First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Why do you think Communism is good or bad?
8594 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/10/09
The thing i don't like about communism is that people have no freedom. The one i like is that everyone are equal. For capitalism, u allow to make money w/o the govt involvement. But, it separate the rich and the poor.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 9/10/09
Society needs elements of both communism, or at least socialism, and capitalism. Whenever you get too extremely capitalist you run into private monopolies.

Examples: Andrew Carnegie’s Steal Company, John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company, and the industrial revolution in general.

Whenever you get too extremely communist you run into public monopolies.

Examples:
Soviet Russia, North Korea, education in the United States, healthcare in Ontario, Canada.

Also, somebody here made a comment about how life quality in a communist state is low. Well, that’s true because in a strict communism you lose personal freedoms. Like, I want to be a writer. But, since the state doesn’t need artists to functions I don’t get to be a writer. Instead, the state chooses a job for me and tells me what job they need done. So, if there’s a shortage on rice farmers they’ll pull me out of the city and put me on the rice farm. Also, the monopolies make the state inefficient and thus poor. In Soviet Russia, for example, the average Russian spent 2 hours every day waiting in line.

On the flip side have any of you guys ever read about the Industrial Revolution? Have you ever heard of company towns? What about Farmers in the late nineteenth century? Have you ever seen, “Death of a Salesmen,” or read enjoyed any of the literature from that time?

The worst conditions we endure are not during times of extreme economic depression, but rather extreme economic expansion.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 9/10/09

Sekushi_Sushi wrote:

First of all, in a communist regime, people are all equal to each other no matter how educated that person is.


I see what you’re saying but I disagree. I think that a communism confuses the concepts of equality and sameness. As for the rest of my thoughts, view my other post.
19 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26
Offline
Posted 9/10/09
Nobody said communism is bad. Is just because it is an ideal idea and humanity couldn't achieve it yet, so we classified it as "bad".
like democracy, do you think is good? o'course people would think its good cause it got all those freedom you want~ but roll your mind back, if you give humanity too much freedom, they'll eventually start doing more crimes, for instance, US's crime rate is high.

so if you ask me, communism is actually a good thing, everybody is equal and at peace as long as you remained hard working and honest. the most shitiest problem is just that other communism countries are setting the bad example for it claiming themselves to be communism but at the end they are just autocracy. for your information, democracy is also autocracy. did you really think the gov't will let you decide everything? who needs the gov't then if that's so~!! XP
516 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Florida
Offline
Posted 9/29/09 , edited 9/29/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


aurilcia wrote:

Actually I think it's fair that you get paid what someone is willing to pay you. Hollywood actors get so much money because WE love them and WE want to see them in movies, so producers pay them more, everyone benefits from this, and everyone is happy. I think that it would be unjust if someone that doesn't even know you tells you how much you should be earning. I know that it seems like equality, but after you think about it little longer, it's basically taking away your freedom to decide.

Also, if everyone earn's equally, than people loose motivation to evolve, because they will get paid the same no matter what they do.


"Not true at all I had a job wear I was getting paid little to nothing yet I was happy and willing to work even 15 hours a day! Just because I loved my job. it was something I had fun doing. "
I get paid a lot more now being that I work under-contract for the government working on Smart Metals (that is all I can say). But tell you the truth I give it all up if it was possible to make a living doing what I love doing for work. But I sacrificed my passion for a better paying job.
If money was not a issue I be a more happy person, and will be more than willing to work even harder doing something I love. Just because I love doing it.


I know what you mean, because I know that there is many people that put doing what they like before money, however the materialistic side of humans will always get out at some point.
Besides, I will never approve of communism. My native country was under communist rule (notice, that communism whas forced on the people). I have heard many stories from the older generations of my family, and I know how it drained my country for over 50 years. By the end, the economy was completely ruined, and the living standards were really low.

