Is Communism bad?

OK, put aside Stalin and Lenin's inhumane vicous acts of murder and wrong doings (evil leader = evil country) and look at Communism as a whole. The theory that advocates a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to his or her needs and abilities. Is it such a bad thing?


*BTW, i'm not a Cummunist.

 

In theory, no. In execution, yes.

 

Would you care to elaborate?

 

Communism, unfortunately, was always intended to be an eventually which man, in all his impatience, forced. Of course, such a system would have to be the political and ideological equivalent of the horizon since it fundamentally denies human nature. Humans both desire increments of personal wealth and utility, and ultimately need a form of hierarchical order. Communism has presupposed we'll move beyond this so until such a stage as BMWs start being less attractive that Fords, communism cannot and will not work.

E_S

 

Whats ironic it how our school system here, at least as of late has imployed a very annoying form of socialism.

We are supposed to provide materials whether it is pens, pencils, paper, or tissue not for just your own child but for the entire class. The purpose is to provide for those children who cannot afford these supplies.

On the registration forms it clearly states that this is voluntary, but if you choose not to do it it will slow down the registration process and may prohibit the child from attending.



Communism at its finest!

 

Where are you from darthOB1?

Don't you think if you have something that others carn't afford you should at least try to help them?

 

That brings up the question, "Would they help you in the same situation?"

Yet another flaw of Communism...greed is inherent in humanity. Not everyone, of course, but there's always going to be that one group who refuses to cooperate. What if they don't feel like sharing? Then what?

 

But that would'nt happen in a Communist country though. Surley?

 

I live in Wheat Ridge, Colorado a suburb of Denver, which happens to be in Jefferson county, one of the weathiest counties in the state!

My whole gripe is not the assisting of others, but more this manditory voluneer donation arangement that is employed.

I have four kids. This year alone I paid close to $300 in registration fee, for a supposed free educational system,and that was for only three of them. In 3 years when my baby starts going to school it will be more!

This is on-top of all the supplies that I am supposed to provide my kids and other not so fortunate ones?!

Come on!

This probably has to do more with poor eduational funding and poor money mamegement within the county, but because of it they have imployed this form of socialistic crap within its school systems.

I'm sorry but too many people try and get a free ride from the government and its systems like this that just encourage such a thing!

Frankly it makes me ill.

 

China has become one of the most interesting countries on earth. It remains a nominally communist government overlaying an increasingly capitalistic economic system.

The growing economy has caused a huge increase in oil demand in China, for example. Despite market-based demand push, the communist government still maintains control over retail gas prices. The predictable result of price caps in a period of dramatic oil price increases: massive, nationwide gas shortages. Multi-hour long lines at the pumps. Businesses forced to slow or shut down production.

And the result of all that will inevitably be significant economic slowdown in China.

Under a free market system, gas prices in China would have risen more quickly, with a resultant decrease in demand.

And the result of that would inevitably have been a signficant economic slowdown in China.

Thus we see the difference between strict price controls and free market pricing.

 

Yet another flaw of Communism...greed is inherent in humanity.

A bigger flaw in communism...laziness is inherent in humanity. If I can't get the fruits of my labor, I won't labor.

 

If I can't get the fruits of my labor, I won't labor.

No, that's still the greed thing. Work is only worth doing if it benefits you personally? That's laziness, but created by greed.

 

Exaclty!

Why do it if someelse isgoing to doit for me.

Sounds smart to me!

 

That's laziness, but created by greed.

That's laziness created by opportunity. If my needs are already met by someone else's hand, and there is nothing more to be gained by working, then why work?

 

There are no absolutes in matters like these, and I acknowledge that under not-yet-seen circumstances in a not-yet-seen communist country, communism might turn out to work. However, I do firmly believe that, generally speaking--indeed, with reference to almost every case we've seen--communism is a failure and capitalism is a success.

Economically, communism doesn't seem to work (perhaps the one exception being Cuba, the circumstances of which are rather unique). It's not hard to posit reasons why this might be: greed is indeed an inherent human attribute, and without the incentives that capitalism provides, motivating people to work is just a whole lot harder. Furthermore, market-provided choice (as opposed to a state monopoly) brings out competition, which in turn brings out better goods and services.

