Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    Can we stop the thread now

    All that is going to happen for the next few pages is people saying

    'Works in Theory, Not in Practice'

    The majority of these people will have failed to ever read something such as the 'communist mainfesto' or have a signifcant grasp of any area surrounding political systems (all though some will - these will be a tiny minority)

    End of thread.

    Oh a man that speaks sense.

    Its simply fashionable to say 'Works in theory, not in practice' as it gives the veneer that the person saying it a) knows what the theory is, and b) knows what the practice was. Most of the time, they know very little of either.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    It's flawed as an ideal surely? It's grossly inefficient.
    Thats the capitalist in you coming out! Money is not the be all and end all and if everyone had a satisfactory standard of living rather than the masses eating **** whilst a few dine on caviar then the world would be a much better place. My friend and I constantly argue this out. He argues that French railways suck because they are ineffecient (they are heavily subsidised), yet I think this subsidy is neccesary in order to keep standard of service high and ticket prices low. Inefficiency is justified if it is a means to an end, and an efficient system is often a compromised one. Our efficient capitalist world compromises the standard of living of 4/5s of the world population.

    Think about it. Its time for a change.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The works in theory, not in practise stuff is inconsistent bs tbh. A good theory should include all relevant understanding. Besides that and more to the point, it doesn't matter how inconsistent or contradictory to 'human nature' the ideal is, under the right circumstances people can live it.

    Take indoctrinated religion as a prime example. People when given only one set of ideas/opinions, which are deemed right by the surrounding population, inevitably live according to those ideas. Communism is ineffective only because it is incompatible with current ideas, not that it's incompatible with human nature.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by carldaman)
    Thats the capitalist in you coming out! Money is not the be all and end all and if everyone had a satisfactory standard of living rather than the masses eating **** whilst a few dine on caviar then the world would be a much better place. My friend and I constantly argue this out. He argues that French railways suck because they are ineffecient (they are heavily subsidised), yet I think this subsidy is neccesary in order to keep standard of service high and ticket prices low. Inefficiency is justified if it is a means to an end, and an efficient system is often a compromised one. Our efficient capitalist world compromises the standard of living of 4/5s of the world population.

    Think about it. Its time for a change.

    What a ridiculous thing to say. Capitalism is NOT the cause of the worlds poverty - You think that Africa or India would be well off and free from famine and disease if we all became communists?

    You fail to grasp something that so many will in this debate - TO POINT OUT THE FAILINGS OF SOMETHING IS NOT TO SAY THAT A CHANGE IS WARRANTED - BEFORE YOU CAN DEMAND A CHANGE - YOU NEED TO SHOW AN ALTERNATIVE.

    As Russia, North Korea, or Cuba will show you - Communism is the worse of two evils.

    Is capitalism perfect? Hell no! But Unless you can find a way to bring your Utopian ideal of clean water and good TV for all into being then I see so reason to switch.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rIcHrD)
    Communism is ineffective only because it is incompatible with current ideas, not that it's incompatible with human nature.
    Please point to an example of an instance where Communism (which has been in place for long enough to alter the contemporary social conscious) works?

    Ill give you a clear one where your point is proven to be false:

    North Korea - "Current ideas" there are Communist - the ideal is communist - the culture is communist - the whole social stucture is communist.

    Now - I ask you - would you like to live there?
    Didn't think so.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Woah! Lets get one thing straight. People who identify themselves in the modern word as 'communists' or 'socialists' would certainly not identify themselves with Stalinist regimes in Korea, Cuba, or Russia. The reason for this? They are not Marxist, despite the rhetoric. Just because you say you are something, does not mean you are actually it.

    As I have written long posts to prove this time and time again, I'll just go and find a link on which I've already posted it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Ignore some of this, as it is not all relevant.

    Well, arguing to what extent an ideology can be developed until it is no longer the same ideology is like arguing how long is a piece of string. Just because our society does not accurately reflect the works of original liberals such as J.S Mill, Bentham or Locke does not mean that we do not live in a liberal society! It would be very difficult to say that Trotskyists such as myself are not Marxists as Trotsky himself actually added very little to the ideology. He mainly symbolises the strand of Marxists that reject the idea that USSR was socialist and argue that it was instead a 'state capitalist' society.

    I agree with you that to say the Soviet Union was Marxist would be misleading. It was in no way Marxists. Not only was it founded on the ultra-conservative and racial ideas of Stalin (probably where your comparisons with Hitler and Mussolini may arise) but it was dogged by intense class exploitation - the ruling class no longer being the traditional industrialists of the West, but the beaurocrats of the Kremlin and other high serving politicians and civil servants who lived a life of luxury whilst condemning the majority of workers and peasants to a life of poverty. However, in order for the USSR to be described as capitalist, not only must class exploitation be in place, but also competition. It was impossible to make sense of Russia "on its own". It was part of a competitive world economy. The main mechanism of competition in Russia came in the shape of military competition. That was why guns and not butter were the priority in economic growth. As part of world capitalism, Russia and its satellites also experienced economic crises. These lay behind the huge revolts that occurred in East Germany, Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia from the 1950s. Finally the whole edifice of Stalinism was brought down in 1989-91, often with huge popular revolutions.

    From the whole tragic experience two things stand out. First, socialism must be international, or it will be destroyed from within and without. Second, socialism and the most widespread democracy are indissolubly linked.

