Communism and it causes, or perhaps why it doesn't work... ?

socks

i need help with this essay i have to write, and i feel that a bunch of different viewpoints would help out... so i encourage anyone willing to share his ideas.

ToshiroOC

Communism is caused by capitalism causing too great of a gap between the rich and the poor. The proletariat, the poor working class, ends up rising up to distribute the wealth of the rich to achieve a modicum of fairness in wealth distribution, normally to the detriment of nearly everything, from the economy to the general condition of the state. The problem with communism that keeps it from working is that it is inefficient and demotivating. Communism provides no incentive for anyone to work in difficult jobs, since everyone will be equal financially and materialistically, and if you have people rotating jobs between good jobs and bad jobs, there will always be people incapable of doing anything but bad jobs well, and people who would be wasted in a bad job, leading to a semi-severe waste of manpower and an overall inefficient system.

Does that help any? I recently had this discussion with someone, and so I synopsized the hour and a half long conversation into that above

ToshiroOC

Necrosis

Hmmmm.....

I like to think of it like those disposable cameras. It works great when you start off but after awhile it gets pitched and because it is useless. However, you always see these countries that are still under it (namely China) doing plenty of exports to support this type of government. Creamy communist filling with a flaky, crispy capitalist crust.

bluelight

I think it is a pretty good summing here that T has got.Personbally i think that individual effort is necessary for development and this is not premiered under communism.This has been proven over and over and the last standing example can be seen in White russia and North Korea.


But.....there are elements of socialism that do work very well under capitalism or "free enterprise" so dissing socialism complely due to communism (which is not the same thing) is not relevant although this is what capitalism does today in order to protect the ptiviliges of the ruling classes.


BlueLight

Smoothdrive

Like many left ideas Communism is a great idea..but is just an idea and will never work.

The tought of giving any man the same income is great of course..it is kind of ridiculous that in our society a hard working labourer makes only half or less of what a simple office job will get you.

unfortunatelly under comunism if you say what do you want to do ? there will be jobs that no one wants to do ..and the higher educated workforce will gladly flee to another country to live in wealth doing the same job.

UberLord

Explain how China's been using Communisim for how many years now?

Why? Just because you have a different set of skills doesn't mean you're any more valuable. Push a pen vs pushing a wellbarrow.

Anyone could build a house if they put their mind to it.
Anyone could program a computer if they put their mind to it.

merry

Actually comunism doesn't profess "same income", but "income according to need", as opposed to capitalist "income according to achievement". Of course, a programmer will *need* books, computer parts etc., a hand labourer wan't *need* those, so techically there is ideological room for income differentiation - in theory that is. The most important members of the society will always be Party members...

Tosh, if you look at actual comunist insurections, there is always a leader that ends up to replace the czar. Sometimes the ideologist is backed by some Trotzky character, sometimes not. The working class provides the manpower, but I can't think of any real comunist regime where they end up better than prols. There is another side effect... the leader needs the uneducated to establish his new regime, intelectuals - the free thinking ones - are dangerous to his prospects, so you get programmers building houses and construction workers programming computers.

A very good book on the history of communism is "Les origines intelectuelles du Leninisme" (Intelectual origins of the Leninism) by French sovietologist Alain Besancon.

ToshiroOC

I'm trying to keep things simple, but yes, it's true that communist revolutions are normally lead by one smart person leading hordes of malcontented uneducated proletariats. In theory, the people would rise up together and destroy capitalism, but in the real world, what ends up happening is someone sees a chance for power and uses the ideology of communism as a tool to overthrow their current government and put themselves into power, with the proletariat providing the might and the means.

Smoothdrive

Because it has been and is still being forced upon the people..they are not free to choose, to leave, the people have no choice.

Quote:

Why? Just because you have a different set of skills doesn't mean you're any more valuable. Push a pen vs pushing a wellbarrow. Anyone could build a house if they put their mind to it. Anyone could program a computer if they put their mind to it.

Yes, that was my point as well..like i said it's ridiculous that a labourer does not make half the money that a pencilpusher gets...sorry if my "DEnglish" threw you off Only reason i'm working in an office is the pay..i'ld much rather go back to driving a truck if it was about what i liked to do more..

UberLord

Democracy and capitalism are forced on me being a UK resident - but then I can leave. Just because something is forced does not mean tha it's not working.

Smoothdrive

True..but in that case apartheid or slavery also worked fine.

Guess we're more down to the discussion "when does a system work ?" the definition i took so far would be "if a majority of the people are happy with the system" .. don't think that's the case in China.

Macro-Economically communism works fine of course.

ToshiroOC

Apartheid and slavery, revolting and inhumane institutions they may be, worked fine overall. They don't spontaneously collapse because of inherent problems with their system (ignoring revolts and war). If you are the leader in charge of a particular system, you don't care if the majority of the people are happy with the system, you care whether you remain in power, and so any system that can keep such an individual in power can be considered viable, in my opinion.

socks

thanks a lot guys. your ideas and differing opinions are awesome.

bluelight

I think a very imoprtant thing aboutr this is....Why does and did...communism or similar develop??