Sorry for my english, I know it still needs a lot of practice.



kurohitenrou wrote:

Nobody said communism is bad. Is just because it is an ideal idea and humanity couldn't achieve it yet, so we classified it as "bad".
like democracy, do you think is good? o'course people would think its good cause it got all those freedom you want~ but roll your mind back, if you give humanity too much freedom, they'll eventually start doing more crimes, for instance, US's crime rate is high.

so if you ask me, communism is actually a good thing, everybody is equal and at peace as long as you remained hard working and honest. the most shitiest problem is just that other communism countries are setting the bad example for it claiming themselves to be communism but at the end they are just autocracy. for your information, democracy is also autocracy. did you really think the gov't will let you decide everything? who needs the gov't then if that's so~!! XP


Democracy is a form of government where 51% of citizens takes away the rights of the 49% left

50 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / CA,US
Offline
Posted 9/29/09
i can only abuse power as a communist
maffoo 
66807 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / England
Offline
Posted 9/30/09
I think communism is a good idea in theory, but won't work in practice. The main problem as I see it is that the "State" decides everything, but the "State" is actually a few people. If these people get to decide everything, it means too much power is concentrated in their hands, and as we know power corrupts. The way our elected rulers act is bad enough, how bad would they be if they were as powerful as they would be in a communist society?

I'm also not convinced by the idea of everyone being equal. Apart from the fact that not everyone will be "equal" (as some will be in charge) surely there has to be a distinction between, say, a neurosurgeon and the person behind the counter in McDonalds? Admittedly our current system allows some people to be paid way over the odds (eg. footballers) but they are only really paid what their employers deem them to be worth. Is it really the State's job to decide their pay?

I personally think that a capitalist system serves people best as long as it includes some sort of safety net for people who fall on hard times (ie. some sort of properly managed welfare system), and of course as long as it is kept in check. The problem with our system is that successive governments have allowed large corporations to become far too powerful, undermining democracy.
17892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 9/30/09

maffoo wrote:

I think communism is a good idea in theory, but won't work in practice. The main problem as I see it is that the "State" decides everything, but the "State" is actually a few people. If these people get to decide everything, it means too much power is concentrated in their hands, and as we know power corrupts. The way our elected rulers act is bad enough, how bad would they be if they were as powerful as they would be in a communist society?

I'm also not convinced by the idea of everyone being equal. Apart from the fact that not everyone will be "equal" (as some will be in charge) surely there has to be a distinction between, say, a neurosurgeon and the person behind the counter in McDonalds? Admittedly our current system allows some people to be paid way over the odds (eg. footballers) but they are only really paid what their employers deem them to be worth. Is it really the State's job to decide their pay?

I personally think that a capitalist system serves people best as long as it includes some sort of safety net for people who fall on hard times (ie. some sort of properly managed welfare system), and of course as long as it is kept in check. The problem with our system is that successive governments have allowed large corporations to become far too powerful, undermining democracy.



That is why we are we live in the time of the internet.. Now days everyone could be part of the government, all things can be voted on by the people with just a quick click on a survey. meaning people will be the government, they will have the power. In other words the time has come where a true communist society could work. Do to are advancements with technology. For it would not be the few running the many, it be the community running it self, by voting what they want and the majority wins factor. In other words with the introduction of computers communism has a better chance to be the better choice.


Like what I just was talking about that would give everyone the same amount of power, and so evening out the power to everyone. Everyone is the government, everyone has a say.


I personally think a capitalist country is a bad idea, Capitalist countries are ruled by the people with money, and they use there power to keep them selves rich and make the poor poorer. In the long run it is as corrupt if not even more so than classic old communism with a dictator was.
maffoo 
66807 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / England
Offline
Posted 10/1/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

That is why we are we live in the time of the internet.. Now days everyone could be part of the government, all things can be voted on by the people with just a quick click on a survey. meaning people will be the government, they will have the power. In other words the time has come where a true communist society could work. Do to are advancements with technology. For it would not be the few running the many, it be the community running it self, by voting what they want and the majority wins factor. In other words with the introduction of computers communism has a better chance to be the better choice.


I think that could work in principle, but would it actually swing power too far the other way? Would we really want everyone to have a say in everything, regardless of expertise? For example, if a decision needed to be made on abortion, you would get a few people who would vote whichever way based on medical reasons, a few would vote on ethical reasons after carefully considering the arguments, and a lot would vote against it because their local preacher/priest/imam told them it was a bad thing. (I also think this is a flaw with our current system in the UK - a lot of people vote for such-and-such a party because that's the party they have always voted for, without thinking about whether or not the policies are good for the country.) I think our current system is a reasonable, though far from perfect, compromise - a relatively small number of people make the decisions, and hopefully get punished if they make bad decisions, though I would prefer for some of the big decisions to be put to the people for approval! I also have doubts about internet voting as the security would have to be pretty much perfect to avoid manipulation of the results.

