All about communism

[lxs234]

What do you all think about communism? Do you think it is good or bad? Do you know anbody who has lived in a communist country? I just want to generally discuss it here.


I did a search on this, so I don't think there is another thread specifically about this.

[IrmoPimp]

Communism is the scourge of the earth. It has been responsible for more cumulative deaths than any other governing system. The oppression of religion, free trade, and just the basic right of choice is the norm. It all occurs because some megalomaniac wants to feel big. Few Communists actually believe in it, they are just on a power trip. As I would usually say, "They are just stupid." But it is much more than that. I'll post more as responses develop.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

It's more than just that communism is stupid, it's foolish. It's brainlessly idealist. People will always be selfish with or without property, so removing property only removes reward and ruins society.

[Midnightsfire]

Hmm...

There aren't many, if any, countries practicing pure Communism, which is an economic theory to begin with.

(And no, neither China or the former USSR were ever Communist.)

The best example was probably Tibet, when it existed under the Dalai Lama. Lol! Talk about ironies. A government that was technically a theocracy using a Communist economy.

[Wab]

Like most economic/political models communism was never practised how the premises were laid out in Kapital and the Manifesto. The most that can be said about the Soviet model was that it was a poorly managed version of socialism.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

Or, more precisely, you could say that the natural result of Communism is the USSR. No type of socialism on a scale larger than, say, a kibbutz, will ever function. Communism simply goes against natural human character.

[Liselle]

It's more than just that communism is stupid, it's foolish. It's brainlessly idealist. People will always be selfish with or without property, so removing property only removes reward and ruins society.

How true, like most ideologies, communisim might look appealing on paper in its pure form but how do you implement something where apparantly we're all equal and everyone is the same? not very successfully as we have seen I think. Also COmmunisim (to me) is at the very polar opposite to pure capitalisim, polar opposite/extremes what ever you want to call them do not work. Its always better to aim for the middle of the road approach, call it laziness or human nature but in my experience I've found it to be true

[lxs234]

Okay, I just want to make sure everyone knows that I do not support communism. Yes, it does sound nice, but it just doesn't work. I started this thread just to see if anyone liked it. :td:

Okay, you can keep on posting! :)

[Hagrid442]

I have written about what I think of communism in a couple of other threads.

Communism has a history of being a form of totalitarianism. One would argue that it's only because it has been practiced wrong. I disagree. Communism does not work. It will never work. There is a structural flaw in communism. It presumes the equality of all people, and ignores their individual strengths and flaws, as well as their individual human dignity. Because of this worldview that nobody is exceptional, but rather cogs in society, it slips easily into totalitarianism. It's no coincidence that communism resulted in the deaths of millions the prior century. Russia's civil war during and after World War I, Stalin's Purges and gulags, not to mention the Chinese "Cultural Revolution" are glaring examples.

That's what I think of communism. However, it has been all but defeated. China is no where close to being communist anymore. In fact, it is a growing market economy that will in time overtake the US. About the only significant power that's communist is North Korea. So, it's safe to say that communism is all but dead. Where it should be.

[Midnightsfire]

Originally posted here (http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=705811&postcount=90):

"To many, Singapore, a tiny nation on the tip of the Malay Peninsula with a population of 4 million, seems an Asian paradise. Surrounded by poor societies grappling with rapidly rising populations, squalid, spawling cities, and rising crime rates, Singapore, with its affluence, cleanliness, and safety, makes North American visitors think more of a theme park than of a country.

In fact, since it gained independence from Malaysia in 1965, Singapore has startled the world with its economic development; it is among the most properous of high-income nations. But compared to the United States, for example, Singapore has scarcely any social problems such as crime, slums, unemployment, or children living in poverty. In fact, people in Singapore don't even contend with traffic jams, grafitti on subway cars, or litter in the streets.

The key to Singapore's orderly environment is the everpresent hand of government, which actively promotes traditional morality and regulates just about everything. The state owns and manages most of the country's housing and has a hand in many businesses. It provides tax incentives for family planning and additional years of schooling. To keep traffic under control, the government slaps hefty surcharges on cars, pushing the price of a basic sedan up to around $40,000.

Singapore has tough anti-crime laws that mandate death by hanging for drug dealing and permit police to detain a person suspected of a crime without charge or trial. The government has outlawed some religious groups (including Jehovah's Witnesses) and banned pornography. To keep the city clean, the state forbids smoking in public and eating on a subway, imposes stiff fines for littering, and has even outlawed the sale of chewing gum.

In economic terms, SIngapore defies familiar categories. Government control of scores of businesses, including television stations, telephone service, airlines, and taxis, seem socialist. Yet unlike most socialist enterprises, these businesses operate efficiently and very profitably. Moreover, Singapore's capitalistic culture applauds economic growth (although the government cautions people against the evils of excessive materialism), and hundreds of multinational corporations are based here.

Singapore's political climate is as unusual as its economy. Freedom House characterizes Singapore as "partly free." The law provides for elections and political leaders, but one party - The People's Action party - dominates the political process and currently controls eighty-one of the eighty-three seats in the country's parliament. In fact, The People's Action party has ruled Singapore without opposition since it gained independence more than thirty-five years ago. Just as important, members of this society feel the presence of government far more than their counterparts in the United States.

Clearly, Singapore is not a democratic country in the conventional sense. But most people in this prospering nation wholeheartedly endorse their way of life. What Singapore's political system offers is a simple bargain: Government demands unflinching loyalty from the populace; in return it provides security and prosperity. Critics charge that this system amounts to a "soft authoritarianism" that stifles dissent and control over people's lives. However, most of the people of Singapore know the struggles of living elsewhere and, for now at least, consider the tradeoff a good one."


Communism (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/c/c0518400.html):


A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

What many here are attempting to speak of (or more appropriately, type of) is
Fascism (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/f/f0045700.html):


A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.

[aiko amaya]

I like communism, not how it's been practiced in the past, but how well it could work. It's true that you cannot practice communism in it's true for with humans, but you can tweak it here and there. I've been working out in my mind ways to make communism work, which I like to call liberal communism. I think that we should have a governmental system that regulates what each person recieves to live by. SO no more millionairs in big mansions getting fat, but a world were everyone has a roof over their heads, and food in their bellies. I beleive that there is only so much wealth to go around that if the wealth is not distributed evenly then there is going to be so many who suffer.

I firmly beleive that if my world wide government system, based on communist theories could work. The problem with the way communism is now is that it is too restrictive in freedom of thought and religion. It is not a global affair either, which presents the problem of the wealth not being shared. One of the many problemes with The Russian communism was that it was already a realitively poor country so under communism, sharing the wealth would result in poverty. Now imagine if the world shared their resources. America could feed the whole world if it wanted too, no we may not be living in big homes with big backyards, but we'd be able to live comfortably, and there wouldn't be so many starving people in the world.

I think that too many people disregard communism because of the evils of it's past. I see communism as a system with alot of potential that could be worked into the best ecconomic system there ever was.

[Hagrid442]

It would be great if people would be happy with smaller homes and yards. Lord knows, I would be. But I'm a minority. If people got equal amounts of wealth no matter what they did, there would be no incentive to be the best they could be. Why become a doctor, if a gravedigger will make the same as you? Thus, the brightest and most talented won't produce more wealth. There'll be less wealth as a whole then, and everyone will be poorer. This is the inevitable fate of any communist system. Capitalism, flawed as it is, is still the best economic system we've thought up.

[lxs234]

It would be great if people would be happy with smaller homes and yards. Lord knows, I would be. But I'm a minority. If people got equal amounts of wealth no matter what they did, there would be no incentive to be the best they could be. Why become a doctor, if a gravedigger will make the same as you? Thus, the brightest and most talented won't produce more wealth. There'll be less wealth as a whole then, and everyone will be poorer. This is the inevitable fate of any communist system. Capitalism, flawed as it is, is still the best economic system we've thought up.

That's true. It is human nature, sad as it is. Some things sound so great, but they don't always transfer from paper to real life.

[Chrysalis]

Having communism as a belief isn't necessarily bad, unlike fascism it isn't based on discrimination of people but on the belief that all people are equal. However, to actually implement communism, that is bad. In practice, communism and fascism are the same. A small group of people is at power, and is at war with it's own citizens. The difference might be that there is no racial doctrine involved. Then again, I believe there was discrimination against Jews and other minorities in the Soviet Union(correct me if I'm wrong)?

I come from a family of communists. Allright, they might not be communists in the strictest sense, they don't explicitly say that they're communist but they sympathize with them and have always been supportive of the former USSR. When I try to talk to my dad about the horrors of Stalinist Russia he sometimes tries to make excuses, it's pathetic. :rolleyes: :td:

[hesdead-dealwithit]

Having communism as a belief isn't necessarily bad, unlike fascism it isn't based on discrimination of people but on the belief that all people are equal.
Well, you could undoubtedly say that about socialism. But if you say communism, then you're getting into a grayer area.

