So, is Communism an ideal system which we as a society should strive for?

[MrNiceGuy]

If so, why?
If no, why no?

I'm interested not in whether anyone thinks it is practical, feasible, possible or whether it's likely to be adopted. This thread just concerns whether you view it as an ideal to strive for, and by that I mean, it's something like "...ah wouldn't the world be grand if we had true communism...?" If you think the world would be a better place if we could only get communism in place, then you answer yes. Otherwise, it's no or maybe.

 

[Rickeroo]

Communism might be possible if everyone is the same as far as needs, wants, ability, etc. The society would have to be perfectly homogenous, so as not to have any ill feelings between those that don't pull their weight and those that do. Perhaps some kind of emotionally suppressive drug or eugenics would turn out humans that wouldn't harbor ill will against free loaders. Given those conditions, a 'happy' society might result, or at least a 'not sad' one.

Current technology though prohibits communism - we can't stop a person from a 115 IQ being upset that an 85 IQ makes the same amount under communism.

 

[Mr Person]

Well, let's see. "Communism" is the mythical state that results after government ownership of the means of production - socialism - proves so awesome that ownership reverts back to the workers. To get there, government necessarily has to seize the means of production (they will never be given over freely). That requires an authoritarian or totalitarian government. That requires evil people to be in the government.

Fun fact: the kind of person who would be in such a government would never give back the means of production or use them for genuine societal good.



In other words, it's a horribly naive impossibility. So too is the kind of Big-L Libertarianism that seems to want a virtually non-existent and largely impotent government, or anarchism as typically defined. (ie, "belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion."). Human nature won't allow it.

Pursue communism and you get stuck at having that totalitarian government with a heavily socialist economy. Pursue the other two and someone else steps in the moment you create a power vacuum. Someone always steps into a power vacuum. Homo sapien is simply not built for these things.




tl;dr it's moot

 

[Grandpappy]

Well, let's see. "Communism" is the mythical state that results after government ownership of the means of production - socialism - proves so awesome that ownership reverts back to the workers. To get there, government necessarily has to seize the means of production (they will never be given over freely). That requires an authoritarian or totalitarian government. That requires evil people to be in the government.

Fun fact: the kind of person who would be in such a government would never give back the means of production or use them for genuine societal good.



In other words, it's a horribly naive impossibility. So too is the kind of Big-L Libertarianism that seems to want a virtually non-existent and largely impotent government, or anarchism as typically defined. (ie, "belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion."). Human nature won't allow it.

Pursue communism and you get stuck at having that totalitarian government with a heavily socialist economy. Pursue the other two and someone else steps in the moment you create a power vacuum. Someone always steps into a power vacuum. Homo sapien is simply not built for these things.




tl;dr it's moot

Well said.

 

[SkyChief]

Communism works best in a commune. Communes were very popular in the 1960s and 1970s, but many disbanded. Some still survive today, and are very successful.

Communism can work in very small populations, but as the population grows, leaders emerge - power struggles happen, and it becomes a breeding ground for corruption and tyranny.

The Farm commune was established in 1971, and still is going strong. (although its population has decreased somewhat since 1971)

 

[jpevans]

Well, let's see. "Communism" is the mythical state that results after government ownership of the means of production - socialism - proves so awesome that ownership reverts back to the workers. To get there, government necessarily has to seize the means of production (they will never be given over freely). That requires an authoritarian or totalitarian government. That requires evil people to be in the government.

Fun fact: the kind of person who would be in such a government would never give back the means of production or use them for genuine societal good.



In other words, it's a horribly naive impossibility. So too is the kind of Big-L Libertarianism that seems to want a virtually non-existent and largely impotent government, or anarchism as typically defined. (ie, "belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion."). Human nature won't allow it.

Pursue communism and you get stuck at having that totalitarian government with a heavily socialist economy. Pursue the other two and someone else steps in the moment you create a power vacuum. Someone always steps into a power vacuum. Homo sapien is simply not built for these things.




tl;dr it's moot

Communism can only work in very small voluntary groups. Even then there’s often a Judas.

 

[Mr Person]

Communism can only work in very small voluntary groups. Even then there’s often a Judas.

Oh, agreed. Communes can manage but they sure don't scale up well.

 

[Mr Person]

Well said.

Then why, for the love of all that is holy, do you insist on calling everyone on the left "commies"? Just to troll a bit?

Because if you agree with me about communism there's no way you actually mean that we are "commies". There probably about 2,000 people in the entire country that actually believe that we should violently seize all the means of production in pursuit of eventually reaching stateless (or de minimis state) communism. You end up complaining that a proposed law or regulation is just like that. Which..... no. No it is not.

