It seems to me to be a fundamental property of a proper communist nation that there would be no such thing as "wealthy." It's like asking "Would you live in an anarchist country if you could be president." Well sure, but then it wouldnt be much of an anarchy, now would it?
Communism could only work with a world of unlimited resources.
If I was wealthy under a communist government then I would likely be the dictator.
Congratulations, you fail to understand communism. Go read a book!
No of course not. Communism is totally wrong...it just looks good on paper. It won't ever work out in the end because if there is no incentive no work, no one will.
Have you even bothered to read Marx or any other Marxists? The incentive to work is found in real human needs. People labour for the satisfaction of human needs and wants. In a capitalist society this natural human drive is perverted by the profit motive where by mans truely human functions become animal, and his animal functions (eating, sleeping, procreating) become self fulfilling and his whole human purpose.
Procreation is still instinctfull yet there are plenty of gays.You think the want to work work is more powerful than that?
In an ideal communist society there is no such thing as wealthy, for wealth is only relative to what others have. If you and everyone else in your communist country had $1bln, would you be wealthy? No, unless in comparison to other "poorer" people elsewhere in the world. But then your wealth would be on the basis of inequality, no?
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS BEING WEALTHY IN A COMMUNIST COUNTRY! first of all communism is an economic state not a political state and to be wealthy you have to have other people to compare your wealth to and when everyone has the same "wealth" you are in a neutral state. and as for it being a utopia, when you get paid no matter how hard or how poorly you work there will be people who get mad for not being promoted and there will be poorer products due to peoples' lack of interest or lack of caring. without the ability to go higher in your job, there is a lack of competition, and without competition there is no development of new technology or advances in medical practices etc. also without freedom of the press (which you would have in a communist country) the gov't could be doing things behind the citizens' backs that could be horribly devastating and if one person knows there is nothing they can do about it to tell others!
296 days ago | Tagged As: No
No because you would lose all of your money eventually..........
5 days ago | Tagged As: No
Everyone loses their money eventually. The thrust of Communism, however, isn't really about money per se. It's about the control of the means of production.
5 days ago | Tagged As: yes
If the government controls the means of production, then everybody will end up having the same amount of money. Everyone gets paid the same, so I will end up not being wealthy.
4 days ago | Tagged As: No
If the government controls the means of production, then everybody will end up having the same amount of money. Why? Everyone gets paid the same, so I will end up not being wealthy. There's really nothing in communist literature that would prohibit you from being wealthy. You just couldn't go about mustering your fellows and creating an oppressive class with it.
4 days ago | Tagged As: yes
In communist countries, everyone is supposed to have equal pay. Nobody is going to have more money than anyone else.
4 days ago | Tagged As: No
In communist countries, everyone is supposed to have equal pay. Nobody is going to have more money than anyone else. And I'm back to my question: why?
4 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Communism builds a classless society so nobody can have more than anyone else.
3 days ago | Tagged As: No
Communism builds a classless society so nobody can have more than anyone else. How? Rhetorical question. It's done by removing private property and infrastructures that can generate class antagonism. Not by making everyone get paid the same or ensuring that everyone only has one television in their house.
3 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Communism is an egalitarian ideal. It explains that everyone should be equal. How is paying someone more than another person being equal? One determinant of class can be income.
1 day 11hrs ago | Tagged As: No
Communism is an egalitarian ideal. It explains that everyone should be equal. But only insofar as the rending of "history" (hitherto) is concerned. That is, equal in class, because there is a lack thereof. How is paying someone more than another person being equal? Because payment is not a necessary issue of class. One determinant of class can be income. It is a necessary, but not sufficient determinant. That's why even after the Bolshevik revolution, which saw the overthrow of the old monarchy and Tsarists, doctors were still paid more than lumberers. The necessary distinction that you are failing to make is that being paid more is not in and of itself a sufficient criterion for a "class", which is the primary consideration of the proletariat revolution.
1 day 10hrs ago | Tagged As: yes
Are you saying that since they said that there were no classes, that there weren't any classes? For example, even if people were separated by different classes, they were only distinguished in the same class because the government said that they were in the same class. Is that what you are saying? "payment is not a necessary issue of class."- then why did you say that income is a necessary determinant? I didn't say that income was the only determinant of class.
10hrs 38mins ago | Tagged As: No
If the government controls the means of production, then everybody will end up having the same amount of money. Why? Everyone gets paid the same, so I will end up not being wealthy. There's really nothing in communist literature that would prohibit you from being wealthy. You just couldn't go about mustering your fellows and creating an oppressive class with it.
