• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Communsim, the way to go

When I sit and think about my sister who recently died and the loss for her feels total. This even when she was more of a nuisance and worry than anything else in my life. She was mentally ill. But when I sit here and think of all those moments, when I could see her light up because I gave her a new purse or when I could get her to sit down and enjoy some music, or when …. then my brother calls and discusses her inheritance. She didn't have much, but she had a house (dilapidated, but in a good area) and the two of us are her closest relatives.

Money, it takes away some of the sadness, it takes away some of the loss and it makes us humans insignificant. It takes away reflection. It's sick actually, absolutely freaking bizarre. When we lose the sadness, the reflection, we lose our own value together with the value of our loved ones

That is sick.

I think about how much grief actually follows those with a lot of money. I would believe harly any at al. None at all. The joy, the greed, the prospect of one's own future, one's own status and the increase of it take over completely. There is nothing. It's sick, bizarre and takes away our self-worth.

So how should it be?

Communism, as it is In the first advocate Thomas More's book Utopia, or as In Star trek, or maybe even as In the head of Karl Marx. That's the way it should be. Everyone has what they need, what they want, no one starves, no exploitation of others' weaknesses and greed, nothing like that.

Ironically those that believe there is a god, believes that is how paradise looks like, while they paint communism as the work of the devil.

But that's the way it should be. Then we would get our human dignity back. Until then, we are nothing more than animals, driven by instincts of dominance and self-preservation.

Until then and maybe always, we are nothing. Meaningless
 
Last edited:
Click to expand...
I have lost all my parents, grandparent some uncles and aunts and a brother, I don't see inherited money or property as taking much if any of my loss away. Sometimes (other than sentimental things) it added to itcomplications and stress to it.
 
The problem with communism is that it doesn't solve the problem of corruption. Nothing in communism that I am aware of necessarily or explicitly requires communism to be an authoritarian system, but it's really hard to function otherwise. It requires centralization and a technical bureaucracy that decides who and what has value. It's just so much easier to have a free market where people can crowd source ideas and private wealth can act as a check on institutional power.

I think mixed economies are probably about as good as it gets.
 
There is no practicing definition of communism that works. Communal living...utopian societies...all eventually fail. No matter who benevolent people are, eventually...those that work to succeed get tired of carrying those that are unwilling to work. Those that are driven to succeed invariably want more...better...not at the expense of others but to the others, thats how it always feels. Its 'not fair'.

You will never as humans defeat human nature.

Sorry for your families loss, but rather than use it to excuse a turn to communism, why didnt your family practice communism to save your sister. It is a micro model...you should have been able to be successful...so...why didnt you? Why werent you?
 
These silly arguments about communism are becoming more absurd the further we go, for even the happy pie in the sky communism to be plausible would mean a strong government making decisions on what everyone needs. And historically speaking, beyond any reasonable debate, that ends in disaster for the very people that advocates of communism claim they want to see have a better outcome.

We simply do not have an example of that level of authoritarianism where the people do well.

By history, and on a long enough timeline, under communism or socialism or most other isms that require such governance in the end very few have what they need, what they want is entirely discarded, people do starve as they are very much exploited to the goals of that authority. And speaking of authority, it ends up based on greed and the weaknesses of human behavior to stay in power.

When you say "nothing like that" as advocating for communism, it is exactly without exception what you get anyway.
 
multivita-man said:
The problem with communism is that it doesn't solve the problem of corruption.
Click to expand...

No, the problem with communism is it doesn't produce the stuff we want. The only time it works is during wartime when nearly everyone has the same goal. In peacetime, everyone has different goals, and having idiot politicians in control of the economy drastically lowers the quantity, quality, and variety of goods.

multivita-man said:
Nothing in communism that I am aware of necessarily or explicitly requires communism to be an authoritarian system, but it's really hard to function otherwise. It requires centralization and a technical bureaucracy that decides who and what has value. It's just so much easier to have a free market where people can crowd source ideas and private wealth can act as a check on institutional power.

I think mixed economies are probably about as good as it gets.
Click to expand...

That's were about 50% of the economy is controlled by idiot politicians.
 
aociswundumho said:
No, the problem with communism is it doesn't produce the stuff we want.
Click to expand...

True, true.

aociswundumho said:
The only time it works is during wartime when nearly everyone has the same goal.
Click to expand...

