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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Communism is inherently wrong, i groups people together based upon random factors and distributes wealth in an unfair way.

    Communism, like Racism or Sexism, creates a US vs. THEM mentality that is extremely concerning whenever i see it, instead of judging people based upon their actions, they judge them based upon certain criteria, whether that be race, ethnicity, wealth or sex. This is WRONG and shouldn't be encouraged. Instead individual feats should be encouraged, it doesn't matter whether you are rich, poor, black, white or a woman, it only matters what you have done.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hovado)
    Is that like reefer madness?
    much worse
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    the true flavor of communism is the fake science of Lysenkoism...

    "More than 3,000 mainstream biologists were sent to prison or fired or executed as a part of this campaign instigated by Lysenko to suppress his scientific opponents. The president of the Agriculture Academy was sent to prison and died there, while the scientific research in the field of genetics was effectively destroyed until the death of Stalin in 1953.[2] Research and teaching in the fields of neurophysiology, cell biology, and many other biological disciplines was also negatively affected or banned"
    I don't see how that's inherent to communism, any heavily authoritarian form of rule has the potential to do such a thing, whether it's communist, fascist, religious, ect
    I mean even today, in our society research exploring relationships between things like race/gender and intelligence are very taboo. Perhaps it's not as extreme as Lysenkoism, but it's certainly not embraced regardless of the validity of the science.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amy Davidson)
    If I was asked what my political ideology is, I would have to say that I'm a communist. Funnily enough, most people don't like that, and it often doesn't give me a great reception. But meh, life goes on.

    Anyway, I'm really interested in politics, so I was just wondering, what are your personal opinions about it?
    But why.

    Why do you support communism? Why would anyone ever support communism.

    (you clearly haven't read animal farm)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    much worse
    Bloody isms with their Anslingers and Lysenkos. :fuhrer:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As a person who lives in an ex-communist country I'd say the idea itself is good, but naive and will never work. Therefore it should not be implemented in any country ever.

    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    Communism is a fantastic system one where the is no rich people or poor people because all wealth is shared. Its a system with a generous welfare state without cuts or sanctions or bedroom taxes.

    Many youths and students in Czech Republic are supportive of communism, many youths wear Che Guevara T shirts and Mao Zedong T shirts and also read Marx and Lenin. They are a generation that has suffered under capitalism and the Great Depression of 2008. Its no wonder they long for a system their grandparents enjoyed where university and health care was free and benefits were generous if you were jobless. Now all they see is cuts and charges for everything.

    I'd say that Titoism is probably the best kind of communism, it worked well in Yugoslavia and wasn't as draconian as the Russian or Chinese model.
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    Communism among youths in Czech Republic has reduced the amount of Czechs resorting to radical Islam and becoming jihadists which has been a growing problem there along with gangsters, kidnapping, insurgency etc.
    Could you tell me the source of all this information about the Czech Republic? I am Czech and I don't think that what you say is right. I haven't noticed any widespread support for communism among youth and I am a youth myself. Also the Czech Republic is an atheist country and I haven't heard about radical Islam being a problem now or in the past at all. Healthcare is affordable, health insurance paid partly by your employer or the state if unemployed. Studying at unis is free to some age, like 26 or so. Also, you couldn't have been jobless during the communist era. It was a crime and therefore would obviously not result in any benefits.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Sure, Communism is a great idea until you start killing people who don't believe in it.
    How many more need to die before people actually realise it's nothing more than an unrealistic fantasy? 100 million dead sounds like a high price.

    Maybe, just maybe the world will move towards what we currently class as socialism in the future due to increased automation. But Communism will never happen.

    How can you pay someone who empties bins or drives a taxi the same as a pilot or brain surgeon? It makes zero sense.
    Offline

    17
    Sounds like a good idea but I genuinely don't know enough about alternatives to say it's the best policy.

    All aside, I simply believe that wealth should not accumulate in the hands of the very few, and humans should be driven by compassion rather than greed.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Theoretically, it seems good - all about the community, needs of others and helping each other, which is why I understand your notion of it. But realistically and practically it's flawed. You simply can't get a large amount of people to buy into the collective nature of everything; where it has been implemented in the past, it's been forced. On a side note however, it works on a small scale - the Kibutz system in Israel.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Serine Soul)
    Sounds like a good idea but I genuinely don't know enough about alternatives to say it's the best policy.
    how does it even sound like a good idea?

