What exactly is wrong with Communism? Watch

This discussion is closed.
Oswy
Badges: 13
#101
Report 7 years ago
#101
(Original post by Stratos)
...

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?
Ah, I see. That's an interesting idea.
0
Stratos
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#102
Report 7 years ago
#102
(Original post by Oswy)
Ah, I see. That's an interesting idea.
I call it the Asimov hierarchy.:cool:
0
Oswy
Badges: 13
#103
Report 7 years ago
#103
(Original post by Stratos)
I call it the Asimov hierarchy.:cool:
0
the realist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#104
Report 7 years ago
#104
Because communism is not truly about equality or freedom it cannot succeed. To force people into a position of "equality", requires influence from the top or outside, either legal, financial or physical force to push the people into such an unnatural state of living. A slave is not free or equal just because everyone else is a slave(and only has one master/oppressor instead of a whole class/caste of them).

If you force everybody to be equal, you have infringed on a fundamental FREEDOM of theirs.

It is not usually possible to force this upon people without major coersion, by definition those doing the coersion have a monopoly on violence and political power. Meaning the very idea of communism has been destroyed before it can even be effectively implemented.

Everything becomes about the "party" until they are basically the new upper-class, except usually with even more brutal and unfair legal and political practises than simply being richer than everyone else.

Equality of opportunity and personal+property with a small governement are the closest you can come, and even they evade true political fruition. Libertarian much better than communism when it comes to this, true freedom and equality is based on maximising the personal rights and freedoms of the individual.
0
MTR_10
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#105
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#105
(Original post by Don John)
Er, no, this is a fact generally agreed by economists. It's in any economics textbook you can buy.
Textbooks written to support the capitalist system. ie. What role would an writer on economics have in a communist world with no economy so to speak. They are serving their own interest (as most people do in capitalism).
0
Don John
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#106
Report 7 years ago
#106
(Original post by MTR_10)
Textbooks written to support the capitalist system. ie. What role would an writer on economics have in a communist world with no economy so to speak. They are serving their own interest (as most people do in capitalism).
You're denying the fact that communism makes no economic sense.
0
MTR_10
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#107
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#107
(Original post by Don John)
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.
The incentive to work is for the good of the system. Not for individual gain. The problem with your argument is that hard work no longer pays. ie. Capitalism has reached a turning point where the more effort you put in/ the higher reward is no longer true and a reorder of the system is necessary.

The emphasis in communism will always be on the collective and on the system. Not on the individual. Hence the individual will not work harder than his neighbour but will work to support the system.

Meritocracy has failed.
0
MTR_10
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#108
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#108
(Original post by Don John)
You're denying the fact that communism makes no economic sense.
It makes perfect economic sense.
0
MTR_10
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#109
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#109
(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. 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 ****.
Everyone is equal. We are all the same species with the same abilities and needs. It is the environment which surrounds us which distinguishes us from others. The environment created by a desire to be different, to be special and to be superior. We get so lost in thinking about how different others are, yet these are minor details which exist only because of the environment we work in. For example, the colour of somebody's skil has a huge influence on their social standing and career opportunties, yet essentially that person is the same as everyone else but it is the society and culture which have shaped the stereotype and judgements people make.

You haven't given a definition to the word 'better'? If somebody has talents then it is not merely that they are better and superior to others. It is their duty (as a human being) to use that talent for the good of the system.

Leadership is subjective. Why can't the entire group lead. People taking responsibility for the group? Rather than individuals being held responsibility for the group. This would eradicate the blame culture and hostility that you seem to think is natural to the human race? If we need to build houses then why can't we have people contributing instead of fighting over blame/ responsibility/ leadership/ power?

The government is only there to prevent misuse of the system. If the system was not misused then there would not be any need for a government or central power.

The desire for more only stems from a struggle for power/ status/ money. These three things do not exist in pure communism.

Capitalism drives egos.

Again, the concept of 'average' would not exist because there would be no high and low. Just a continuous peace and unity.

