Is Communism bad?

I read this quote somewhere and I am not sure who it is by, but it is very true, "Communism is like a bad dream, eventually you have to wake up."

 

Socialism can work, it's just straining on the system. With socialized medicine people go to the doctors for every little thing. The person who needs to get tested because they may be dying of cancer has to wait behind the person who accidently skinned their knee. It's ridiculous. Also, if all doctors make the same, why advance. Why should a doctor earn a higher degree and waste time and money if he's going to make the same money. In capitalism better doctors can fairly charge more because they're better doctors.

 

Full-blown communism doesn't work on anything more advanced than social insects such as bees. Humans, even those living in cultures which emphasize the group rather than individuals, are too individualistic for it to work in the long run. Even under communism in Eastern Europe and Asia, the elites remained, or rather, one elite was replaced by another.

I firmly believe in capitalism and free markets. However, the workings of the free market should be moderated by social democracy. The state has the duty to take care of everyone, but if you can afford to pay, go private and get faster care. That way, everyone gets taken care of sooner or later (emergencies first, of course), but someone waiting for a hip replacement can get it in a week or two going private, rather than waiting six months to a year on the national health.

I don't mind paying high-ish taxes, given that I have a master's degree from a business college, which I got for "free". No tuition fees, but I still had to pay for my living costs, of course.

 

The problem with "full blow communism" is that communism requires community and despite the "world wide economy" and other such concepts, a community requires interaction and humans just cannot interact with 1000 others, and certainly not 1,000,000,000 (a large country's worth of people).

I say we would be better off to have communistic neighborhoods within larger free market economies.

 

I agree.

I dont think Communism is as bad and negative as its made out to be. Times where Communism has apparently been in the wrong, WWII for instance, Communism was recorded much more negatively then ive been realistically told about. Its not the ultimate evil to the ultimate Capitalist good and i think it would be healthy to include Communism slightly into todays government and society

 

Not if you're rich or hard working.

 

All communism should be based on free choice. I know that goes against the violent overthrow of the properties classes thing that the communist manifesto expresses as inevitable, but I firmly believe that humanity can and should enter into larger community arrangement that shares more of their resources with those to whom share their community.

It is true that dependence on one's community for all resources makes one a burden to that community. The ideal that every person shall produce to the best of their ability in accordance with their talents is integral to any resource sharing arrangement. There needs to be ways of cutting loose those community members who are slacking off; and no person should be a part of a community unless he/she wishes to do so.

 

That's still undesirable if you're capable of producing more than average. Why is it fair if I work harder or smarter and produce the equivalent of 20-30 average workers that the excess from my labour is shared by people I don't care about without my consent. My family and myself and possiblly my friends if I'm willing should be the people to benefit from my hard work.

 

My post clearly indicates that people should join communities of their own free will. Don't join communities who you don't care about. Heck, don't join them at all if you don't want to share. My point is that there are plenty of people willing to share who do not even consider living in a community with shared economic resources.

Of course you are already part of these kinds of communities; at least from an economic stand point; if you have insurance or have a job. Of course these kinds of communities are economic ONLY and some would like to be a part of a community of social interaction and where you can visit your fellow community members.

 

I wonder - is there a way to get only the good aspects of both socialism and capitalism?

 

The Amish seem to do ok.

 

And that's what history has taught us as well, and why people always say "communism is good in theory...in theory."

The concepts that are being discussed could quite easily be effective in small, controlled societies.

As a vastly oversimplfied example, the breadmaker makes the bread for the community, who in turn gets his milk supplied by the dairy farmer, who gets his cart built by the carpenter, etc....

Now, extrapolate that system into a still relatively small community of 100,000, or continue on to one of 8 million? What if 10 people want to be bakers when the community only needs 6? What if no one wants to be the farrier, so a painter is forced into it? Those are the basic issues that have been discussed here when the concept is applied to the real world.