Oh, and by the way, fascism isn't based on the discrimination against one group of people. Fascism is based on the elevation of government above the individual - all indiviuals - and the exaltation of the autocratic government and state.

I don't think you can really say that communism is worse than fascism or vice versa. They're reprehensible, both of them, for the same reason - on a large scale, they result in oppression.

[Wab]

I don't think you can really say that communism is worse than fascism or vice versa. They're reprehensible, both of them, for the same reason - on a large scale, they result in oppression.

So does unfettered capitalism.

[canteurervan]

I like communism, not how it's been practiced in the past, but how well it could work. It's true that you cannot practice communism in it's true for with humans, but you can tweak it here and there. I've been working out in my mind ways to make communism work, which I like to call liberal communism. I think that we should have a governmental system that regulates what each person recieves to live by. SO no more millionairs in big mansions getting fat, but a world were everyone has a roof over their heads, and food in their bellies. I beleive that there is only so much wealth to go around that if the wealth is not distributed evenly then there is going to be so many who suffer.

I firmly beleive that if my world wide government system, based on communist theories could work. The problem with the way communism is now is that it is too restrictive in freedom of thought and religion. It is not a global affair either, which presents the problem of the wealth not being shared. One of the many problemes with The Russian communism was that it was already a realitively poor country so under communism, sharing the wealth would result in poverty. Now imagine if the world shared their resources. America could feed the whole world if it wanted too, no we may not be living in big homes with big backyards, but we'd be able to live comfortably, and there wouldn't be so many starving people in the world.

I think that too many people disregard communism because of the evils of it's past. I see communism as a system with alot of potential that could be worked into the best ecconomic system there ever was.

That's what I used to think too. Unfortunately, it won't work. And the flaw of that idea is that HUMANS. Humans are not simply satisfied with a simple provided roof by your government. Humans have desire to strive to excellence, and hence have desire to be worthyly rewarded. It's the self-esteem, the self-benefits, and the SELF of their own individuality. We cannot control our impulses whose goals are to gain, and gain more. Hence, eventually, that idea will break into warfare and chaos.

***van.

[GryffindorGr]

That's what I used to think too. Unfortunately, it won't work. And the flaw of that idea is that HUMANS. Humans are not simply satisfied with a simple provided roof by your government. Humans have desire to strive to excellence, and hence have desire to be worthyly rewarded. It's the self-esteem, the self-benefits, and the SELF of their own individuality. We cannot control our impulses whose goals are to gain, and gain more. Hence, eventually, that idea will break into warfare and chaos.

***van.

Id have to agree to an extent. Marx had a fairly good idea on communism:
Marx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx)
You can't really have a complete paradisial society when so many opposing views make up mankind's thoughts.

[Master Qui-Gon]

There is a structural flaw in communism. It presumes the equality of all people, and ignores their individual strengths and flaws, as well as their individual human dignity. Because of this worldview that nobody is exceptional, but rather cogs in society, it slips easily into totalitarianism

Not true. In communism, it is important to grow and develop every human's individual strenghts and qualities. Ever heard about "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? That's the prime idea of communism, that everyone should contribute to society what their abilities offer. And as everyone has different abilities, they will contribute different things to society. A doctor and a gravedigger won't contribute the same to society, for example.

But it is true that communism says no human is better or worse than others. :cool:

If people got equal amounts of wealth no matter what they did, there would be no incentive to be the best they could be. Why become a doctor, if a gravedigger will make the same as you?

Some people don't mind studying, and are interested in medicine and working with humans. It shouldn't be nessessary to have to tempt these people with money to become doctors. Others don't like school, but are skilled at connection with other people and creating a good working enviroment, and are also capable of seeing things from a bright and happy perspective, so they don't mind to do "filthy" jobs. They also don't mind physical work. These can very well become gravediggers. Not everyone chooses their jobs by how much money they will make, you know.

Thus, the brightest and most talented won't produce more wealth. There'll be less wealth as a whole then, and everyone will be poorer. This is the inevitable fate of any communist system.

The amount of wealth in a society is always constant. Wealth can't be created, nor can it disappear. Just like energy. This means that wealth is distributed, rather than created.

A society where everyone is poor can't exist, it's a logical impossibility. To put it this way, what would happen if you removed 50% of all the money/valuables belonging to every person in the US and burned it? Would everyone become poor? No, simply because the whether or not someone is poor is determined by the average amount of money for each person in the society. The average amount of money also decreases with 50%, meaning the poor are still just as poor, the rich are still just as rich, and the middle-class are still middle-class.

Unless someone requests it, I won't bother explaining about what inflation and deflation is. Suffice to say, as the amount of money is halved its value will almost immediatly be doubled (a huge deflation), so everything will cost only half of what it used to cost, all wages will be halved, etc.

Total effect on society: None. Everyone would be as rich or poor as they used to be.


Anyways, you might say that the US is much richer than let's say Kenya, so the citizens of the US will be richer than the citizens of Kenya. While this is arguably true, the amount of wealth inside the country itself is the same. See, since the average amount of money per person in Kenya is so small (compared to the US), the ones who are rich in Kenya would only be middle-class in the US, those who are middle-class in Kenya would be poor in the US, and those who are poor in Kenya would be ultra-poor in the US.

However, whether someone's poor or rich is determined by the average amount of money is the country. So even though the average amount of money per person in Kenya is lower than in the US, a poor person in Kenya will be just as poor/rich compared to the national average as a poor American. And the cost of items and services in Kenya compared to the average amount of money is equal to the cost of items and services in USA compared to the average amount of money.
And because the average amount of money in Kenya is much lower than in USA, the cost of items and services in Kenya will be lower by the same amount.

Okay, I'm not sure if you understood that, but to sum it all up people are just as rich and poor in Kenya as they are in the USA. The two main reasons for why the mayority of Kenyans are poor, is 1. Because there's an upper class that takes most of money (though they aren't rich compared to Westerners in the international market) and 2. Because if they are to import things from richer countries, they will have to pay a larger amount of money/the average amount compared to westerners. But the second reason isn't that much of a problem, since it's the other way around if they are exporting things to richer countries.

Okay, I'll admit that if you've read all that without becoming confused, you're good. But it all makes sense to me, at least.

That's what I used to think too. Unfortunately, it won't work. And the flaw of that idea is that HUMANS. Humans are not simply satisfied with a simple provided roof by your government. Humans have desire to strive to excellence, and hence have desire to be worthyly rewarded. It's the self-esteem, the self-benefits, and the SELF of their own individuality. We cannot control our impulses whose goals are to gain, and gain more. Hence, eventually, that idea will break into warfare and chaos.

As society stands today, you are correct. But know that the lust for excellence and the desire for successfulness is mostly created by capitalism itself. It's not genetic to want to be better than others, but all humans are affected by society. And the capitalistic society is based on the idea of some people being better than others and the strive of becoming better than others.

I believe a communistic world is possible. Difficult, as it requires a large mayority of the population on earth to agree on and cooperate with communism, but it's not impossible. And if it did work, the world would become as perfect as it is able to be.

Anyways, to put in some last words, no western country today is completely capitalistic. True capitalism is what you saw in Europe in the late 1700s-1800s. The mayority of the population were labour class, and had extremely low payments, horribly long days, poor conditions both at their homes and their place of work, and absolutly no rights. Pretty much all the wealth was distributed among a small upper class. This society was what sparked communism in the first place, the idea that the workers should no longer allow themselves to be oppressed and that everyone should be equal and get everything they need. All worker rights, all welfare and other support of the weak in society has its roots in communism or communistic ideas, so you can't dismiss it altogether.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

No, simply because the whether or not someone is poor is determined by the average amount of money for each person in the society.
Ah! So if everyone is starving, no one is poor!

It's so simple!

[canteurervan]

Not true. In communism, it is important to grow and develop every human's individual strenghts and qualities. Ever heard about "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? That's the prime idea of communism, that everyone should contribute to society what their abilities offer. And as everyone has different abilities, they will contribute different things to society. A doctor and a gravedigger won't contribute the same to society, for example.

But it is true that communism says no human is better or worse than others. :cool:

Well, there's a flaw in that logic as well. That flaw is again back to being Humans. Remember that in Communism, there is a baseline for wealth as well as poverty. One individual work harder earn less than the leisure he/she would have enjoyed for working less. And, since Communism try to eliminate total poverty, Humans become manipulative around the productivity, which caused failure of the whole working system. Imagine how much a higher rank officier would take advantage of such situation to earn more than he/she should have.

