We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Communism
| 41 | 6499 |
From my understanding, a communistic country is a country with currency, social status, and everybody is treated equal (sexual orientation, race, and religion doesn't matter, and everybody receives the same amount of food and shelter regardless of how much work they do.
What is the problem with this? Besides the fact that people would have no motivation to work (which could be remedied with prison), and people only doing the minimum amount of work to receive their food (which is what led the fall of communism), I think it would solve multiple problems in the government we currently have.
The only reason I can fathom for such hatred towards communism is that people who currently hold power within the government would no longer be able to keep their positions of power, and all of the rich people in the country would lose a massive amount of their income (leading to massive chaos, most likely).
However, what if we imagine that we could start a new country on an island. This island would have everything we could possibly need for thousands of people if rationed correctly. Communism would be the ideal government in this situation, wouldn't it? Everybody is treated equal, everybody gets the same amount of resources as everybody else, everybody works together to build a thriving country, everybody has a home, etc.. There will always be someone that will try to seize power/become corrupt in order to get more resources, etc.. That's inevitable in any government or society.
Why does most of the world (the United States in general) hate communism so much? There's no reason, other than greed.
- 41 Replies
From my understanding, a communistic country is a country withOUT currency, social status
What is the problem with this? Besides the fact that people would have no motivation to work (which could be remedied with prison), and people only doing the minimum amount of work to receive their food (which is what led the fall of communism), I think it would solve multiple problems in the government we currently have.
People shouldn't be forced to work, they should be motivated to work.
There are just so many things that can go wrong with forcing people to work. In fact, the act of forcing people to work in-itself is literally slavery.
"However, what if we imagine that we could start a new country on an island. This island would have everything we could possibly need for thousands of people if rationed correctly."
This leads to a few questions.
1. Who creates these goods?
2. What motivation is there for people to create goods?
" Everybody is treated equal, everybody gets the same amount of resources as everybody else, everybody works together to build a thriving country, everybody has a home, etc.. There will always be someone that will try to seize power/become corrupt in order to get more resources, etc.. That's inevitable in any government or society."
If you want more of something, can you work harder for it?
No.
And resources are limited, how do you determine their use? Supply and demand is the best system we currently have to determine the value of goods and services.
Many people believe we should use the rarer and harder to obtain materials to create goods that last a long time. But this can lead to waste. We don't need to use the finest metals to create razorblades. We don't need to use up the rarest of fabrics for standard T-Shirts. We don't need to use finer plastics that require more resources to create for our remote controls or toys.
But we can't be too stingy with materials either.
Supply and demand is a great way of making sure materials aren't used too quickly. The more scarce an item in demand becomes, the more expensive it becomes. This creates incentive to find cheaper alternatives to creating quality goods.
You make some great points, NoNameC68.
People shouldn't be forced to work, they should be motivated to work. There are just so many things that can go wrong with forcing people to work. In fact, the act of forcing people to work in-itself is literally slavery.
I wouldn't call it slavery, as you are working to create/build/produce something that would improve the lives of yourself and those of your community. Your work is rewarded by being able to live in a house, have all the food you need, etc.. This would eliminate poverty, homeless people, hunger, etc.
1. Who creates these goods?
2. What motivation is there for people to create goods?
The people living on the island of course. Let's change the situation a bit: If you and several people were stranded on an island, what would you do? You would work on building a shelter, fire, and gathering food. Suppose a few weeks go by, and there's no rescue planes/boats in sight. You continue to build and gather. As weeks turn to months, you find yourself in a village; Everybody gets the same amount of food and water per day, everybody has a hut, everybody is treated equal in order to survive. Is this not a communist village at this point?
If you want more of something, can you work harder for it? No.
The entire idea of communism is to allow everybody to have the same amount of stuff as everybody else. Working harder on the farms would raise the overall amount of food available. Let's make it simple: Say you milked 250 gallons of milk, divide that by the amount of population and then take your ration. Working harder, you milk 500 gallons of milk. In theory, you would get twice as much milk than before.
Many people believe we should use the rarer and harder to obtain materials to create goods that last a long time. But this can lead to waste. We don't need to use the finest metals to create razorblades. We don't need to use up the rarest of fabrics for standard T-Shirts. We don't need to use finer plastics that require more resources to create for our remote controls or toys.But we can't be too stingy with materials either.
Supply and demand is a great way of making sure materials aren't used too quickly. The more scarce an item in demand becomes, the more expensive it becomes. This creates incentive to find cheaper alternatives to creating quality goods.