Why wouldn't you want t be like everyone else? What drives your desire to stand out/ be special?
0
MTR_10
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#110
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#110
(Original post by silverbolt)
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
By nature we all have the ability to feel love, compassion and empathy. These emotions came way before aggression and greed dominated.
0
MTR_10
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#111
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#111
(Original post by the realist)
Because communism is not truly about equality or freedom it cannot succeed. To force people into a position of "equality", requires influence from the top or outside, either legal, financial or physical force to push the people into such an unnatural state of living. A slave is not free or equal just because everyone else is a slave(and only has one master/oppressor instead of a whole class/caste of them).

If you force everybody to be equal, you have infringed on a fundamental FREEDOM of theirs.

It is not usually possible to force this upon people without major coersion, by definition those doing the coersion have a monopoly on violence and political power. Meaning the very idea of communism has been destroyed before it can even be effectively implemented.

Everything becomes about the "party" until they are basically the new upper-class, except usually with even more brutal and unfair legal and political practises than simply being richer than everyone else.

Equality of opportunity and personal+property with a small governement are the closest you can come, and even they evade true political fruition. Libertarian much better than communism when it comes to this, true freedom and equality is based on maximising the personal rights and freedoms of the individual.
The global communist revolution I am proposing would have to be entirely voluntary as any form of force would not create a sustainable system. I think one day people will choose equality out of free will and once that happens, communism will take over. therefore the change comes from within not above as you suggest.

Peace and harmony is the most natural way of living.

Slaves would not exist in communism. Masters would not exist. Those two only exist in contrast.

Emphasising the individual is not sustainable and the root of all problems.
0
Oswy
Badges: 13
#112
Report 7 years ago
#112
(Original post by the realist)
...Libertarian much better than communism when it comes to this, true freedom and equality is based on maximising the personal rights and freedoms of the individual.
Libertarianism is just a defence of the freedom of those with money and/or private property. Those who have little or none of these things can just go starve as far as libertarianism is concerned.
0
the realist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#113
Report 7 years ago
#113
(Original post by Oswy)
Libertarianism is just a defence of the freedom of those with money and/or private property. Those who have little or none of these things can just go starve as far as libertarianism is concerned.
Yes that is the nature of FREEDOM. Some would see it as a problem.

But even national socialism is better than communism. Lets be honest about that.

The faceless name of government owes you nothing except justice, Human charity and love used to be the foundation of caring. The only reason libertarianism would hit people hard in this age is because the system has already kept alive the dependants. Libertarianism prevents problems a lot easier than it can solve the ones already in existence.
0
the realist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#114
Report 7 years ago
#114
(Original post by MTR_10)
The global communist revolution I am proposing would have to be entirely voluntary as any form of force would not create a sustainable system. I think one day people will choose equality out of free will and once that happens, communism will take over. therefore the change comes from within not above as you suggest.

Peace and harmony is the most natural way of living.

Slaves would not exist in communism. Masters would not exist. Those two only exist in contrast.

Emphasising the individual is not sustainable and the root of all problems.
OK good luck with that theoretical massive synchronized convincing you have to do there
0
Oswy
Badges: 13
#115
Report 7 years ago
#115
(Original post by the realist)
Yes that is the nature of FREEDOM. Some would see it as a problem.

But even national socialism is better than communism. Lets be honest about that.
Freedom to starve isn't really worth much to the person starving, is it?

As far as Communism being a society in which everyone is treated equitably and has their basic needs met in a spirit of mutual support and cooperation, then I think it is easily preferable to National Socialism. On the other hand, the Nazis were, like Libertarians, only interested in the welfare of a select group.

And you don't need to SHOUT at me in capital letters either.
0
the realist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#116
Report 7 years ago
#116
(Original post by Oswy)
Freedom to starve isn't really worth much to the person starving, is it?

As far as Communism being a society in which everyone is treated equitably and has their basic needs met in a spirit of mutual support and cooperation, then I think it is easily preferable to National Socialism. On the other hand, the Nazis were, like Libertarians, only interested in the welfare of a select group.

And you don't need to SHOUT at me in capital letters either.
The faceless name of government owes you nothing except justice, Human charity and love used to be the foundation of caring. The only reason libertarianism would hit people hard in this age is because the system has already kept alive the dependants. Libertarianism prevents problems a lot easier than it can solve the ones already in existence.

