Whats wrong with communism?

[kid a]

What about anarchist communism, socialist communism? I don't hink most people who belive in communism think it would work, or would want it to work on the same scale as the governments we have today. Also I suggest watching the ZEITGEIST documentaries which proposes what could be considered a kind of communism in the Venus Project. I don't agree with everything said in the movies but they raise a lot of good questions.

[insomaniacal]

You have to remember that fundamentally, communism could never be pure. It wouldn't take long for a group in that society to "hack" it so to speak, create a small military, and subjugate people in that society. The second you do have a government and army in place to ensure that doesn't happen, you've failed at making a communistic society.

[kid a]

You must also remember that a community doesn't have to force everyone to live in it's community, and that not all communism is pure marxist communism.

[insomaniacal]

Yes, but pure communism is always pure marxist communism. The community doesn't have to force anyone, that's true, but without a government and army in place, it's open to take-over. With a government/army in place, it's no longer pure communism.

[eljonto]

"Animal Farm" by George Orwell comes to mind here.

[everfall]

So far from what I've read on this thread it looks like most of you have no idea what your talking about.
To start We look at the most successful civilizations of all time, the Australian Aboriginals they lasted for forty thousand years,They were communist.
that is the true form of communism, were if you need something you take it from the tribe.
This doesn't work for us though. Why? Because we live in the 21st century and in the 21st century we are no longer tribal.
So how do we make communism work in the 21st century there is a system called socialism. So how does socialism work, it works on the basis that if you need something you get it. for e.g., the Police, public schools, the fire department, free health care and so on.

But it also lets you grow, If you don't want to be reliant on the government you don't have to be. If you want to be a millionaire thats fine go ahead.
But what if you don't manage to become successful? What happens if you fail to become rich and end up broke? Well that fine the government will support you for as long as you need. So then you think WOW I'm just going to slack off and get payed for doing nothing.
Well guess again, you must be looking for work the entire time there paying you, if you choose not go looking for work your government will keep you alive but in a very sad and pathetic way.
The benefit of this is that if you need help you will receive help for as long as you need it.
But it gets better if you do have a job but the pay sucks or you have a large family the government will assist you, there is no need for credit cards which means less debt. Which means more spare money which means more money pushed into the market which results in growth

Yes socialism has failed but it has succeeded so many times that we can ignore the USSR. Most of Europe is Socialist democracy, so is Australia. You will notice that these places have the highest standard of living, why? Because socialism works.
Forget you silly brainwashed antics and see the world how it truly works. Not how your false sense of freedom and your need for greed would lead you to believe.

Sorry if this makes no sense it's currently 4am.

[raddy1313]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Why is this presented as something to strive for? I've read nearly the entire thread and I've admittedly learned some things about communism that I didn't know and had a few myths dispelled, but it still comes back to this. I should work to the best of my ability, but I should only consume what I need. How long can you realistically expect a system set up like that to work? The whole point of working hard is so that I can consume more. If I want to buy a new house or car, I need to start working overtime so I can get paid more, or working longer hours so I can get a bigger raise or promotion. Adhering to the communist maxim above, I should still work long hours (presumably) for the betterment of people, but if I want a bigger house or a nicer car, tough luck because I don't need it. To want those things is greedy. The discussion is not whether or not wanting those things are greedy or whether I truly need them. The question is, if I'm willing to work hard enough to buy it, why shouldn't I have it? And I don't believe that in a communist society you have hordes of people living of the government, but you do have a workforce that is uninspired. Not necessarily lazy, but, to quote Office Space, working "just hard enough not to get fired."

[Vulpine]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

This quote embodies my issues with Communism. I'm a staunch supporter in people being permitted to keep what they honestly work for, and here Marx is basically saying that no one should have any rights to their efforts. Communism is simply unethical, in every sense of the word. Suppose you're laying in the hospital and are in desperate need of a blood transfusion. There are no willing donors, so your doctor goes out and starts to take a cup of blood from pedestrians against their will. Could it save your life? Sure. Is it ethical? Not by a long shot. According to Marx though, this is the best way to handle things.

When you remove the promise of greater reward, people will start to get apathetic. I work a full-time job and take 12+ credit hours per semester, with no summer breaks, because I want something to come of it. If there isn't some benefit to come from my labor, why should I put myself through it? Why should anyone?

There's also the "according to his need" part. Who decides what those needs are, and who is in need? You could decide that some obese man needs a newer, bigger car in order to get around in comfort. I could decide that he needs a tread-climber, instead.

I know someone on welfare and it is not fair to say they are mooching. When your parents leave you in the middle of the night halfway through a pregnancy in high school with a job (she paints pictures in rooms) you are NOT mooching.

I'm sorry for people who are in situations like that, but there are always exceptions to the rule. Some people on welfare do use it fairly, as it is intended. If she's still on it several years later though, the "mooching" label may apply. An old boss of mine had two kids from some deadbeat father that was in jail. She managed the Blockbuster that we worked at while receiving government aid for about 3 years. In that time, she was able to work herself into a high enough wage that she could afford a home of her own and support both kids, without any kind of socialized aid. If one woman can do it, another can.

That point is irrelevant and the debate is now suspended until you learn better grammar.

Completely off topic, but I love this.

To start We look at the most successful civilizations of all time, the Australian Aboriginals they lasted for forty thousand years,They were communist.

There are over 300 million people in America alone. At the peak of their "civilization", how numerous were the indigenous peoples of Australia? Population makes a huge difference. Communism can work on small scales i.e. communes consisting of very small numbers, but quickly falls apart when it's applied to anything larger.

And before someone tosses out China again... Bear in mind that China is also one of, if not the, most fascist governments in the world.

[insomaniacal]

Modern communism has always turned into a nice moniker for facism, or at the very least, facist like states.

Communism will never work in the modern era on a large scale. I forget the name, but there was a relatively good example of this by a sort of christian cult. The communism part worked fine, but I believe the leader was a psychopath, as he attempted to poison the village. I can't for the life of me remember the leader's name.

I've said this many times before, People are not equal, so there's no reason to force ourselves to have equal goods in the physical world. Without an incentive, people will not work any harder than they have to.

[Vulpine]

Aristotle comes to mind...

"Inferiors revolt in order that they may be equal, and equals that they may be superior. Such is the state of mind which creates revolutions."

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal."