Forums → WEPR → Drace - Communism
| 65 | 10164 |
Drace wrote about his feelings concerning communism in another thread topic. It might make for an interesting discussion, so I broke it out and started this thread. Here's what he wrote:
Humans are to enjoy their life as they live, work is not to be done so restrictions to opportunity of pleasure are decreased, but to ensure that the opportunities are always available.
Work is bad because you are doing it so you can live your own life. You work to "buys" you your life. You are born with nothing, and you must work to provide yourself.
It should be done for something you love...thus, shouldn't be payed for it. I wonder how many doctors chose the profession just because of high pay, and how many of the poor would love to be doctors because they really love the job.
This is a reason why I adore communism. (Sorry had to say it)
Drace, I assume you are referring to communism professed by Karl Marx, not the Soviet-styled socialist-totalitarianism of the 20th Century.
The greatest point of criticism for Marxist theory has always been that it underestimates the nature of human greed, and this is why true Marxism has never been attempted at a national-governmental level. Granted, it can be made to work in smaller, relatively self-contained communities, but in a larger system, there is no means of preventing selfish and greedy people from taking advantage of the system.
How do you propose to address this?
- 65 Replies
Problem was, it was not a democracy yet
The problem about a democracy is that the majority is not always right, that's why there's a democratic-republic to have others decide for us. They both have flaws, but you cannot expect people to have a perfect solution. Also, people want different things that may conflict what other people want, and compromise may not always satisfy.
USSR again. No problem with that.
Not really sure how that's a counter, but I'll explain myself a bit more. There will be a preexisting disjointed society to overcome, which some don't want to give up so easily. Many have anchoring beliefs that they base their life around, and will be biased and will ignore certain truths.
Also, the mind is chaotic, and nobody is truly rational in their thought processing. Many ideas and thoughts in our head that can change our attitudes and behaviors overtime or in a very short period. The people aren't predictable and may become astray from the communist ideals, and may start to strive out of ambition for other goals. People then might become swayed by those thoughts and will form groups, ultimately detaching themselves from the mainstream ideas of society.
Ok can you give an example of how people are going to change. And what they will change into >_>
And this again, can happen in ANY society. What if everyone just stopped working?...
The people can change what happens on the conscious level and the outer core of the subconscious. I dropped my belief in Christ once I began to think about it. No help from anybody else, just my own mind, and happened one day rather spontaneously. I'm a pretty secluded guy, and my ideas usually comes from my self, since I don't like to research. I changed from a democratic, to a communist, to a fascist.
And this again, can happen in ANY society.
Yeah, it happens, but the consequences differ. The capitalist societies' progress depends on the people's competition and individualism. Communism depends on total unity.
What if everyone just stopped working?...
The majority of the people will continue to work. That's not the problem. The problem deals with the unity and civil opposition.
So... I don't really see how this applies.
Its actually within reality. In order to vision the individual mechanics of the government, you have to individual mechanics of man (Humans are very complex, and difficult to predict). The single person or even in a group can accomplish much in his/her/their life time(s), and could move the world, or ruin your society, Drace.
I am not totally convinced that communism is the answer, but then again, I'm not totally convinced there is an answer. I don't believe we will ever see a system of self-government where every citizen is absolutely equal. It just cuts against the grains of too many civil, social, and cultural habits.
What I do know is that our current Democratic-Republic is losing steam. IMHO, the United States government is rotting from the inside out, due to rampant corruption, fraud, waste, abuse, and mediocre bureaucratic mentalities.
The way things are going, the United States as we know it today probably will not last to see its tricentennial.
The only things one not equal from the other is wealth. Referring to the USSR again, people were equal.
And if you don't like communism, well theres still socialism.
A socialist government works well, but the problem is that it has to much power of the people, so the wrong leader can be deadly. As long as you keep military low, its all good.
In the USSR, people were oppressed and abused by Stalin and his secret police. They were controlled by the fear that they would be sent to Serbia if they rebelled in anyway, and were forced to work and create capital goods (factories, military arms, etc) instead of luxury goods.
In many cases there was poverty--not just in one area-- and the goods were unevenly distributed, so many ended up with too many shoes and no food. Too many errors, and the need of the individuals were not addressed, so people became unhappy and unequal.
So how would you say people would get brainwashed again?...
Persuasion usually targets the shallow and most basic properties of a person's personalities, but more importantly the individual can consciously decide to accept the information or reject it. A group is also hard to predict since people are generally unique (genetics, personality, different environment), and some may get out of line and break the spell.
In the USSR, people were oppressed and abused by Stalin and his secret police. They were controlled by the fear that they would be sent to Serbia if they rebelled in anyway, and were forced to work and create capital goods (factories, military arms, etc) instead of luxury goods.
In many cases there was poverty--not just in one area-- and the goods were unevenly distributed, so many ended up with too many shoes and no food. Too many errors, and the need of the individuals were not addressed, so people became unhappy and unequal.
Actually, involuntary relocation to Serbia was never an option, however being sent to Siberia, was.
Oh. Heh.
Yeah. Sorry about that. Siberia was the one I was talking about.
Ok lets compare the situation Espholded.
It would be much worse here, you know!
Lets assume there are 70% food "factories in the west and 30% in the east. Everyone in the west stops working.
Capitalist - Because the production (supply) has dramatically lowered, but the demand is quite the same...prices increase heavily because the capitalist must still make some money. This causes many many people to not be able to afford the food prices and starve.
Communist - Production has lowered, but there are no prices on products, thus that 30% made in the east would be shared, possibly keeping everyone alive.
Both would end with a civil war of course.
Communism doesn't have to be a unity of ONE. If you get half brainwashed, it does not corrupt the whole system...
Sorry. Had to go yesterday.
Half-brainwashed? If you're speaking of having manipulated attitudes (basically opinions) towards things and still having control, that's still the normality of being brainwashed.
Also I still don't get why people would stop working in a capitalist society when it is certain that they will suffer (even with welfare). If the factories were bombed or something, the people would move to find work. Btw, the current day makes it harder for another great depression to occur. Huh. Also the great depression didn't cause a civil war, did it? We didn't believe in total equality, so the fall didn't violently turn massive groups against the government or other people who have work.
Also, concerning the communist side, there is still the same problem that occurred in Russia because they couldn't target the individual consumers of the whole country, and had to constantly balance the produce in the country. Also, famines in multiple collective farms caused production to halt for a while or fluctuating populations and migrations, then Russia had to mark that down in the central planner, but in the end, even with brilliant minds at work in the government (Stalin had advisers and managers of the areas in Russia), the people began to suffer of starvation and undistributed goods. Even if the country was controlled by a despot, you'll find complications similar to that within a communist society, where production-consumer ratios may be hard to manage, since people will be able to choose what job they want to have. It shows that although communism can work in a small community, it will less likely work in a big community. Also, in a separated society (maybe by cities, by a wide range, or a big community), it would be difficult for voices to be heard (discussion wise) in meetings due to the distance problem. Even with multiple meeting houses, a discussion and compromise would be harder to have since there would be less organization, and the meetings would be long-lasting (even if meetings were held by computers, which may be subject to technical difficulties causing for people to have voices unheard anyways).
The problem about a democracy is that the majority is not always right, that's why there's a democratic-republic to have others decide for us. They both have flaws, but you cannot expect people to have a perfect solution. Also, people want different things that may conflict what other people want, and compromise may not always satisfy
Yeah. Just a reminder.
You must be logged in to post a reply!