And politically, there has never yet been a communist state which has been run as a proper democracy, in accordance with principles and freedoms that one expects in a democratic society. As far as Cuba is concerned, I think it has to be conceded that communism has been quite successful there in the economic sphere--but Cuba is by no stretch of the imagination a democratic state, and it must be doubted whether communism in Cuba would still work were it not for its implementation by Castro's totalitarian regime.

Communism rarely functions well in providing goods and services to the general population, and it has so far proved entirely incompatible, in practice, with democratic values. That's reason enough to conclude that capitalism is a superior way of doing things.

 

As far as Cuba is concerned, I think it has to be conceded that communism has been quite successful there in the economic sphere--but Cuba is by no stretch of the imagination a democratic state, and it must be doubted whether communism in Cuba would still work were it not for its implementation by Castro's totalitarian regime.

A required evil of communism. Totalitarism. (Is that a word?)

And while Cuba arguably has some economic success, that success must be qualified by noting that people are despirate enough to get out of Cuba that they have been found using car hoods as rafts.

 

Communism works only in small groups (communes) or in the Star Trek universe where there is no money and everyone actually does work for the common good.

 

Except for Rodger Mudd and his damned women! Capitalist swine!

 

The problem, J-Rod, is you see one side.

While living in Cuba for a few years studying (because Cuba has one of the best educational systems in the world and some of the best universities filled with international students even) I noticed that for every man who wanted to get out, there was an equal number who embraced it and are proud.

So there are two sides.

 

Communism rocks!

Economically, communism doesn't seem to work
As I see it true communism has no need for economics. In theory communism would be self sufficient. In reality a communist country would have to have some form of economy in order to work with the rest of the world.

The problem is that communism goes agaisnt everything that is inherant in man today. The competitivness, the greed, the sloth. Perhaps someday when man becomes more enlightened, ala star trek, it can function as such. But tha is a long way off. On the flip side capitalism is of course flourishing today because it feeds those same unattractive qualities found in man.

As far as the school system in this country goes, don't get me started, its a whole other thread. You can only fix your car so many times before it is time to take it in and get a new one!

 

I think this is the biggest obstacle right now. Especially when considering well established capitalist systems. Sharing is not a natural thing for humans. However, within the right culture, it is more of a possibility. A good friend of mine moved from the Ukraine just after the collapse of the Soviet Union. One of her defining characteristics is her sense of community, or what we would call generousity. She works hard...really hard. Since she was 16 shes been working full-time and going to school. She gives her money to her family first, her friends second, and then herself third. Even though everyone in her family works, she gives them nearly every dime she has. She even offered to pay my bills!

This sounded so absurd to me when she offered. Why would anyone do that? A loan perhaps to a good friend is common in US capitalist culture, but outright taking a bill for them? Unheard of. To some extent, the differences are human nature. To more of an extent, I believe it is cultural. My friend is after all, human.

Marxism is not something I've even been a fan of. I've always found the Evolutionary Socialist methods a little less prone to collapse, simply because they are less violent/forced.

 

J-Rod's point neatly wraps it all up. Nobody is going to work if they know they'll get their needs anyhow.

 

But what happens as a result of the natural tendency to unequal resource displacement?

What I mean is that, in theory (it's always in theory) a communistic society is one that "shares." But what if a disproportionate amount of individuals in the collective want to be artists instead of breadmakers? Poets instead of ditch diggers? Who is going to be the one who is told that they can't write poetry, and instead has to be a plumber?

Right then and there, the society breaks down, and why "communes" only succeed on a small scale.

I've mentioned it before, but in Budapest, there is an excellent national museum that focuses on anti-communism, and explores the time when Hungary was governed by the Soviet Union. When comparing things like arcitecture, one is immediately struck by the stark contrast. Under the Soviets, everything is "functional," and "full of utility," but otherwise devoid of emotion. Budapest is a beautiful city from before the Soviet occupation, as well as after, but the Soviet period is one marked by emptiness.

In the museum, there is a narrative from a man who wanted to be a professional violin player. When the Soviets took over, the man was told that the state required him to make tires in the new tire factory. For decades, the man was forced to make tires in that factory, even if the economy didn't need that product. Finally, when the Soviet Union collasped, the man walked outside and simply played his violin...

It's a touching story. Even if it was embelished by the museum, the fact that it is included in the Hugarian national archives says a lot right there.

 

Communism is quite simplely the most flawed form of goverment to ever come out of a crackpot's head.