What exactly is wrong with Communism? Watch

This discussion is closed.
Aspiring Medic 201
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#81
Report 7 years ago
#81
Communism can only be upheld by an armed dictatorship. Look at the former USSR, China or even present day Moldovia. The problem is that human beings are essentially primitive. We always strive for more and more, and are very rarely satisfied with the idea that we should all be equal.
0
Woffles
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#82
Report 7 years ago
#82
(Original post by Democracy)
First off, I reject the USSR as being anything remotely resembling socialism or communism, it was a dictatorial state where workers rights and the proletariat were trampled on by state bureaucrats who simply took capitalism out of the hands of private individuals, and put it in the hands of party apparatchiks.

But regardless proletariat doesn't simply mean "worker", that's rather simplistic (for example petit-bourgeoise are still "workers" but they're not proletariats), the meaning is somewhat subtler, meaning the class of society that do not own the means of production and sell their labour power in exchange for wages. What I was getting at in my post is that the proletariat make up the majority of society hence their "dictatorship" is not dictatorship in a fascistic type of way, but is really democracy.
Ahh sweet, thanks for clearing that up
0
Aspiring Medic 201
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#83
Report 7 years ago
#83
(Original post by Democracy)
Funny that, since Marxian historicism notes that primitive human societies actually greatly resembled communism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism



You're welcome :borat:
And then we evolved.
0
faber niger
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#84
Report 7 years ago
#84
How odd. Oswy's not arrived yet.
1
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#85
Report 7 years ago
#85
(Original post by planetearth)
Absoloute nonsense.

Look at Kerala in India.

It has the highest quality of life and HDI in the whole of India and one of the highest in the whole world, is one of the fairest and richest democratic states in India and has an excellent human rights records.

All this radical change came under the decades long rule of the Communist party there, that has been consistently re-elected there as a result of its popular success.

What was that about Tyranny?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India
One small state? Thats all you offer?

This is hardly the same as a fully functioning country is it. As an example of communism working on a large scale thats pretty pathetic
0
channy
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#86
Report 7 years ago
#86
(Original post by Democracy)
Er, you realise we are talking about perhaps 10-12,000 years ago right? We most certainly have not evolved as a species since then.

Indeed various forms of primitive communism are still found all over the world in aboriginal communities. So in fact originally humans were not selfish and lived in groups which progressed along the lines of mutual help and co-operation. It is capitalism which goes against this, not communism.
I remember watching a BBC documentary years back, where some tribe members from a sheltered community visited the UK. I vividly remember the scene, where as they were walking along the streets of London, they saw homeless people, and for the love of their lives, they could not understand why.

It fascinates me, how we have supposedly "progressed" since then.
1
channy
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#87
Report 7 years ago
#87
(Original post by Aj12)
One small state? Thats all you offer? So we have one or two exceptions.
Only the bloody one, or two.

Or three?
0
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#88
Report 7 years ago
#88
(Original post by channy)
Only the bloody one, or two.

Or three?
Well the only exception I have been given is this Indian Provence. Hence the post edit
0
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#89
Report 7 years ago
#89
(Original post by Democracy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

Socialist theory maintains that such communities won't be huging sprawling superstates along the lines of Ingsoc and Oceania. It's far more practical to have smaller communities working in mutual co-operation like ones in Spain or India.

Oh and then there was the Paris Commune too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune
Then why have we not seen states break down into smaller communes? It just never happens. No one seems to make the jump from the authoritarian government to the people power bit. We just end up with a demented form of socialism
0
channy
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#90
Report 7 years ago
#90
(Original post by Aj12)
Well the only exception I have been given is this Indian Provence. Hence the post edit
But it has, for thousands of years. It breaks down only when the population count in such a community increases above a certain extent (although there are several exceptions to this, posted above), and when certain figures step up to become authoritarian and or autocratic, thus ending true or real communism; á la Pol Pot.
0
Erebos
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#91
Report 7 years ago
#91
There's nothing wrong with communism, it's the perfect system for a perfect species, unfortunately we're not a perfect species.
0
Don John
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#92
Report 7 years ago
#92
(Original post by MTR_10)
Only if you are driven by materialism or wealth in the first place.
Er, no, this is a fact generally agreed by economists. It's in any economics textbook you can buy.
0
Don John
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#93
Report 7 years ago
#93
(Original post by Andrii)
In theory, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's pretty damn close to perfection actually.