Well I wouldn't say that rationing or taking over a steel production plant is communism per se. These are isolated instances in which the state manages the supply of certain goods and resources, but the rest of the economy can still function as a market.

aociswundumho said:
That's were about 50% of the economy is controlled by idiot politicians.
Click to expand...

Capitalism is great when it comes to producing the things we want, as you aptly put it. But it creates wealth and power inequities that eventually requires public institutions to intervene, assuming they exist.
 
aociswundumho said:
No, the problem with communism is it doesn't produce the stuff we want. The only time it works is during wartime when nearly everyone has the same goal. In peacetime, everyone has different goals, and having idiot politicians in control of the economy drastically lowers the quantity, quality, and variety of goods.



That's were about 50% of the economy is controlled by idiot politicians.
Click to expand...
The only problem communism has is that you want to make all sort of crap claims about it.

And the other 50% is controlled by greedy, shortsighted and very stupid business people.
 
OrphanSlug said:
These silly arguments about communism are becoming more absurd the further we go, for even the happy pie in the sky communism to be plausible would mean a strong government making decisions on what everyone needs. And historically speaking, beyond any reasonable debate, that ends in disaster for the very people that advocates of communism claim they want to see have a better outcome.

We simply do not have an example of that level of authoritarianism where the people do well.

By history, and on a long enough timeline, under communism or socialism or most other isms that require such governance in the end very few have what they need, what they want is entirely discarded, people do starve as they are very much exploited to the goals of that authority. And speaking of authority, it ends up based on greed and the weaknesses of human behavior to stay in power.

When you say "nothing like that" as advocating for communism, it is exactly without exception what you get anyway.
Click to expand...
You mean against communism.

Those who speak against communism often give themselves away as a person who has read very little on the subject. Such as with comments like "for even the happy pie in the sky communism to be plausible". It is not possible to understand the theory of communism without first comprehending dialectic materialism. By doing so the idea of a utopian society under communism becomes an absurdity.

There has never been a communist government except in name only. So no, history does not tell us any such thing.
As well if you consider the actual philosophy of communism as a means of breaking the long history of greed and suffering by authoritarian powers instead of history being something we are doomed to repeat.
 
Juks said:
When I sit and think about my sister who recently died and the loss for her feels total. This even when she was more of a nuisance and worry than anything else in my life. She was mentally ill. But when I sit here and think of all those moments, when I could see her light up because I gave her a new purse or when I could get her to sit down and enjoy some music, or when …. then my brother calls and discusses her inheritance. She didn't have much, but she had a house (dilapidated, but in a good area) and the two of us are her closest relatives.

Money, it takes away some of the sadness, it takes away some of the loss and it makes us humans insignificant. It takes away reflection. It's sick actually, absolutely freaking bizarre. When we lose the sadness, the reflection, we lose our own value together with the value of our loved ones

That is sick.

I think about how much grief actually follows those with a lot of money. I would believe harly any at al. None at all. The joy, the greed, the prospect of one's own future, one's own status and the increase of it take over completely. There is nothing. It's sick, bizarre and takes away our self-worth.

So how should it be?

Communism, as it is In the first advocate Thomas More's book Utopia, or as In Star trek, or maybe even as In the head of Karl Marx. That's the way it should be. Everyone has what they need, what they want, no one starves, no exploitation of others' weaknesses and greed, nothing like that.

Ironically those that believe there is a god, believes that is how paradise looks like, while they paint communism as the work of the devil.

But that's the way it should be. Then we would get our human dignity back. Until then, we are nothing more than animals, driven by instincts of dominance and self-preservation.

Until then and maybe always, we are nothing. Meaningless
Click to expand...
Agreed. But until imperialism is finally eradicated, there will never be such a perfect society. But I do fear it will get worse before it gets better, the only question is whether our hubris will leave anything left to save. People think that this is some kind of unrealistic idealism, but that's because they've been conditioned by the capitalists to believe that this unsustainable consumerism and ultra-individualistic society is somehow preferable.
 
The tension between capitalism/individualism and socialism/communism is like the tension between how much to work vs how much time to relax/spend time with family/hobbies, etc...