In your views, there should have been strict moral codes preserved by ALL INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE SOCIETY, which is another thing cannot happen for all times, not in the past as we already witnessed history, and definitely not in the present and future (well, I shouldn't have said *never*, but it does not seem likely...). However, notice from the time of Babylon to modern time in the West, corresponding to the Dynasty to the modern time in the East, ever moral codes could have been preserved for more than a hundred years? I doubt it. The point is as long as moral codes cannot be preserved, un-modified Communism cannot last forever. What I mean un-modified is that the original ideal of Communism. Take China for instance, the leading Party now is Communist Party, but at the same time, China also allows the existence of other Parties as well. The old Communism would never allow that. With Vietnam, though there is only ONE Communist Party, but the country openned the gate of Trade and Commerce to overcome the limitation of the Closed Economy of the old Communism. And since there were many changes introduced into the modern Communism, especially in economics and trade, the existence of SELF cannot be denied anymore.

Some people don't mind studying, and are interested in medicine and working with humans. It shouldn't be nessessary to have to tempt these people with money to become doctors. Others don't like school, but are skilled at connection with other people and creating a good working enviroment, and are also capable of seeing things from a bright and happy perspective, so they don't mind to do "filthy" jobs. They also don't mind physical work. These can very well become gravediggers. Not everyone chooses their jobs by how much money they will make, you know.

Very true. But again, the focus of Communism is to educate all, not based on Individuals' interest, but on designation of higher priorities. The government decided what are needed in society, and what are not. So, correspondingly, the government will also decide who study what, and who create what. This is the old Communism ideal. Though, the new Communism ideals have changed over times, there are still some stigma attached. I can't say that this is good or bad since no-one can make such a judgement. All I say is that Communism or not, changes should be widely considered, and applied wholly. Therefore, it matters not in the end who does what job, either "filthy" or not, (well, it depends on the definition of "filty job" since I don't believe in it. Jobs are jobs, created to provide services to the community. Hence, we should not judge them based on the physical and visual characteristics of those jobs); rather, it matters who are willing to do what job.



Unless someone requests it, I won't bother explaining about what inflation and deflation is. Suffice to say, as the amount of money is halved its value will almost immediatly be doubled (a huge deflation), so everything will cost only half of what it used to cost, all wages will be halved, etc.

Total effect on society: None. Everyone would be as rich or poor as they used to be.

It seems to me that you are arguing the economics of Capitalism, not Communism. There are slight differences. Capitalism's economy depends much on the incentive and the knowledge of players of the whole market. And, that's why there are always flows of compensation and correction of responses from those players in the market to minimize their cost and maximize their profits. However, the economy of Communism is only partly applied in that same scenario. The other part lay in the hands of the government and the rich. That is due to the unfortunate that not all the poor are educated, and many other factors...


Anyways, you might say that the US is much richer than let's say Kenya, so the citizens of the US will be richer than the citizens of Kenya. While this is arguably true, the amount of wealth inside the country itself is the same. See, since the average amount of money per person in Kenya is so small (compared to the US), the ones who are rich in Kenya would only be middle-class in the US, those who are middle-class in Kenya would be poor in the US, and those who are poor in Kenya would be ultra-poor in the US.

However, whether someone's poor or rich is determined by the average amount of money is the country. So even though the average amount of money per person in Kenya is lower than in the US, a poor person in Kenya will be just as poor/rich compared to the national average as a poor American. And the cost of items and services in Kenya compared to the average amount of money is equal to the cost of items and services in USA compared to the average amount of money.
And because the average amount of money in Kenya is much lower than in USA, the cost of items and services in Kenya will be lower by the same amount.

Okay, I'm not sure if you understood that, but to sum it all up people are just as rich and poor in Kenya as they are in the USA. The two main reasons for why the mayority of Kenyans are poor, is 1. Because there's an upper class that takes most of money (though they aren't rich compared to Westerners in the international market) and 2. Because if they are to import things from richer countries, they will have to pay a larger amount of money/the average amount compared to westerners. But the second reason isn't that much of a problem, since it's the other way around if they are exporting things to richer countries.

Okay, I'll admit that if you've read all that without becoming confused, you're good. But it all makes sense to me, at least.

As a matter of fact, it's true. Moreover, there are more than just two simple reasons as you suggested, I think. Figuring out all the reasons would be a life-time job, I fear...



As society stands today, you are correct. But know that the lust for excellence and the desire for successfulness is mostly created by capitalism itself. It's not genetic to want to be better than others, but all humans are affected by society. And the capitalistic society is based on the idea of some people being better than others and the strive of becoming better than others.

I believe a communistic world is possible. Difficult, as it requires a large mayority of the population on earth to agree on and cooperate with communism, but it's not impossible. And if it did work, the world would become as perfect as it is able to be.

I'm afraid that I do believe so too. As I mentioned before, no one, neither a capitalist nor a communist, could deny the existence of one over another. Each always has reasons beyond debate to support their ideals and contradict others'.

Anyways, to put in some last words, no western country today is completely capitalistic. True capitalism is what you saw in Europe in the late 1700s-1800s. The mayority of the population were labour class, and had extremely low payments, horribly long days, poor conditions both at their homes and their place of work, and absolutly no rights. Pretty much all the wealth was distributed among a small upper class. This society was what sparked communism in the first place, the idea that the workers should no longer allow themselves to be oppressed and that everyone should be equal and get everything they need. All worker rights, all welfare and other support of the weak in society has its roots in communism or communistic ideas, so you can't dismiss it altogether.

As much as I want to believe so, I fear that Humans factor would contradict it. No matter how universal the ideal is known to the society, there will also be some one to deny and contradict it. And hence, there will not be Total Communism as the old Soviet Union intended to achieve. However, with changes, I do believe Communism will find a way to re-define the objective goals to be reachable and more practical.

[Midnightsfire]

How did I miss this post?

If people got equal amounts of wealth no matter what they did, there would be no incentive to be the best they could be. Why become a doctor, if a gravedigger will make the same as you? Thus, the brightest and most talented won't produce more wealth. There'll be less wealth as a whole then, and everyone will be poorer. This is the inevitable fate of any communist system. Capitalism, flawed as it is, is still the best economic system we've thought up.Why would anyone want to become an archaeologist or anthropologist or any other profession?

The overwhelming majority in the US have jobs, as opposed to having careers. I personally slog through the day in tedium working my own job. But if I had the chance, I'd probably make a career being a professional student, learning and learning.

Those with the desire to go into the medical field, would probably recite the Hippocrates Oath with a bit more meaning than they do now. (Or so I believe.) If a doctor is concerned that he/she is making the same as a gravedigger, then I suspect that the Oath doesn't mean much to her/him.

I could probably balance the brightest and most talented with those who have an sincere desire for learning and betterment. How to implement such into Communism has never really been attempted as of yet, or so I don't believe.

There still seems to be this confusion with the Fascist states that called itselves Communist.

[canteurervan]

How did I miss this post?
There still seems to be this confusion with the Fascist states that called itselves Communist.

I remember watching the "Sume of All Fears" (played by Ben Afleck), there's an Australian-American, who was a Facist. He thought he's smarter than both the Communist and Capitalist because he considered himself an opportunitst. Wouldn't that be clear that a Facist is a mere shadow of an Opportunist? I don't know...I don't think I understand either. But, I don't think any Facist would call themselves Communist, though, do they?

***van.

[Wab]

But, I don't think any Facist would call themselves Communist, though, do they?

***van.

A Fascit by definition if not action is a nationalist socialist.

A Communist by definition is a internationalist socialist with the added element of public ownership of all goods ("all property is theft").

[canteurervan]

A Fascit by definition if not action is a nationalist socialist.

A Communist by definition is a internationalist socialist with the added element of public ownership of all goods ("all property is theft").

I just double-checked your defns, but not sure if a Fascist is a socialist? Surely, Fascist's philosophy is Dictatorial Regime, believing in ONE individual of extreme power having control over matters.

Interesting though...

***van.

[Midnightsfire]

*sigh*

The definitions were in one of my posts above...

communism (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/c/c0518400.html)

fascism (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/f/f0045700.html)

[canteurervan]

*sigh*

The definitions were in one of my posts above...

communism (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/c/c0518400.html)

fascism (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/f/f0045700.html)

thankx... Obviously, Fascism is far different from Communism, even the Economics system. The kind of social-economics of Fascism seems to me to be suppressed by the Dictor. It sounds more like Dynasty-like. Meanwhile, the economics system of Communism is under-control of the whole Communist Party, though closed but based on the decision of the whole Party, not some single individual.

***van.

[Morgoth]

What do you all think about communism? Do you think it is good or bad? Do you know anbody who has lived in a communist country? I just want to generally discuss it here.


I did a search on this, so I don't think there is another thread specifically about this.

Not a fan of communism myself, at least the type of communism that states believe in. The grass is always greener on the other side.

[Alastor D]

The theory itself, as formulated by Marx and Engels, was perhaps not that bad. (I don't support it myself). But every effort to apply it we have seen went badly wrong.

[Master Qui-Gon]

The theory itself, as formulated by Marx and Engels, was perhaps not that bad. (I don't support it myself).

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is in theory the very best society that can exist. There is no poverty, no one are worse or better than others, everyone contribute to society what they can and recieve whatever they need. Explain why you don't support it.

But every effort to apply it we have seen went badly wrong.

Well, that's an overstatement. When Mao took over China, the country got a huge positive development in just a matter of years. Still, most attempts of communism has been abused by power-hungry people who sees this as a chance of turning a country into a brutal dictatorship. Which, of course, is the opposite of what communism is all about.

[canteurervan]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is in theory the very best society that can exist. There is no poverty, no one are worse or better than others, everyone contribute to society what they can and recieve whatever they need. Explain why you don't support it.
The very reason was already pointed out by yourself below: abuse of power.


Well, that's an overstatement. When Mao took over China, the country got a huge positive development in just a matter of years. Still, most attempts of communism has been abused by power-hungry people who sees this as a chance of turning a country into a brutal dictatorship. Which, of course, is the opposite of what communism is all about.
And, this is exactly the consequence of Communism. One might think if there's one person who can deny abuse of power for his/her own benefit then the theoretical communism works to the absolutism. Unfortunately, my last post pointed out that it's the deficiency of human nature that such absolutism can never achieve, and hence perfect society of Communism is far-fetched from reality. Let me take a very example to demonstrate my point: some people believe that computer will, regardless of time, eventually achieve the unachievable of human breakthroughs. You name it, advanced simulation, 3-D projections, fast computations that might take humans centuries to compute, administering communication to every single place on the planet and beyond, stock markets, business, etc...enomours burden; however, let's look at a very simple computation of: (cos(pi/10^(100)) - cos(pi/10^(99))) by computer, you know what you get? It's 0. I assume you understand the limitation of computer resources, so by and large, if I keep increase the power of 10 as you keep increase computer resource (i.e memory) so that you will only get 99 significant digits, then you will always get the answer 0. In order words, achieving perfection is relative, and so is uncorrupt Communism. No matter how perfect the leader of communism is chosen, there will always be a corrupt individual causing its collapse as the USSR was, evetually.

Don't take me wrong, I'd love to see that perfect society too; but, the foresignt of such devastation is inevitable...

[Tane]

What is the exact difference between communism and democracy?

[canteurervan]

What is the exact difference between communism and democracy?

This should not be the question, as a matter of fact. I don't think we should compare communism with democracy since democracy is political policy employed by capitalism, not by communism. As far as the question goes, I'd say that communism proceeds with extreme political policies to achieve the perfection of society without poverty, but with appropriety of gain. Meanwhile, the main focus of democracy is compromises among all classes of society so that all can live under the same roof of the government with as less conflict as possible.

***van.

[Wab]

What is the exact difference between communism and democracy?

Communism is an ideology, democracy is a process.

[canteurervan]

Communism is an ideology, democracy is a process.
I'm not sure if you can say democracy is a process. It's too abstract, and hence ambiguous. Surely, it's the state of execution of corresponding policies of democracy; so, if possible, you could pinpoint more about what democracy is about. I, myself, don't know much about it either. People keep talking about democracy, but what is democracy?! What does democracy do? What class(es) of society does it serve?...???!

***van.

[Chrysalis]

I think that as a form of government, communism and facism or nazism can be equated in that they both are totalitarian forms of rule and involve oppression of their own people.

However, communists and facists or nazis as people cannot be equated. While nazis believe in discrimination of particular minority or ethnic groups, communists believe in equality for all people. They are a bit misguided, but otherwise great people to be around with. I should know, I know people who are either communists or sympathize with them but don't necessarily declare themselves so.;)

Bottom line is, not all communists are evil.

[Wab]

democracy is political policy employed by capitalism, not by communism

Democracy predates capitalism which (in it's purest form) abhors all government in favour of the anarchy of the market and social Darwinism.

Pure communism aspires to the dictatorship of the proletariat, pure capitalism looks to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

[Mundungus Fletc]

Surely pure capitalism looks towards the dictatorship of capital or rather the owners/ manipulators of capital. Capitalists 'red in tooth and claw' repeatedly attempt to subvert democracy.

As an example, survey after survey have shown that the overwhelming majority of US citizens want some form of social medical provison as is practised in other developed countrie. Unnalloyed democracy would provide it. Only the lobbying of the insurance industry and certain parts of the medical profession have stopped it happening.

Going back to the topic communism has never been tried. The Soviet Union was from the beginning State capitalism. The state controlled, or reather tried to control everything. Except in the short term this approach cannot succeed. The Soviet government never understood this; the Chinese has learned from their mistakes.

[Mrs Padfoot]

In theory, I think that Communism is a good idea. Everybody is equal and gets a fair share. I think that this makes a lot more sense that what goes on in Capitalist countries. For example, in Britain farmers are quite poor even though they do one of the most important jobs because everybody needs to eat. Whereas the people who are paid the most work in entertainment or are football players, which people could cope without.

However, although I think that Communism in theory is a great idea, it would never work in practice because humans are naturally greedy. Without more money to strive for, people would not work their hardest. If, however hard people worked, they received exactly the same as everybody else people would lose enthusiasm and not want to work very hard. At least with Capitalism there is an incentive to work as hard as possible because through good work people can enjoy more money and luxaries.

[Adalbert Waffling]

What I think is a little funny are things like when someone suggests the communist concept without knowing it's communism. On the last few days of 8th grade, our teacher told us to say write down and say what we would do if we could decide the way a country was operated. out of a class of 28, 7 people said that they would pay everyone the same amount of money regardless of their proffession. They didn't know what communism was, yet they suggested it as a government. I think that was pretty sad.

[auroroftheorder]

They didn't know what communism was, yet they suggested it as a government. I think that was pretty sad.

How is that sad. It is good that these people can think for themselves and not be influence by the name of the government and the overall negative response to it in the capatalist world. It is a bit pathetic that today's youth don't know about politics or think for themselves, but putting down their thoughts isn't bad.

[msmooney]

I'm finding this thread very interesting...

I just wanted to say that I think poor Karl Marx often gets a bad rap that he doesn't really deserve. He probably rolled over in his grave when Lenin et al came along.

[grrliz]

Communism, like many other brilliant ideas, is a great idea on paper. It's fabulously idealistic. The problem is it's never been implemented correctly and, I presume, never will. The problem with communism, like anarchism, is that it fails to take into consideration basic human impulses like greed. It's also nearly impossible for only one (or a few) countries to exist as a communist state; it's sort of an all-or-nothing type deal, and the entire planet would probably have to be communist in order for it to have some shot at working correctly. But I don't really see this happening any time soon, if at all.

[Demetri]

Communism is ridiculously stupid. The entire idea can be evaluated from a chemical stand point (bear with me). In order for electrons to fill the rings of an atom they must fill the preceding rings fully to have a stable atom. Similarly, in communism the nation is only as strong as the weakest link. Meaning every progression that occurs in the society is divided by how many people there are because the weakest link becomes as strong as the entire nation.

The superiority of capitalism is really obvious. First of all, the gap between the rich and poor spurs motivation and competition which propels the market. Furthermore, having a future helps. If you know you can move up then you will work hard. If you know that everything you make will be divided, then it is a natural tendency to stop working.

The problem is best explained by the brilliant economist John Nash (mostly with his Game theory) that discusses the interconnectedness of nations. To bring that to a microcosm the individual people are interconnected and with a flaw in one then the entire system begins to break. Adam Smith would be a great read for more information on this.

From a political standpoint many of these things are the same because Democracy spurs motivation etc which leads to societal advances. The economic part of it (socialism in essence) is most obviously stupid though. Use my analysis above for other areas of communism though.

Reading Ayn Rand (The Anthem is my suggestion) for communism would be a good idea. Great book that one ^.^


Demetri

[Hagrid442]

Communism fails to take self-interest into account, and thus works against it and vice-versa. In a free-market economy, a moderate amount of self-interest not only works with self-interest, it is fueled by it.

However, if allowed to remain unfettered, then the wealth becomes concentrated amongst too few. Capitalism almost self-imploded in the 1930's until Roosevelt's New Deal saved it from itself. Sometimes in some situations, socialism is the way to go. The US isn't socialist enough. Yet many European countries are too socialist. A good balance needs to be found.

I mean, if there is a push to do away with overtime pay in the US on one hand, and people in France work only a 35 hour week*, with a month's worth of vacation... something is seriously wrong.


*The Chirac government is trying to change this. One of the few good things they've done or tried doing....

[Demetri]

Communism fails to take self-interest into account, and thus works against it and vice-versa. In a free-market economy, a moderate amount of self-interest not only works with self-interest, it is fueled by it.

However, if allowed to remain unfettered, then the wealth becomes concentrated amongst too few. Capitalism almost self-imploded in the 1930's until Roosevelt's New Deal saved it from itself. Sometimes in some situations, socialism is the way to go. The US isn't socialist enough. Yet many European countries are too socialist. A good balance needs to be found.

I mean, if there is a push to do away with overtime pay in the US on one hand, and people in France work only a 35 hour week*, with a month's worth of vacation... something is seriously wrong.


*The Chirac government is trying to change this. One of the few good things they've done or tried doing....

Roosevelts New Deal actually did little. If you look at the economic situation it bettered little until WWII where it actually skyrocketed.

Capitalism sometimes does get concentrated but you can always go from rags to riches and such a tantalizing fact keeps capitalism alive and going well.

[Hagrid442]

FDR's New Deal made it so capitalism wasn't so volatile. The effects didn't show up until later. If not for his reforms, I doubt the economy would have survived the even worse stock market crashes of the early 1980's.

Yes, rags to riches. There is that. However, when wealth is concentrated, opportunities are less. The free-market should benefit as many people as possible, not as few as possible.

How about that... a socialistic free-marketeer. :)

[Demetri]

FDR's New Deal made it so capitalism wasn't so volatile. The effects didn't show up until later. If not for his reforms, I doubt the economy would have survived the even worse stock market crashes of the early 1980's.

Yes, rags to riches. There is that. However, when wealth is concentrated, opportunities are less. The free-market should benefit as many people as possible, not as few as possible.

How about that... a socialistic free-marketeer. :)

Well I suppose historians too differ on this topic. I suppose it did set some framework but it isnt just coincidence that the economy stabilized when WWII happened. WWII provided for a war market economy which was necessary for mobilizing our economy. It provided jobs and a demand etc etc.

[Hagrid442]

Exactly. Our unused industrial capacity was still way too high in 1941. The war used all that up, and with more demand, the output and capacity went up, up, up. The war accelerated the recovery exponentially.

Anyway... communism. Bad. Pretty much everyone has figured it out, except North Korea.

[Demetri]

Exactly. Our unused industrial capacity was still way too high in 1941. The war used all that up, and with more demand, the output and capacity went up, up, up. The war accelerated the recovery exponentially.

Anyway... communism. Bad. Pretty much everyone has figured it out, except North Korea.

I agree with that but it wasnt the New Deal that made it possible for it to happen. It was all WWII in my opinion. But I agree communism is bad, we should send a letter to North Korea..anyone want to sign it with me?!

[Chrysalis]

However, if allowed to remain unfettered, then the wealth becomes concentrated amongst too few. Capitalism almost self-imploded in the 1930's until Roosevelt's New Deal saved it from itself. Sometimes in some situations, socialism is the way to go. The US isn't socialist enough. Yet many European countries are too socialist. A good balance needs to be found.
Have you even been here?

[grrliz]

To the U.S. or to Europe? (It's hard to guage your location based on "Where Bluebirds Fly" :))

[Chrysalis]

Europe...he says it's too socialist.:rolleyes:

[Demetri]

I havent been there but at least on paper it is rather socialist. Both England and France have major socialist premises not to mention switzerland and Sweden.

[Mundungus Fletc]

Demetri wrote
Both England and France have major socialist premises not to mention switzerland and Sweden.

Socialism isn't communism though some politicians, especially those on the right wing, like to pretend they are. As for the UK being Socialist I only wish it was.

[Morgoth]

I havent been there but at least on paper it is rather socialist. Both England and France have major socialist premises not to mention switzerland and Sweden.

There's small parties in the UK but nothing substantial. New Labour have got rid of their old socialist idealisms. It was the only way they could win ground on the middle class vote. It worked.

[Actaion]

It's more than just that communism is stupid, it's foolish. It's brainlessly idealist. People will always be selfish with or without property, so removing property only removes reward and ruins society.

Actually can't say yes. Has your country lived through an era of communism? I dont want to sound like a communist, no, if Slovakia hadn't go through the 41 years of hard communism( october 1948 -november 1989 ) we would be much more economically advanced, not talking about tourism, social groups etc.

Communism had an idea, but the idea of Marx, truly a revolutionary. In those times [1880's & 1890's] most countries were colonialistic empires, were there was no middle class, and sadly more poor than rich. Marx had the idea of a middle class for everyone, so the people wouldn't any more starve in their small slum dwellings, and the rich would no longer be so. And Russian communism, now your talking. The mindless regime massacred everything. from their own soldier, shot into his grave for the mere crime of stealing a can of peas to the mass accusings of national traitors wich were doomed to the uranian mines. My friends family wasalso a part of many millions of victims. So please when writing a comment, not everything is bad.

[Chrysalis]

I havent been there but at least on paper it is rather socialist. Both England and France have major socialist premises not to mention switzerland and Sweden.
No. The UK and France are not socialist.

At least no one here has to work two jobs just to pay their rent.

[Demetri]

No. The UK and France are not socialist.

At least no one here has to work two jobs just to pay their rent.

I said they had socialist tendencies (most specifically for the health program). Not that they are all out socialists.

Eh, if you are saying socialism caused that then..I dont think you can find much economic backing for it. Maybe you can, I just think that if it was working there would be more of a change to socialism due to the benefits.

There's small parties in the UK but nothing substantial. New Labour have got rid of their old socialist idealisms. It was the only way they could win ground on the middle class vote. It worked.

Absolutely, I am not saying certain programs are socialist but there are certain parts of certain governmental functions that is socialist. Mostly referring to the Health program. It is more france that I am referring to though.

[Chrysalis]

Eh, if you are saying socialism caused that then..I dont think you can find much economic backing for it. Maybe you can, I just think that if it was working there would be more of a change to socialism due to the benefits.
I think you misunderstood me. I was referring to Europe, that no one had to work two jobs because they would be unable to support themselves.

I think socialist Health programs are better. Now everyone can see a proper doctor, instead of a select few.

Better too socialist then not enough.

Anyways, this is a thread about communism. Why are we discussing socialism here?

[Demetri]

I think you misunderstood me. I was referring to Europe, that no one had to work two jobs because they would be unable to support themselves.

I think socialist Health programs are better. Now everyone can see a proper doctor, instead of a select few.

Better too socialist then not enough.

Anyways, this is a thread about communism. Why are we discussing socialism here?

Because philosophically they are intertwined.

But the thing is it isnt my responsibility to make sure you get a good doctor. The only thing that we share is a government. Just as it isnt my responsibility (as an American citizen) to pay your medical bills from across the atlantic ocean (I assume you live in Europe based on your posts). Yet if two people live in France or England they are not much closer. If I am going to do something for you then what will you be doing for me?

[Chrysalis]

You're not directly paying for it. Besides, would you deny the majority of the population proper health care?

[Demetri]

You're not directly paying for it. Besides, would you deny the majority of the population proper health care?


That doesnt mean that they are paying for it in the end. Just becuase they arent pulling out a checkbook and writing a check for someones medical care doesnt mean it isnt their money.

The fact is that taxes are supposed to be used so a government can maintain the society and invest in the infrastructure of the economy so that the people benefit in the end. The government in any real sense doesnt exist. Remember that there is not some creature in a room that acts as the government.

What socialist health care policies do is have certain people (who are allowing the government to function) to decide that some people have to pay for the things of other people.

Furthermore, it is not a majority at all. A majority of people have good health care in America but there is not a socialist health policy. The fact is that the money of the citizens is not being used to help the society as a whole, but a small percentage of people. That is unjust in any way you look at it. They are taking away from money used to help the society to help a small percentage of the society.

[Chrysalis]

No, because the majority of the people is middle class or of a lower status, they can't.

[Demetri]

No, because the majority of the people is middle class or of a lower status, they can't.

How can the middle class not pay for medical care. I mean maybe not THE BEST in the entire world but they can definitely pay for it. Plus how about insurance. I definitely think that they could.

[Wab]

Absolutely, I am not saying certain programs are socialist but there are certain parts of certain governmental functions that is socialist. Mostly referring to the Health program. It is more france that I am referring to though.

Nationalised health is not socialist.

