rest on how you define communism. The KKK call themselves a 'Christian' organisation, but if I were to claim that the KKK represent Christianity you'd probably not be too happy.
Actually, Christian praxis is simply how Christianity is practised, so the KKK would be a small part of that. Christian doctrine is another thing, just as communist doctrine is. No Christian lives up to Christian doctrine, because no Christian could (as a simple example, we unwittingly kill insects every time we walk, cf. 'thou shalt not kill').
0
reply
username196545
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#83
Report 8 years ago
#83
(Original post by im so academic)
What's wrong with being an individualist?
It isn't helpful to aid living in a socialist utiopia, is it?
0
reply
Fusilero
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#84
Report 8 years ago
#84
(Original post by jismith1989)
But we have democratic republics with which to compare it, that's the point. We can say that America is more of a true democratic republic than North Korea. We can't say that country X is more of a true communist state than North Korea; we can only suggest that potential country Y would be more of a true communist state than North Korea, which is much less persuasive.

So what about my second point: Could it not be that no 'true' communist countries exist precisely because the very ideology is impracticable?

Actually, Christian praxis is simply how Christianity is practised, so the KKK would be a small part of that. Christian doctrine is another thing, just as communist doctrine is. No Christian lives up to Christian doctrine, because no Christian could (as a simple example, we unwittingly kill insects every time we walk, cf. 'thou shalt not kill').
On the comparison point, I would argue that the Nordic States, even France and Britain and most of Europe, are better "Socialist" states than North Korea in regards to how it treats it's workers - even if they are heavily dominated by the interests of the Bourgeoisie.
0
reply
damidude
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#85
Report 8 years ago
#85
(Original post by Oswy)
Who's they?
OKOK its just a few capitalist enthusiasts that I know.

But honestly, I don't subscribe to any of these 'ideologies' myself, and you know why? Because there is no perfect ideology. We didn't need ideologies in the past. Only human nature.
0
reply
faber niger
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#86
Report 8 years ago
#86
(Original post by im so academic)
What's wrong with being an individualist?
In fact, there's quite a strong tradition of individualism even within socialist thought. ("Marxists argue that freeing the individual from the necessity of performing alienating work in order to receive goods would allow people to pursue their own interests and develop their own talents without being coerced into performing labour for others." [Wikipedia]) See the first sentence of Oscar Wilde's famous essay on socialism:

"The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody. In fact, scarcely any one at all escapes."
0
reply
limetang
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#87
Report 8 years ago
#87
In short. It is good in an ideal world, but we don't live in an ideal world and it just can't work.
0
reply
lightburns
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#88
Report 8 years ago
#88
I had family living in East Berlin. (East was communist, West was capitalist). They liked it.

In fact, one of them decided to move to West Berlin, but when he got there, wondered why he had ever moved. He realised that East Berlin was better; he preferred how it ran, and had a better standard of life.

Communism does not work under an oppressive dictatorship though.

I used to think that communism was good for poor countries, and capitalism was good for rich countries. Now I think differently. I think they are very different ways of life, both with their downsides, but both are quite possible to work.
0
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#89
Report 8 years ago
#89
(Original post by damidude)
OKOK its just a few capitalist enthusiasts that I know.

But honestly, I don't subscribe to any of these 'ideologies' myself, and you know why? Because there is no perfect ideology. We didn't need ideologies in the past. Only human nature.
An ideology doesn't have to be 'perfect' to identify with it, in my view anyway. I know that there are arguments against socialism for example, but there are also arguments against all systems, so the issue is not whether there are imperfections but whether despite the imperfections you are still attracted to the central ideas in toto.

Also, I'd advise caution in the identification of 'human nature', it's actually a heavily contested idea, not least because humans are very adaptable and can live in all kinds of different circumstances. There's also the danger of thinking that kinds of behaviour which are dominant in our current form of society are somehow 'natural' or 'normal'. It's worth considering how far each kind of society encourages some behaviours and discourages others. While some might argue that humans are 'naturally' greedy and capitalism is an expression of that nature, it could equally be argued that capitalism itself makes us behave that way and punishes us if we do otherwise, so that our 'greed' isn't so much 'natural' as a response to our conditions.
0
reply
Bambi2803
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#90
Report 8 years ago
#90
(Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
That's a very Hobbesian approach, ofc it boils down to points of view, however I don't believe yours is correct so hey ho.

And we don't have the benefit of hindsight, Marx was writing like 150 years ago, very little has changed since then. We're not in some post-Communist stage are we? Communism didn't fail in the end because we've never had Communism; it was never implemented properly, it was never Communism, we do not have hindsight at all. The World today is very similar to the one Marx was writing in; massive disparities of wealth, booms and busts... I see limited change.
Very little has changed??
Yes that's true I just got back from the chimney sweep shift myself
The UKhas gone from a primarily industrial power with lots of urban industrial working poor (the group Marx wrote for) to a service-based economy where means of production has been outsourced and manufacturing has played a diminishing role. It's nowhere near as relevant as it was when the manifesto was published

As for fatuous argument 'we've never had communism' well i hear that all the time by deluded people. Communism happened and the only way it managed to persuade kulaks/farmers/etc from parting with their stuff was at the barrel of a gun or liquidation.
0
reply
arabcnesbit
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#91
Report 8 years ago
#91
(Original post by Oswy)
An ideology doesn't have to be 'perfect' to identify with it, in my view anyway. I know that there are arguments against socialism for example, but there are also arguments against all systems, so the issue is not whether there are imperfections but whether despite the imperfections you are still attracted to the central ideas in toto.

Also, I'd advise caution in the identification of 'human nature', it's actually a heavily contested idea, not least because humans are very adaptable and can live in all kinds of different circumstances. There's also the danger of thinking that kinds of behaviour which are dominant in our current form of society are somehow 'natural' or 'normal'. It's worth considering how far each kind of society encourages some behaviours and discourages others. While some might argue that humans are 'naturally' greedy and capitalism is an expression of that nature, it could equally be argued that capitalism itself makes us behave that way and punishes us if we do otherwise, so that our 'greed' isn't so much 'natural' as a response to our conditions.
This, this exactly.

The reason I favour a capitalist system is because at the moment it is the most dominant system on earth. If you are trying to live a communist/socialist lifestyle under a capitalist rulebook you would fail and have a generally miserable life because you'll receive no reward for your efforts.

To succeed under the capitalist system you need capital. If you don't, the rules of the game are fixed against you and you have to work very hard to overcome this by getting a good education then a great job or borrowing capital and using this to make capital of your own.

If tomorrow a revolution takes place and Britain becomes a communist state, I will firstly try to move to another country but failing this I will become the best communist I can. Why? Because the rules just changed and we're playing a different game now. I would become the greatest little communist ever. I would kiss the ass of everyone above me, talk about all the great communist thinkers and how marvellous they all are. I'd be the most vocal supporter of communism and work my way as far up the greasy pole of the communist party that I could.

Guess what, I'd still have the big house with the nice car in the drive. My kids would still go to the best schools, even though such things wouldn't possibly occur in a communist utopia.

The history of humanity is this. If you can't change the rules you master them and twist them in your favour regardless of what these rules are. In the future people will look on our society with the same bewildermint that we have when viewing past civilisations.

Also if you study the demise of past societies and civilisations you'll find something very interesting.

They all fell apart either by war or when the money ran out, regardless of what beliefs their society was built on.
0
reply
ma3eeni
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#92
Report 8 years ago
#92
Communism is the work of Satan.

Obama is the anti-christ .... The world is coming to an end.
1
reply
LaughingBro
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#93
Report 8 years ago
#93
Capitalism=greed=banking crisis=bailouts.
0
reply
damidude
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#94
Report 8 years ago
#94
(Original post by Oswy)
An ideology doesn't have to be 'perfect' to identify with it, in my view anyway. I know that there are arguments against socialism for example, but there are also arguments against all systems, so the issue is not whether there are imperfections but whether despite the imperfections you are still attracted to the central ideas in toto.