There is a reason for why a system like this is being put to rule.The intellectuals that originally worked out the ideas for different communistic systems didnt just work this out for the fun of it or to opress people..


When commuism developed in Russia...China..even in Germany befoire tha Nazis took over...there was aneed for a change based on that the capitalistic system was used in an absurd and non righteous way.


So the basic idea was to change this......What im saying is that the baisc reasin for this still exists and will probably be more evident in 20 years as capitalism will "take back" some of what it has been forced to give in measures like regulated hours of work,regulations about salaries holidays etc etc etc..

Which in its turn eventually will provoke that peole sooner or later will demand their rights..and eventually take it..one way or another.


We have the last 20 years seen a development when enterprises take over more and more of everything in our society.(speaking of Sweden) and the things we used to have in common...railways..hospitals etc etc is being sold out to profitmaking because that is the ruling principle right now....and the argument is that it will be better for all....



The funny thing with that is that it does not...get any better...the rich get even richer than before and

the group of people with low incomes become bigger..and their incomes smaller than before.



So as far as im concerned...capitalism without a fair measure of seeing to that there is a common sector (call it whatever you want) ius just as much bullshit as a society based only on capitalism which is the current religion today.

BlueLight

Smoothdrive

All economical systems man has tought of only are good for a certain time-span. No system has survived the test of time yet.

bluelight

Well i dont agree with you at all.Capitalism in various forms is what has ruled this planet since day on in different forms.

Communism is a parenthesis (Word? meaning something not very big in the timespan of man)It is ....and was the only so far existing measure to try and use another form of doing things.

It failed..and now capitalism will continue to do what it always have done...make the rulers richer and eventually when it crasches once in a while create wars.


BlueLight

ToshiroOC

It's a darwinistic selection of economic systems - the best thrive and the worst die. Capitalism is thriving, communism almost worked, complete anarchy is dead, dictatorships are dying, so on and so forth...

Smoothdrive

Capitalism is dying as well i feel..mostly because it runs on growth..more more more...every year bigger profits, i thik it's common sense that economical growth can not go on and on for decades.
I do feel communism is a more civilised system than capitalism. The capitalistic more more more system is just human nature..from the days of cavemen trading rocks or pieces of meat mankind has always wanted more more more. Communism is more against man's nature..be happy with what you and everyone else gets..

Than again many civilisations in the past have tried and failed at several systems..even today we wonder about some of the things they were able to do at their peak...both technological, medical and economical..what would make us any better ?

It's just like the hunt for a perpetium mobile (is that correct spelling in English ) an economical system that will keep on running is an utopia.

merry

One of the main differences between communism and "capitalism" is that communism professes collective property (and real comunist regimes had different views on how far can it get, in Mao's China one didn't even own his own clothes) while all other systems are based on private property. Communism is not really the first system ever to limit private property - the Achaeans seem to have had state property (on the land, at least) also the Incas, if I remember well.

Collective (state) property is bound to fail in real world, imo. The first generation of people might bite the "ours" bait, but the following will see collective property as "nobody's", and treat it as such, with incredible effects. Maybe the simple existence of a strong communist system might put pressure on surrounding regimes as to make them do some social concessions, but imo any communist system is bound to fail.

Besides the effects of the lack of private property - I read somewhere that teritoriality (a form of private property!) exists since the dinosaurs, one can imagine how difficult it is to repress such an instinct. Besides that, and partly as a consequence, the idea of planning the economy is naive. Of course, there is some amount of planning in every economy, and some amount of state intervention, but do you really think an institution has the ability to foresee evnts and take apropriate actions for the next five years? Communist economies are led on this assumption...

As for capitalism making the rulers richer, yes, I agree, I've seen this happen in my country for the last 13 years or so. One correction though: those rulers are the "second row" of communist rulers. Power draws the same type of people whatever the system, politicians are much the same regardless of the ideology they cherish publicly. Communism made its rulers richer too.

As for wars - did you ever hear the slogan: "we will fight for peace to the last man standing"?

bluelight

Yes i agree that politics draws the same type of people.In the seventies we had very strong socialistic and also communistic influences where i live most among the young......people that used to be Maoists then are often today liberals....still politicians....only the costume has changed.


Myself i believe in capitalism which is controlled meaning i do believe in labour unions and laws as a force to balance the uglier sides of capitalism.

However today the trend is to liken (make similar) anything that regulates capitalism with communism.

I think that is deeply wrong.


Removing peoples rights and possibilities to be protected by laws in these cases and to have unions would set the world back 150 years.Still this is ultimatly what the "neoliberals" in Usa today propagate for.




BlueLight