Communism is, in essence, the perfect government. Everybody is equal, and working for the greater good of the entire country. And all those countries we have labeled as 'communist' aren't actually communist. They're just a form of dictatorship or socialism with a communist label.
No country that has been legitimately communist has failed, because no country has been legitimately communist.
Communism is stateless in the sense there is no government.
I've said this before and you didn't bother to read what I said in reference to 314d1 or you. Communism creates economic equality. The USSR is a country which created economic equality. East Germany created economic equality as well. That was the fundamental reason they both perished.
You are obviously an idealist. It would be nice if everyone was equal, but the reality is that people are unequal and it makes no sense to try to make people have an equal amount of wealth.
So you do get what it is! So why do you keep bashing socialism, when we are talking about communism? It would be like bashing a revelation when we are talking about the country. Socialism is just meant to bring the world into communism, witch you are supposed to be arguing.
I keep bashing socialism because they both center on creating economic equality.
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...
"Well, I just read a quote that contradicts what you are saying and therefore it must be right and you must be wrong." - That's the logic you are implying by quoting that.
Regardless, men are created equal. It's called equal opportunity. Communism seeks to promote equal outcome. It does not say in the Declaration of Independence, which was written by Thomas Jefferson, who was inspired by Adam Smith and advocated small government, that all men
are equal.
What are you saying? Are you saying people of different skin color, ethnicity, and sex lives should be economically different? Why? Economic equality will eventually lead to social equality, considering most of the cause of racism in the stuff is often economic trouble.
People are different in almost every aspect. Not to mention the immoral aspects of Communism, it is illogical to believe the economic equality will create social equality. As long as ignorance and intolerance exists, there will be discriminat
ion and social inequality.
Regardless, social equality is impossible and immoral. You squander individuality and diversity in favor of the collective. The only respect I have towards any socialist are Anarcho-Communists because they actually know what they are talking about instead of Marxists.
[quote]East Germany was poor, ruled by harsh dictators who would not hesitate to kill their own citizens, and of course was socialist. It can hardly be said that the Soviet bloc valued equality, it was just a rule by another name.
You admitted it was Socialist. So I ask you, if Socialism and Communist both value economic equality and equal outcome, then what is the difference if it has a government or not? The logic goes that if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck, right? The minute difference, though very large and important, is government, but the fundamental principles are still there. After all, Socialism is just the transition into Communism. So if you're going to go against Socialism, which I think you are, then why are you not against Communism?
How about common human decency and a lust for inventions? The Greek philosophers did not get payed well, but they continued to innovate. Innovation for innovation sake, and for the sake of the rest of humanity.
1. Greek philosophers don't innovate in the sense that they create newer and better products for profit. They practice philosophy, which does not create newer and better products for profit. Most philosophers lecture or write books for profit. They spread their ideas for profit. They do not "think" for profit.
2. Competition creates innovation. Companies compete to create better products for their customers so they can maximize profits.
3. Your only example would be relevant if we lived thousands of years ago. Many inventors say they want to create inventions so they can profit off of them.
4. If you look at old videotapes of the USSR, you see how people would wait in line for two hours if they wanted to buy bread. Monopolies do not create better products. If you are forced to buy from one supplier who has no competition, what incentive does he have to manage resources efficiently if he will gain a profit either way? Monopolies, whether state or not, do not manage resources efficiently. Innovation for innovation's sake is fallacious and all you do is provide phrases that are not even provided by any logical evidence.
This is a debate between non-market and market ideas. You provide no substantial evidence for your opinion that not having a market is just.
And of course crime is much greater in a capitalist society.
More laws, more offenders. Do you even know what Anarcho-Capitalism is? It is the purest form of capitalism!
Many people sell drugs in order to make money. Why do they need to make money? Economic inequality forces them into situations where they are unable to afford the lifestyle they want and are often willing to murder another person in order to make some capitalist money.
Many people will sell books in order to make money. What's your point?
People don't need to make money. There is this practice called subsistence farming.
You are cherrypicking dyer situations that occur in a mixed economy, even though the murder rate in many mixed economy countries is relatively low. You speak of it as if it is an epidemic. You also make the assumption that if one does not have the lifestyle he desires, he will murder another for it. Most murders are crimes of passion. If anything, one would steal.