I'll admit, I don't have anything to counter with this point. Supply and demand is certainly a good system, and communism probably wouldn't work very well on a large scale (as we have seen with the fall of Soviet Russia). I suppose that puts a hole in my argument, but on a smaller scale I don't see how communism could be a bad thing.
I wouldn't call it slavery, as you are working to create/build/produce something that would improve the lives of yourself and those of your community. Your work is rewarded by being able to live in a house, have all the food you need, etc.. This would eliminate poverty, homeless people, hunger, etc.
What's the difference between being forced to work, and working out of necessity?
The simple idea behind communism is - everyone works, everyone lives well. But it's honestly not that simple - at all. We have different types of work, different needs, different wants, different skills, etc.
The people living on the island of course. Let's change the situation a bit: If you and several people were stranded on an island, what would you do? You would work on building a shelter, fire, and gathering food. Suppose a few weeks go by, and there's no rescue planes/boats in sight. You continue to build and gather. As weeks turn to months, you find yourself in a village; Everybody gets the same amount of food and water per day, everybody has a hut, everybody is treated equal in order to survive. Is this not a communist village at this point?
Everyone in the village would be working out of necessity. If someone within the village decided to weave together balls for other people to play with, would he be forced to create balls for everyone to enjoy? And what motivation would he have to create balls for others to enjoy if he isn't going to obtain anything more in return?
Let's say this ball maker quits his farming job to create balls for other people to enjoy - how would the rest of the village react? Perhaps some people would grow bitter, because they need food more than they need balls. Why should a ball maker get paid the same amounts as a farmer?
In a system of free trade, the ball maker will only succeed if there's a demand for balls. If there is a demand, he'll be able to profit off of making them for others - who will trade their goods for the balls. If there isn't a demand, he'll find a new job such as farming. realistically, ball making would more likely be a hobby in which he uses his materials to create said good - and people who want the balls would trade for them since the ball maker did use up his own time and resources.
And if you say, "He didn't use his resources, he used the community's shared resources", then we run into a new problem. Why should the ball maker have access to the communities resources? The community might not want a man using up valuable resources for his balls. Now we end up in a situation in which the man is allowed to use the resources against the communities will - or the ball maker isn't allowed access to the resources and no balls can be made and there's no way for the man to obtain resources what-so-ever.
In a free trade system, the ball maker can trade for those resources. If the resources are scarce and valuable, then the ball maker must trade something of similar worth.
The entire idea of communism is to allow everybody to have the same amount of stuff as everybody else.
Why focus on equality? Why not focus on well-being?
Free-trade doesn't focus on equality because not everyone has the same standards of living. Free-trade focuses on people making a living off of... trade! People aren't rewarded for how hard they work, they're rewarded for how much they provide the community with what they need or want.
Entire books have been written to delve into how and why free trade works, it would take me my entire weekend just to scratch the surface.
Let's make it simple: Say you milked 250 gallons of milk, divide that by the amount of population and then take your ration. Working harder, you milk 500 gallons of milk. In theory, you would get twice as much milk than before.
Let's say you milk 1,000 gallons of milk for 100 people. Each person gets 10 gallons of milk. If you want 20 gallons of milk, you would need to milk 2,000 gallons. Want twice as much milk? Milk twice as hard!
Let's say it takes 1 hours to milk 25 gallons. That's 40 hours of work for 1,000 gallons.. That's 24 minutes to produce 10 gallons of milk.
If you need 20 gallons of milk, you need to work for 80 HOURS! Sure, everyone else also gets 20 gallons of milk as well, but what if they don't need 20 gallons of milk? What if you're the only one who needs 20 gallons?
What if you enjoy cooking for a living, but you're not a farmer? You get 10 gallons of milk per week, but you need 20 gallons of milk. How do you obtain the extra 10 gallons?
I'll admit, I don't have anything to counter with this point. Supply and demand is certainly a good system, and communism probably wouldn't work very well on a large scale (as we have seen with the fall of Soviet Russia). I suppose that puts a hole in my argument, but on a smaller scale I don't see how communism could be a bad thing.
Refer to my response to your island question.
Understand, free-trade doesn't prohibit people from sharing willingly.
I wouldn't call it slavery, as you are working to create/build/produce something that would improve the lives of yourself and those of your community.
How does the end result change the work method?
Your work is rewarded by being able to live in a house, have all the food you need, etc..
