How do you feek about Communism?
So recently I've been looking into the main idea of communism, which from what I now know seems to be this: nobody has to fight for survival every day of their lives. Everybody gets treated equally, and gets a chance to earn a living. This is great in theory, since these days there are people out on the street and other living with millions of dollars and getting all the good things in life. If communism could work, then it would fix what I think is a big problem with today's society, but unfortunately humans are too greedy for it to work. It's sad, really, because it's a great idea, but because of greed and corruption it won't work for a long time, if ever.
I'm going to research it more and perhaps rethink my current view, but this is something I'm very interested in hearing what others think about it. But please keep it respectful guys. I don't want this to turn into the kind of thread were people are just calling other people's opinions stupid. I want to see an intelligent and mature discussion happening.
Comments
Communism is just something that cant work, I also think its daft that people who work hard would get paid the same as people who do nothing. There would never be any incentive ever to do anything. If you want to get somewhere then you can, there are endless opportunities in the world and if you want something then you have to try for it.
The benefits/welfare system in most western countries just show how flawed this system is people get tons to do absolutely nothing
Well I agree that people who sit on their ass and do nothing don't deserve to be living off other people's money. But don't you think that in this day and age big corporations and billionaires have too much control? It's not surprising, really. Money is one of the most effective ways to get what you want. Just ask any friend and they'll probably say, "oh, I wouldn't do porn for a million dollars." But if you actually showed them that million dollars, it might be a different story. The main idea of communism is that everybody at least has a chance. In Australia where I live it might not be necessary, since the government pays for education. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there some parents in the U.S and maybe other countries who can't pay to send their kids to school? With communism, at least everybody gets a fair chance.
In my opinion billionaires hold too much power, and for the working class to get just as much of a say is something I'm sure we'd all love to see.
As someone from a post-Soviet country, I find it laughable that people would look at communism as something that could benefit the society/state.
Why, if you don't mind me asking?
Because the Soviet Union tried to implement something like communism. Was everyone treated equally? No, not really. Did everyone become equal in terms of income/welfare? Hell no. People had a severe deficit of food (not that they went hungry, they just didn't have a lot to choose from), base goods like toilet paper, and many, many more. And it's not like the USSR didn't make anything. They did, but almost nothing of it went to people. Everyone was expected to work, but people had little incentive to do it with quality. The most developed industry in the USSR was military (this one, however, was due to Cold War), while the rest stagnated. Not to mention that Bolsheviks stamped out all other classes out of the former Russian Empire. In most cases, violently. The working class didn't get much say in the end, either. The whole system was totalitarian and oppressive until the very end. When it stopped being so even for a little, it collapsed.
So, that's why.
Ok thanks. Just one of thing, was the deficit caused by the communism-like system? Just because you seem to be implying that this would be a result of communism.
I'm not sure, really. Just to compare - there was little to no deficit in the Russian Empire. Sure, there may have been some deficit in some areas, but in a capitalist Russia people had way less problems with getting the goods they needed.
I'm not sure if this was a result of communism, but it was definitely a result of Communist Party's policies.
Either way, there's no point in trying it again now. Greedy fuckers take advantage of everything. Fuck planet earth, I'm moving to Mars bitches!
Umm, I'm guessing you haven't read Marx, as you seem to have no idea what communism actually is.
The Soviet state doesn't represent all communist countries past present and future any more than Uganda represents all capitalist countries past present and future.
Also, Stalin and his successors weren't actual communists. They twisted the name into something it's not. Read Marx.
I'll look into, thanks.
Sure thing, pal.
Oh shit. The title...
I feel it's not something starting a war over.
[Looks at Vietnam War]
In the real world it never works out and never will.
Real communism has never been attempted.
Even if it had, that doesn't mean it'd never work. If you fail a maths test 3 times that doesn't mean you'll fail every single maths test you'll ever take.
I want Kanye West lost his fortune. He's not even decent artist. He's douche. In this case I support communism.
I don't know, but near-communism is probably an inevitablity. Not anytime in the near future, but as mechanization increasing productivity, you simply can't have 100% employment or anywhere near it (and honestly, there are a lot of cases where capitalism impedes technology and progress quite simply because there is worry of job losses). Take the example of the supermarket, with automated checkouts, you need one person to surveil the checkouts and that's it, not a cashier for each row. I trite example perhaps, but I think a lot of markets are going to have similar results in the future, namely in manufacturing and, one of the largest sectors of the economy, the service sector.
Of course, with each technological innovation there is an opening for expansion into new markets, but I'm honestly skeptical about how fast those new markets can grow versus rate of job loss in other sectors. Look at television, how many new channels are there? That means so much more competition for those eyes, and even in those cases monetization is quite difficult - is in the case of social network sites, youtube channels. Then again, with other sectors, there's the issue of education - even if there is room to create new markets there needs to be a sufficient, skilled labor force to undertake it. In order to keep people working they bloat out industries such as advertising and finance, and I don't think society is better for it at all. The other major sector which expands in a de-industrializing economy is the service sector, but those sectors have far slower rates of productivity in comparison to manufacturing or even agriculture, which is part of why income inequality has been exacerbated in the past 30-40 years.
I have a theory, and I doubt it's novel, but with globalization class distinction has moved from a national phenomenon to a globalized one. That is to say that there are capitalist countries (such as the United States), which ultimately control the means of production (in this case, discretely through market manipulation), and proletariat countries, which provide labor to produce goods (such as the global south). It's not 100%, because you do have countries bringing themselves out of poverty, namely the BRICS, and a lot of that (at least in the case of Brazil, Russia and China, I don't know about India and South Africa) is through the exercise of state power.
As to the elimination of private property I really don't think it's possible. I have a joke - What is a baby's first word? Mama. What is a baby's second word? Dada. What is a baby's third word? Mine.
(and btw, Marx, to my understanding, was not for the transferral of private property to public property- it was the elimination of property as we understand it altogether. The State would assume control of private property into public property, but that was a step not a goal - it was another step in Marx's material historicity, which ultimately relied on Hegelian dialects.)
I'm not sure where I'm going with this... but I also think the debate between communism or capitalism is really a false dichotomy - not to mention there are further alternative economic systems (such as fascism - not advocating for it, just saying fascism was originally presented as a third alternative to both capitalism and communism). Communism isn't really viable anytime in the near future, I don't think, but I'm certainly not a capitalist, as the term has devolved today - the economy is a facet of the state, not the other way around. I certain 'goods' (namely FDR's Second Bill of Rights and scientific advancement) take precident over markets and GDP growth. I believe in strong regulation and, where necessary, government intervention in the economy.
Could you clarify about the twisting? I mean, it really depends 'communism' as an umbrella term for a line of thought, generally beginning with Marx; but 'communism' is an array of conflicting theories, whether Lenin's insistance on the need for a political vanguard, Mao and Ho Chi Minh's anti-colonial emphasis and direct transition from an agrarian economy to a collectivized one (whereas Marx, to my knowledge, had a dialectical transition from industrial economy to communism, and a pre-industrial economy would have to go through that state first). Not to mention on a philosophical level, the contributions of people like Gramsci, who refined Marxist thought and applied it to other areas (namely cultural imperialism). I mean it's such a diverse ideology it really takes a lot to 'twist it.'
In the academic sector, where I work, true communism is Das Capital.
The idea of communism is good but, obviously, it hasn't worked so far.
It's shit.
Nothing really. Its just another way of living.
I want to speak my mind briefly about this.
Communism is in theory very sympathetic toward humans. You have a society where everyone are equals, no one are weak, everything is provided. However the goal to accomplish that is very difficult. Also, the price of achieving that society is the lost of freedom. The state controls everything. In return for stability, you loses your individuality.
Well said. It really comes down to "Is it worth the price?"
Fuck no.
Good in theory, bad in process.
When we read about it in Civics class, I never understood why everyone hated it, it seemed like a good thing. However like everything, the perfect model can't be accomplished in real life, there will always be problems and the perfect idea people had won't come true.
True but to me it seems like some guy/group will distort it and screw it up so I don't see Real Communism being attempted and working in the near future.
The idea behind it is great, but it's never been pulled off right. Most people hate it because...ya' know.
The Soviets, North Korea, Mao's China, Castro, Pol Pot, Cold War, etc.
I say "feek" communism
The idea of communism is shit, just look at how modern day Cuba is.
Most people see comunism as something bad but the idea is actually good, the problem is that the leaders use the appeal that communism has with people, mostly in countries in conflict to get to the goverment, and once they're in power they twist the concept in a way where it's only beneficial to them, the funny part is that most comunists say they're against the rich people who oppress the poor but when they have the power they become those rich people they hated before.
That's because Fidel Castro fooled people into thinking he was a leader that fought for the people, but he only wanted to be rich, this is another case where leaders use communism to appeal to people when in reality the only thing they want is power and money. It's a very good concept but it's very hard to pull off right mainly because of human nature
North Korea isn't communist anymore (or NK is doing a really bad job). Now it's like a Military Monarchy, and that is not communism in Marx's ideas.
It is mainly USA's fault for issuing embargos at a small island.
The Cold War wasn't communism's fault. It was Capitalism vs. Communism. It's the same as saying capitalism caused The Cold War.
That is the main idea of communism. To make it work, the 1% should just accept the idea that they are not superior to the other classes (which, in communism, classes do not exist) and that the 1% private property is "out the window".
A communist opinion is that communism is the perfect way to treat everybody equal instead of only favoring the rich. One has the same amount of benefits then he's/her's neighbor.
Luckily, the original capitalistic society doesn't exist anymore, since most (not to say all) countries that followed the concept changed to a mix economy society (~50% capitalistic and ~50% socialist).
Now, the excuse of saying "Look at Stalin, Pol Pot, ect." to go against communism is like saying "Look at Hitler, GW Bush, Franco, Berlusconi, etc." to go against capitalism. It's the governors' fault, not the concept. Oh, and when people say "technology will not advance because people won't get money as a reward". Did money exist at the invention of the wheel? Did money exist when fire was domesticated? Oh, and Yuri Gagarin, a citizen of the Soviet Union, was the first person in space.
[removed]
Fuckin' Capitalist Big
It isn't hard to insult others behind a screen. And, also, did you read what @xboxplayer_12 wrote?
Don't be so rude, dude.