That said, I agree that computer technology can allow developments in a kind of communistic way, eg. open source software, and does give people more ways to voice their opinions, which can only be a good thing.


I personally think a capitalist country is a bad idea, Capitalist countries are ruled by the people with money, and they use there power to keep them selves rich and make the poor poorer. In the long run it is as corrupt if not even more so than classic old communism with a dictator was.


Both systems are probably equally corrupt overall. Capitalism is just more honest about it

1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 4/17/10
Karl Marx lived most of his life in proverty. I don't tend to think very highly of an economist who can keep himself.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 4/17/10
We can have a discussion as to the theory between the two systems, or we can have a discussion as to the systems in practice. On paper, planned out it all looks awesome and just, but when it comes to practice, the two systems will demonstrate their flaws, not only their merits. Human nature, fortunately or unfortunately, is such that most of us will favour our own well-being over the interests of the public. We are opportunistic animals, despite all the developments and sophistication. As SeraphAlford stated before me, we need to construct our system from various elements, if we are to create overall fairness and satisfaction. In modern democracies, everyone is free to opt to become a doctor, an actor, a lawyer and engineer and again, anyone can become a mason, a farmer, a checkout assistant or whatever else. The opportunities are right in front of us. Sure, we don't all start advantaged and some are quite plainly at a grave disadvantage, but overall, if we are truthful, reaching the so desired success is more of a matter of patience, time than advantage or disadvantage. You can even use my example. I am studying at univeersity in a foreign country and it's not because I'm super special, a genius or because my parents are uber-minted. It is simply because I took my time to work on my memory to be able to remember arbitrary information, because I took the time to learn English and because I had faith in my own self. All in all, how much 'genius' or power or monetary resources did it require? Not a lot and heaps of people could do the very same if they decided to. Relative success is there for the taking and it is only fair that those be rewarded with it who reach out for it.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 4/26/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:

We can have a discussion as to the theory between the two systems, or we can have a discussion as to the systems in practice. On paper, planned out it all looks awesome and just, but when it comes to practice, the two systems will demonstrate their flaws, not only their merits. Human nature, fortunately or unfortunately, is such that most of us will favour our own well-being over the interests of the public. We are opportunistic animals, despite all the developments and sophistication. As SeraphAlford stated before me, we need to construct our system from various elements, if we are to create overall fairness and satisfaction. In modern democracies, everyone is free to opt to become a doctor, an actor, a lawyer and engineer and again, anyone can become a mason, a farmer, a checkout assistant or whatever else. The opportunities are right in front of us. Sure, we don't all start advantaged and some are quite plainly at a grave disadvantage, but overall, if we are truthful, reaching the so desired success is more of a matter of patience, time than advantage or disadvantage. You can even use my example. I am studying at univeersity in a foreign country and it's not because I'm super special, a genius or because my parents are uber-minted. It is simply because I took my time to work on my memory to be able to remember arbitrary information, because I took the time to learn English and because I had faith in my own self. All in all, how much 'genius' or power or monetary resources did it require? Not a lot and heaps of people could do the very same if they decided to. Relative success is there for the taking and it is only fair that those be rewarded with it who reach out for it.



That's where you are wrong. Communism has never been put to practice, ever. Communism demands industrialisation before the advent of socialism, that never happened under Russia or in China. Likewise, Communism demands that the workers own the means of production. Where ever it has been 'put to practice', the 'State' owns the mean of production. Every struggle, says Madison and Marx, occurs from the unequal distribution of wealth and property, and wealth and property goes to who own the means of production. In Feudal Times, the nobles own the mean of production, thus, power over his labourer, and, in the industrial revolution, the burgeois owns the mean, thus, in him the wealth is invested. It is inevitable, he says, that this mean should soon pass on to the workers. Owning their own means of producing, they will, out of greed, churn out products to sustain themselves and to provide for others. Now, how they practise Communism, Russia and China are not following Marx, they are reverting back to Feudal Era methodology, replacing nobles with members of the 'Communist Party'.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 4/26/10

orangeflute wrote:


DerfelCadarn wrote:

That's where you are wrong. Communism has never been put to practice, ever. Communism demands industrialisation before the advent of socialism, that never happened under Russia or in China. Likewise, Communism demands that the workers own the means of production. Where ever it has been 'put to practice', the 'State' owns the mean of production. Every struggle, says Madison and Marx, occurs from the unequal distribution of wealth and property, and wealth and property goes to who own the means of production. In Feudal Times, the nobles own the mean of production, thus, power over his labourer, and, in the industrial revolution, the burgeois owns the mean, thus, in him the wealth is invested. It is inevitable, he says, that this mean should soon pass on to the workers. Owning their own means of producing, they will, out of greed, churn out products to sustain themselves and to provide for others. Now, how they practise Communism, Russia and China are not following Marx, they are reverting back to Feudal Era methodology, replacing nobles with members of the 'Communist Party'.


Communism has been put to practice and it had been demonstrated that the theoretical utopia leads to failure in practice. You are mistaken if you think that I have been referring to theory in my previous post. I have expressly stated that theory and practice are to be divorced. Systems purporting to be communist have proven in the past that communism is very distorted in practice and it doesn't really work. Man is constantly after more power and riches and other things deemed positive. It is not our nature to live in harmony in peace and accept that everyone is entitled to his own share. And frankly, the USSR certainly was a communist state. You can go on to make claims that it hasn't been true communism, but that is false. Communism comprises a wide range of systems and theories and the USSR example is simply one of them. You are merely engaged in ancestor-worship in trying to restrict the definition of communism to its oldest postulations.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 4/26/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


DerfelCadarn wrote:

That's where you are wrong. Communism has never been put to practice, ever. Communism demands industrialisation before the advent of socialism, that never happened under Russia or in China. Likewise, Communism demands that the workers own the means of production. Where ever it has been 'put to practice', the 'State' owns the mean of production. Every struggle, says Madison and Marx, occurs from the unequal distribution of wealth and property, and wealth and property goes to who own the means of production. In Feudal Times, the nobles own the mean of production, thus, power over his labourer, and, in the industrial revolution, the burgeois owns the mean, thus, in him the wealth is invested. It is inevitable, he says, that this mean should soon pass on to the workers. Owning their own means of producing, they will, out of greed, churn out products to sustain themselves and to provide for others. Now, how they practise Communism, Russia and China are not following Marx, they are reverting back to Feudal Era methodology, replacing nobles with members of the 'Communist Party'.


Communism has been put to practice and it had been demonstrated that the theoretical utopia leads to failure in practice. You are mistaken if you think that I have been referring to theory in my previous post. I have expressly stated that theory and practice are to be divorced. Systems purporting to be communist have proven in the past that communism is very distorted in practice and it doesn't really work. Man is constantly after more power and riches and other things deemed positive. It is not our nature to live in harmony in peace and accept that everyone is entitled to his own share. And frankly, the USSR certainly was a communist state. You can go on to make claims that it hasn't been true communism, but that is false. Communism comprises a wide range of systems and theories and the USSR example is simply one of them. You are merely engaged in ancestor-worship in trying to restrict the definition of communism to its oldest postulations.



I may say that the French Revolution was the ideals of democracy put into practice, but it still is not the practice of Democracy, but a preversion, a mobocracy. Likewise, some government with no relation to said ideology uses its name, such as the 'Democratic Republic of Congo' or 'the Democratic People's Republic of Korea'. So, if it does not follow the ideas of the theory, and only goes about it in name, why should it be considered the practice of said theory? Orthodox Marxism requires that the PEOPLE owns the mean of production, as opposed to the state, and that the state, in granting the WORKERS these priviledges and making said means controlled by everyone, will cease to exist, seeing as they no longer have a function. The USSR, on the other, continues to prepetuate itself through totalitarianism and through ownership of the tools of production. In a sense, the USSR was just another form of Capitalism, the state being the company, and the people their workers.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 4/26/10
Do not mistake the Government for the people that they supposedly represents.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.