Is that not how slaves were rewarded?
This would eliminate poverty, homeless people, hunger, etc.
Is that not one of the reasons slavery was considered justified?
How does the end result change the work method?
Well, in slavery you were working for someone. that someone can treat you in any way he/she wants. in communism, you work for an entire state or country. that country can't treat you in any way it wants, because it is obliged to give you something in equal terms with other people.
Is that not how slaves were rewarded?
Actually, slaves are not seen at an equal terms with the "masters", but the people at a communist country have equality in every parts of life, including a same status with everyone in the country ( a politician is not higher than commoners )
Is that not one of the reasons slavery was considered justified?
this is where you are wrong. slavery was only justified with social discrimination and apartheid. it was NEVER justified with eliminating poverty, homeless people, or lack of food in the enslaved society. To an imperialistic country, do you think they care about the well being of the enslaved society? Try asking the Nazis, Napoleon, Cortez, Pizarro, Van de Bosch, Daendels or Thomas Raffles
Well, in slavery you were working for someone. that someone can treat you in any way he/she wants. in communism, you work for an entire state or country. that country can't treat you in any way it wants, because it is obliged to give you something in equal terms with other people.
And in slavery many of the slaves are working for food and shelter which is given out of obligation by the owners to keep their slaves alive and able bodied.
It seems you are arguing that the difference between the two is one is a collective group for an agenda, while the other is an explicitly controlled group for an agenda, but the agenda being of a master.
But, the communist group is being implicitly controlled.
Also, the idea of equal reward for job input...it gives equal value to every job even when such equal value is truly not a thing. A basket weaver holds little to, say, a surgeon, yet they both must work in order to receive the same outcome.
this is where you are wrong. slavery was only justified with social discrimination and apartheid.
What of the original usage of slavery in which there was no discrimination for the slaves? Either you were captured in war or born into it.
"Slavery is good for slaves
This argument teaches that slaves lack the ability to run their own lives and are therefore better-off and happier in a system where their lives are run by others."
Source.
"The following arguments were put forth in Southern books, pamphlets and newspapers to defend the institution of slavery:
Slavery was good for the slaves; the slaveowners took on the burden of caring for the interests of inferior beings, seeing that they would be fed, clothed and given religious instruction."
Source.
Well, in slavery you were working for someone. that someone can treat you in any way he/she wants. in communism, you work for an entire state or country. that country can't treat you in any way it wants, because it is obliged to give you something in equal terms with other people.
Instead of being a slave to one person or family, you're a slave to society.
I'll stick to owning my own body, thank you.
The problem with communism is that it assumes the collective is always right. If you don't want to work for your community, or you want to do something they don't support, you're out of luck. That's why capitalism is so great, because it allows people to act on their own behalf. People in the minority can work for themselves, or choose whom they work for. People in the minority can make trades the majority of people are against, and still make a living satisfying other people who are in the minority.
Let's take a look at an odd real life example:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2172650/How-woman-making-living-snuggling--60-hour-pay-hug-stranger.html
This woman makes a living hugging and cuddling with strangers. What would we do with her in a communist society? Would we allow her to make a living cuddling, or would we force her to become more productive?
Personally, I think it's absolutely ridiculous she can make so much money cuddling strangers. I feel she doesn't work nearly as hard as me, yet she gets paid far more! Perhaps, in a communist society, she can be forced to do a "real" job. But, that's what makes capitalism so beautiful! No matter how envious me or anyone else gets, she'll be allowed to work the way she wants to work! Nobody can stop her through jealousy. Nobody can stop her through envy. Nobody can stop her through disagreements of principle. I may not support what she does, but I thoroughly enjoy the fact that she's allowed to cuddle for a living. As long as her and her customers are happy, me and everyone else who disagrees with her practices can **** off. The only way she can't do her job in a truly free-market society is if the demand for her services go down too much.
Or, under communism, she can be allowed to cuddle strangers and get paid the same (whether we pay her in currency or not is irrelevant). The problem with this is that those of us who don't support her profession are being forced to take care of her. Why would I want to work for people who's business I don't support? Here's the wonderful thing about capitalism. I don't support what she does, so I don't have to spend a single dime on her! If someone thinks my profession is immoral, impractical, or inefficient, they don't have to support me. That's a wonderful thing!
Capitalism allows people to act according to demand. Communism doesn't. Communism acts off of what the majority of people want, and the minority are not allowed to do business with one another because they aren't allowed to act on their own behalf or the behalf of other specific people.
