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

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    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.
    Happy to help.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    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.
    1) I never said that the installation couldn't be done via democracy
    2) but once a democracy installs communism, it's basically throwing away that democracy. it would mean that it would need to install totalitarianism to make it last more than one or two electoral cycles. if the rich people wanted to leave the country, the communist system would probably rapidly collapse, so they'd have to force them to stay, which is pretty grossly authoritarian. they'd have to force people to do certain jobs that they don't want to do (i.e. engineering, medicine, dentistry, vetinarianism, etc) because the society wouldn't be able to survive without them. again, that's not a free society, is it? how else are they going to convince enough people to do those very difficult jobs for the same wage as very easy jobs?
    do you know what? I'd actually really like to hear your explanation for why communism wouldn't lead to an economy like north korea or the former eastern bloc - how do you think that the quality of life would keep increasing over time like in the west within communism? obviously cuba today hasn't progressed since communism started and all their cars are from the 1950s era for a reason.

    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.
    revolution? are you talking about merely a coup towards government like in russia and cuba? because in russia and cuba they didn't have "revolutions" (i.e. the entirety of society uprising), they had armed coups by communist forces. it wasn't done via the consent of the people, obviously, or else they'd have simply installed democracy. but they didn't. in fact, I wager that they specifically rejected democracy because it would have meant that communism would have never won.

    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.
    if greed is so bad, how come the country you live in, which prospers through it, is making you so comfortable? how come it's given you a computer? logically explain to me a likely scenario where things like commercial grade computers would exist in a communist country where there is no competition and no market to induce huge rewards for better technology and products? if I told you that individuals competing with each other, however "mean" that seems to you, causes them all to perform at their highest point, or think of the best/better ideas in their fields, which means that they bring in more resources via market demand and hence more production and from there *cheaper* production, and then more international trade via that more efficient production of goods that are made all around the world (i.e. this is why hong kong is way richer than north korea even though hong kong was actually poorer than korea in 1945) then *obviously* capitalism makes far more sense if it makes everybody richer (i.e. if businesses get wealthier via greater production/entrepreneurialism and greater trade success, then they have more money to pay workers, whom are competing with each other for better wages in exchange for the best output) and even when we're not all equal, at least we're *all* going to become richer than we would be under communism. the poorest in our society today at least are better off under capitalism than communism - at least homeless people can get food out of dumpsters that are thrown out by stores at the end of the day, and at least they can beg for change. in north korea, they can't do either of those because a) stores have barely any food, and b) people barely have any money to give. in the UK, homeless people at least don't die. in north korea, I'd say it was the rule for those homeless kids in the rural areas to starve to death.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    1) I never said that the installation couldn't be done via democracy
    2) but once a democracy installs communism, it's basically throwing away that democracy. it would mean that it would need to install totalitarianism to make it last more than one or two electoral cycles. if the rich people wanted to leave the country, the communist system would probably rapidly collapse, so they'd have to force them to stay, which is pretty grossly authoritarian. they'd have to force people to do certain jobs that they don't want to do (i.e. engineering, medicine, dentistry, vetinarianism, etc) because the society wouldn't be able to survive without them. again, that's not a free society, is it? how else are they going to convince enough people to do those very difficult jobs for the same wage as very easy jobs?
    do you know what? I'd actually really like to hear your explanation for why communism wouldn't lead to an economy like north korea or the former eastern bloc - how do you think that the quality of life would keep increasing over time like in the west within communism? obviously cuba today hasn't progressed since communism started and all their cars are from the 1950s era for a reason.



    revolution? are you talking about merely a coup towards government like in russia and cuba? because in russia and cuba they didn't have "revolutions" (i.e. the entirety of society uprising), they had armed coups by communist forces. it wasn't done via the consent of the people, obviously, or else they'd have simply installed democracy. but they didn't. in fact, I wager that they specifically rejected democracy because it would have meant that communism would have never won.



    if greed is so bad, how come the country you live in, which prospers through it, is making you so comfortable? how come it's given you a computer? logically explain to me a likely scenario where things like commercial grade computers would exist in a communist country where there is no competition and no market to induce huge rewards for better technology and products? if I told you that individuals competing with each other, however "mean" that seems to you, causes them all to perform at their highest point, or think of the best/better ideas in their fields, which means that they bring in more resources via market demand and hence more production and from there *cheaper* production, and then more international trade via that more efficient production of goods that are made all around the world (i.e. this is why hong kong is way richer than north korea even though hong kong was actually poorer than korea in 1945) then *obviously* capitalism makes far more sense if it makes everybody richer (i.e. if businesses get wealthier via greater production/entrepreneurialism and greater trade success, then they have more money to pay workers, whom are competing with each other for better wages in exchange for the best output) and even when we're not all equal, at least we're *all* going to become richer than we would be under communism. the poorest in our society today at least are better off under capitalism than communism - at least homeless people can get food out of dumpsters that are thrown out by stores at the end of the day, and at least they can beg for change. in north korea, they can't do either of those because a) stores have barely any food, and b) people barely have any money to give. in the UK, homeless people at least don't die. in north korea, I'd say it was the rule for those homeless kids in the rural areas to starve to death.
    Under communism there wouldn't be any homeless people.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    Under communism there wouldn't be any homeless people.
    yes there would be
    the economy wouldn't be managed (centrally) effectively at all. there simply isn't enough information for merely one organisation/institution (the state) to effectively co-ordinate resources to each respective sector, and such an organisation would never be able to single-handedly stimulate new technologies, new ideas, new ways of doing things creatively (whether it's with the arts or for business) because they are a monopoly under such a system with no competition. without competition, they have no reason to be effective and no reason to *have* to do things better and better like people do under capitalism. this means that after a while, there will be less and less resources, or at least an absolute stagnation of resources. over years and years with a static amount of resources, inevitably there will be more and more people that the state simply will not be able to house/feed, or give a job to, because they will have run out of money. for example, if you give a person a job that is absolutely economically pointless (but necessary under communism's goal) somebody is being given money to not produce any wealth/market demand (for instance, giving people jobs as coal miners when nobody~ wants coal any more), and then the result is *loss*, not profit. socialism (and communism) are massively wasteful because they invest in human idleness and sluggishness, and the money that is given to the unproductive will be taken from the productive, and hence, less productivity will commence. this must therefore mean that over time there will be less wealth and therefore more homeless people. you can't just say "communism gives everybody a home" when the resources to create those homes will eventually deplete more and more.

    "can we discuss communism properly?"
    -well I just did and I've given you an abundance of reasons already, too, why it doesn't work.
    -whereas on the other hand, you barely even responded to my last message. you merely gave me 1 sentence whereas I gave you paragraphs.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    'the world can produce enough food to provide every person with more than 2 700 Calories per day'
    How does this translate to nutrients? Would everybody get enough protein, vitamins, etc.? Would the distribution of those be equal?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    yes there would be
    the economy wouldn't be managed (centrally) effectively at all. there simply isn't enough information for merely one organisation/institution (the state) to effectively co-ordinate resources to each respective sector, and such an organisation would never be able to single-handedly stimulate new technologies, new ideas, new ways of doing things creatively (whether it's with the arts or for business) because they are a monopoly under such a system with no competition. without competition, they have no reason to be effective and no reason to *have* to do things better and better like people do under capitalism. this means that after a while, there will be less and less resources, or at least an absolute stagnation of resources. over years and years with a static amount of resources, inevitably there will be more and more people that the state simply will not be able to house/feed, or give a job to, because they will have run out of money. for example, if you give a person a job that is absolutely economically pointless (but necessary under communism's goal) somebody is being given money to not produce any wealth/market demand (for instance, giving people jobs as coal miners when nobody~ wants coal any more), and then the result is *loss*, not profit. socialism (and communism) are massively wasteful because they invest in human idleness and sluggishness, and the money that is given to the unproductive will be taken from the productive, and hence, less productivity will commence. this must therefore mean that over time there will be less wealth and therefore more homeless people. you can't just say "communism gives everybody a home" when the resources to create those homes will eventually deplete more and more.

    "can we discuss communism properly?"
    -well I just did and I've given you an abundance of reasons already, too, why it doesn't work.
    -whereas on the other hand, you barely even responded to my last message. you merely gave me 1 sentence whereas I gave you paragraphs.
    I've replied to a lot of these now - your outlook is neither refreshing nor compelling. Hence why you got a short reply.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    I've replied to a lot of these now - your outlook is neither refreshing nor compelling. Hence why you got a short reply.
    no you haven't - there's no way. you can't change reality. that's what you're claiming to have done.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    How does this translate to nutrients? Would everybody get enough protein, vitamins, etc.? Would the distribution of those be equal?
    One would assume that yes, the message there is that there is enough food for everyone.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    no you haven't - there's no way. you can't change reality. that's what you're claiming to have done.
    What?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    One would assume that yes, the message there is that there is enough food for everyone.
    Well that's no good.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    #VoteCorbyn
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    What?
    I'm talking about the observable reality of our social world. individual human beings are selfish - our incentives are selfish and our goals are selfish. you can tell me all you want that we have room for altruism or charity but charity doesn't actually define our behaviour like rational self-interest does. if you have the idea that human beings are self-interested, then that would mean that we would have a market around us (as the outlet of competition amongst equally selfish individuals)...which we do. so...I don't know what you want to see inside the world other than self-interest - if we weren't self-interested, and we had a ystem where we as a community defined the co-ordination of resources, why is it that we co-ordinate resources based on the lines of competition, bilateral contracts, self-interest, etc, as opposed to equality, universal contracts, aid, etc?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    Well that's no good.
    This seems like such a pointless detail to argue - at any rate in situations of extreme malnutrition calories are what are needed to keep people alive. It follows that if there are enough calories to provide everyone with ample energy to survive, then there will probably be enough of each of the other nutritional groups. Look at the massive abundance and wastage of food in our country - do you really think we couldn't be feeding everyone if we were motivated to do so?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    I'm talking about the observable reality of our social world. individual human beings are selfish - our incentives are selfish and our goals are selfish. you can tell me all you want that we have room for altruism or charity but charity doesn't actually define our behaviour like rational self-interest does. if you have the idea that human beings are self-interested, then that would mean that we would have a market around us (as the outlet of competition amongst equally selfish individuals)...which we do. so...I don't know what you want to see inside the world other than self-interest - if we weren't self-interested, and we had a ystem where we as a community defined the co-ordination of resources, why is it that we co-ordinate resources based on the lines of competition, bilateral contracts, self-interest, etc, as opposed to equality, universal contracts, aid, etc?
    Every capitalist: 'communism can never work because humans are innately selfish/greedy/self-interested/********s etc.'

    Why can no capitalist challenge this assumption? Answer: because without it their argument disintegrates.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    Every capitalist: 'communism can never work because humans are innately selfish/greedy/self-interested/********s etc.'

    Why can no capitalist challenge this assumption? Answer: because without it their argument disintegrates.
    why are you challenging *capitalists* to critique the assumption of capitalists themselves? and I didn't say "********s" I said "self-interested" - you aren't a **** head by being self-interested. am I a ******** for going to university for my own self-interest? we live in an economy where everything~ is done to maximise the happiness of each individual themselves - a market would be the logical conclusion of this starting point, because it suggests that individuals will compete, as property is privately owned and allocated on the grounds of the highest value (i.e. best performance, most demanded products, etc) - and that's *literally* the reality we live in, proving the assumption that I began at true. if I suggested that human beings were altruistic, then we *would* live in a communist society already - but we don't!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    why are you challenging *capitalists* to critique the assumption of capitalists themselves? and I didn't say "********s" I said "self-interested" - you aren't a **** head by being self-interested. am I a ******** for going to university for my own self-interest? we live in an economy where everything~ is done to maximise the happiness of each individual themselves - a market would be the logical conclusion of this starting point, because it suggests that individuals will compete, as property is privately owned and allocated on the grounds of the highest value (i.e. best performance, most demanded products, etc) - and that's *literally* the reality we live in, proving the assumption that I began at true. if I suggested that human beings were altruistic, then we *would* live in a communist society already - but we don't!
    Back at it "so I am *insert blatantly wrong interpretation of what you said*"

    smh
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Back at it "so I am *insert blatantly wrong interpretation of what you said*"

    smh
    oh my god. what interpretation is wrong though? literally tell me? you keep accusing me of making "blatantly wrong assumptions" but literally *they* themselves made the claim! they claimed that capitalists say "**** heads"!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    It follows that if there are enough calories to provide everyone with ample energy to survive, then there will probably be enough of each of the other nutritional groups.
    No, those two don't follow. A mcdonald's has a lot of calories but I wouldn't be relying on that for my vitamin C intake.

    This might be a "pointless detail" to argue but I feel as though most other arguments have already been made in here by other people. Need somebody to go into the more off the wall bs.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    why are you challenging *capitalists* to critique the assumption of capitalists themselves? and I didn't say "********s" I said "self-interested" - you aren't a **** head by being self-interested. am I a ******** for going to university for my own self-interest? we live in an economy where everything~ is done to maximise the happiness of each individual themselves - a market would be the logical conclusion of this starting point, because it suggests that individuals will compete, as property is privately owned and allocated on the grounds of the highest value (i.e. best performance, most demanded products, etc) - and that's *literally* the reality we live in, proving the assumption that I began at true. if I suggested that human beings were altruistic, then we *would* live in a communist society already - but we don't!
    I'm not challenging capitalists to 'critique' their assumption - I'm challenging them to justify it (which you have failed to do). What you fail to factor into your 'everything is done to maximise the enjoyment of each individual themselves' is that capitalism creates an environment where some people are powerless to do anything to maximise their own enjoyment. And no, we don't even live in a capitalist society where the elite of ability earn the most - inheritance and the poverty trap scupper any possibility of that being true. Being self-interested doesn't make you a ********, but putting your own self-interest over someone else's does. Capitalism almost forces you to do that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    No, those two don't follow. A mcdonald's has a lot of calories but I wouldn't be relying on that for my vitamin C intake.

    This might be a "pointless detail" to argue but I feel as though most other arguments have already been made in here by other people. Need somebody to go into the more off the wall bs.
    It's a fair detail to question but:
    A) I obviously can't say for certain - it doesn't seem like an unfair assumption.
    B) it's not massively important to the argument.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • 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.