Communism

[John Dibble]

This was split off from a topic about, for whatever reason, religion. -Alcon

No they don't, its quite the reverse.

Er, what capitalist has killed a communist for opposing capitalism?

Many of the proletariat starve to death, it just happens indirectly.

You mean like in communism?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No they don't, its quite the reverse.

Er, what capitalist has killed a communist for opposing capitalism?

Pinochet, for one.

There's a hell of a lot more.

[Gabu]

Pinochet, for one.

There's a hell of a lot more.

I'm sure there have been some, but it doesn't exactly substantiate his claim that only capitalists kill communists and the implicit claim that no communist has ever killed a capitalist.

[phk]

No they don't, its quite the reverse.

Er, what capitalist has killed a communist for opposing capitalism?

Many of the proletariat starve to death, it just happens indirectly.

You mean like in communism?

Well capitalism has the benefit of post-modernism to 'mask'.

[John Dibble]

No they don't, its quite the reverse.

Er, what capitalist has killed a communist for opposing capitalism?

Many of the proletariat starve to death, it just happens indirectly.

You mean like in communism?

Well capitalism has the benefit of post-modernism to 'mask'.

Oh, you mean the time when capitalist societies don't have many people starving to death? Way back when many people starved, regardless of the system - it was because food production was not as efficient as it is today. Why is it so much better today? Because capitalism results in greater efficiency.

"The capitalist engine is first and last an engine of mass production which unavoidably means also production for the masses. . . . The capitalist achievement does not typically consist in providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within the reach of factory girls for steadily decreasing amounts of effort." - Joseph Schumpeter

Communism on the other hand has never produced the efficiency necessary to bring about capitalist levels of prosperity.

[phk]

No they don't, its quite the reverse.

Er, what capitalist has killed a communist for opposing capitalism?

Many of the proletariat starve to death, it just happens indirectly.

You mean like in communism?

Well capitalism has the benefit of post-modernism to 'mask'.

Oh, you mean the time when capitalist societies don't have many people starving to death? Way back when many people starved, regardless of the system - it was because food production was not as efficient as it is today. Why is it so much better today? Because capitalism results in greater efficiency.

"The capitalist engine is first and last an engine of mass production which unavoidably means also production for the masses. . . . The capitalist achievement does not typically consist in providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within the reach of factory girls for steadily decreasing amounts of effort." - Joseph Schumpeter

Communism on the other hand has never produced the efficiency necessary to bring about capitalist levels of prosperity.

Pfff. No reasonable advocate of either system says any such thing. These things always take time. Capitalism has had several centuries, and it squandered natural resources, created vast international animosties, and inspired communism. The useful life of a market-centered society is over. The market still has its uses, but no longer can it be the central or only focus.

I'm sure we've all noticed how well the smartest and hardest-working people have succeeded in the completely unregulated system of Somalian government. Hooray. Seriously though, capitalism provides no basis for a meritocracy, but rather strengthens class divisions and disparity of income. It has been shown that wealth and opportunities are a huge factor in the success of people - no brilliant, diligent laborer is going to become a billionaire working himself to death for sixteen hours a day simply to keep body and soul together.

[John Dibble]

Pfff. No reasonable advocate of either system says any such thing. These things always take time. Capitalism has had several centuries, and it squandered natural resources, created vast international animosties, and inspired communism. The useful life of a market-centered society is over. The market still has its uses, but no longer can it be the central or only focus.

I'm sure we've all noticed how well the smartest and hardest-working people have succeeded in the completely unregulated system of Somalian government. Hooray. Seriously though, capitalism provides no basis for a meritocracy, but rather strengthens class divisions and disparity of income. It has been shown that wealth and opportunities are a huge factor in the success of people - no brilliant, diligent laborer is going to become a billionaire working himself to death for sixteen hours a day simply to keep body and soul together.

Communism has had plenty of time - many decades - and has produced squat. You seriously don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Capitalism provides plenty of meritocracy - people with skill, ability, and diligence make more than those who lack it, and maybe when you actually start living in the real world you'll understand that. You claim only wealth and opportunity can bring success. Capitalism provides the opportunity, and people can build wealth - 80% of the wealthy in this country built their own fourtunes, and that's not a coincidence. Heck, look at Carnegie - he started at the bottom of the food chain and eventually became the richest man on the planet in his time. As far as income disparity, you fail to look at the bigger picture - the income gap may be large, but the quality of life for everyone has increased drastically. Many on the low end live better and longer than kings once did. Most hard workers may not become billionaires, but most hard workers still earn a comfortable life for themselves.

