Communism

[silent666]

Now this might be a stupid question to some people.

But what does everyone have against communism?!?!
A large amount of stuff I find on it is all "communists are bad" or "Communists will destroy everyone"

If anyone can answer that without some remark on how im a communist (which I am) I would be thankful.

Communism would be a type of egalitarian society with no state, no private property and no social classes. In communism, all property is owned by the community as a whole, and all people enjoy equal social and economic status. Perhaps the best known principle of a communist society is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

[Ultra-Onion]

because communist is the opposite of democracy. Because in a world of communism a janitor makes the same money as a doctor. so why go to college for 7 years to gain the same money a janitor does. Communism just doesnt work, just look around. there's not that many communist out there. it is a unstable system.

[Hyperion]

I think that in the media (where I live at least) there has been a general anti-communist stigma. Communism is just an economic system, not some evil empire.

[BAWLS]

At 1/30/05 10:32 AM, silent666 wrote: But what does everyone have against communism?!?!
A large amount of stuff I find on it is all "communists are bad" or "Communists will destroy everyone"

People associate communism with the Soviet Union. Whenever they hear the word their mind just automatically connects it with "empire of evil" and whatnot.

[Hedonist-Hammurabi]

At 1/30/05 10:38 AM, LoneSniper wrote: because communist is the opposite of democracy. Because in a world of communism a janitor makes the same money as a doctor. so why go to college for 7 years to gain the same money a janitor does. Communism just doesnt work, just look around. there's not that many communist out there. it is a unstable system.

Communism is not the opposite of democracy. It's not even proper to compare them like that. Communism is solely an economic system, while democracy is solely a form of government. Communism is a system in which private property is completely abolished. That does not mean, however, that everything is owned by the government in a communist society. Quite the opposite, actually, for in a true communist society, all property is owned by the people collectively. Finally, you can have a communist democracy, and you can have a capitalist dictatorship. Likewise, you can have a communist dictatorship, and you can have a capitalist democracy. It works both ways.

[mrpopenfresh]

At 1/30/05 10:32 AM, silent666 wrote:
Communism would be a type of egalitarian society with no state, no private property and no social classes. In communism, all property is owned by the community as a whole, and all people enjoy equal social and economic status. Perhaps the best known principle of a communist society is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Thats what communism is on paper, but if you look at every communist society ever created, you'll notice that all of them had a centralized government that just fucked things over. Every time this system has been put in place, it has never passed the second stage of Marx thesis, wich happens to be socialism. Socialism is when the state is still there and governs how the economy will work. Socialism guarantees employement for all, wich is good in a way because everyone is used, but bad in another sense because people will be forced to work in factory jobs that are repetitive and uninspiring.

So believe in communism if you want to, but bear in mind that the system would never work for a number of reasons. Human greed, selfishness and competitiveness are only some of these problems that block any chance of communism ever working. Oh, and the way you describe communism as a system "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" sounds more like sometime an anarchist would say. Anarchy is a system where people do what they want and do what they can. In communism, the needs of the community come before the need of the individual.

Besides, if communism ever was put in place, the only people who would have a better lifestyle would be the very poor. So even if your'e average, your life will probably go down a notch.

[Tombulgius]

Communism is a great idea, but nobody executes it right, and it may be impossible.

As for me, I think Communism is a bit too equal. We should all be equal enough to respect and help each other, but Communism defeats the purposes of these skills:
Artistic talent
Medical education
scientific/ mathematical education
entreprenuership

[drDAK]

At 1/30/05 10:32 AM, silent666 wrote: Now this might be a stupid question to some people.

But what does everyone have against communism?!?!

uhh... it doesn't work.

[alex-the-greater]

ever read anamal farm

comunism is prone to coruption

off topic
consevatives are constintly calling librals comunists but if you read about rubpublicanism it sounds a lot like the way comunism ends up
thare is a reason thay are caled RED states

[ZeroAsALimit]

At 1/30/05 05:04 PM, alex_the_greater wrote: comunism is prone to coruption

So is every system, even an absence of a system will lead to something else. People are just opposed to it because of the atrocities that were commited in it's name. Of course the U.S.S.R. wasn't a Marxist state, but people equate Communism with killing of civilians.

[mrpopenfresh]

At 1/30/05 05:04 PM, alex_the_greater wrote: ever read anamal farm

comunism is prone to coruption

Dude, Animal Farm was the russian revolution as told with animals.

consevatives are constintly calling librals comunists but if you read about rubpublicanism it sounds a lot like the way comunism ends up
thare is a reason thay are caled RED states

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

>°:(

Heh, my aingery has a piercing.

[RedSkunk]

I have nothing against communism. I wish the sanctions on Cuba would be lifted - it's an interesting social experiment.

[Xen-Tiberious]

Were Marxism/Communism to work it would, in my humble oppionon, be the greatest system ever. However, as I, and every other true marxest knows, it does not and will not work. The main reason for this is that peole are greedy fucks.

