Communism

There is this quote I heard my history teacher use when I was doing my A Levels.

"Communism works, people don't"


It's made me think, do you think the basic principles of communism could benefit society? Would that type of equality even work or would it only lead to the situations such as those seen in the previous century. Would society today be able to deal with communism?

I can't decide whether it would only repeat the mistakes of the past, or whether it could in some ways benefit the world today. Maybe you guys can help me make up my mind.


What do you think?



p.s I couldn't see a thread like this, so my appologies if there is :)​

 

Communism looks great on paper but it cannot work because of the way people are. In small groups of people, sure, it can work because those people would be mutual, working together, growing, sharing, trading, and living well.

However, in large scale communities, everyone is not going to be for it. Often communism gives meager allowances to people that are just enough to subsist upon and people become greedy. Especially when some jobs are very laborious while others are simple office jobs, and yet everyone gets the same? The people out for 12+ hours a day working the grind are not going to be happy to know some jerk who can work for a few hours a day gets the same exact amount as them. It promotes envy and more people to try to leave critical jobs to go to others. There is always going to be some competitive nature in humans, so a small group, sure, but in a larger one, more corruption is going to happen.

I'm kind of mostly partial to a socialism sort of set up where some things are provided equally such as medical care and educational opportunity. Also, assistance with getting loans etc. However, competition and hard work should pay off too, or else people work mediocre. So having the opportunity to make more money by what you do, I think is a good thing and thus there's the capitalism aspect. Communism aspect is the mutual benefits people would feel all are entitled to. So, to me, I see it as a much more balanced system where people pay into it and get out of it, and at the same time, they can excel more if they choose to.

 

That is pretty much the negative side of Communism I had thought of, and you make some very interesting an valid points. I like your socialism idea, it sounds like a good way. However even with the way society is today there is still jealous, those families who gain their support from benefits and help from the government are looked down on by those who don't. There is an attitude of "well why should they get that" and true the system is taken advantage of too.

I agree that Communism most likely wouldn't work, but I do think our own society needs to be looked at. For example those who cannot excel because of learning difficulties or other circumstances would miss out on achieveing. ​

 

Sadly, those who -need- assistance and all, need it. Otherwise they die and we are not animals that should not take care of people who actually do require the aid. The reason I think many people look down on the disabled or those stumbling for a time and requiring some aid is because of those we hear about who abuse the system.

I.e. the woman who adopted 9 kids or so and was collecting pay for them but abusing them and starving them. She was getting a lot for that.

Or the men and women that have for years abused the disability rights and collected droves of money they should never have had. Or those that filed Insurance Claims and received money when they were just fine and others discovered it, etc. It seems that when some people actually know the disabled or people unable to actually work and hear their tales, they are more benevolent about it and people don't mind it so much. It's these people that brag about money not meant for them that hurts, and somehow these scam artists get a lot more to them than the regular people who receive money. It sucks really.

Very good topic btw

I agree with you that our society needs looked at and not just once. I think constantly we should be analyzing how -bad- areas are and what can be done to tweak it and make these things better. It's for our lives and the future and any improvements no matter how small matter in the long run. No system may ever be perfect because there will always be people that defy it, even if it's the best thing in the world. Some people are bent to destroy no matter what. That's why I say in communities of 300 or so people, maybe a small town size, Communism can work because those people mutually would be able to deal with each other face to face. It's a lot harder to keep things right in larger communities and we can look at the history of communist places to see how really they work out and they fail. The only way they are held in check is through near martial law. However, smaller communities such as some areas in Tibet etc actually work out very well because of mutual agreement.

 

Thank you :)

Oh I know exactly what you mean about people like that -__- who take advantage and abuse the system. Another example being the man who demanded a bigger house because he had so many children, or (and this is becoming more common) teenage pregnancies for the sake of getting a house/flat. It is a shame though that those who genuinely need help and support are seen as similar to those who abuse it.


I also fully agree with the idea of constantly looking at what needs to be improved, for sure there are often "schemes" focusing on the supposedly worse areas, but these are left too long in between and other areas are ignored. It is also very true that there will always be those who defy the system or feel they are being treated harshly.

Maybe society could learn from those smaller communities, is it possible that our society and individual comminities are too large for us to be able to realistically handle now? The size of everything is having an impact on those things such as education and healthcare. I wonder if there is any way that could be countered?​

 

I think the best way to counter these things is to realize that society is kind of like how the computer society is.

We have our normal users who just want to chat and do their things, hang out and pay their bill to do so, share things and get along. That's the majority of people.

Then we have our people that want to get by easier on things, scam people out of money, spam the heck out of them etc. Also, in this group are your pedophiles and people that are trying to take advantage of others.

Then we have our hackers, script kiddies, and others who want to tear into the internet and make things theirs, screw up some serious stuff for others etc.

Because of the last two sorts of people, though these are the minorities really, people build up defenses on the internet. We gain virus scanners, up to date ad-blockers, spam defenses, ways to ignore people in chats or ban them from networks, changed ips to direct Ddos attacks back at the attackers, people that work on decoding encrypted hacked stuff etc.

So basically, even though some people do try constantly to make internet life hell, there are others out there who choose to work to make the internet more stable and let the regular people have a better time of it. If we did the same thing of constant adapting to trouble makers as what happens on the internet, that same theory of needing to improve because the 'other side' also improves, we can keep up. If we don't, it's why our systems fail. They do need a constant upgrading and peeking at to make sure we aren't just lagging behind those who are out to get around it all and come out on top.

We seriously need to look at how our system runs and catch up with these people, and also realize that the -regular people- should be entitled to good things because we aren't the ones abusing the stuff. I believe it can be done, but we have to have the motivation to do it and get more people in power who want to see things change. Unfortunately, we have older people who are stuck in their ways and don't want anything different or it's suddenly a 'threat'. We may have to wait a good 10-20 years for people to be better minded about these things.

 

Hmm firstly I have to say I love that analogy you just used, it really does explain things very well ^^

It is a sad fact that you state about our older generations. Sad but true, though even if we have to wait 20 years for changes to be seen and happen that can only be a good thing, hopefully the upcoming generations will also want to see a change happening and will help this to thrive.

It does often seem in society that those who do good, and those who do not cheat or scam the systems are the ones who benefit the least. Almost like being punished for following the laws. This has to change because otherwise we will crash and becomea lawless society, after all the good people will soon start thinking "why should we follow the law when those who don't appear to benefit more"

I appologise btw I am aware I have evolved this thread from communism. ​

 

I have always said that Communism is one of those things (religion is another one of these things IMO, but that isn't relevant for this debate ;P) that is perfect in theory, but the imperfections in humans for which it was designed cause it to fail.

There is another aspect that I don't has been touched upon. Some people want to be lead. They want to be told what to do by someone, they want to know who that someone is and where they are in the grand scheme of things. There are others who want to be that leader, they want control and power (but are not necessarily good or evil). These inequalities in peoples views cause the system to crash as some people rise up and some go down.

As for the benefits side of things, I agree that things like health-care and education should always be provided free. If a government can't realise that the health and skills of their population aren't that important they shouldn't be in power -___-. My mother works for the benefit office, phoning people up and asking for money back that they weren't meant to receive. Sometimes this is accidental, a computer or human error that has resulted in the incorrect amount being sent. But other times the person has intentionally fraud-ed the system out of money. It is those people I can't stand.

They are literally ruining life for others. They take the money and give nothing back to society. They say they can't find a job when they aren't even trying. They give the people who genuinely need assistance a bad name.

What the world needs to learn is that a balance is always needed. Communism and the free market are the two extremes and neither is practical or effective. The happy medium is the mixed economy. This means the government provides teh essential services such as healthcare, education, water, electricity etc but people can also run businesses, work in whatever job they want, rise to the top and see they are making progress in their lives.

In the UK, we have too many free-loaders. The safety nets set up to catch them falling out the bottom of the economy are too comfortable and they don't want to try to rejoin the rest of the hard-working and honest folk.

In the US, there aren't enough safety nets. People too often are left behind with no hope of rising out of their poverty on their own. I don't think that a country such as America should have poverty and still be able to call itself a major economic power.

Ugh, I had my dinner in the middle of typing this and can't remember what else I was going to say >_>

 

It is very hard to come up with a system to help all people because in the end, as you pointed out, some people don't want to help themselves but by the work of others, and they have no need for it. We could all take care of those less fortunate much easier if there weren't freeloaders taking advantage of the system trying to milk it for all its worth. I'd even wager that without these sorts of people, we could give more to those who -do- actually deserve the assistance.

You also bring up another point that there are a lot of poverty stricken people in the U.S. because of the lack of safety nets, while in the U.K. there is a safety zone there and thus more people lack the motivation to really work. It is a hard time right now and programs the U.S. had have fallen the way side, and -some- of the poor people really don't want to live that way. The more programs for aid that get canceled, the more people go broke, and it doesn't help that businesses continue to take off overseas because it's much cheaper to hire someone at 2 bucks an hour instead of 8 bucks an hour, the difference is even more in some places. I do agree though that if America can't take care of its own that actually want help to find work and be a part of life, or are disabled in some capacity, we have no right to think of ourselves as a 1st world power. Then again, I don't really like the terms 1st World, 2nd World etc. They can be demeaning and there are certainly things we can learn from other places to improve even if they are not as technologically advanced. I can't think of anywhere really that is totally economically independent so the terms 1st World - 3rd World countries are misnomers.

You are also right in bringing up the point that there are personality differences too in those who want to lead and those who will follow, and these personalities can go at great extremes. Good points! These are other reasons that make Communism nearly impossible in a big society because unless there is some sort of near martial law, really, people aren't all going to want to follow a program designed where people get equal money, because people will always want more than will be allotted to them. It will always seem unfair, and would anyone really put trust in something like 'our leaders' or the 'big CEOs' are making as much as the rest of us do? I doubt it. We all know they'd be taking money off the top just as what happens in China and what transpired in Russia.

 

That sounds exactly like one of my teachers. And I believe it's true that Communism could work if the leader isn't a power hungry almost Dictator. But of course there is still a lot of oppression in Communism even without a power hungry leader.​

 

I fully agree with that quote. Communism works, people don't.

Ideally, Communism is actually completely fine. It's just the selfish public that is everyone (all of you, even me) that makes it impossible to circulate.

If people were a little more loving and a little less power-hungry, it would be the perfect thing, in my opinion.

 

Communism is an amazing system that would totally work. It's just we, the people, and the people above us **** it up. Communism is based on equality, but people just can't handle that. They always need to be better, biger, more powerful.

 

And that is exactly why communism doesn't work. And I don't think ever will. The only way it could be successful is if it adopted some of Democracy's ways. And really everybody being the same. Not good at all. Then nobody would have hopes or dreams for some day becoming the best. They would all just end up being the same. It makes people who would usually get more money for pay to become lazy. Communism could never work.

 

Holy crap do I believe in communism, now before some says move to Korea, Communism is a economic idea not a political.

I hate how stratified the world has become, we live in a capitalistic world where the select profitable groups exploit the hell out of lesser developed countries. I have always been against capitalism, this whole lust for greed is discusting and it tear apart the frame work of a society until the proletariat or the bourgeoisie decides that they are not making enough to make ends meet. So a revolution will occur. The only good part about capitalism is that rich people get richer, they are the only ones who will ever benefit from the society. Unless someone in a lower class is able to come into a large sum of money.

As for the Communism works People don't idea. That is completely true. Since pre-industrial time people have been exploiting the labor of others for their own personal gain. People are inhierently evil, in the game for what they can get.

I believe that communism as an economy will always work, it gives zero amount of social stratification in any given society and there is little to no chance of a civil riot.

What the face of communism has turned into is not what Karl Marx originally wanted for his idea of communism, what that turned into was a Socialist regime that is not it at all, but as I had stated as an economic society it is much better than capitalism.

 

Straight out Capitalism and Communism are both systems I don't think can -righteously- work really as they are economic extremes of one another and don't fit the majority of the human condition. Both in their ways promote greed, underhandedness, lying and cheating, just in the opposite ways really. This is why I think that even as these ideals sometimes are made -chief- economic ways, the political agendas must alter to fit the needs of the people and laws are made stringent to apply in both types of economic situation because of our diversity. It is a serious matter to just come to terms and accept that the extremes alone won't work.

Communism promotes negative attitudes, people going out of their way to get more than they have. As I've said before, it works very well in smaller communities where everyone is mutual and in agreement with it. However, in the larger communities of say countries, people within don't all want it. They instead do things like sell on Ebay to other places for income that is secret and unreported, or they do black market deals, gambling and competitions to gain more. Also, leaders who are in charge of distribution cannot be trusted, and they aren't going to give away their wealth to see all people live equal. They just will not in these larger areas. Work loads also will not be fair and divided up and people find their personal freedoms taken away as a government -must- fill in the voids of areas where people don't want to work. People aren't happy being assigned labor and such, but this is what communism in large communities encourages, because if no one does the -dirtier- jobs, because why do more than others...well, therein it becomes an issue. This is why personal freedoms become more lost in grander sized societies, and people rebel at the unfairness but some people have to do the stuff to make it work, right? How would you like to be told that your kid is going to be a garbage man because that's what he/she matched on the test of positive jobs that your kid could do? Or stuck in a factory in a low end job with no chance of promotion? Or stuck on a farm picking rice or corn etc? Why would anyone want their children doing low end jobs while some others get higher jobs sitting for a few hours a day in a cushy office job? So really, it's a nice idea but even the job market and needs of the people force a loss of freedom and choice.

Capitalism encourages people to go out and even with the crummiest of jobs, they can make money. Wages are set differently and farmers, garbage collectors, and factory workers can get alright wages and also move up, run their own farms or businesses and sell products to make incomes. So even some of our jobs people might regularly snub their noses at, people can do well in if they seek it out. However, it also encourages stepping on others to get what you want, making preferences, allying with people and becoming fake to get where you want to be, and looking down on those who can't keep up with demand or job performance. It scrutinizes people who just aren't as good as something, even if they try, because someone else was good and look where it got them? Also, it encourages dubious and low handed behavior because of the solid competition. If you want a job higher than where you are you learn the art of butt kissing, framing others with false crimes, using the system and bending the rules to fit. It also motivates people to fight for right too, but it's a dog-eat-dog world when the economic system is solely Capitalistic. It's why now many corporations run things and encourage democratic government in ways they should not and also get catered to because the powerful money makers always make the decisions. It's also why boycotts and such can harm these people.

There are some checks and balances to each system alone, but I can't see either as being the total ideal scenario for an economic system or political agenda. It's why really I think the two extremes need to be brought more together to find the benefits of either and toss out the negatives, so that more positives remain, and the negatives that stick around can be better managed. I do feel that certain things are -human rights- to have such as Education potential that is equal for all, Medical benefits that are equal for all, Electricity that is equal for all, clean water that is equal for all. Beyond this though, unless someone is physically or mentally disabled, there should be programs out there to help people out in finding places they can work, and also the competition is part of human nature, so let it run its course. If people can earn money off of various legitimate creations, techniques, business opportunities, artistic values etc...I see nothing wrong with that. If someone works 12 hours a day at a job versus someone who works the same job for 8 hours a day, yes, I believe they should get more money. The ideals for both capitalism and communism aren't all bad or good. Some qualities of each show an attempt at making life better. However, it just seems that because they are both so extreme from one another, neither alone can win this bout.

 

I think that the best idea would be to combine the both. Extremes tend to never work, in any circumstance. Compromise is needed.

The safety nets of communism, so that those without out work can survive, everyone has access to health-care, education, electricity, water etc.

But there should also be the competition created by capitalism. If you don't have any hope of promotion, why would you bother to work hard? If you're wage would never be raised, why bother? People need motivations, and capitalism provides that motivation.

A point I was going to my in my original post (but I forgot -___-) was that I have always believed that the smaller a country is the better it is. A massive country has the problems of providing services to all areas equally, corruption (generally increasing the further you are away from centres of government, although some may argue the most corruption is in the government centre's). Smaller countries can manage themselves much better. I just think that there is a critical size that a country passes where it just can't control itself to the maximum effect (lol that made no sense -___-)

 

Well bunty...in your head that may work but unfortunately Karl Marx created Communism (I use the word created loosely) as a response to capitalism. He did not agree with the struggles between these class systems that we have. He felt that no matter what one group will always revolt against the other, and a tension between classes will always exist. Which is true. What you thinking of is creating a highly liberal plan of attack where the government is in charge of giving people there medical insurance, free education, zero-tolerence weapons policy, and free utilities. That is a thought of an extremist democrat. Unfortunatly that is far from possible because the people with money who do influence the government more than a normal person do not what to give up there cushy life. And with this plan that does take away a sum of there money from increased taxes and they are far from willing to do that.

 

Sorry Bunty but I have to agree with Spitfire here, I do not think it is realistically possible to combine both communism and capitalism, they are both too extreme from each other to be able to work together, both would counter the other creating chaos and disorganisation as the people struggle to find what regime they are actually under. Capitalism and Communism are like water and Oil IMO the two cannot mix together. It is nice as a thought, but beyond that I really do not see how it would be possible.


Spitfire I like your way of thinking, in this post and in the one you made earlier in the thread :)​

 

The UK has a system which is close what I described in effect. I am not saying it's perfect, but it's better than in most countries. We have the NHS, education is (mostly, I have to pay school fund, which I found out you don't actually have to pay >_>) free, we have the Welfare State to catch anyone falling out of the economy and we have our public transport system.

But we also have the private sector where people can work for their money, for promotion, for recognition and for themselves. We have the Competition Commision to prevent monopolies occuring (ignoring the government created ones *cough* >_>) and numerous government watchdogs which monitor different industries so that they are fair to the consumer.

It is true that those with money influence, that will happen in any system. All systems will be imperfect always. Unless you take away the imperfections that make us human, you will never have a perfect system.

Here is a quote:

"It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried"
-Winston Churchill

That quote means that whatever system is adopted, it is going to be bad. The trick is to choose the lesser of the evils. In this case I think that is the mixed economy.

 

Lawl. No doubt your british, no one else quotes Churchill. JK

Well I have studied british government a bit, I haven't gone indepth but I can see the point of view that you are looking though none the less. The welfare state is not as caring so to speak as the UK's, we do have free education through out the country as well as its own private counterpart.

And that is the same thing here as well. For people who do not make enough as well file on welfare, though I believe they are required to hold a job, or atleast I think, I am not to sure about that. They are given the basic cost of living in said area. As well as recieve food stamps, and other accomdations. But also a "private area" where it is a free trade enterprise. Where the economy is based on the middle class consuming goods.

To put it generally the UK's gov't and the U.S's almost mirror each other in many ways from an economic stand point.