These are both laudable ideals and goals: no one says spending time with family or relaxing is a bad thing, nor that working hard is a bad thing. But no one sane is going to say the answer is in being a workaholic, nor in being a lazy bum. It's just that the more you do of one, the less you get of the other. It requires constant compromise and juggling- sometimes even often painful. There is probably a general sweet spot in there somewhere- but where that is is going to depend on the person, their temperament, their particular circumstances in life, etc.... and it's never going to be perfect. Sometimes the golden mean is not even all that golden- it's just that it's the best we can do and better than the alternatives. But trying to get as close as possible to it is going to require a lot of judgment, intelligence, keeping your eyes and ears open to the specifics of the circumstance at hand, negotiation, and compromise.

Beware those who offer simple answers and easy formulas to complex, difficult dilemmas and problems.

_______________
"Liberty and equality, spontaneity and security, happiness and knowledge, mercy and justice - all these are ultimate human values, sought for themselves alone; yet when they are incompatible, they cannot all be attained, choices must be made, sometimes tragic losses accepted in the pursuit of some preferred ultimate end."

"If, as I believe, the ends of men are many, and not all of them are in principle compatible with each other, then the possibility of conflict—and of tragedy—can never wholly be eliminated from human life, either personal or social. The necessity of choosing between absolute claims is then an inescapable characteristic of the human condition. This gives its value to freedom ...—as an end in itself, and not as a temporary need, arising out of our confused notions and irrational and disordered lives, a predicament which a panacea could one day put right."
_Isaiah Berlin

”True pluralism... is much more tough-minded and intellectually bold: it rejects the view that all conflicts of values can be finally resolved by a neat and tidy synthesis, and by which all desirable goals may be reconciled. It recognises that human nature generates values which, though equally sacred, equally ultimate, exclude one another, without there being any possibility of establishing an objective hierarchical relation or resolution among them. Moral conduct may therefore involve making agonising choices, without the help of universal criteria, between frequently irreconcilable, but equally desirable, values.”
-Isaiah Berlin

“If you are truly convinced that there is some solution to all human problems, that one can conceive an ideal society which men can reach if only they do what is necessary to attain it, then you and your followers must believe that no price can be too high to pay in order to open the gates of such a paradise. Only the stupid and malevolent will resist once certain simple truths are put to them. Those who resist must be persuaded; if they cannot be persuaded, laws must be passed to restrain them; if that does not work, then coercion, if need be violence, will inevitably have to be used—if necessary, terror, slaughter.”
― Isaiah Berlin
 
Last edited:
Juks said:
So how should it be?

Communism, as it is In the first advocate Thomas More's book Utopia, or as In Star trek, or maybe even as In the head of Karl Marx. That's the way it should be. Everyone has what they need, what they want, no one starves, no exploitation of others' weaknesses and greed, nothing like that.
Click to expand...

I would go so far as to say neither Utopia of Thomas More or the Star Trek Universe are really "Communist" in the Marxist light because the State still exists in both utopian societies. But even if we were to leave that aside and simply focus on the economics, communism of the kind you conceive can only come about with the development of hyperproductive industry, to the point that advanced industrial automation combined with an abundance of cheap available energy (perhaps advanced robotics combined combined with AI) are able to produce every good and service for human beings thus making human labor superfluous (and any work that is done is purely for the satisfaction of the worker). That may be theoretically possible. But until such time, the most that could be hoped for is "mere" socialism and the collective ownership of the means of production in which every citizen is expected to contribute to society. But we have seen where that leads.

Just because private wealth is outlawed does not mean there is no exploitation of weaknesses and greed. The Communist Party of the USSR managed to achieve socialism in the 1930s and abolished private property. But money is simply a cache of power and security. So when money lost much of its value because it could not purchase wealth-producing assets whether land, or joint stock, citizens in the Soviet Union either sought positions of power for themselves, or sought to ingratiate themselves to those in positions of power in order to gain security for themselves. Since the Communist Party literally had the power to decide who could work and who could eat, a system of client/patron relationships developed within the Soviet Union that outmatched practically anything that had been seen since Ancient Rome, and it would just as likely develop in any new communist society where private wealth was abolished.
 