Justice is for everyone, I'm not sure what your complaint is with justice and how it only serves a small portion of people, please highlight this small proportion of people who benefit from libertarianism? All dependants aside from the extremely unfortunate should have Guardians(read:family/community) who provide for them or else they shouldn't exist. No welfare babies thanks.
0
the realist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#117
Report 7 years ago
#117
(Original post by Oswy)
Freedom to starve isn't really worth much to the person starving, is it?

As far as Communism being a society in which everyone is treated equitably and has their basic needs met in a spirit of mutual support and cooperation, then I think it is easily preferable to National Socialism. On the other hand, the Nazis were, like Libertarians, only interested in the welfare of a select group.

And you don't need to SHOUT at me in capital letters either.
Yeah man, thats why the Germans converted hyperinflation and a destitute population into the best army in the world, Whilst the Soviets had Gulags and tonnes of flesh and blood to throw at their enemies.....

All the eccentricities of nazism aside, a nationalist version of socialism is the only form i find in the slightest viable.
1
Oswy
Badges: 13
#118
Report 7 years ago
#118
(Original post by the realist)
The faceless name of government owes you nothing except justice, Human charity and love used to be the foundation of caring. The only reason libertarianism would hit people hard in this age is because the system has already kept alive the dependants. Libertarianism prevents problems a lot easier than it can solve the ones already in existence.

Justice is for everyone, I'm not sure what your complaint is with justice and how it only serves a small portion of people, please highlight this small proportion of people who benefit from libertarianism? All dependants aside from the extremely unfortunate should have Guardians(read:family/community) who provide for them or else they shouldn't exist. No welfare babies thanks.
Libertarianism is an ideology designed to maximise the advantages of those who have wealth, whether we're talking about money or land or whatever. That's it. It's a bare-faced lie to suggest that libertarians care about everyone's freedoms or liberties, they really, really don't. If freedom and liberty for all mattered to them libertarians would call for the abolition of private property, and which is in fact the forced monopolisation of portions of the earth by 'owners' to the exclusion, alienation and exploitation of all others. To be fair, left-libertarians do often call for the abolition of private property, but you're not one of those I'm confident enough.
0
Oswy
Badges: 13
#119
Report 7 years ago
#119
(Original post by the realist)
Yeah man, thats why the Germans converted hyperinflation and a destitute population into the best army in the world, Whilst the Soviets had Gulags and tonnes of flesh and blood to throw at their enemies.....

All the eccentricities of nazism aside, a nationalist version of socialism is the only form i find in the slightest viable.
The Nazis were no more 'socialist' than Stalinist Russia was 'communist'. Just because someone takes on a label for its political usefulness doesn't mean they live up to its meaning.
0
the realist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#120
Report 7 years ago
#120
(Original post by Oswy)
Libertarianism is an ideology designed to maximise the advantages of those who have wealth, whether we're talking about money or land or whatever. That's it. It's a bare-faced lie to suggest that libertarians care about everyone's freedoms or liberties, they really, really don't. If freedom and liberty for all mattered to them libertarians would call for the abolition of private property, and which is in fact the forced monopolisation of portions of the earth by 'owners' to the exclusion, alienation and exploitation of all others. To be fair, left-libertarians do often call for the abolition of private property, but you're not one of those I'm confident enough.
Of course we shouldn't abandon private property. It's the foundation of civilization. Please inform me why we should destroy that important legal concept.....?

Unless the Rich obtained that money through theft, deception or government corruption(both opposed directly by libertarianism), then someone made a choice to give them that money in trade. We have freedom to choose where and with whom to do bussiness, who we work for etc. Libertarianism is actually just a simple foundation of laws and there are plenty of allowances that can be made within it's guidelines. Slavery has been both both suported and opposed to the death and eventually abolished under relatively libertarian governance(America) for instance.
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! (482)
37.8%
No - but I will (98)
7.69%
No - I don't want to (88)
6.9%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (607)
47.61%

Watched Threads

View All