Actually, slaves are not seen at an equal terms with the "masters", but the people at a communist country have equality in every parts of life, including a same status with everyone in the country ( a politician is not higher than commoners )
As true as that is, communism is a different form of slavery. It's a form of slavery in which you must submit to the status quo. There is no such thing as becoming more successful. You do as the majority of people want you to do. You either aren't allowed to hug people for a living, or you're forced to work for people who hug people for a living if you don't support their business. Communists constantly spew "Workers should own their own labor", but they don't. The majority owns the labor. Under capitalism, labor is owned by one's self - and indirectly the person whom you work for.
I can not do my current job by myself, so I sell my labor to my boss. She owns my labor because I gave her consent. Under communism, the majority owns my labor, whether I want to work for myself or a particular person. I have no real say - except whether I want to work or starve, unless labor is forced.
this is where you are wrong. slavery was only justified with social discrimination and apartheid. it was NEVER justified with eliminating poverty, homeless people, or lack of food in the enslaved society. To an imperialistic country, do you think they care about the well being of the enslaved society? Try asking the Nazis, Napoleon, Cortez, Pizarro, Van de Bosch, Daendels or Thomas Raffles
So slavery is okay as long as slaves are treated as well as their masters?
Rather than forcing someone to work so you can house them the way you house yourself, why not give them the choice? Let the choose. Do you let them work for you, do you let them do what they want with their own life?
The thing about not being a communist is, I enjoy other people's success. Sure, there are a lot of people I believe don't deserve their money, but those people don't get rich off my dime - so it doesn't matter. Well, except for people payed through my tax dollars or companies I'm forced to buy from due to laws - but those are more socialist policies. Arguably, some of those are necessary - but that's a different debate for another time.
Also, the idea of equal reward for job input...it gives equal value to every job even when such equal value is truly not a thing. A basket weaver holds little to, say, a surgeon, yet they both must work in order to receive the same outcome.
This is a great point.
Communists believe all labor is equal. They don't ponder whether labor differs in, skill, stress, efficiency, or demand. All of these factors play a great role in determining value in the free market. Some jobs are easy, but there's a high demand, such as the woman who's job it is to cuddle. Some jobs are incredibly stressful, and requite a lot of skill, such as being a doctor. Some jobs are easy, such as working at retail stores or fast food restaurants.
I dont really think communism is fair, as of if someone (Lets go back to the miling thing) Works and gets 5 gallons of milk, and the other gets 1 gallon, why should we both get 3 gallons? Its just not fair. if someone grows 500 sheathes of wheat and someone else grows 5000, why should they get 2750, just like me? They shouldnt. sure, communism may work out for smaller places, but I do not support it.
So slavery is okay as long as slaves are treated as well as their masters?
I don't think i said something about this. I'm not trying to justify the act of slavery if they are treated the same way as their masters. I'm just saying that it was never justified with elimination of poverty, etc.
Communism was never intended to create slavery. it was intended to end it. Sure you can praise Capitalism for being free to choose and to excel in society. But what if you are someone from the lower classes like a common worker in a factory? your life is very limited in choices. you can work harder and risk getting sick and die, or focus on your wellbeing and never got out from your poverty. have you even see the working condition in a factory on under-developed countries? capitalism can't be done there, it would create widespread accumulation of cash in a few individuals. Most people would not be able to get out of poverty. So, I believe that what we need to create a perfect society is to mix capitalism with communism. mix the good parts and it should solve the entire prob with societies
I know i'm being a little out of subject, but in reality i can't counter most of your arguments, so i will settle with this one
I usually don't come here but I would like to be in debate more often (school) ^^
mix capitalism with communism.
Commucaptialism? Kenneth you make a good argument for the lower class and I agree once you are in there it is very difficult to get out. It's kinda like caste systems indirectly.
I personally don't like communism as it gives some people an excuse to be as lazy as they please and still get the same pay and benefits as a hard-working normal citizen. It probably would work for the newer third world countries that have no middle class and are either mostly in poverty or rich.
Sorry if none of this makes any sense as I am just starting out with this debate stuff
capitalism can't be done there, it would create widespread accumulation of cash in a few individuals.
It would seem it does that in first world countries as well.
What about for dangerous jobs as well? Going back to the island analogy, should the person who risks his life protecting the village from say cannibal natives be given the same amount as the person who distributes the pay wages?
You must be logged in to post a reply!