I'll give you an example of how a free market society where the currency is backed by gold through a genuine gold standard would work.
So, let's say I am poor. Well, I know that I can easily steal money, but then I would have to face the problem of imprisonment by a defense firm. I don't have any money to pay for a defense firm myself so I know that if I steal from a rich person, I am likely going to get caught and imprisoned with no chance of being found innocent. I know this because a rich person would probably have invested his wellbeing in a good defense firm. Stealing is out of the question.
Because there is a lot of economic opportunity, I can start a small business. I will take out a loan from a bank for the amount of money I've calculated I will need to start a small business. I will buy "X" amount for apples from a supplier of apples at "Y" cost. I don't have enough money to start in a business so I begin selling my apples in the street. The apples I sell are very cheap and have a low markup, but at least I'm making enough money to grow my business a bit.
I could also take the alternative route and be an employee. I am poor but determined and friendly. I decide to wait tables for my favorite restaurant. The pay is not much, but I like the independence and the experience it gives me. I decide to place the money I earn into an education fund. With this education, I will be able to get into a better paying job. Because colleges are competing to provide a better education at a better price, the cost of education will go down, allowing low income people, like me, to have the possibility of a better job.
Or, I could just work at a factory as a janitor and ask for some training in another skilled job. Or I can be an apprentice for someone and gain skills that will benefit me in the future. The list goes on an on to what I can do and what I have the choice to do.
Under Communism, if I know that I can get the same standard of living for doing a less technical job than being a pharmacist, then what incentive do I have to become a pharmacist?
Then use that to go to work! If you feel that you have accomplished nothing, then go and accomplish something! For the good of the rest of humanity, it would be simple to use the feeling of obligation to make people work.
There is a sense of accomplishment that most people feel when they help themselves rather than help someone else.
In the same paragraph, you said you would not work for humanity for nothing. Then you turn around and say that if you where receiving everything but not giving anything to the world, you would feel guilty. Does that not show that many people would work?
You make the assumption that one works for accomplishment or money. They can work for both.
Do you really think that communist China and Soviet Russia strove for equality?
If you're going to deny that, then it truly does show how ignorant you are. Even if, like you said, they didn't want equality, it still goes to show how creating economic equality, which is what they did, doesn't work. It also shows how monopolies are inefficient.
What resulted from that was widespread poverty. China had the good enough sense to change to a market in 1976 because they realized that the dream of Communism was a crackpot idea.
They where attempting to be a step of it. But as you said, there are many causes of poverty. Dictators typically have poor economies, especially in large countries, so wouldn't it be more logical to assume it is an issue with government type not economic type?
So if they were attempting to create equality, then doesn't that contradict what you said earlier? The fundamental cause of poverty is that resources are misallocated. Some argue that the cause of poverty is private property. I disagree with those, but I digress.
The economic system of Communism is set up to fail because of it's setup.
And the game Bioshock teaches how capitalism, if left unchecked, can go wild. I don't see the relevance, it isn't like I have time to read a book during the summer...
Your not even addressing my main argument that was stated later in the paragraph.
Really? Can you name a relatively large nation that actually focuses on equality, one that is not an oligarchy in a mask?
lolwut. It is possible to have a democracy/oligarchy/monarchy/autocracy/technocracy/aristocracy/meritocracy that focuses on equality. It's just that the rulers are unequal but the rest are. It focuses on economic equality but not political. You're basically asking "can you name a relatively large fruit that actually tastes sour, without it having a stem?"
Your mixing two separate things together. One is a economic policy and the other is a form of government.
Except of course the ones who have failed?
1. Define "fail"
2. Name which ones have "failed"
3. Tell me why they have "failed"
You are trying debate with witty remarks rather than substance.
Since of course the poor want equality, the rich hardly want to give up their money.
Do you know a poor person who wants to give up their money? Didn't think so. The rich use GOVERNMENT to make themselves richer. The poor use GOVERNMENT to make rich poorer.
And that is usually one of the causes of the communist nations being poor. After all, you can't go from a poor economy to an amazing economy, a poor economy becomes a slightly richer economy.
Didn't you say no country has ever been Communist? You're contradicting yourself. Estonia and Czech Republic are relatively rich after a relatively short amount of time.