As for why people hate it so much: it is very hard to undo years of propaganda. Our government spent a lot of time and money insuring that the "red manace" would not spread, this is not easly overcome.

Last, Tombulgius, I feel for you on the "stop the hate" thing, I fell for it too. Had I not been out of town for a few days I would have posted more and made an even bigger ass out of my self then I already did.

[mrpopenfresh]

At 1/30/05 07:22 PM, Xen_Tiberious wrote: Were Marxism/Communism to work it would, in my humble oppionon, be the greatest system ever. However, as I, and every other true marxest knows, it does not and will not work. The main reason for this is that peole are greedy fucks.

I'm sorry, I thought being a marxist ment that you believed in Karl Marx's economic theory.

[Samuel-HALL]

At 1/30/05 10:39 AM, Hyperdragoon wrote: Communism is just an economic system, not some evil empire.

Sure, and a pistol is just a chunk of metal, really, until it is used. Communism itself, on paper, works. And even among very small populices, communism isn't as terrible as the stigma implies.
The problem, most of the time, is the people running it. So, no, there's nothing wrong with the economic system of communism. But the application of said system is almost always flawed.

At 1/30/05 01:17 PM, King_Hammurabi wrote: That does not mean, however, that everything is owned by the government in a communist society. Quite the opposite, actually, for in a true communist society, all property is owned by the people collectively.

And just what is the benefit of 'everything being owned by everyone'?

John Stossel, of ABC news, talks about 'shared property'.

Compare dirty public toilets to privately run toilets. They're common in Europe, and cleaner, because their owners — selfishly seeking a profit — work at keeping them clean.

Why do we have so many catastrophic forest fires? Did you know that most of them are on government land — land we share? The feds own only a third of the forests, but they have most of the forest fires. Private forests are less likely to burn, because the livelihood of "greedy" timber companies depends on having healthy trees. But the government, managing land we all share, is less careful.

It's the same reason people overfish the sea. The ocean is public property, shared property. So for years, fishermen took all they could. They had little incentive to make sure enough fish were left to reproduce, and the supply of fish has dropped drastically.

Communal farming is similar. The Pilgrims tried shared farming when they first arrived in America. But, rather than working shared property, they faked illness. Some of them said the kids were too young to go out in the fields. The Pilgrims nearly starved to death, and ended up eating rats, dogs, horses and cats. When each was given his own land on which to grow crops, food was abundant. I wish they taught the kids that at Thanksgiving. Likewise, when Stalin and Mao collectivized their farms, their people nearly starved to death.

So, these examples would lead one to believe that 'public property, owned by everyone' probably wouldn't be a fantastic idea. Private property is given more specific, individual attention. As Stossel points out, private toilets are cleaner, and more sanitary...because their owners must keep them clean, or people won't use them.

[Tombulgius]

At 1/30/05 07:22 PM, Xen_Tiberious wrote: Were Marxism/Communism to work it would, in my humble oppionon, be the greatest system ever. However, as I, and every other true marxest knows, it does not and will not work. The main reason for this is that peole are greedy fucks.

As for why people hate it so much: it is very hard to undo years of propaganda. Our government spent a lot of time and money insuring that the "red manace" would not spread, this is not easly overcome.

Last, Tombulgius, I feel for you on the "stop the hate" thing, I fell for it too. Had I not been out of town for a few days I would have posted more and made an even bigger ass out of my self then I already did.

Paragraph 3: Yeah, a few people like you and me were tricked. It was pretty funny, though.

Other paragraphs: Yeah, Marxism probably is one of the best systems one could hope for. However, I myself am a bit of an afformentioned greedy fuck; I want whatever artistic skills that I may have to get me a handhold in society (and a flow of money). I just don't want a situation where it's impossible for somebody to be "skilled enough" to get famous and well-off.....

I'm not one to want power, though.....I just think that if there is Marxism, nobody will have enough money in one place to do cool stuff like space colonization or other big, important scientific projects that we will definitly need.

Socially, it would be perfect. No resentment. It'd be really good in that sense.

[Geordi-Laforge]

At 1/30/05 07:19 PM, red_skunk wrote: I have nothing against communism. I wish the sanctions on Cuba would be lifted - it's an interesting social experiment.

I agree. Is the U.S. still bent over Fidel Castro? Open up trade with 'em, Jesse Ventura-style

[VampTheStampede]

Our class a long time ago in Middleschool had to watch a movie and write answers to it and tally up scores on which type of government. And in complete honesty I got to end with communism higher then democracy. Note I also was the only one who did everyone else got democracy.

[Stresskillingme]

At 1/30/05 10:39 AM, Hyperdragoon wrote: I think that in the media (where I live at least) there has been a general anti-communist stigma. Communism is just an economic system, not some evil empire.

True but people like Joseph Stalin used their positions in the party to murder his enemies and also the fact that there is only one candidate and one party for all positions in elected government there is no change and the party can do whatever they want without fear of losing the next election.

[Draconias]

Everyone hates Communism because it is not physically possible to implement it. Although by definition Communism + Democracy is required for the perfect society, it also requires perfect people. We dont have perfect people. Therefore any Communist set up will degenerate into Poor vs Wealthy pillaging, a Socialist govt., and poverty. Atleast a dozen countries have attempted Communism and the final result has been tragedy every time. Communism is a flawed system that cannot work, and because it has spawned a corrupt Socialist setup that caused a lot of pain every time it was attempted, there is now a major belief that Communism = bad.

[Jimsween]

I dislike communism because majority of the people I know don't deserve as much as I do, and I'm pretty fucking lazy.

[Gunter45]

Competition is really what keeps people working at their best. When you take away the competition, then there's a lot less incentive to excel. If you want proof, look at the government programs, those are about as inefficient as it gets.

[RedSkunk]

There doesn't seem like a whole lot of incentive to work harder if you're stuck in a dead end factory job. A lot of the arguments for capitalism are sort of flawed, personally.

[Jimsween]

At 1/30/05 11:31 PM, SKUNKbrs wrote: There doesn't seem like a whole lot of incentive to work harder if you're stuck in a dead end factory job. A lot of the arguments for capitalism are sort of flawed, personally.

Factory jobs are getting less and less prevelent for, kinda that exact reason.

But if you work in a dead end factory job, there is incentive to get a better education and find a better job.

[RedSkunk]

At 1/30/05 11:36 PM, Jimsween wrote: Factory jobs are getting less and less prevelent for, kinda that exact reason.

*shrug* sure. But remember how the federal government was trying to get the fast food industry re-classified as manufactoring?

But if you work in a dead end factory job, there is incentive to get a better education and find a better job.

*shrug* Not everyone has the ability to get an education and find a better job - whether economic, mental, or otherwise.

[Gunter45]

At 1/30/05 11:47 PM, SKUNKbrs wrote: *shrug* Not everyone has the ability to get an education and find a better job - whether economic, mental, or otherwise.

Right, and I think it would suck if I got paid as much as them, especially since I'm a Mechanical Engineering major. By leveling everyone out like that, you don't just kill the drive within a certain field, you kill it across the board. What's my motivation to do well in school and land an important job designing things that matter when I could just as easily get something that doesn't require me to go through a rigorous and expensive college education?

I think that competition is what causes humans to do their very best. Even friendly competition causes people to go above and beyond. I was in a weight training class last semester with a friend of mine and we were always trying to one up each other, the result? We both worked much harder and got much more out of the class. I'm in a weight training class again this semester with nobody I know, so my drive has decreased and I know it. I try to compete against myself, but it's not the same.

[RedSkunk]

At 1/30/05 11:57 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Right, and I think it would suck if I got paid as much as them, especially since I'm a Mechanical Engineering major. By leveling everyone out like that, you don't just kill the drive within a certain field, you kill it across the board. What's my motivation to do well in school and land an important job designing things that matter when I could just as easily get something that doesn't require me to go through a rigorous and expensive college education?

Maybe because you enjoy designing things more than standing on an assembly line? Just a random guess.

But really, I don't want to get into this debate, because I'm not terribly into it. I'm not a communist, only a socialist. =)

I think that competition is what causes humans to do their very best.

And I think competition is oftentimes very counterproductive. Cite: the technological superiority of Japanese cars over American cars, until very recently (and probably the leading cause for the leveling of playing fields, is because of technological globalization).

Honda, Toyota, Nissan, et al., shared technology and they made better cars. Ford, Dodge, Chevy, et al., wasted time and effort by competing against each other. It's like having to reinvent the wheel after another company has already done it.

[Gunter45]

At 1/31/05 12:12 AM, SKUNKbrs wrote: Honda, Toyota, Nissan, et al., shared technology and they made better cars. Ford, Dodge, Chevy, et al., wasted time and effort by competing against each other. It's like having to reinvent the wheel after another company has already done it.

And yet, by competing against American car manufacturers, they've managed to gain a large market share in the US. Everything in Capitalism is competing against someone. The Japanese car manufacturers shared technology was a means to an end. There is such a thing as too much competition, I agree, but that doesn't mean that there should be no competition.

[RedSkunk]

At 1/31/05 12:22 AM, Gunter45 wrote: There is such a thing as too much competition, I agree, but that doesn't mean that there should be no competition.

I agree.

[Demosthenez]

Solve all problems in a perfect world: Set everyone equal at birth, have equal opportunites for all, let the strong strive, let the weak sink. Thats just the way it goes. But hey, Im just a dumb youngin. And now that I wrote it, it seems pretty damn harsh : /