    All aside, I simply believe that wealth should not accumulate in the hands of the very few, and humans should be driven by compassion rather than greed.
    but if somebody works harder, or more effectively, and they satisfy demand (and ultimately happiness) in the world, wealth gathering in their hands in particular is *inevitable* in addition to being fair and just. it's a cause and effect relationship. wealth concentration is a sign of one's success in making other people happy. even in the case of people who get wealthy over very trivial things (e.g. the kardashians) - that money didn't come from nowhere - it came from voluntary interactions from willing and interested audiences.

    human beings *are* pretty much greedy beings. if they weren't, why do we have poverty? why do we have separate nations? why do we have families and not clans? how do you change this fact? you can't just say "people shouldn't be greedy" and expect them to change - it's like saying "women shouldn't have periods" and expecting this mere hope to be fulfilled.
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)

    but if somebody works harder, or more effectively, and they satisfy demand (and ultimately happiness) in the world, wealth gathering in their hands in particular is *inevitable* in addition to being fair and just. it's a cause and effect relationship. wealth concentration is a sign of one's success in making other people happy. even in the case of people who get wealthy over very trivial things (e.g. the kardashians) - that money didn't come from nowhere - it came from voluntary interactions from willing and interested audiences.

    human beings *are* pretty much greedy beings. if they weren't, why do we have poverty? why do we have separate nations? why do we have families and not clans? how do you change this fact? you can't just say "people shouldn't be greedy" and expect them to change - it's like saying "women shouldn't have periods" and expecting this mere hope to be fulfilled.
    But do they work harder? Do they really?

    I hate to sound cliché but there's more to happiness than material goods.

    Indeed, sex tapes do make a lot of people happy.

    No, you can't change human nature but people should try to be more compassionate.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TearsInRain)
    Oh please don't tell me that our medicine and technology are the result of natural law. Natural =/=best. Humans are always improving on what nature has provided for us and Communism is the next logical step.

    Like how we did not give up airplanes because some of the first models crashed, we should not give up on the Communist ideal just because some of the early proponents were fascists.
    It is always an easy excuse among those on the left to say the communists of history weren't communists but 'fascists': no matter how many examples a person can give of the evils of communists we always get no true scotsman fallacies like this.

    Communism doesn't work because it is based on a jaundiced, completely flawed view of human nature. If your view of human nature is flawed so will your prescriptions. That is the problem with communism.

    Communist systems destroy incentives because they remove private rewards. there is no private property under communism so people have few incentives to work or improve their skills or methods. If farmers can't keep the proceeds of their produce they won't be efficient or productive. The Chinese learned this the hard way in the 1970s and changed their agricultural policies accordingly. They slowly introduced market incentives to allow farmers to keep their produce and even sell it to the market. That's how the Chinese began to climb out of their self-imposed poverty.

    The fact of the matter is that human beings are licentious, status-seeking and self-interested creatures. People do not regard other people equally (people struggle to admit this truth) because they value themselves first, then friends and family, and then their wider tribe. By equalising status you undermine people's incentives to improve themselves or their families, when people do not improve themselves or their methods society stagnates, unravels and ultimately collapses. Licentiousness is another aspect of human nature that communism overlooks: people will do anything that benefits them so long as they can get away with it. Under communism since the incentives to work are lowered people will simply be lazier both physically and intellectually. And you often get problems like the 'tragedy of the commons' or the free-rider problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

    This documentary should enlighten you on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9pn3iQU02w

    Private property rights are the best way to ensure that people work and strive to improve their methods. The cultures which lack strong property rights are always backward. Systems that rely on property are more in line with human nature than utopian schemes like communism.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Serine Soul)
    But do they work harder? Do they really?
    I said "harder or more effectively" - some people have more talent, some people work harder. either way, the result is an ability to satisfy demand, and hence, get money from it. if they are responsible for the success that they created, then they are responsible for the payment that they received. there's nothing immoral about having a lot of money so long as you earned it.

    I hate to sound cliché but there's more to happiness than material goods.
    I never claimed otherwise

    No, you can't change human nature but people should try to be more compassionate.
    "try" but ultimately fail in the grand scheme of things, if we're talking about altruism
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    I said "harder or more effectively" - some people have more talent, some people work harder. either way, the result is an ability to satisfy demand, and hence, get money from it. if they are responsible for the success that they created, then they are responsible for the payment that they received. there's nothing immoral about having a lot of money so long as you earned it.

    I never claimed otherwise

    "try" but ultimately fail in the grand scheme of things, if we're talking about altruism
    So why is it that, let's say, when a doctor uses their talent and hard work to efficiently satisfy the demand of keeping people alive, they don't get millions coming to them like those at the very top? Same kind of logic applies here and to many other professions tbh.

    But you do talk about people as consumers? :dontknow:

    How do you know for certain that it'll fail? What if people overcame that 'natural greed'?

    Perhaps a very flawed idea but a better system could be where people are rewarded according to the contribution they make to society. Of course, the main pitfall would be measuring the contribution a person makes. Just an idea though
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amy Davidson)
    If I was asked what my political ideology is, I would have to say that I'm a communist. Funnily enough, most people don't like that, and it often doesn't give me a great reception. But meh, life goes on.

    Anyway, I'm really interested in politics, so I was just wondering, what are your personal opinions about it?
    Doomed to failure.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Serine Soul)
    So why is it that, let's say, when a doctor uses their talent and hard work to efficiently satisfy the demand of keeping people alive, they don't get millions coming to them like those at the very top? Same kind of logic applies here and to many other professions tbh.
    That's only really true in the NHS. Doctors make a killing in plenty of other developed countries, although not quite in the millions, for most of them.
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    That's only really true in the NHS. Doctors make a killing in plenty of other developed countries, although not quite in the millions, for most of them.
    'Killing'

    Even then, why not millions? They've done the same haven't they in terms of talent and hard work?

    Hmm if 'X' is able to use their talent and hard work to efficiently satisfy the demand 'Y' why can't they earn just as much as the multibillionaires? :beard:
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Serine Soul)
    'Killing'
    LOL, didn't even realise it. :lol:

    Even then, why not millions? They've done the same haven't they in terms of talent and hard work?

    Hmm if 'X' is able to use their talent and hard work to efficiently satisfy the demand 'Y' why can't they earn just as much as the multibillionaires? :beard:
    It's important to note that the overwhelming majority of multi-billionaires (and there aren't many of these, as a percentage of all people) don't actually make billions in income; their cumulative wealth is in the billions. Same goes for millionaires, although to a lesser extent.

    And, of course, much of the wealth of the very rich comes from investing their earned wealth for a profit -- you'd find that the only people actually making millions a year from their day job are the CEOs of large, multi-national companies.

    I don't quite get the example of doctors, because although they are undoubtedly talented and hardworking (well, most of them...), so are many other doctors. The average junior doctor in, say, Bristol isn't exactly doing anything that another junior doctor in London couldn't do. A more like-for-like comparison with the case of CEO pay would be world-leading doctors, who pioneer new techniques and treatments, and they do indeed make millions.

    (On an unrelated note, that's also the reason why the claims of conspiracy theorists that 'Big Pharma' has a cure for cancer but is withholding it because it's more profitable to sell treatment drugs than cures is false. Also: despite the examples of junior doctors that I've used, it should be noted that it's not an oblique reference to my position on the junior doctors' contract.)
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    LOL, didn't even realise it. :lol:



    It's important to note that the overwhelming majority of multi-billionaires (and there aren't many of these, as a percentage of all people) don't actually make billions in income; their cumulative wealth is in the billions. Same goes for millionaires, although to a lesser extent.

    And, of course, much of the wealth of the very rich comes from investing their earned wealth for a profit -- you'd find that the only people actually making millions a year from their day job are the CEOs of large, multi-national companies.
    I know, I was just pointing out the flaw in the wording of OP's point.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Serine Soul)
    So why is it that, let's say, when a doctor uses their talent and hard work to efficiently satisfy the demand of keeping people alive, they don't get millions coming to them like those at the very top? Same kind of logic applies here and to many other professions tbh.
    because we have a market of doctors competing, mainly between private and public sources. if you have competition, even with high demand, the price will decrease to be around the kind of amount of money that satisfies the time and skills put into the work.

    But you do talk about people as consumers? :dontknow:
    yes. either consumers or tax payers. it's still the same thing when tax payers are "customers of democracy". but it's an economic axiom that the market > democracy in terms of satisfying demand, I mean, politicians don't have contracts with their voters. hell, with voter anonymity they don't even know who their voters are.

    How do you know for certain that it'll fail? What if people overcame that 'natural greed'?
    because why didn't that natural greed end after generations (almost 100 years) of communism in russia? why wouldn't it have ended there with such an environment?

    Perhaps a very flawed idea but a better system could be where people are rewarded according to the contribution they make to society. Of course, the main pitfall would be measuring the contribution a person makes. Just an idea though
    [quote]but why? that's not ending greediness either - that's just greed aimed at another incentive. they'll still be wanting the $ for their contributions to society. also, capitalism effectively does operate under this kind of scheme; the iphone was a contribution to society, hence apple made so much money
 
 
 
  • 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?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.