 

[Rexedgar]

When peope are “equal,” there are always some that think they are more “equal.”

 

[neil]

I would be ok with communism (no money, no ownership of property or means of production, etc.) provided we had automation, robotics, and other advancements in technology that made it unnecessary for anyone to ever have to work in order to have access to resources, and resources weren't scarce (no need for rationing).

 

[Grandpappy]

Then why, for the love of all that is holy, do you insist on calling everyone on the left "commies"? Just to troll a bit?

Because if you agree with me about communism there's no way you actually mean that we are "commies". There probably about 2,000 people in the entire country that actually believe that we should violently seize all the means of production in pursuit of eventually reaching stateless (or de minimis state) communism. You end up complaining that a proposed law or regulation is just like that. Which..... no. No it is not.

It's retaliation for calling us Fascists. You haven't figured that out yet?

 

[Gateman_Wen]

If so, why?
If no, why no?

I'm interested not in whether anyone thinks it is practical, feasible, possible or whether it's likely to be adopted. This thread just concerns whether you view it as an ideal to strive for, and by that I mean, it's something like "...ah wouldn't the world be grand if we had true communism...?" If you think the world would be a better place if we could only get communism in place, then you answer yes. Otherwise, it's no or maybe.

You need a "this is a silly poll" choice.

 

[Antiwar]

It's retaliation for calling us Fascists. You haven't figured that out yet?

You two should hug it out.

 

[Antiwar]

Quoting Wikipedia:

Communism is a philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common or social ownership of all property and the absence of social classes, money, and the state.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

If so, why?
If no, why no?

I'm interested not in whether anyone thinks it is practical, feasible, possible or whether it's likely to be adopted. This thread just concerns whether you view it as an ideal to strive for, and by that I mean, it's something like "...ah wouldn't the world be grand if we had true communism...?" If you think the world would be a better place if we could only get communism in place, then you answer yes. Otherwise, it's no or maybe.

The USA has exactly ZERO experience with anything remotely like that.
Also, communism is authoritarianism and we are currently fighting off the RIGHT wing authoritarianism known as FASCISM.
So why would the American people want to trade one horrible form of authoritarianism for another ?????

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Communism might be possible if everyone is the same as far as needs, wants, ability, etc.

Fantasy.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Communism works best in a commune. Communes were very popular in the 1960s and 1970s, but many disbanded. Some still survive today, and are very successful.

Communism can work in very small populations, but as the population grows, leaders emerge - power struggles happen, and it becomes a breeding ground for corruption and tyranny.

The Farm commune was established in 1971, and still is going strong. (although its population has decreased somewhat since 1971)

Yeah sure, population 100 or less, go commies, beyond that = FAIL.
I lived on a hippie commune in MN

 

[Gateman_Wen]

It's retaliation for calling us Fascists. You haven't figured that out yet?

Own it. That's all you can do when you've been accurately labeled.

 

[SkyChief]

. . .
I lived on a hippie commune in MN . . .

Specifically, what did you like about Communism? What didn't you like?

I have no experience with Communism, so I'd like to hear how it actually works.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Specifically, what did you like about Communism? What didn't you like?

Thanks in advance.

I didn't like much of anything as regards the political layout.
The commune still exists. It's in Lanesboro MN.
I went there with a girl, we had a lot of fun, we shared food and whatever resources, etc.
Then the girl and I went our separate ways and I moved back to South Minneapolis again.

I was twenty-one.
Know what I liked?
The quivering quim, that's what.

 

[Indydave]

it could be if people were perfect Christians

 

[Ren]

Communism might be possible if everyone is the same as far as needs, wants, ability, etc. The society would have to be perfectly homogenous, so as not to have any ill feelings between those that don't pull their weight and those that do. Perhaps some kind of emotionally suppressive drug or eugenics would turn out humans that wouldn't harbor ill will against free loaders. Given those conditions, a 'happy' society might result, or at least a 'not sad' one.

Current technology though prohibits communism - we can't stop a person from a 115 IQ being upset that an 85 IQ makes the same amount under communism.

I think leftists would be more than happy to find a workaround for that problem too.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

I didn't cast a vote because my answer is not there.

One of the aspects of America's success is our ability to balance socialism with capitalism. This is a broth that continually needs to be tweaked. Sometimes, like during the Great Depression, we need more socialism to keep the masses fed. Other times, like the 1990's we can loosen the reins on capitalism. It is all about finding the right mix at any given time.