 

exactly... the smaller and less advanced a society is, the better communism works. in fact more pre-industrial societies use communist systems without even trying to. the whole barter idea is communism at its purest, trading what you have for what others have without the government forcing you to make something you don't want to (ironically its also capitalism at its purest, since the market value of pigs or wheat or whatever is determined entirely by supply and demand instead of stock markets and huge greedy corporations and taxes). the other problem is that in a very large group (millions), some people won't go along with the "share and share alike" plan. then either they take advantage of the system and become the new corrupt elite, or are elimated as capitalist pigs by those who are the corrupt elite.

 

Very good questions. That someone extra would, in an extreme case of a controlled economy, be out of luck. Integral to success of a community is the willful participation of its members in its economy. Luckily for Americans, smaller communities can be formed, such as corporations and marriages, that can share the means of production amongst themselves. Unfortunately, corporations (like nations) have a tendency to get too big, focusing on certain political and/or economic endeavors at the expense of the individual. One of this problems coincides with what you mentioned earlier - if Joe Smoe is a part of Microsoft and decides he'd like to earn a living as a mason, he's going to have to find another community because Microsoft's goals do not have room for a full time mason. On the other hand, thankfully he can join another corporation or organization that would be happy to have another Mason. Of course if nobody needs another mason, you may end up getting stuck doing a job you don't want. Neither capitalism nor communism solves that eventuality!

 

The major problem with communism is that it simply doesn't work on a large scale. Communism requires the cooperation of all people involved, and that's something that will never be aquired on a large scale. On the other hand, communism works very well in smaller, voluntary enviroments. See the kibbutzes in Israel.

Of course, there's also various other problems with communism, but those are things that Marx couldn't have anticipated.

 

I just had to comment on the barter system being good, because it is the worst economic system available.

I don't think you realize how great it is to have money, even within a commuinity. For barter to work your needs and wants must coincide with what is available. Just think about what you do for a living. Unless you actually make something, nobody is going to want what you do. Even in a society where everyone makes only basic goods, if I make wagons the baker isn't going to want 10 wagons, I am going go out and get eggs, blankets and other goods with my wagons so I can give the baker things he wants in exchange for his good.

With money we don't need to rely on the concurrance of wants and goods. It frees us to specialize and better use the resources at our disposal.

 

Communism itself is not inherantly bad, as long as the people participating in a communist government are participating by their own free will.

Also, true communism will never happen, so we don't know how a true communist government or nation would compete with the rest of the world.

 

Sweden has a *cap* on income?

Methinks not. And I'm Swedish.

We do have, though, fairly nasty taxes, in a progressive scale such that if you make $1M a year (which is QUITE enough and then some in Sweden) you pay quite a *lot* in taxes. And it goes up. (There used to be a point where you could actually be taxed 102% but those days are gone )

---

Anyhow, the reason communism "fails" isn't that it's flawed, it simply doesn't take human nature into account.

Humans cannot grasp scope over a certain level. They understand what benifits themselves. They understand what benifits their immediate family. They sort of vaguely understand that which benefits a larger group of family and friends... but understanding such that they work for something that benefits an abstract "everybody"?

We are simply not wired that way by evolution, and for good reason.... if you act altruisitically to someone in your family, it is quite probable they share some of your genetic material. Hence, altruistic behaviour towards that individual will pay off, evolutionary speaking, because even if it didn't benefit *you* for propagating that gene, it benefited *them* propagating the very same gene. Hence it's logical that this trait (wanting to help family) evolves. And it is quite logical we feel more and more indifferent the further removed we are.

It's this failure of understanding human nature which makes communism fail on a large scale. It works perfect in a community, but the community must exist, and really can't be much larger than an "extended family".

/Z

 

Um, at the time that you could be taxed 102%, wouldn't that be an effective cap on income?

I would say that failing to take human nature into account in any system that deals with humans (such as a government or economic system) would be a serious flaw. Ergo, if communism fails because it doesn't take human nature into account, it fails because it is seriously flawed.

Kimball Kinnison