4 days ago | Tagged As: yes
|
First of all guys. There are no communist countries. And there never were. Communism is a utopic theory. A model of the world without money where everyone gets whatever he wants and does whatever he's obliged too. So being wealthy in a communist country - it's a nonsense. And if u're referring to the post-soviet countries or china - well nowadays you can live there pretty good. I'm currently living in Moscow and u know it's nice. If u've got a good job and some place to grow - u can live here comfortably. And i was on a business trip to China a month ago - that country is quite amazing. The growth, the power, the technical level i think it is nice to live there too.
Indeed, there are only socialist countries, not communist. If there were such a country, I'd love to live there! According to Wikipedia, "Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production." So if there were such a place, no one would be wealthy--at least not in relationship to any one else in that country. But, perhaps the country itself could be wealthy... that would certainly help.
"Communism is a utopic theory." No it is a scientific and critical theory. Read Marx
To preface, I don't think any Communist countries these days are pulling of the ideology very well. At least not the way I would do it. (Frederarxism, lol) But, I think Communism, in general, could work. As far as being rich goes, if it was done my way, I would only be as rich as everyone else, that would be working as hard as I am.
For me to be wealthy in a communist country than everyone would be wealthy. Since everyone is wealthy this would be a nice place to live. So I would enjoy living there.
Wealth within a country is relative to the remainder of the population. Therefore, if everyone is of equal prosperity, nobody is wealthy. Furthermore, wealth within a country may not be proportional to wealth on an international scale. Say for instance you live in a country where the average capital is $1,000 and you have $2,000. In that case you'd be wealthy, but if the international average capital is $5,000 then you'd not be wealthy seeing as you've got significantly less than the majority (purely example figures to illustrate the point).
I understand the sentiment and where your coming from. Your essential argument is like asking the question: Would you rather make $30,000 and have other people make $15,000, or make $60,000 and have other people make $100,000? However, that is not the situation as it is presented. In a communist community people would have approximately the same wealth. A rephrasing of the question would be more like this: Would you rather make $30,000 and have other people make $15,000, or make $60,000 and have other people make $60,000? Presented in this context I would suggest that people would prefer the latter. It is not as important to be in the top social class if there is no one above you. In fact, when there is less disparity between social classes, people are generally happier. Some people suggest that this lack of disparity between classes is what leads to longer life expectancies in some countries. A strong proponent of this theory is Micheal Marmot, and hes written a book about it, "How Social Standing Affects Our Health and Longevity."
In some "NON-DICTATORSHIPS" there was universal health care, free education, and jobs; a utopia some in America might call.(i.e:Bulgaria) Yes, I would because the American idea of wealthy is being above everyone; Communism stops that making everyone equally rich or poor making everyone wealthy or poor. It's called happiness.
6 days ago | Tagged As: yes
I hate to admit it, but.... yeah :)
Well, seeing as there is (or at least in theory) no class division in a communist society, that would mean that everyone is equally as wealthy as I. This wouldn't be a bad thing because that means that everyone in the society is doing their part as they should. In America, a society like this is hard to imagine. When we think wealthy, we think "Fun". We buy all the latest gadgets, comfortable cars, blah blah blah, etc. In a healthy communist society though, you could be wealthy, but you couldn't have things like this or it would likely make you a less useful citizen. The problem with communism (from an american's point of view) is that people don't like being so responsible for everyone else. We don't like working for the group because we are selfish and self centered. We want to be better than the next man because that's America's meaning of success.
In other words: Would you be willing to be corrupt in exchange for wealth. If I were a Republican then answer would be a resounding YES!
Please read: "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx
Please read the constitution or the declaration of independance.A theory is great but these two have made The united States of America the greatest country ever.
I have read both. America isn't great, it's successful. Look under the rug and you'll find that America is not as labeled in the constitution. The constitution, by the way didn't make America as great as you make it out to be. It was the people of the time that made it as functional as it is. Today though, the Bush Administration and the rest of those Neo-Cons running for presidency, are undermining Thomas Jefferson and friend's hard work. You cannot denote a theory if it was tried incorrectly. No one has successfully pulled it off, but look into the past, you'll find that this is MORE true for a democracy or republic. It has been tested and failed many many many times, usually do to Tyranny. Communism usually topples from the ground up, not from the top down. Bureaucrats ruin communism, Tyrants ruin democracies and republics.
Another example of a liberal fascist comment.
|