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production and distribution of wealth are communally controlled. Usually this involves the government but it also works on a smaller scale in things such as farmers' co-ops and the like.

In countries that have nationalised health care, health care is seen as an inalienable right like education where there is a choice between private and public.

[Demetri]

Nationalised health is not socialist.

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production and distribution of wealth are communally controlled. Usually this involves the government but it also works on a smaller scale in things such as farmers' co-ops and the like.

In countries that have nationalised health care, health care is seen as an inalienable right like education where there is a choice between private and public.


You are really misrepresenting my point. It has socialist tendencies becasue it is nationalized. It has remnants of socialism in it because of its nationalist tendencies.

That is only because they grew up with such systems. But the simple fact is that a dollar put for nationalized health care (it is socialist in nature) is a dollar taken away from bettering the society and the economy. That is simply wrong that my money isnt being used to help me and my society in the end. Helping people on the lower end is not my responsibility at all. Regardless of whether it is a good thing to do it isnt my responsibility.


Here is the acid test for socialist health care (nationalized or whtever you call it). (Even if it the government isnt fully national tis part of health care certainly is):

Would it survive if it was no longer mandatory, but instead if it was optional?

-Of course not.

People claim that it is a good thing, or the right thing to do. But do you think that the system would survive if they had to write checks directly to the system? Of course not.


http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html#usa

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0306e.asp

[Wab]

That is only because they grew up with such systems. But the simple fact is that a dollar put for nationalized health care (it is socialist in nature) is a dollar taken away from bettering the society and the economy. That is simply wrong that my money isnt being used to help me and my society in the end.

How does ensuring everyone has a shot at proper health care no help society. Is society bettered by people dying or having prolonged periods out of work because they can't afford proper health care?

Helping people on the lower end is not my responsibility at all. Regardless of whether it is a good thing to do it isnt my responsibility.

Right little Thatcherite you are aren't you. I suppose you think that people's taxes shouldn't go to education. Surely other people's kids aren't your resposibility.

[grrliz]

That is only because they grew up with such systems. But the simple fact is that a dollar put for nationalized health care (it is socialist in nature) is a dollar taken away from bettering the society and the economy. That is simply wrong that my money isnt being used to help me and my society in the end. Helping people on the lower end is not my responsibility at all. Regardless of whether it is a good thing to do it isnt my responsibility.

Here is the acid test for socialist health care (nationalized or whtever you call it). (Even if it the government isnt fully national tis part of health care certainly is):

Would it survive if it was no longer mandatory, but instead if it was optional?

-Of course not.

People claim that it is a good thing, or the right thing to do. But do you think that the system would survive if they had to write checks directly to the system? Of course not.I don't know about you, but I'd definitely rather support the nationalized system than to write checks directly to the system out of my own pocket.

In Canada, we have a nationalized (socialist!) health care system. For example, on average, a triple-bypass surgery with a week's stay in hospital costs about $60,000. I would gladly pay into a nationally funded health care system with my taxes than have to pay that out of my own pocket (i.e. "write checks directly to it"), because there is little chance I would be paying $60,000 in taxes in one year.

You argue that putting money into nationalized health care available to everyone takes away from bettering society and the economy, but I can't understand that. They used to come out with these rankings that would rank quality of life in various countries and decide which one was the "best" to live in. Canada was on top for something like seven consecutive years mainly due to our health care system. After a while we were ousted by Japan, and it was mainly due to the fact that we were taking money out of things like public education and healthcare and instead giving tax breaks to everyone (tax breaks being the type of thing people claim stimulates the economy best). How does that improve society?

Maybe it's a Canadian thing. Maybe we try to help out everyone on all ends of the economic spectrum. Maybe we think "helping people on the lower end" is our responsibility. I can't understand what's so bad about that.

[Demetri]

How does ensuring everyone has a shot at proper health care no help society. Is society bettered by people dying or having prolonged periods out of work because they can't afford proper health care?



Right little Thatcherite you are aren't you. I suppose you think that people's taxes shouldn't go to education. Surely other people's kids aren't your resposibility.

Education is (technically) an investment in the infrastructure in the nation.

America doesnt have nationalized help care yet it is able to function societally.

The problem is you haev to weigh infrastructural investment versus health care investment. Which is better for the society. Clearly it is infrastructural development for numerous reasons:

1. You benefit the society clearly rather than potentially in mitigated ways. The fact is that if these people ahve jobs and are part of the work force then they should be able to afford some form of health care. Whether it is the best is not the issue at hand. Again, where is insurance in all of this?

2. Every dollar you take from the infrastructural investment is being used to help people who have done nothing to deserve my help. Remember, in essence it is the middle class too who have to pay for the lower class. Why?

3. Again, if it was on a volunteer basis (i.e. writing a check and handing it to the government) I guarantee that very few people would do it. So if it is so beneficial and so obviously right why not have it volunteer and let those who want to participate. But the fact is that they wont want to, I'd like to reiterate my question on this:

Why?


Demetri

[Wab]

Hmm, all this may explain why the US rates 48th in world life expectancy according to the CIA World Factbook.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_lif_exp_at_bir_tot_pop

and 41st in infant mortality.

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-B/hea_inf_mor_rat&int=100

Well behind dozens of countries with nationalised health care.

[grrliz]

2. Every dollar you take from the infrastructural investment is being used to help people who have done nothing to deserve my help. Remember, in essence it is the middle class too who have to pay for the lower class. Why?Exactly what does the lower class have to do to "deserve" the help of the middle class? Is it not enough that they are your neighbours, classmates, family members, or fellow countrymen/women?

3. Again, if it was on a volunteer basis (i.e. writing a check and handing it to the government) I guarantee that very few people would do it. If everything were on a volunteer basis, few people would do anything beneficial to society and instead become absorbed in their own natural self-interest. Society cannot function like that.

[Demetri]

Hmm, all this may explain why the US rates 48th in world life expectancy according to the CIA World Factbook.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_lif_exp_at_bir_tot_pop

and 41st in infant mortality.

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-B/hea_inf_mor_rat&int=100

Well behind dozens of countries with nationalised health care.

Which is why all of those old people died in France during the heat. You would think that the nation coudl help with air conditioning if they have the money available to help health care.

My point is that there are numerous things that are to be put into consideration when you are weighing this issue. (note: Who in the world says 77 isnt good enough for me..I HAVE TO BE 78!!! I havent spent enough time in the nursing home..I NEED MORE!..or to quote South Park "Who the hell wants to be 80 anyway". ^.^

Furthermore, Croatia spents the most on public health care yet they are in the low low low bracket in everything. So obviously you cannot simply say you throw money at it and things get better.

The fact is that it isnt about the efficiency of it but just that they throw more money at it:

http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=5730

Furthermore, notice how much higher the poverty line is in Britain than it is in America. One would think that you they could use the money of the government a bit more efficiency. The percent below poverty line of Britain is 17, in America it is 12. Maybe the issue is simply that the situation is different based on people who can afford it. That could be the cause of the misunderstanding.

Maybe if they could use infrastructural investment to decrease that number the situation would be different....


Exactly what does the lower class have to do to "deserve" the help of the middle class? Is it not enough that they are your neighbours, classmates, family members, or fellow countrymen/women?

If everything were on a volunteer basis, few people would do anything beneficial to society and instead become absorbed in their own natural self-interest. Society cannot function like that.

But if it was so beneficial and so obviously helpful why wouldnt they do it? Why do politicians have to strip money away from people without consulting hte people.

No it really isnt enough. If you want to get technical isnt it enough that we would live in the same world. That our last names both end in M. That doesnt lead to proximity and certainly doesnt make us closer. What is the difference betweem me and someone who lives 2 feet above the US/Canadian border and myself and someone who lives in California. Really nothing. I dont know them better. Simply put I owe them nothing.

My point is that we all benefit through infrastructural investment (as seen by the difference in the poverty gap) but the health care bit simply throws mroe money at it. It isnt that the plan is more efficient at detail, simply that more money is being thrown at the problem.

[grrliz]

But if it was so beneficial and so obviously helpful why wouldnt they do it? Why do politicians have to strip money away from people without consulting hte people.Prime reason: tax cuts. Politicans promise tax cuts because people want more of their hard earned money back in their own pockets rather than in the hands of the government. So they vote from the politicians who promise tax cuts, they deliver on the tax cuts, and then people cry foul that their social programs are falling a part. Well no wonder. That's the way it's been in Ontario for the past eight years. We're working to fix that.

Simply put I owe them nothing.Nobody in the world owes anybody else anything. But that's not the point. The point is that we're human and we can take responsibility for the well being of others. I'm reminded of the biblical story of the Good Samaritan, but I'm not overly religious and you can probably assume where I'm going with that.

My point is that we all benefit through infrastructural investmentThat's my point as well. The difference is how we define as "infrastructural investment": your definition doesn't include health care, mine does. I mean, aren't most of us born in hospitals? It starts from birth. :eyebrows:

So what is the solution, then? Instead of a nationalized health care system, it makes more sense to pay for each person to pay for their own health care problems out of their own pockets? :huh:

[Demetri]

Prime reason: tax cuts. Politicans promise tax cuts because people want more of their hard earned money back in their own pockets rather than in the hands of the government. So they vote from the politicians who promise tax cuts, they deliver on the tax cuts, and then people cry foul that their social programs are falling a part. Well no wonder. That's the way it's been in Ontario for the past eight years. We're working to fix that.

Nobody in the world owes anybody else anything. But that's not the point. The point is that we're human and we can take responsibility for the well being of others. I'm reminded of the biblical story of the Good Samaritan, but I'm not overly religious and you can probably assume where I'm going with that.

That's my point as well. The difference is how we define as "infrastructural investment": your definition doesn't include health care, mine does. I mean, aren't most of us born in hospitals? It starts from birth. :eyebrows:

So what is the solution, then? Instead of a nationalized health care system, it makes more sense to pay for each person to pay for their own health care problems out of their own pockets? :huh:

Well I suppose I do owe them something but not in this sense.

We are all human, so how are they helping me?

My point is that if it was voluntary no one would do it. It is really nice to say that you think it works and that it is good. But when push comes to shove people are naturally selfish and naturally dont want to help each other. That is the main problem with socialism (we are veering off course a bit...)

We are born in hospitals but the differences in minimal. It is a doctor difference in the UK not a spending difference as the spending is only different by a margin of 5.8-5.7 percent. You cant really claim a victory there for socialist health care as it doesnt make much of a difference.

[Alastor D]

One thing that I don't understand here is, if education is an investment in society, why then isn't health care also an investment? Educating people who can't afford to stay in enough health to work and contribute to the society looks more like a vaste than an investment to me.

But it seems we are quite far from the original topic of this thread already.

[Mundungus Fletc]

Savoy Truffle wrote
Anyways, this is a thread about communism. Why are we discussing socialism here?

Demetri responded
Because philosophically they are intertwined

I'm sorry to say this but your response is a gross simplification. I could equally say that Conservatism and Fascism are intertwined.

[Wab]

No it really isnt enough. If you want to get technical isnt it enough that we would live in the same world. That our last names both end in M. That doesnt lead to proximity and certainly doesnt make us closer. What is the difference betweem me and someone who lives 2 feet above the US/Canadian border and myself and someone who lives in California. Really nothing. I dont know them better. Simply put I owe them nothing.


Great. So if I see you hit by a bus I can leave you bleeding in a ditch because I owe you noithing.

[ComicBookWorm]

While this discussion of the value of socialized medicine seems to have gone far from the original discussion of communism, I don't think it has strayed as much as it seems. The original precepts of communism weren't all that bad. They were probably impractical in the real world since we seem to need self-interest to be motivated, but they were developed to address the social inequities in 19th Europe. This was worse than a world of haves and have nots. It was a world of haves and to heck with the rest of them. There was brutality, abject poverty, miserable illness, and hopelessness. We had capitalism run amuck, and the invention of communism was supposed to address this.

The belief was that everyone would share in the burden and all inequities would be erased. I don't think that it would have worked even if the Soviet Union hadn't perverted it. But that doesn't mean that it didn't have some good ideals supporting it's basic concepts. These principles are that we have moral and social obligation for the welfare of others in our society, and that government needs to address these concerns since no one else is. And that we have to share the burden in order to address these needs as a society. The economic assumptions of communism were unworkable, but the social assumptions have validity today.

And while we seem to need self-interest (i.e. the profit motive) to force us to strive, self-interest alone can blind us to the needs of others. We need to balance these two apparently competing concepts of self-intererst vs. societal obligation. Otherwise we will be back to square one with the haves and to heck with the rest of them.

[Demetri]

I'm sorry to say this but your response is a gross simplification. I could equally say that Conservatism and Fascism are intertwined.

No you couldnt. It really isnt a gross simplification at all. Socialism is the political stage between capitalism and communism according to Marx. Conservatism and fascism are not intertwined at all however.

Great. So if I see you hit by a bus I can leave you bleeding in a ditch because I owe you noithing.

No but if I dont know how to swim and I see you drowning in the middle of a lake should I go out and get you. Both of our examples are different extremes.

This does beg the philosophically charged question about moral culpability. And whether inaction is just as bad as a negative action.

I suggest we make a thread for this if we want to discuss it. I certainly would love to (I love philosophy and this is a very good question). If you want to feel free to make it.

But this really is veering off course. But my question remains in relation to this:

If it was so obvious, and using your question made people feel bad. Why wouldnt it work if it was volunteer?


DEmetri

[Wab]

Because I don't know of any form of taxation that is. Anyway, I get world class medical attention for less than the cost of private so why would I want it to change?

It works. It's not perfect but nothing is.

[Mundungus Fletc]

Demetri wrote
Socialism is the political stage between capitalism and communism according to Marx. my italics

But Marx wasn't the only person to write about socialism. It has been said the British socialism at least owes more to Methodism than Marx. It was a natural response by Christians to want to help others and the best mechanism for ensuring universal delivery of help was the state

[msmooney]

This thread is taking such an interesting turn, especially with the conversation on what exactly is/is not owed to lower classes.


Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an overriding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage labor. Wage labor rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of modern industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable. (My italics.)

Since we are talking about communism here, I thought we should maybe quote the man a bit; that was from the first section of The Communist Manifesto on "The Bourgeois and the Proletarians" by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

I thought it fit here splendidly, as the thread seem to have turned towards a "what does the upper class/middle class owe the lower class" type discussion. And see, this is EXACTLY how Marx and Engels viewed the evolution of history. If we were to plot ourselves on a sort of Marxian timeline, the United States and other developed nations of the world would be in the phase of "capitalist development." This is the phase that is being described above in the first paragraph, with the creation of modern labor, the growing rift between economic classes, etc. According to Marx, what happens next, in the communist phase of history, is that the proletariat finally realizes that it's getting the short end of the stick, and they rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie. The lower class that the bourgeois created with their economic excess becomes, in Marx's words, their own gravediggers.

I just thought it nice to bring this in at this point of the discussion - I'm not saying that the lower classes will act as Marx described if ignored long enough by the state, but that is what he postulated. Communism is the end stage of a historical process; it is what is supposed to happen after the onset of full-blown capitalism in society. As we're discussing just to what extent the upper classes should worry about/care for the lower classes, we might do well to keep this in mind. :)

[grrliz]

Bear with me, I hate quoting from movies of all places to provide great philosophical arguments, but in the Drew Barrymore movie Ever After her character says something along the lines of what you mean, msmoony. If you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners corrupted from infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded, sire, but that you first make thieves and then punish them?Comparable to the bourgeois creating the lower class and then punishing them for being lower class.

[Ranador]

Communism in theory isn't a bad thing. The problem is that we never see true communism in practice. We see fascism or socialism that calls itself communism. Communism ultimately won't work, because in order get there a country has to become socialist and then the government has to give up its authority and set it up so everyone has equal control of all it's assets. A government with total control will never give it up, and that's the problem in ever attaining communism.


Also, I like that I can work harder and benefit from it by making myself better and more money, than someone who is less hardworking.

[Wab]

The Marx/Engels hypothesis rejects capitalism exactly because the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is based only on grounds of economic exploitation. While they recognised the oppression in other systems such as feudalism they also realised that these relationships had deeper dimensions such as kinship and noblesse oblige in which the proles weren't seen as disposable as they are in capitalism.

[Ranador]

Capitalism is an important step on the progression to communism though according to Marx

[msmooney]

Indeed, communism is only supposed to occur after capitalism - it's the injustices suffered under capitalism that supposedly wakes up the proletariat.

[Chrysalis]

You must also understand that Marx considered communism a spiritual awakening. It freed not only the body but the soul. Marx thought that the creation of a utopia where everybody was equal was enough motivation to keep the people working hard.

[Demetri]

Marx was a father of communism and according to him socialism is a step between capitalism and socialism.

[msmooney]

Demetri, socialism was indeed a phase between capitalism and communism, but it cannot be entirely separated from communism in Marx's view; he posited that communism is the most realized form of socialism where the population has been re-educated to the point that the state is finally able to wither away.

[Demetri]

Indeed, but Marx realized that a state must enter a socialist phase in order for the communist transition to work. Otherwise it would be too sudden and would cause failure. I dont know how this part of the discussion got started though o.o

[Sunfish McCaul]

I think Marx and Lenin had the right idea, and I believe that Communism the way that those two men envisioned was a beautiful thing. That said, most modern Communists don't seem to care about what's happening in pseudo-Communist nations like Cuba and Taos. It seems like they're cool about the bloodshed and dictatorship that occurs in those countries, which genuinely chills me.
That's why I'm a socialist instead.

[Demetri]

Communism is a study of idealism. It would never work. It not only defies human nature but it defies all logic. Socialism is the same way. It might look good on paper, but reality, because humans are involved, is an entirely different deal.

[Midnightsfire]

Just to repost my opinion:

There aren't many, if any, countries practicing pure Communism, which is an economic theory to begin with.

(And no, neither China or the former USSR were ever really Communist.)

The best example was probably Tibet, when it existed under the Dalai Lama. Lol! Talk about ironies. A government that was technically a theocracy using a Communist economy.

[Mundungus Fletc]

Midnightsfire wrote
A government that was technically a theocracy using a Communist economy.

Not unique though. The Jesuit missions in Paraguay were in effect a communist society which is one of the reasons they got abolished.

[Actaion]

my italics

But Marx wasn't the only person to write about socialism. It has been said the British socialism at least owes more to Methodism than Marx. It was a natural response by Christians to want to help others and the best mechanism for ensuring universal delivery of help was the state

Oddly communism was actually almost banning the church [dobry komunista neboji sa ani krista (a good communist is not scared of Jesus Christ)] it was sick :no:

[Mundungus Fletc]

Marx wanted to ban religion as 'the opium of the people.' (It's a stupid idea trying to ban religion - it thrives under persecution.) What I am trying to say is that there are other forms of socialism which owe nothing to him. British socialism is the one I know about and it was a largely non-conformist movement. Even today many on the left (even the extreme left) are deeply devout Christians who take nothing from Marx but a great deal from the New Testament.

[Wab]

As I may have posted earlier (and in agreement with 'dung) socialism thrives in many forms including things such as closed religious orders (actually closer to communism due to the commonality of property) to farmer's co-ops.

[auroroftheorder]

Of course, to try to ban religion is morally wrong; but you can see where a communist country would come from on that issue...Communism (ideally) is all about unity, but with different religions, one could see the seperation of the people. (Look at all the violence in the world today over differences of religion.)

[Mundungus Fletc]

Essentially dictatorship as practised in the USSR has to ban all organisations not affiliated to the party. It wasn't just religions, the boy scouts and the masons were among the first to be outlawed. To keep control they had to take control of every aspect of the people's lives (just like Hitler - he planned to in effect de-christianise the church when he had won)

[msmooney]

I think Marx and Lenin had the right idea, and I believe that Communism the way that those two men envisioned was a beautiful thing.

But Marx's communism was very different than Lenin's communism.

And yes, the Soviets did try to get into every aspect of people's lives since the process of building socialism came with a huge responsibility of re-education and "re-programming" if you will. By the 1930s, the communist party saw themselves not only as the political vanguard, but the cultural one as well, with one of their key aims being to undertake a civilizing mission that would erradicate the Soviet state of the dreaded "backwardness" so prevalent in pre-revolutionary Russia. This involved a massive educating campaign, with tons and tons of advide pamphlets and instructional guides - it's really quite fascinating.

[Wab]

The whole religion things was based on the "opiate of the masses" phrase. Essentially Marx saw religion as a salve to the masses to accept their oppression in this world in the expectation of a better time in the next.

[Actaion]

Essentially dictatorship as practised in the USSR has to ban all organisations not affiliated to the party. It wasn't just religions, the boy scouts and the masons were among the first to be outlawed. To keep control they had to take control of every aspect of the people's lives (just like Hitler - he planned to in effect de-christianise the church when he had won)
Nope actually there were boy scouts.

[Mundungus Fletc]

Nope actually there were boy scouts.

Have you evidence for that. These links suggests they were suppressed .

http://histclo.hispeed.com/youth/youth/org/sco/country/ukr/scoutukr.htm
http://www.pinetreeweb.com/rtn-russ.htm

This link says they were suppressed in the former Czechoslovakia (It also refers to their suppression under the NAZIs)

http://n2zgu.50megs.com/CZE.htm

[Actaion]

Have you evidence for that. These links suggests they were suppressed .

http://histclo.hispeed.com/youth/youth/org/sco/country/ukr/scoutukr.htm
http://www.pinetreeweb.com/rtn-russ.htm

This link says they were suppressed in the former Czechoslovakia (It also refers to their suppression under the NAZIs)

http://n2zgu.50megs.com/CZE.htm

they were called pioneers in translation, and actually were the commy factor for the youth [i thought that were talking about the 50's 60's 70's 80's Communism]

[Mundungus Fletc]

they were called pioneers in translation, and actually were the commy factor for the youth

My point precisely. They were a specifically Communist organisation imbuing Communist values. Just as the Hiler Youth and DMB were specifically NAZI. The Boy Scouts are an independent theist organisation and hence abhorrent to totalitarian regimes - they claim to encourage independence of thought (Not that I know much about that I was expelled from the Cubs - one of my proudest achievements :evil: )

[Actaion]

My point precisely. They were a specifically Communist organisation imbuing Communist values. Just as the Hiler Youth and DMB were specifically NAZI. The Boy Scouts are an independent theist organisation and hence abhorrent to totalitarian regimes - they claim to encourage independence of thought (Not that I know much about that I was expelled from the Cubs - one of my proudest achievements :evil: )
The scouts were banned [actually changed into a different boy scout commy-supported wich propagated the ideal of a perfect communism run utopia]
They gave the youth some sort of afternoon/weekend/holiday scout camp. They then used this instrument to introduce the children and youth to communism so no contra-revolution would be so :evil:

[daniel4hp]

Communism is a study of idealism. It would never work. It not only defies human nature but it defies all logic. Socialism is the same way. It might look good on paper, but reality, because humans are involved, is an entirely different deal.
Socialism would never work? How do you explain the numerous countries that have successful socialist economies?

[Demetri]

There has never been a true socialist nation. The socialist groups that have occurred only occur in small examples (like New Harmony in America which was simply a mill and it worked for a few months then the entire economy was destroyed). There has never been a true socialist society according to the socialism advocated by Marx and Engels.

[Dementor Dave]

Originally posted by Demetri
There has never been a true socialist society according to the socialism advocated by Marx and Engels.

The socialism advocated by Marx and Engels was a violent proletariat revolution to overthrough the bourgeoisie. It actually did occur in Russia, but failed miserably, doomed from the beginning by a minority leadership (the bolsheviks). When you refer to true socialism perhaps you mean the utopian form practiced prior to (and to an extent during) the 1848 nationalist revolutions throughout Europe. Utopian socialism was peaceful and focused on the good nature of man helping to smoothly transition. Big leaders were Claude St. Simon, Charles Fourier,and Robert Owen (founder of New Harmony you mentioned earlier). Marx's "socialism" was barely that, It bordered more on the communist side.
-Dementor Dave

[Actaion]

please someone react to my reply.

[CicadaInvasion]

Communism/Socialism are both very good forms of government on paper, but as Demtri said, it is impossible to have a pure communist or socialist government. There will always be the one who ruins it for everyone.

That said, I prefer Republicanism (not like the US republican party!!!) ideals. They truly encompass the common man and all his faults.

[msmooney]

Communism/Socialism are both very good forms of government on paper, but as Demtri said, it is impossible to have a pure communist or socialist government. There will always be the one who ruins it for everyone.

That said, I prefer Republicanism (not like the US republican party!!!) ideals. They truly encompass the common man and all his faults.

Just out of curiousity, what republican ideals are you referring to? The French "liberty, equality, and fraternity?"

[CicadaInvasion]

Just out of curiousity, what republican ideals are you referring to? The French "liberty, equality, and fraternity?"

Liberty, equality, the idea of inalienable rights to be guarenteed, and the raising of the common man.

[Sirius Snape]

Communism/Socialism are both very good forms of government on paper, but as Demtri said, it is impossible to have a pure communist or socialist government. There will always be the one who ruins it for everyone.


Well it is possible to have such a government if you were to combine a direct democracy or representative democracy (based on country size) with socialist programs. I dought it would be possible in the U.S. though as big business has government by the *****.

[OrangeEric]

What is the difference between communism and socialism, by the way.

[Wab]

What is the difference between communism and socialism, by the way.

This may have ben canvassed but the basic principles of socialism are more economic with communal ownership of the means of production and communism more political with common ownership of everything and the dismantling of central government in favour of a dictatoroship of the proletariat.

There are many tweaks and flavours of the two (as with all ideologies; political, economic and religious) but they are the base tenets.