Human nature however dictates that we will and have failed miserably at applying it to the real world (in most cases anyway) because leaders of communist states are human ergo they're self-interested beings who quickly acquire a taste for power and lose sight of all ideals
That's incorrect. Read any economics textbook and it'll tell you that communism (in fact) causes:

- Overemployment from everyone regardless of ability being given a job
- This in turn causes lousy quality of production
- Since firms get subsidies regardless of the the quality of their production, one gets even more lousy quality of production
- It disincentivises hard work, because you'll still be in a job no matter how bad you are at it
0
Don John
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#94
Report 7 years ago
#94
(Original post by Democracy)
:nah:




http://ih52.stier.net/notes/marx/dj.htm

Marxism is worker's democracy and meritocracy in the purest sense of the word.
Both incorrect. In reality, all communism causes is for people to work without effort, because there's no incentive to. Everyone gets the same reward, all the time, regardless of their merit. It's in any economics textbook.
0
wactm
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#95
Report 7 years ago
#95
Communism does not work. That is the only problem with it, otherwise it is a good idea.

The 3 reasons it does not work are this, first of all you have to assume everyone is equal. This is just not true. The only thing that Barack Obama and that crackwhore down the road have in common is the fact that they are both human. Some people are just better. People go on about equality but the plain fact remains, if others werent superior equality wouldnt be an issue. Some people are just better than you.

Secondly, if everyone is equal who will lead? The government cant have any power more than an ordinary person, so how could it work. If you place 1 person in charge its suddenly a dictatorship. If you place a government of elected officials in charge its democracy. Hypothetically if there was some magic AI computer that controlled everything it would still be a dictatorship because something is in charge.

And finally, if you destroyed currency and simply handed out resources equally(food, water, clothes etc), those resources would have value and become the new currency spawning capitalist behavour.

It does not work because humans arent equal. It can not work because of our egos. It can not work because you get a lot of people who dont want to be average. I definately wouldnt want to be just like everyone else. Boring as ****.
0
silverbolt
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#96
Report 7 years ago
#96
On paper communism works very well, it is an excellent system of government.

In practice it fails miserably as humans are not nice people.

That ebing said democracy isnt perfect either
0
Stratos
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#97
Report 7 years ago
#97
(Original post by Drewski)
In theory it's great, but the practicalties of it fall down.

Who's in charge? How do they get there?
How do you cope with any employment structure that requires a hierarchy [ie, armed forces]?
Robots.
0
Oswy
Badges: 13
#98
Report 7 years ago
#98
(Original post by wactm)
Communism does not work. That is the only problem with it, otherwise it is a good idea.

The 3 reasons it does not work are this, first of all you have to assume everyone is equal...
No, you have to assume that everyone has comparatively equal needs (that is to say basic or essential needs), which they do. We all need things like water, food, shelter, clothing, medicine, social life and opportunities which ensure our basic well-being, and need them in more-or-less equal measure. Aside from this I'd argue that communism is more interested in treating people equitably and which is something slightly different from having to believe everyone is in some metaphysical sense 'equal'.

(Original post by wactm)
Secondly, if everyone is equal who will lead?...
Marx's idea of Communism was of a society without a state, hence the extent to which anarchists and communists have much in common. Apart from this, leadership in communities can easily be democratic and shared.

(Original post by wactm)
And finally, if you destroyed currency and simply handed out resources equally(food, water, clothes etc), those resources would have value and become the new currency spawning capitalist behavour.

...
If people were able to give and receive resources so as to satisfy their needs and maintain their well-being without a system of abstracted exchange - what exactly would a system of abstracted exchange be needed for? You do realise that things like Rolex watches are actually substitutes (and poor ones at that) for what people really need; namely social recognition and approval. Besides, if things like private property were abolished along with other mechanisms of accumulation, then capitalist-orientated behaviour would be even more fruitless, and even among those few who weren't satisfied with, erm, being satisfied.
Oswy
Badges: 13
#99
Report 7 years ago
#99
(Original post by Stratos)
Robots.
It's certainly the case that under the trajectory of industrial capitalism, production capacities are steadily (though sometimes dramatically) going up as labour needs in relation to such capacities is likewise going down. As time goes by, advances in technology mean that less and less human labour is needed in ratio to production; more stuff but fewer workers. Unemployment and underemployment are an obvious and tragic consequence.

The emergence of all-singing and all-dancing robots, easily more a matter of when not if, would send that trend through the roof.
Stratos
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#100
Report 7 years ago
#100
(Original post by Oswy)
It's certainly the case that under the trajectory of industrial capitalism, production capacities are steadily (though sometimes dramatically) going up as labour needs in relation to such capacities is likewise going down. As time goes by, advances in technology mean that less and less human labour is needed in ratio to production; more stuff but fewer workers. Unemployment and underemployment are an obvious and tragic consequence.

The emergence of all-singing and all-dancing robots, easily more a matter of when not if, would send that trend through the roof.
Communism would work most efficiently in a self-sustaining environment such as Singapore, as there will be less dependence on humans hence more equality amongst each other.

However what I actually meant was a government which was led by robots same for defence forces so that oppression isn't human vs human hence unfair but human vs robot which means humans stay equal however below robots. In such case would we still be able to call it a hierarchy?
0
X
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! (124)
39.62%
No - but I will (17)
5.43%
No - I don't want to (20)
6.39%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (152)
48.56%

Watched Threads

View All