[phk]

Pfff. No reasonable advocate of either system says any such thing. These things always take time. Capitalism has had several centuries, and it squandered natural resources, created vast international animosties, and inspired communism. The useful life of a market-centered society is over. The market still has its uses, but no longer can it be the central or only focus.

I'm sure we've all noticed how well the smartest and hardest-working people have succeeded in the completely unregulated system of Somalian government. Hooray. Seriously though, capitalism provides no basis for a meritocracy, but rather strengthens class divisions and disparity of income. It has been shown that wealth and opportunities are a huge factor in the success of people - no brilliant, diligent laborer is going to become a billionaire working himself to death for sixteen hours a day simply to keep body and soul together.

Communism has had plenty of time - many decades - and has produced squat. You seriously don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Capitalism provides plenty of meritocracy - people with skill, ability, and diligence make more than those who lack it, and maybe when you actually start living in the real world you'll understand that. You claim only wealth and opportunity can bring success. Capitalism provides the opportunity, and people can build wealth - 80% of the wealthy in this country built their own fourtunes, and that's not a coincidence. Heck, look at Carnegie - he started at the bottom of the food chain and eventually became the richest man on the planet in his time. As far as income disparity, you fail to look at the bigger picture - the income gap may be large, but the quality of life for everyone has increased drastically. Many on the low end live better and longer than kings once did. Most hard workers may not become billionaires, but most hard workers still earn a comfortable life for themselves.

I said that communism is far more suitable for maintenance of an already industrialized state than it is for the initial development, simply because communism and its kin don't rely on growth to stay afloat, as capitalism does.

[David S]

Communists always find one excuse or another to explain the failure of every communist state that ever existed. They just can't accept the idea that communism itself is the reason for the failure.

Its like someone beating their head against the wall and saying " No matter how hard I pound my head against the wall my headache doesn't go away. Guess I'll just have to pound harder."

[John Dibble]

Communists always find one excuse or another to explain the failure of every communist state that ever existed. They just can't accept the idea that communism itself is the reason for the failure.

Its like someone beating their head against the wall and saying " No matter how hard I pound my head against the wall my headache doesn't go away. Guess I'll just have to pound harder."

Pretty much. They just don't get that it doesn't work and never will.

[Gabu]

The useful life of a market-centered society is over. The market still has its uses, but no longer can it be the central or only focus.

I'm sure we've all noticed how well the smartest and hardest-working people have succeeded in the completely unregulated system of Somalian government. Hooray. Seriously though, capitalism provides no basis for a meritocracy, but rather strengthens class divisions and disparity of income. It has been shown that wealth and opportunities are a huge factor in the success of people - no brilliant, diligent laborer is going to become a billionaire working himself to death for sixteen hours a day simply to keep body and soul together.

Ever taken a course in basic economics?

If so, please take one so you'll actually know what you're talking about.

[phk]

The useful life of a market-centered society is over. The market still has its uses, but no longer can it be the central or only focus.

I'm sure we've all noticed how well the smartest and hardest-working people have succeeded in the completely unregulated system of Somalian government. Hooray. Seriously though, capitalism provides no basis for a meritocracy, but rather strengthens class divisions and disparity of income. It has been shown that wealth and opportunities are a huge factor in the success of people - no brilliant, diligent laborer is going to become a billionaire working himself to death for sixteen hours a day simply to keep body and soul together.

Ever taken a course in basic economics?

If so, please take one so you'll actually know what you're talking about.

Yes, Have you?

[MaC]

Communism sucks!

Seriously, MLM, you wouldn't even be able to write these posts praising communism if we we're under a communist society because communists oppose private property rights.  The state would choose where you post and what you say and I doubt it would be here.

Second of all, how would you ever have the computer you do?  Because of a communist economic system, the government would control how the computer is made, and it would be very expensive, yet very inefficient because of all the regulation it went through.