    Finally, capitalism may have benefited us to an extent (is that not the idea of a class society - some benefit and some lose out?) but it does not benefit the world at all. In the constant pursuit of profit that capitalism produces, our environment is being torn apart by the wasteful competion that capitalism induces. Also, our taxes may benefit the less fortunate, but when you look at the whole picture, less than 1% of our taxes go to international development. We pay less than 1% to countries that have not only been ripped apart by neo-liberal economics that we force upon them, but also still suffer from our past imperial adventures.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingslaw)
    Woah! Lets get one thing straight. People who identify themselves in the modern word as 'communists' or 'socialists' would certainly not identify themselves with Stalinist regimes in Korea, Cuba, or Russia. The reason for this? They are not Marxist, despite the rhetoric. Just because you say you are something, does not mean you are actually it.

    As I have written long posts to prove this time and time again, I'll just go and find a link on which I've already posted it.

    This is very true - but I think it is a bit odd to claim that the principles of Marx would work well in North Korea but for the totalitariansim. THe fact is that people will argue, as above, that the practical impossibilities of Communism have nothing to do with inate Human nature, but that it is a result of a society. This is the cart before the horse - society is a product of human nature, NOT visa versa (though I admit it is self-nourishing). Also - N Korea provides an example of a place (as RUssia did) where though it was not pure marxism - the ideal of working for the greater good was firmly in place. However due to this it is CLEAR that the lack of incentive etc led to low productivity.

    My point is that the "its society" idea doesnt work. You only have to look at communist states where they have a more socially conscious ideal to see it doesnt help much at all.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    This is very true - but I think it is a bit odd to claim that the principles of Marx would work well in North Korea but for the totalitariansim. THe fact is that people will argue, as above, that the practical impossibilities of Communism have nothing to do with inate Human nature, but that it is a result of a society. This is the cart before the horse - society is a product of human nature, NOT visa versa (though I admit it is self-nourishing). Also - N Korea provides an example of a place (as RUssia did) where though it was not pure marxism - the ideal of working for the greater good was firmly in place. However due to this it is CLEAR that the lack of incentive etc led to low productivity.

    My point is that the "its society" idea doesnt work. You only have to look at communist states where they have a more socially conscious ideal to see it doesnt help much at all.
    I agree entirely. There must be more to a functioning communist society than a 'good communist society' and a lack of totalitarianism. There is a whole economic analyses to the failure of Stalinism and its abdication from Marxism. Marx was after all an economic determinist (or at least widely percieved as one). For the economic flaws of Stalinism, I point to the post above /\.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I believe communism should be the ultimate goal for society, as it is the only way a realistic (rather than an ideological) utopia can be created.
    I would call myself a communist, certainly, in theory.
    Because the theory is correct, but in practice it is used as a tool for dictatorship.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iluvatar)
    I believe communism should be the ultimate goal for society, as it is the only way a realistic (rather than an ideological) utopia can be created.
    I would call myself a communist, certainly, in theory.
    Because the theory is correct, but in practice it is used as a tool for dictatorship.
    Depends on your idea of utopia.

    Mine is big cars, HD motorcycles, huge houses with swimming pools, tons of cash in the bank, and 4 week vacations in the Bahamas. Communism doesn't seem to have that on the menu.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iluvatar)
    I believe communism should be the ultimate goal for society, as it is the only way a realistic (rather than an ideological) utopia can be created.
    Why do you assume that Utopia is possible?

    I believe that mating with birds is the only way that humans can fly... does that mean it can be done?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bougeoursie_Roo)
    oh, and fo u think communism cud ever work?
    No I don't. For the simple reason that people are not clones of one another. They have different skills, strengths and weaknesses.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Depends on your idea of utopia.

    Mine is big cars, HD motorcycles, huge houses with swimming pools, tons of cash in the bank, and 4 week vacations in the Bahamas. Communism doesn't seem to have that on the menu.
    Got to say I'm with you mate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Depends on your idea of utopia.

    Mine is big cars, HD motorcycles, huge houses with swimming pools, tons of cash in the bank, and 4 week vacations in the Bahamas. Communism doesn't seem to have that on the menu.
    Sure it does, just climb up the Party ladder!

    Seriously though, I suppose both extreme communism and extreme capitalism are theoretical ideals that aren't necessarily that functional in practice. Although I have more sympathy for left-wing than right-wing values, I myself wouldn't want to follow any ideology too rigidly.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Depends on your idea of utopia.

    Mine is big cars, HD motorcycles, huge houses with swimming pools, tons of cash in the bank, and 4 week vacations in the Bahamas. Communism doesn't seem to have that on the menu.
    That is a very materialistic view of utopia, but if everyone in the end has what they want, then it certainly is communism
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    Why do you assume that Utopia is possible?

    I believe that mating with birds is the only way that humans can fly... does that mean it can be done?
    Because that is, i would hope, the ultimate goal of humans as a species, creating utopia.
    I don't know how long it will take, but i'm sure in myself that it is possible, and that in some part, i want to help it be a reality.

    No, but it means that you can at least believe it, and things can't be done if there isn't at least belief in them.
    If you wish to mate with birds, thats your perogative though.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iluvatar)
    That is a very materialistic view of utopia, but if everyone in the end has what they want, then it certainly is communism
    I'm a very materialistic person.

    Is that what communism prescribes? Everyone having what they want? I must have missed that page in Marx's undecipherable ramblings.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iluvatar)
    Because that is, i would hope, the ultimate goal of humans as a species, creating utopia.
    Since everybody's idea of utopia is different it's an unacheiveable goal.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I'm a very materialistic person.

    Is that what communism prescribes? Everyone having what they want? I must have missed that page in Marx's undecipherable ramblings.
    Not quite, no, but that is the only way utopia can be achieved, because people aren't happy until they have everythign they want, so then they will be willing to live in the way communism represents.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 8, 2004
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

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

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.