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

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    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.
    It certainly seems like a fairly pleasant and caring way to live life in a community. The only problem is that its voluntary nature would stop those with the most wanting to join - meaning those with the least would not really benefit. It works on a very small scale but on a very small scale it won't be able to help many people.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    It certainly seems like a fairly pleasant and caring way to live life in a community. The only problem is that its voluntary nature would stop those with the most wanting to join - meaning those with the least would not really benefit. It works on a very small scale but on a very small scale it won't be able to help many people.
    Maybe. It certainly was in the past - But that's why this requires a social evolution and not a governmental revolution. Without people caring about their fellow man, you have corruption. If you have corruption and centralized bureaucracy, the corrupt will naturally gravitate to to the central bureaucracy.

    This happened to the Soviet Union. It happened in China.

    A counter-argument to yours would be:
    Mitt Romney is part of the church and he donates very substantial amounts of his income to those very things.
    The Marriott family who own the Hotels do the same thing.
    Many very wealthy people are part of the church and donate substantial amounts of their money and time to others within the church.

    I don't disagree with you that the current system is broken; But is the current system broken because -people- are broken or is the current system broken because the system itself is flawed?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I listened to an interesting podcast(can't remember where) discussing at what point Communism stops working.

    The example given was if a few people were marooned on an island somewhere they would operate a communist system of pooling and sharing all the rescources for survival, but where is the breaking point be in terms of population size before it doesn't work?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    Maybe. It certainly was in the past - But that's why this requires a social evolution and not a governmental revolution. Without people caring about their fellow man, you have corruption. If you have corruption and centralized bureaucracy, the corrupt will naturally gravitate to to the central bureaucracy.

    This happened to the Soviet Union. It happened in China.

    A counter-argument to yours would be:
    Mitt Romney is part of the church and he donates very substantial amounts of his income to those very things.
    The Marriott family who own the Hotels do the same thing.
    Many very wealthy people are part of the church and donate substantial amounts of their money and time to others within the church.

    I don't disagree with you that the current system is broken; But is the current system broken because -people- are broken or is the current system broken because the system itself is flawed?
    I just feel like maybe people could be fixed by systematic reform, or at least strongly encouraged to do so.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The sort of leaders/group of people required to allow communism in its idealistic form to work could probably make capitalism work just as well. I used to be of the same mind as the OP that communism was the way forward....but after having worked in a 9-5 environment and witnessed the ease of which people settle for an easy/less fulfilling mediocre life I have changed my views. Yes this could be due to the environment but stating communism is definitely the way forward when there has never been an example of it working (to my knowledge) is ridiculous.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by philo-jitsu)
    The sort of leaders/group of people required to allow communism in its idealistic form to work could probably make capitalism work just as well. I used to be of the same mind as the OP that communism was the way forward....but after having worked in a 9-5 environment and witnessed the ease of which people settle for an easy/less fulfilling mediocre life I have changed my views. Yes this could be due to the environment but stating communism is definitely the way forward when there has never been an example of it working (to my knowledge) is ridiculous.
    Of course when I say it's the way forward I am speaking in idealistic terms. Although I do think communism could be put in practice - I just hate to see it ostrisized as it currently is, especially considering for many this is for the wrong reasons.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Why does politics always have to be reasoned in a binary fashion.

    People need to accept that whilst true communism is a great idea it cannot be implemented into our society as it always converges to dictatorship. However capitalism needs to be caged by socialism in the form of government interventions to prevent unfair distribution of wealth and things such as the exploitation of workers by multinational organisations etc. (maybe we shall this a mixed economy ). Pure capitalism just craves for anarchy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saran23)
    Why does politics always have to be reasoned in a binary fashion.