In reality you probably wouldn't like it.  You work your ass off, make literally no money, but in return you can wait in line for four hours and only hope that you get what you need.  If you don't like what you get, you can voice your dissent against a government employee and he'll kindly show you the barrel of his pistol, or worse.

final note: Karl Marx is an idiot.  I don't care what liberals or pseudointellectuals say, "oh he said 'religion is opiate of the masses".  Marx was dumb because he could not take human nature into consideration.  Once you remove basic psychology from a political issue, you obliterate it since politics is completely a social study.  You can't honestly expect people remove class from society.  It's human nature to want more power, and even if you have a temporary class system abolised, one will arise, hence Stalin and Mao.  But, I digress, any sane forum member will have some understanding of my veiws.

[Gabu]

Yes, Have you?

Yes, and let me rephrase my question: did you learn anything in that course, or did you just reject everything you were told after the fact?  The course in microeconomics that I took was one of the main things that solidified in my mind the thought that communism could never, ever work in a sustainable manner.  You either took one heck of a weird course in economics, did not take to heart any of the material in your course, or are lying about having taken one just to make your position seem credible.

The free market works in most scenarios, and even in the ones in which it doesn't, communism would not be a solution to the problem.

[David S]

As far as I can tell communists fall into two categories:
1) Idealists who believe its a great system which would benefit mankind. They rationalize away its record of producing only tryanny, oppression, and poverty, and making people servants of the ruling elite.
2) The second group consists of those who know exactly what communism is and intend to be among the ruling elite.

[Inverted Things]

The biggest problem with communism is that there are too many decisions to make. Other than that, it is a fine system.

[John Dibble]

The biggest problem with communism is that there are too many decisions to make. Other than that, it is a fine system.

Well, there's also the tyranny, don't forget that.

[ATFFL]

How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

Ronald Reagan

[Lunar]

How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

Ronald Reagan

I disagree with that quote.  There are plenty of intelligent communists who understand the philosophy extremely well while I doubt Reagan was even competitive in political philosophy.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

and how do you tell an anti-anti-Communist? It's someone who's observed Franco, Pinochet and Vietnam.

I don't support Communism anymore, but I will always be an anti-anti-Communist, because of Vietnam. Because of Vietnam I will never support any military action against Communism simply because it's Communist, although the odds of that happening now are very slim thankfully.

[John Dibble]

How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

Ronald Reagan

I disagree with that quote.  There are plenty of intelligent communists who understand the philosophy extremely well while I doubt Reagan was even competitive in political philosophy.

Such people understand the theoretical aspects of communism very well, I don't think anyone's arguing against that, but they don't understand what communism is as applied to the real world.(unless they want to be part of the ruling elite, then they understand it perfectly)

[Inverted Things]

It is not required for a communist country to be a tyranny. The fact that it has happened in practice does make communism look even more bleak. I maintain that the biggest problem with commumism (and why almost all of the communist economies collapsed) is because there were too many economic decisions to make.

[AuH2O]

It is not required for a communist country to be a tyranny. The fact that it has happened in practice does make communism look even more bleak. I maintain that the biggest problem with commumism (and why almost all of the communist economies collapsed) is because there were too many economic decisions to make.

That has nothing to do with it.

The incentive structure in a communist system is self-destructing... it's actually economic fact that communism cannot work on any large scale, at least without extensive genetic reengineering.

[Inverted Things]

It is not required for a communist country to be a tyranny. The fact that it has happened in practice does make communism look even more bleak. I maintain that the biggest problem with commumism (and why almost all of the communist economies collapsed) is because there were too many economic decisions to make.

That has nothing to do with it.

The incentive structure in a communist system is self-destructing... it's actually economic fact that communism cannot work on any large scale, at least without extensive genetic reengineering.

Actually, you and I are basically saying the same things. We're both saying that economically it can't survive.

[John Dibble]

It is not required for a communist country to be a tyranny. The fact that it has happened in practice does make communism look even more bleak. I maintain that the biggest problem with commumism (and why almost all of the communist economies collapsed) is because there were too many economic decisions to make.

That has nothing to do with it.

The incentive structure in a communist system is self-destructing... it's actually economic fact that communism cannot work on any large scale, at least without extensive genetic reengineering.

Actually, you and I are basically saying the same things. We're both saying that economically it can't survive.

Which is why tyranny is required to maintain it - once it inevitably fails people will demand change, and those in power will not want change because a change in the system will result in them falling out of power. Communism also inevitably results in tyranny because power is highly centralized - actually decentralizing it would likely make things even less effecient, so centralization and thereby corruption is inevitable.