Felis Leo said:
I would go so far as to say neither Utopia of Thomas More or the Star Trek Universe are really "Communist" in the Marxist light because the State still exists in both utopian societies. But even if we were to leave that aside and simply focus on the economics, communism of the kind you conceive can only come about with the development of hyperproductive industry, to the point that advanced industrial automation combined with an abundance of cheap available energy (perhaps advanced robotics combined combined with AI) are able to produce every good and service for human beings thus making human labor superfluous (and any work that is done is purely for the satisfaction of the worker). That may be theoretically possible. But until such time, the most that could be hoped for is "mere" socialism and the collective ownership of the means of production in which every citizen is expected to contribute to society. But we have seen where that leads.

Just because private wealth is outlawed does not mean there is no exploitation of weaknesses and greed. The Communist Party of the USSR managed to achieve socialism in the 1930s and abolished private property. But money is simply a cache of power and security. So when money lost much of its value because it could not purchase wealth-producing assets whether land, or joint stock, citizens in the Soviet Union either sought positions of power for themselves, or sought to ingratiate themselves to those in positions of power in order to gain security for themselves. Since the Communist Party literally had the power to decide who could work and who could eat, a system of client/patron relationships developed within the Soviet Union that outmatched practically anything that had been seen since Ancient Rome, and it would just as likely develop in any new communist society where private wealth was abolished.
Click to expand...
Well, I am not talking about any society that has existed and chose to itself "communistic". I do agree that they al been and are awful. None of them without suppression, greed or exploitation. On the contruary, it has been and is extensive to a point of no return. I am more talking about the idea and the utopia of communism which does "live" in Utopia and star trek ;) .
 
Communism, like Libertarianism, has been shown not to work in the real world, which seems to require a mixed economy between the two extremes with the exact mixture being what makes sense for that particular country's culture and sensibilities.
 
Human beings are born with different talents or lack thereof. The concept of equity that communism is based on will never be viable.
Your college professors that told you the only reason it doesn’t work is because it’s never been implemented properly were idealistic fools living in an artificial bubble.
 
Grandpappy said:
Human beings are born with different talents or lack thereof. The concept of equity that communism is based on will never be viable.
Your college professors that told you the only reason it doesn’t work is because it’s never been implemented properly were idealistic fools living in an artificial bubble.
Click to expand...
How amusing that the very word equity has a different meaning from your opinion of it.

Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.
Click to expand...
Or in other words, Human beings are born with different talents or lack thereof.
 
soylentgreen said:
How amusing that the very word equity has a different meaning from your opinion of it.


Or in other words, Human beings are born with different talents or lack thereof.
Click to expand...

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.​

The end result of the above is the discouragement of highly capable people from achieving their full potential.
 
Juks said:
Money, it takes away some of the sadness, it takes away some of the loss and it makes us humans insignificant. It takes away reflection. It's sick actually, absolutely freaking bizarre. When we lose the sadness, the reflection, we lose our own value together with the value of our loved ones...
I think about how much grief actually follows those with a lot of money. I would believe harly any at al. None at all. The joy, the greed, the prospect of one's own future, one's own status and the increase of it take over completely. There is nothing. It's sick, bizarre and takes away our self-worth.
Click to expand...
Well, here's the thing. Incomes below a certain point -- iirc around $75k or so in the US, I'd have to double check -- result in less happiness. If you go above that point, you hit diminishing returns. I.e. Bill Gates isn't necessarily all that much happier than a married couple that earns $250k/yr.

There are a few reasons for this. One is that extremely high levels of assets simply cannot eliminate a lot of the normal suffering of life. E.g. Bill Gates Sr. died in 2020, and I'm sure that Bill Gates Jr. was just as emotionally distraught as any other 65 year old man whose father passed.

Or, having incredible amounts of money means you get the best medical care. However, even the best care in the world can't fix everything. There are many diseases, medical conditions, chronic illnesses, sources of chronic pain etc that we can't cure.

Another is that as your assets increase, it becomes more difficult to trust people. You can't tell if people genuinely like you, or want something from you, or plan to steal from you. As your wealth increases, you're also potentially subject to public scrutiny, especially if you donate to political causes, mouth off on social media, and so on.

You also don't have to be a billionaire to be greedy. I suspect that for a lot of the uber-wealthy, the desire for More Money is not about greed, its about factors like status, influence, loss aversion, arrogance and so on.