    People need to accept that whilst true communism is a great idea it cannot be implemented into our society as it always converges to dictatorship. However capitalism needs to be caged by socialism in the form of government interventions to prevent unfair distribution of wealth and things such as the exploitation of workers by multinational organisations etc. (maybe we shall this a mixed economy ). Pure capitalism just craves for anarchy.
    I agree with you to some extent - I just feel that whenever people are allowed to they will manipulate and subvert the system. That's why I champion the extreme.
    Offline

    3
    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.
    I've got just one question for you.
    why is eastern europe poor?
    it was generally as wealthy as western europe at the end of WWII - so why is it so poor now?
    there were many dictatorships across the entirety of europe, so it couldn't just be based on dictatorship

    individual ownership leaves the individual as accountable for the use of that property - if they fail, it's their faulure. if they succeed, then it is their sole success.
    if you have a government in control of everything, and their successful use of the property of society is non-existent, as they are under socialism, then they are not accountable
    accountability propels people to earn and to strive - if you don't show up for work, you'll get fired, you'll lose money, you'll end up on the streets. but this kind of logic even extends to risks. if you take a risk with your property, then you could turn it into a huge success. this is the story of most entrepreneurs. if you have a nation under an economically unaccountable government, then the government will continuously shirk and productivity and technology will never advance, because the reasons for its advancement (individual rationality) will not be harnessed. if you live in a society where the individual is rationally accountable for themselves (capitalism), then they will maximise their property, and they will generate happiness for everybody they deal with in the market (the assembly of those living in the economy)

    capitalism is the democracy of the consumer. incentives are the gears of that democracy. no incentives = no market and no progress.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    I've got just one question for you.
    why is eastern europe poor?
    it was generally as wealthy as western europe at the end of WWII - so why is it so poor now?
    there were many dictatorships across the entirety of europe, so it couldn't just be based on dictatorship

    capitalism is the democracy of the consumer. incentives are the gears of that democracy

    “All rational action is in the first place individual action. Only the individual thinks. Only the individual reasons. Only the individual acts.”
    Ludwig von Mises
    Eastern European countries are poor now that is correct, but they're only poor because they became capitalist after, otherwise they could have sustained themselves without the need for economic power.

    Communism can be democratic.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    Eastern European countries are poor now that is correct, but they're only poor because they became capitalist after, otherwise they could have sustained themselves without the need for economic power.
    no. that hypothetical is now the story of north korea. at least romania is richer than north korea. because they became capitalist. to become capitalist is to release the incentives of the individual - that means that people will compete with others, both domestically and internationally, who also have incentives. that means that people will have a reason to generate wealth, because competiting with others means that you must create something *better* than something like in a communist society that simply "works". north korea is not a society of incentives. the only incentive there is to not die.

    Communism can be democratic.
    lol oh please - so if we suddenly had communism and everybody who owned property had to give it to the government via force, and 30 years later the people elected a capitalist government instead, how exactly are they just going to flip a reversal switch on all of that? communism can't just be flip flopped - communism is meant to be permanent. you can't just have a government seize everything and then just change its mind.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    no. that hypothetical is now the story of north korea. at least romania is richer than north korea. because they became capitalist. to become capitalist is to release the incentives of the individual - that means that people will compete with others, both domestically and internationally, who also have incentives. that means that people will have a reason to generate wealth, because competiting with others means that you must create something *better* than something like in a communist society that simply "works". north korea is not a society of incentives. the only incentive there is to not die.



    lol oh please - so if we suddenly had communism and everybody who owned property had to give it to the government via force, and 30 years later the people elected a capitalist government instead, how exactly are they just going to flip a reversal switch on all of that? communism can't just be flip flopped - communism is meant to be permanent. you can't just have a government seize everything and then just change its mind.
    You seem to be forgetting that practically the whole western world is against North Korea - funnily enough because the western world can't accept another country having its own ideology.

    The instalment of communism unfortunately probably cannot be democratic - but once a stable situation is established there's no reason why the people couldn't vote on issues like in any democracy. The caveat being that a revolution would have to have a vanguard against people exercising their 'democratic right' to prevent a movement out of their own greed and no better reason.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    You seem to be forgetting that practically the whole western world is against North Korea - funnily enough because the western world can't accept another country having its own ideology.
    1) this isn't the reason why north korea cannot economically advance - it cannot economically advance because it doesn't operate along competitive lines where it has a reason to produce something better than somebody else out there.
    2) north korea doesn't have its own ideology. it has marxism. its "ideologies" are: "military and police first - people last" (how lovely) and "self-reliance" which is hilariously ironic for a self-purporting "communist" society.

    The instalment of communism unfortunately probably cannot be democratic - but once a stable situation is established there's no reason why the people couldn't vote on issues like in any democracy. The caveat being that a revolution would have to have a vanguard against people exercising their 'democratic right' to prevent a movement out of their own greed and no better reason.
    1) well, I never said that the *installment* of communism couldn't be technically democratic - only you're saying that. I'm saying that the actual effective reversal of communism isn't something that can happen. if you create a communism system, you effectively create "year zero" for that economy and society.
    2) see, you're quoting lenin with that vanguard stuff. lenin was not only a dictator but his system in general was a blue print of economic failure and corruption. why are you wanting an authoritarian and failed model of communism as opposed to an anarchic one, or something along those lines?
    3) greed is good. greed creates happiness. if people want more and more, then they'll be forced to be altruistic in one sense because they will have to satisfy the needs of others. for instance - J K rowling - she wrote a series of books - she didn't have to, but to do so, if she was successful in her market, would have granted her mass wealth. selling the harry potter books, though, regardless of her greed, caused mass happiness to all of her fans. she didn't gain money simply through greed is what I am saying - she did it by making people happy. I could say that about the stories of bill gates or anybody who's had mass commercial success. bill gates selling you a computer meant that your life was enriched - you could accomplish tasks more easily and you are granted greater means to entertainment - so you've in one way profited from bill gates himself because you are happier with his product than you are without - so you're received an excess of happiness (like a profit) because that happiness > your money in your hands and not his.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    I agree with you to some extent - I just feel that whenever people are allowed to they will manipulate and subvert the system. That's why I champion the extreme.
    However bureaucrats are capable of doing the same in a communist model. Social democracy is the best and most evolved political solution for humanity. However there needs to be a perfect balancing act between the capitalist and socialist system within this model. One must not dominate over the other.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    1) this isn't the reason why north korea cannot economically advance - it cannot economically advance because it doesn't operate along competitive lines where it has a reason to produce something better than somebody else out there.
    2) north korea doesn't have its own ideology. it has marxism. its "ideologies" are: "military and police first - people last" (how lovely) and "self-reliance" which is hilariously ironic for a self-purporting "communist" society.



    1) well, I never said that the *installment* of communism couldn't be technically democratic - only you're saying that. I'm saying that the actual effective reversal of communism isn't something that can happen. if you create a communism system, you effectively create "year zero" for that economy and society.
    2) see, you're quoting lenin with that vanguard stuff. lenin was not only a dictator but his system in general was a blue print of economic failure and corruption. why are you wanting an authoritarian and failed model of communism as opposed to an anarchic one, or something along those lines?
    3) greed is good. greed creates happiness. if people want more and more, then they'll be forced to be altruistic in one sense because they will have to satisfy the needs of others. for instance - J K rowling - she wrote a series of books - she didn't have to, but to do so, if she was successful in her market, would have granted her mass wealth. selling the harry potter books, though, regardless of her greed, caused mass happiness to all of her fans. she didn't gain money simply through greed is what I am saying - she did it by making people happy. I could say that about the stories of bill gates or anybody who's had mass commercial success. bill gates selling you a computer meant that your life was enriched - you could accomplish tasks more easily and you are granted greater means to entertainment - so you've in one way profited from bill gates himself because you are happier with his product than you are without - so you're received an excess of happiness (like a profit) because that happiness > your money in your hands and not his.
    You are aware that there is no prerequisite for communism to be undemocratic right? It's not as though by establishing democracy you are declaring communism over.

    Anarchism is very extreme and only succeeds at the height of utopianism - I don't see much of a problem with having an authoritarian ruler to lead the revolution/reformation. Lenin came into power in an already struggling nation - 1917 Russia had been defeated by the Germand in WW1 and had a very harsh treaty imposed upon her.

    Greed is not good. I'm glad you love your Harry Potter books and Windows phone... I hope they offset the people dying of starvation and disease.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saran23)
    However bureaucrats are capable of doing the same in a communist model. Social democracy is the best and most evolved political solution for humanity. However there needs to be a perfect balancing act between the capitalist and socialist system within this model. One must not dominate over the other.
    In an ideal world I would love to agree with you. Capitalism is a domineering ideology - it cannot coexist with anything else because a capitalist lives to profit - and profit is maximised by undermining regulation.
    Offline

    6
    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.
    I thought I would comment because you sound very similar to myself. I am a classical Marxist and a telic egalitarian.

    I am one of those who believe that the concept of "equal work and equal pay" for all jobs is not a bad concept: even within communist circles this is quite radical. Through the negation of natural ability and household incomes as contributors to financial reward (as found in capitalism) the proletariat feel valued for their work and the 'highest' positions are taken by those who want the job, not the money. So I suspect under this system the output will be less quantity, more quality. This system would also be able to naturally transition to a moneyless economy with mass production.

    This is as I said radical and therefore would need to happen on a global scale to stop doctors, lawyers, etc. from leaving to a capitalist economy. This would be quite authoritarian in the short term but in the long term people would become less materialistic and there would be a stronger community. These values would need to be encouraged in schools in a Leninist mode:
    "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted." -Lenin.

    Also, if you are very interested in the future of communism, pay close attention to Japan. The Japanese education system moves students along at the same pace in an atmosphere of collectivism and respect. They do not use gifted and talented education programs that Western countries fetishize and yet Japan is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world. Students have to clean their school so they learn to show respect to 'lower' professions. Finally birth rates are falling and automation is increasing. I predict that if communism rises again soon, it will be in Japan.

    Final point: you may not get many good responses here. A lot of people do not understand communism. They will use the usual arguments: genocide, apathy, etc. If you want to learn more, I would recommend revleft.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Communism can only exist in small communities and to some extent does exist in small communities even in the western world. If you think about a nuclear family communism is present. One of the parents will have a job, which earns money for the family, while the other parent stays at home to look after the house and the children. Both parents are working equally hard and although they may not be paid the same amount they share everything they have with each other and their children, who aren't able to provide for themselves. This is communism. However this will only work in communities where everyone cares about each other and everyone knows that everyone else is working hard and therefore deserving of their share.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by New_Frontiers)
    I thought I would comment because you sound very similar to myself. I am a classical Marxist and a telic egalitarian.

    I am one of those who believe that the concept of "equal work and equal pay" for all jobs is not a bad concept: even within communist circles this is quite radical. Through the negation of natural ability and household incomes as contributors to financial reward (as found in capitalism) the proletariat feel valued for their work and the 'highest' positions are taken by those who want the job, not the money. So I suspect under this system the output will be less quantity, more quality. This system would also be able to naturally transition to a moneyless economy with mass production.

    This is as I said radical and therefore would need to happen on a global scale to stop doctors, lawyers, etc. from leaving to a capitalist economy. This would be quite authoritarian in the short term but in the long term people would become less materialistic and there would be a stronger community. These values would need to be encouraged in schools in a Leninist mode:
    "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted." -Lenin.

    Also, if you are very interested in the future of communism, pay close attention to Japan. The Japanese education system moves students along at the same pace in an atmosphere of collectivism and respect. They do not use gifted and talented education programs that Western countries fetishize and yet Japan is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world. Students have to clean their school so they learn to show respect to 'lower' professions. Finally birth rates are falling and automation is increasing. I predict that if communism rises again soon, it will be in Japan.

    Final point: you may not get many good responses here. A lot of people do not understand communism. They will use the usual arguments: genocide, apathy, etc. If you want to learn more, I would recommend revleft.
    To be honest I'm really grateful to finally have someone in agreement with me - I thought there might be a few more lefties in a student forum (or at least some free marketeers who could come up with something I hadn't heard before).

    I completely agree with your point on a global revolution being necessary for any success, this is why I believe that abolition of the nation state is what is required - without international unification how can one expect intra-personal co-operation? That is really why no previous isolated attempt at communism can be used to judge the system as a whole.

    I'll be sure to check out revleft, defending myself for a full day has got pretty tiring.
 
 
 
  • 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.