Also, I'd advise caution in the identification of 'human nature', it's actually a heavily contested idea, not least because humans are very adaptable and can live in all kinds of different circumstances. There's also the danger of thinking that kinds of behaviour which are dominant in our current form of society are somehow 'natural' or 'normal'. It's worth considering how far each kind of society encourages some behaviours and discourages others. While some might argue that humans are 'naturally' greedy and capitalism is an expression of that nature, it could equally be argued that capitalism itself makes us behave that way and punishes us if we do otherwise, so that our 'greed' isn't so much 'natural' as a response to our conditions.
:congrats: I concede.
0
reply
Alex-jc123
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#95
Report 8 years ago
#95
Communism is not as bad as many paint it to be. I think it is better than petty Capitalism where a fool can inherit a business, rather than achieve the position through merit and unremitting labour. Capitalism also has the weakness of frequently experiencing 'booms' and 'busts'.
1
reply
Acerbic
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#96
Report 8 years ago
#96
(Original post by Installation)
It gives gvts an excuse to take all your stuff, and frankly is usually used as an excuse for totalitarianism
Communism is the ideal of a stateless world - there would be no government to take things. Capitalism, however, is inherently reliant upon an authority-wielding state to enforce the principles of private property which it is built upon.

If you're scared of the government, become a communist.
0
reply
Acerbic
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#97
Report 8 years ago
#97
(Original post by Genocidal)
In addition to all these reasons, eventually people will become tired and unmotivated because why work hard if you can't get anything for working that little bit harder? Same thing happened in the USSR.
You carry on working because collective societies are based upon the 'don't work, don't eat' principle. The only way to improve the lot of yourself is to improve the lot of everybody.
0
reply
MostCompetitive
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#98
Report 8 years ago
#98
Yes.
0
reply
Fusilero
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#99
Report 8 years ago
#99
(Original post by Acerbic)
You carry on working because collective societies are based upon the 'don't work, don't eat' principle. The only way to improve the lot of yourself is to improve the lot of everybody.
Ah yes, the Lumpenproletariat. I wonder if Marx would have put people who live off the state for the entirety of their lives through the benefit system into that class - I don't think they existed in his time, unless you count the aristocracy of the time.
0
reply
planetearth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#100
Report 8 years ago
#100
(Original post by Lewis :D)
I mean, the idea looks really good, but it isn't viable at all.
People naturally take charge, therefore a higher class is automatically formed.
Plus my geography teacher said communists knew how to look after their own.
It depends.

There are many different forms of Communism, so it is sometimes hard to define communism itself.

Most people go by the original version proposed by Karl Marx.

I prefer to follow the main concepts of the theory proposed by Marx, however I think that a stateless country would just be chaos. A truly transparent and fair Communist Democracy is the ideal in my point of view, however this has only ever been achieved by a few countries or states, such as Kerala in India.

According to the theory of Karl Marx, countries will gradually move from Capitalist ideologies to socialist ones. We can see evidence of that in the British state with the relatively recent introduction of pensions, benefits, the welfare system and the NHS. They will then reach a stage of Communism, which should be the "end state" but I suspect that this will not be the case, and societies and states around the world will just keep changing and advancing in different ways.

Overall, the actual ideology of Communism is one based almost solely on moral incentives.

Therefore communism itself is built on what we generally believe to be "good" if you like.

It brought forward the amazing ideas of all humans being "born free and equal", against the extreme prejudices and class systems that existed in its early times.

You will find many Communist ideologies in the many of your Human rights. Communism is a big part of our lives, yet many people do not realise it.

Many people I have encountered who think Communism is bad, also support capitalism strongly and believe it is the "best" ideal we have.

They do not accept that if they support Capitalism, they support inequality and the exploitation of the poor.
1
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! (502)
37.8%
No - but I will (102)
7.68%
No - I don't want to (91)
6.85%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (633)
47.67%

Watched Threads

View All