So, the real issue isn't that "rich people suck 'cause they don't suffer!" It's that those with lower incomes suffer genuine economic harm, and the lower your income, the worse the harm. This also compounds -- e.g. if your health is bad, and you can't afford treatment, your condition will worsen, and your ability to earn income declines. Or, just being poor taxes your cognitive capabilities, probably because your mind is occupied with just figuring out how to make it to the end of the month. Those same people, we should note, improve their cognitive functioning when their incomes or assets improve.

Ultimately, Communism -- as in, the specific political philosophy of state ownership of the means of production and control of government -- doesn't work. It's an abject failure mostly because:
a) it concentrates too much power into too few hands
b) there's no accountability
c) market pricing works well for most, though not all, goods

By the way, Karl Marx never outlined any sort of post-revolutionary government. He assumed that pre-revolutionary people couldn't even conceive of a proper way for the proles to rule the joint. Anyway....

Since we can't just give everyone $75k/yr, a more feasible option is something more like socializing certain functions (like medical care and education), providing short-term safety nets without welfare cliffs for those of working age and in need, pensions for seniors, and not letting income inequality go completely off the rails. Hence the suggestions for nations to be more like Scandinavia than the US....
 
Visbek said:
Well, here's the thing. Incomes below a certain point -- iirc around $75k or so in the US, I'd have to double check -- result in less happiness. If you go above that point, you hit diminishing returns. I.e. Bill Gates isn't necessarily all that much happier than a married couple that earns $250k/yr.

There are a few reasons for this. One is that extremely high levels of assets simply cannot eliminate a lot of the normal suffering of life. E.g. Bill Gates Sr. died in 2020, and I'm sure that Bill Gates Jr. was just as emotionally distraught as any other 65 year old man whose father passed.

Or, having incredible amounts of money means you get the best medical care. However, even the best care in the world can't fix everything. There are many diseases, medical conditions, chronic illnesses, sources of chronic pain etc that we can't cure.

Another is that as your assets increase, it becomes more difficult to trust people. You can't tell if people genuinely like you, or want something from you, or plan to steal from you. As your wealth increases, you're also potentially subject to public scrutiny, especially if you donate to political causes, mouth off on social media, and so on.

You also don't have to be a billionaire to be greedy. I suspect that for a lot of the uber-wealthy, the desire for More Money is not about greed, its about factors like status, influence, loss aversion, arrogance and so on.

So, the real issue isn't that "rich people suck 'cause they don't suffer!" It's that those with lower incomes suffer genuine economic harm, and the lower your income, the worse the harm. This also compounds -- e.g. if your health is bad, and you can't afford treatment, your condition will worsen, and your ability to earn income declines. Or, just being poor taxes your cognitive capabilities, probably because your mind is occupied with just figuring out how to make it to the end of the month. Those same people, we should note, improve their cognitive functioning when their incomes or assets improve.

Ultimately, Communism -- as in, the specific political philosophy of state ownership of the means of production and control of government -- doesn't work. It's an abject failure mostly because:
a) it concentrates too much power into too few hands
b) there's no accountability
c) market pricing works well for most, though not all, goods

By the way, Karl Marx never outlined any sort of post-revolutionary government. He assumed that pre-revolutionary people couldn't even conceive of a proper way for the proles to rule the joint. Anyway....

Since we can't just give everyone $75k/yr, a more feasible option is something more like socializing certain functions (like medical care and education), providing short-term safety nets without welfare cliffs for those of working age and in need, pensions for seniors, and not letting income inequality go completely off the rails. Hence the suggestions for nations to be more like Scandinavia than the US....
Click to expand...
I might slightly disagree with you, but a very insightful and intelligent answer, thank you.
 
Grandpappy said:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.​

The end result of the above is the discouragement of highly capable people from achieving their full potential.
Click to expand...
Why would it do that. Unless their so called abilities are nothing more than shallowness and greed.
 
Grandpappy said:
Incompetent people don't know they're incompetent.
Click to expand...
I have no idea how this relates to anything.

I am guessing it will be the usual, think up really dumb ways to do communism and then insist it has to be done that way.
 
Grandpappy said:
Human beings are born with different talents or lack thereof. The concept of equity that communism is based on will never be viable.
Your college professors that told you the only reason it doesn’t work is because it’s never been implemented properly were idealistic fools living in an artificial bubble.
Click to expand...

The number of people today who seriously advocate for pure communism is about the same as those who advocate for the freedom of anarchy. You are tilting at windmills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom