CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Why do Americans consider Communism bad?
Americans fought, fought, fought, and fought some more trying to get rid of communism in the world, but why is it so bad. It gives people equal rights, and does not force people to live in oppression.
Note:
I am not for communism, I'm only causing debate, and isn't that what this site is for.
Americans fear communism because it represents a person's inability to control their own life. I mean, the USA is all about rights--equal rights, progressive rights, new rights, old rights, too many rights, too few rights. Communism removes some of these rights as a sacrifice towards what is considered to be the "greater good."
In all honesty, communism (theoretically) is all about true equality. Every person is (theoretically) equal, which is (supposedly) what the USA strives for. But Americans don't really want that. They want to be more equal than others. And a communist government that truly levels the playing field is not what Americans want.
It's not leveling the playing field, it's tilting the playing field so that the losing team can win.
This is the problem with Pinko legislation.
Communism (theoretically) is just about as realistic as Candy Land. Sure, Candy Land would be great since Candy is good and in a magical world like this, it would be healthy. But it doesn't exist and won't exist. What Communism ends up bringing is a dictator who uses the poor to gain control. This is what History has taught us. Nothing good ever derived from the promise of a Communist Rule.
I fully understand that communism does not, and cannot work, except perhaps if implemented in extremely small groups, and even then it may not function (we've all seen--or lived--"Office Space"). What I'm arguing here is the idea of communism, the fundamental theory of communism. It makes sense, it does.
But arguing in support of the idea of Communism is like me arguing the idea of magic rings. Sure, if we had the ability to forge these powerful rings than it makes sense, but we don't. It's a waste of time and can only lead to bad (as Communism has).
At least the magic rings led to a great Movie Trilogy.
Communism is feasible, with just a few tweaks, and it's based upon a rather effective form of government, unlike magic rings, which is based on... magic.
Communism has been attempted on extremely small scales. They're called kibbutzim or kibbutz in the singular. They originated as part of the Labor Zionist movement in Israel. They didn't survive in their original form. People started leaving them, because they wanted more and eventually most of them became privatized.
Communism makes sense in a world that doesn't exist. We're human, we're incentive driven. Communism does not comport with human nature.
Communism allows the politboro to create a common good scenario, then once that's accomplished through corruption, blackmail, and glad handing they "take" the common good stuff and use it themselves. One only needs to visit a communist country to appreciate the misery. You can't buy anything, you must report your whereabouts. Doesn't that sound like gr8 fun. Some communist recipients receive one meal per day. After all of the "goods" are taken not much is left. Only the basics.
Communism never worked. It brought wars, suffering and many people died because of it. If communism really came about, who will contol murderers, thieves and all those bad people? The government won"t have the power to stop them, will they?
Casper, thank you! no one has any true understanding of a communist regime I have spent hours scouring for someone with some insight, the americans dislike communism purely because the 'american dream' is basically code for the petty bourgois exploiting there former comrades in class.
Thanks, There are a few of us Americans that have actually read the communist manifesto, wealth of nations, and capital(volume 1, I should get the other volumes). There are unfortunately fewer that can read without reading preconceived notions into them. I've found 1 other American who seems to have a very similar understanding of communism as I do, unfortunately they live quite the ways away. I should probably read some of Lenin's work as well, to better understand how it was undermined and mutilated.
Communism/anarchy, and technocracy have experienced a nice transference of ideas and their offspring is currently relabeled and growing. I'll prefer not to associate the child to the parents though, the brainwashing was too effective and the bad reputation of the parents shouldn't be passed on. More people are coming to the realization of how unsustainable our current economic system is, and the old ideas are becoming more popular, although they are sadly dissociated from their rich history; but I fear that must be the case for them to prosper.
Communist regime, eh; bad word choice; regime carries a negative connotation; and a communist society lacks what we typically call government since class warfare no longer exists(and politics and many government actions are the results of class war). It would still have organizations but they would be almost unrecognizable as governments. Communism is a classless and stateless society, with multiple classes you must have a state to manage the conflicting interests of the various groups, and with a state there must be classes or else there are not enough conflicting interests for it to be supported.Don't take me wrong, a communist society would still have conflicts, but they wouldn't fall under the definition of class warfare.
It doesn't sound as though you don't have a good grasp on it either. In fact you sound like college professors. You say the American Dream is Exploitation. While a certain amount of that really exists. Communism is 100% exploitation of your comrades with quota's and no freedom. There is no pie in the sky utopia. Neither Capitalism or Communism. Even in Communism there will always be classes of people. There is no such thing as equality. Oh it might start out that way but after a while the corruption will emerge and classes will be established and your comrades will be left with nothing but dreams of being a capitalist. No.... give me a chance to make my own way and control my own destiny. Any day..
I tend to agree with you here and I don't really have anything else to add. I just wanted to state that when you mentioned the "greater good", it made me think of "Hot Fuzz" and I imagined a group of people in black robes all chanting that right after I read it. :D Very funny movie!
"Good" one! There is NO good in the greater good. Rather than ponder why Americans reject communism why don't they go see for themselves/ Are those of you who are curious afraid to see a communist country? Enuf said.
communism is firt spread by those who are unaware of it's intentions and meaning and lastly or those in power who enforce pure and utter evil on the masses.
I think americans think communism is bad because they need greater things to do then sit around and be foolish like you said the americans don't like the communism they wiil say they every time somebody say something about the communist and that's why people like americans are are not agreeing with the govermernt. Thank you any way
Retarded belief that somehow everyone will just agree to work for each other and work on their skill to benefit society and not in any way for personal gain. Doctors cure you, farmers grow food, butchers feed you. No money necessary, just some kind of paradise and NO ONE wants unnecessary material goods (iPods, fast cars, drugs, good alcohol, guns, thin lubricated condoms, porn, computers, etc.)
It's bad because it's stupid. Like Anarchy and Anarcho-Capitalism. It's like if Wizard of Oz became a political belief.
Realistic Communism:
The only Communism that succeeded was the totalitarian kind (USSR, China, Cambodia, Cuba, future Venezuela).
It's bad. The first 3 were the BEST examples, for it was HOORRRIIBBBLLE to live there. If you express any kind of open mindedness (poetry and stories) you were sent to a camp for hard, forced labor like those of the Concentration Camps. And you were tortured... a lot like 1984, except they were much more primitive than that... figures, they were stupid Commies.
Christians were usually killed. Advocates of any other form of government or social structure (especially modern Democracy or Capitalism) were hung.
More people died under Mao than any other Dictator. Stalin is probably second.
What pisses me off the most is I was in an American History course and a student was actually trying to say that during the Nuke scare we were just as bad as the Commies. That they had just as much reason to fear us as we did for them. This didn't make sense. These were people who committed GENOCIDE in their own streets, something that we've never done. Lynching, maybe, back in the day, but nothing close to rounding up Christians and hanging them all city by city under GOVERNMENT ORDERS. We had a reason to fear them, because they were mass murderers already.
Ideally and Realistically, Communism limits open mindedness and incentive. But either way, it's just a bad thing.
Edit: Cuba sucks as well, ask any Cuban who went on a shitty inner tube and almost died just to get out of there.
Venezuela also sucks, but it's still technically a Democracy... but, there is an extreme amount of censorship there.
Retarded beliefthat somehow everyone will just agree to work for each other and work on their skill to benefit society and not in any way for personal gain. Doctors cure you, farmers grow food, butchers feed you.
What is so retarded about everyone working together instead of for themselves?
...NO ONE wants unnecessary material goods (iPods, fast cars, drugs, good alcohol, guns, thin lubricated condoms, porn, computers, etc.)
Communism isn't about living as a minimalist and just contributing long enough to make sure everyone's basic needs are met. As technology advances, more and more consumer items become very easily reproduced.
If i record a song and give it away for free, millions of people could potentially be able to access my song over night. If I chose to use the song for personal gain, I have to deal with the record industry, distribution industry, and still only those that are willing to pay for my song are able to access it.
Society benefits more from sharing the song than from copyrighting it. The amount of gain that the group writing/recording/producing the song would receive from selling the song minus the wasted resources of protecting and distributing the song is much less than the amount of gain that society as a whole would receive if it was given away.
It's bad because it's stupid.
This and the first 2 words i quoted are probably why you were voted down.
Everyone working together would be great, but it DOESN'T HAPPEN. The only reason why Totalitarian Communism worked was because the government FORCED people to work for needs and not for profit.
People naturally want to make gain. It is in our nature. The ideal view of Communism is that somehow this just won't happen anymore, that people won't want to work for themselves and will just agree to work for need and not for profit and want.
How is this NOT retarded? It disregards any psychological realism. It doesn't make sense. It's like ideal Anarchy where everyone will just agree not to hurt each other (In the Communist Manifesto, the goal is to eliminate government and the people will just work together and not need government). Anyone who actually thinks this will work is RETARDED. And those who strive for it only bring real Communism, which are the Genocidal Dictatorships (as History shows).
The problem is NO innovation and no technological advances come from communism. Communist societies don't create ipods, fast cars, and computers.
That is just fact. Fact that can't be ignored. The chinese have more collapsing new bridges than we have collapsing old bridges. Explain... they didn't invent or create ipod they copied it. They are technologically backwards.
Obvious examples are north korea vs south, east germany vs. West, cccp vs usa. There are enough examples that should prove as a warning to all that communism impeeds progress and freedom. People are selfish. The only way to get them to fall I line is severe punnishment and restriction of individual liberties and freedoms
I created an account simply to dispute you, even though this thread is old. Who sent the first man to space and created the first space station? The USSR. Sure they aren't exactly "Communists," but you refer to the Chinese as Communists, and the Soviets still did all of those things before a capitalist nation. Therefore, your claim that technological advances cannot come from Communism is wrong. The majority of Space Age technology was implemented by a Communist nation.
Well seeing as you got so upset I guess I might waswell tell you what's wrong (unless my idea of communism is wrong)
Firstly you're basing the fact that it's retarded because you think people will not work for personal gain. Basically you're saying that humans can't be selfless when it comes to work. Secondly, in a communist society you CAN have ipods, fast cars etc. However if there was no capital societies then ipods would probably have not been designed.
Those examples of communists you gave were under a totalitarian government that didn't truly practice communism. Communism is in no way responsible for the stuff you said it does. It's the governments that did that... not communism. You've said it yourself. UNDER GOVERNMENT ORDERS... not communist orders. Communism isn't a government.. it's a form of economy.
Ideally and Realistically, Communism limits open mindedness and incentive. But either way, it's just a bad thing.
This is the part that made me think you dunno what you're talking about. Maybe I've got the wrong understanding of communism, but it's about communities working together to push society with each person responsible for his/her duties. You say there are no incentives.. but there are. The difference is that the incentives affect everybody and not just one person.
Okay, I said this over 9000 times, but I guess I'll say it again.
I ALREADY EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IDEAL COMMUNISM AND REAL COMMUNISM.
Real Communism, is THE ONLY COMMUNISM THAT HAS EVER EXISTED, which was a genocidal, dictatorship. It's a form of government, not just economy. Socialism is the economics of Communism. It says so, IN THE FUCKIN' COMMUNIST MANIFESTO. Communist rule was not ideal communism, but as we saw, it was the only communism that could truly exist.
Why? Because people won't work without selfish purpose unless someone makes them. the USSR was able to succeed in many Communist goals. The only goal it didn't succeed in was elimination of the government (which would have made all the other goals impossible to maintain).
The strive for the ideal state of Communism only brings hurt. It does no good. It will never happen unless we double think the shit out of everyone. And really, where's the fun in doublethink?
I completely understand your arguement, you are working under the facts of past communist countries and how they were run. However most people here are under the umbrella of the idea of communism.
To a certain degree you are right mankind has developed ,particularly in the US, to be very self serving. Only if there was a global disaster in which many people are killed forcing the small remaining people to survive would communism work. As communism could only be successful if it was a necessary step amongst a small group.
Well, that force was Stalin and Mao committing genocide. Unfortunately for you, they didn't last long enough to eliminate their dictatorship and establish a truly Communist society.
and mankind has ALWAYS been self serving. It is how mankind works. Considering that man is 10s of thousands of years old, and America is only 233 years old, America has nothing to do with human nature.
What I am saying is depending on how one is raised they will be more inclined to helping their neighbor than stealing from him. Does that over ride human nature no. Essentially if I kept going I would get into the nature v.s nurture thing and that's no fun.
So basically I'm saying that in my experience certain cultures are focused more on the community than on "me myself and I".
I was agreeing with the logic of your view but saying that it is possible for communist like systems could possibly work. I mean neither of us know how EVERYONE on the planet thinks, so we can not truly disregard anything.
The capitalist system is not based on "stealing from your neighbor", it's based on making enough to get what you want. What you want is based on how much others have made through the capitalist system. It's a cycle on supply and demand.
But this is the very essence of human nature. Man is never satisfied, and they constantly want to improve what they see around them. They want to be compensated for their hard work. They want to complete goals.
Through Communism, there are no goals. You will always make the same amount and always have the same shit. The same house and the same car and the same food and the same leisure. The only thing that can POSSIBLY improve would be essential medicine. All other things are created by the thought of "how can I make a shit load of money?"
Let's face it. Dodge isn't going to come out with kick ass challengers and chargers when all you NEED is an operating car. Apple isn't going to create an iPod and means of mass storage into small drives when all you NEED is a decent music player and some books.
Humanity is naturally selfish and narrow minded. 5 Studies prove it.
Now I'm no expert, but a friend of mine who teaches economics at university has explained to me in the past that communism is an economy. He IS an expert. I don't blame you.. you're american, you're kinda built to be biased to communism. (Sarcasm? I don't know.)
Well I agree with you for the most part, except for the following:
"in a communist society you CAN have ipods, fast cars"
Reason being because communism is all about equality, right? That would mean that people could only have ipods if everyone had one, or fast cars if everyone had one (perhaps with the exception of people who did not want these things.) It is very hard to say, since communism has never existed, how this would play out. If everyone did not have the same physical possessions, which is technically already against the concept of communism, then it would not be equal. Do you see how many variables there are in the equation? All of this is besides the point, however, as I was just going to say that there is simply not enough resources to support an entire world of having ipods and fast cars. Heck, it's physically impossible to feed one hamburger per week to every man in China. And that is assuming you give none to the U.S. There are not enough cows, and there physically cannot be enough cows on earth. What I am saying is that North America is very privileged. Luxuries that we have here are rare on earth. Things that happen everyday that we don't even notice are foreign to many other countries. Unless you spend signifiant time in other countries, this may be hard to understand. Life under communism would obviously prove much less materialistic (technically, 0% materialistic). If America really wants to support communism, or any sort of global equality whatsoever, they better be prepared to throw away 99% of all their toys, because the rest of the globe cannot have the same standard of living as North Americans do now.
I think you've brought up very good points. Remember, people, in communist countries you will be living at the governments' idea of where your comfort level should be.... not what it currently is in America. So, if you are middle class now, you will lose almost everything you have so you'll be equal with the rest of the world. Yes, they may provide you a house, but you will not be able to choose where you live. They will "give" you a house (if you're lucky). And, they ration food to you for the month. You can't decide to run out and pick up some steaks for a bbq with your friends. You can't stop by the Dairy Queen to give your kids a treat after their little league game. You can't spoil your kids at Christmas like most Americans seem to do. You won't be going car shopping. And, all the while, the government are elitists... meaning, they have all the riches and fancy things and personal choices... not you! Most people who support this are left wingers who rant and rave about CEO's being more rich than their employees. Well, how is this any different??? You work at a job they give you and they keep all the money and tell you what you get to have. No college, no freedom of religion (or lack of), no Facebook, no truth on the news (not that there's much of that anyway). If you like Communism so much, move to a communist country... but leave MY country just the way it was founded.... on FREEDOM!!!
I'm gonna blame "Kinda" for this... and too bad, because they seemed to not read my full response.
I explained why both the theory and the realism were bad... and he/she down votes me and gives some shitty explanation on how Communism is an economic theory. It's a theory on a UTOPIA (Read Communist Manifesto). Socialism is the economic status of a Communist nation. The reason why Marx uses both terms interchangeably in his book.
I gave you an up vote =)I especially like the Mao statement. In my class we are studying China and I keep debating with my teacher the evils of Mao. I called Mao as bad, if not worse, than Hitler. Mao's Cultural Revolution was Mao's holocaust, he persecuted Buddhists, Jews, Christians, Muslims, and more. And I mention his Great Leap Forward, were over 20 million people starved to death.
Mao's death toll ranges between 20 million and 60 million. Far more than Hitler, even at the least.
Stalin is around 50 million; also far more than Hitler.
Hitler was a maniac, which is why he failed so hard. Stalin and Mao had a pseudo-Communist agenda, which is what kept them in power long enough to kill so many. Applied Communism has killed more than any other ideological goal.
I assume Christianity is not an ideological goal then. I believe the Catholic Church has killed and oppressed more people than any other institution on earth.
Communism would allow for the greatest amount of personal gain possible. It'll be similar to open source. Go to sourceforge and download to your hearts intent, for good quality and free programs. Because of opensource, (which is different then merely free programs but they often times are gratis free as well as libre) All you need is a connection to the community's resources and obviously to your own and you have everything you need when it comes to computers. I'm useing firefox right now. Communism is basically expanding out this production method into other industries. The problems it has are technical ones.(which are currently in the process of being solved) Not ones of it violating fundamental laws of the universe.
Totalitarian communism, clearly isn't communism. Imagine a dictatorship decided to call themselves democratic and the whole world believed it so democracy became "nice in theory, but bad in practice". Which tends to actually be the case on large scales. Communism has its domain as well: Russia,china, Cambodia etc weren't ready for communism to begin with.
How exactly would a nuclear fallout resulting from international conflict be traced back to human nature? Or result from a world without nations? If human nature can be defined, could you please make a bullet list of the properties which are universally expressed in humans despite any environmental differences.
Capitalism, is only capable of so much. Its doubtful we would have as much technology as we do today if it wasn't for non-capitalistic development methods: like darpa and nasa. Also, opensource can't really be described as capitalist either. Non-capitalist production methods have done much which capitalism couldn't. Opensource is even used as a subsystem in capitalist production because of its superiority to other methods, and it does get a boost from this use but this usage of it does not keep it going. Capitalism also shouldn't be "pure" if is going to stay productive and useful. When its unregulated monopolies develop. Capitalistic and non-capitalistic means of production can indeed coincide with each other well each give positive and negative feedback mechanism to each other. Capitalism wasn't always around, and it isn't the end of the evolution of human resource distribution. Ie, it'll eventually come to pass. Also, technological evolution wouldn't end once technology gets to the point where most industries can operate similarly to opensource methods.
A nuclear war eliminated government, allowing the people to govern themselves. That's what I was referring to. People want to have more; they want to have sex; they want to feel good; they want what's best for them. Unless a human being sacrifices his life for the good of another life, the actions they make are for their own benefit (conscience wise or material wise). Celebrities don't help whales because they truly wish to help the whales, they do it so that they can feel good about being a "do gooder". Sure, people may do good things even without government, but they will surely do bad things a shit load. And without law and order to dictate their actions, they will do a lot of bad things.
Capitalism created automobiles and airplanes. Government used the private sector to make their rocket ships for NASA. Sure, motivation for a brand new project that isn't economically profitable may need government to initiate (such as space exploration), but without big business, those ship parts and robot parts wouldn't exist (or would just be shitty). The fact is, now that space is economically profitable, big business wants to get in on it (and NASA even agrees that the next step in space exploration is best to be left in the hands of the private sector).
Capitalism has always been around. Before government was even created, and cavemen merely used a system of "pile of rocks for pile of leaves", that was Capitalism at its most simple. Just not that much capital... but it was a completely free market.
I would say the actions of a person, even if they sacrifice their life, is always for their own benefit. Sacrifice just means that something was more important then their own life to them, and sacrificing themselves was the best way to serve it. This thing would have to be incorporated into their identity. For example someone sacrificing their life for their son or daughter when a situation calls for it. They are being a father or mother in that moment and if thats something they consider important its something they will do because of their identity as a father or mother. To not do it, would be the death of a part of their identity. Chances are if they didn't then overwhelming feelings of shame, guilt etc would envelop them, not just because of what might of happened to their son or daughter, but because a part of themselves died and now they don't know themselves. Your faced with a situation of being the dead living, or dieing a good death. Many would say the later is better then the former.
"bad" things happen because of the law and order to, a lot of bad things. Jim crow laws, apartheid, etc.
Law and order generally fails at dictating peoples actions, marijuana is America's largest cash crop for example, also Most of us speed on a daily basis, we "pirate" information. Most people don't do "bad" things because they believe they shouldn't do them, not because of some external authority telling them not to. As soon as that authority isn't paying attention it is a lawless and orderless system, just with the threat of becoming one. This threat isn't needed though, people are fully capable of understanding how it is in their self-interest to be well behaved, even without the threat of punishment. Speeding, marijuana, pirating, etc are not really even "bad" and people know it. Thus they do it despite the will of "law and order". Occasionally they'll decide to do something "bad", this is usually because of their understanding of their options, which can be changed. Create the right environment and you'll have people understanding their options in such a way they won't do bad things. This environment, doesn't need to be authoritarian, and likely can't be. Authoritarian environments teaches that right and wrong is decided by someone else, this isn't how it works. Right and wrong are basically measurements of desirability, the proper environment teaches what naturally is and isn't desirable and how to reconcile situations with contradictory yearnings to the best benefit. That environment isn't an authoritarian one.
Capitalism and other modes of production can coexist.
I would say the actions of a person, even if they sacrifice their life, is always for their own benefit.
Helps my point even further, then.
As for law and order, with the government creating laws, we have ways of enforcing them efficiently. Without government, we have vigilantes (which we have seen to be inefficient and usually just killing the wrong guy). Even if an Anarchist system were to maintain the technology that security agencies currently have, they would use them inefficiently (mainly because the fourth amendment would no longer exist).
To me, government's role is to protect our rights. That is the most important aspect of law and order. To make sure that our safety is protected in a form that protects our individual rights. Even if people stepped up to keep us safe (in lack of government), there will be no Constitution (which is government enforced) to protect the rights of human beings. Human beings will have to individually fight for their rights ALL the time. Yes, currently the government violates our civil rights on a daily basis, but that only shows why we need people to enforce the Constitution better. But if you completely eliminate government, you merely leave power into the hands of the people with the most amount of guns.
And the main stature of Capitalism is a free market. The only difference is that Capitalism, the word, refers to the businesses ability to use capital for their expansion. But that is all part of a free market system. Capitalism is more of a result of the benefits of a Free Market. The more regulated the market, the harder it is for business to expand their capital.
And yeah, the private sector can coexist with the public sector, but when one class of people have to pay for the benefits of another class of people, that's hardly a free market. It's redistribution of wealth.
But that's sort of irrelevant to what I was saying. The private sector was still used by the government to help them progress their projects. Without it, NASA would have been shit. Hell, it already has proven to be grossly inefficient, which is why many people of NASA are excited about space exploration becoming privatized.
The constitution is more of a law for the government to follow, then an enforcement of government. Its basically a set of meta-laws, and their usually laws enforced by the people. They resulted because people wanted protection from government( The fourth amendment was/is a protection against writ of assistance). With out government both the sanctioned and unsanctioned kind(gangs, mafias, etc.), people wouldn't need protection from government.
Government is basically a response to threats(which means it itself needs to be the most threatening), most of these threats exist because of the social nature of many needs. If you can eliminate that social nature though technology, people still have their needs provided and government has less of a reason to exist. In such a world where the social aspect of needs have been eliminated and without a "big brother" to fight for peoples rights: People wouldn't need to fight for their individual rights all the time, because they wouldn't be so co-mingled in social relations. Peoples needs would be satisfied, and they would have no incentive to bother violating other peoples rights and the natural problems which doing so would cause would act as an incentive not to.
A fully free market system, leads to its own destruction. One not free enough leads to a very slow economic system. A market may of always existed, but capitalism didn't. The economic situation during the middle ages wasn't capitalism correct?
There is more then just "private" and "public" sectors, more then just capitalism and government involvement. Habitat for humanity is a way for people to build houses for each other, there is opensource, freecycle, etc. None of which can really be considered an example of capitalism or of government, yet they are examples of productive systems.
If space exploration would do better privatized, then it should be. I do wish the government would be more involved in renewable energy.
If the government was dissolved today its not true any good would come from it, but once the material conditions are created: government as we know it would be unnecessary.
Except for when terrorist groups attack us... not just foreign but domestic (terrorist groups can include both pro-abortion and anti-abortion groups. Or maybe people against free trade, or for free trade... yeah, government would still be necessary.
Once again, if you rely on vigilantes, you'll have issues with civil rights violations and an unregulated militia killing the wrong people.
I'm for making privately owned paramilitaries, but what's to stop them from taking over? Answer: A well regulated militia (in other terms, the US Military).
People don't stop killing each other, even if somehow we were able to find a way to evenly distribute resources and eliminate religion. People always find something to fight for. It's human nature.
The Middle Ages had an unbalanced taxing system and a aristocratic class... that's not Capitalism.
And if Cavemen were to merely create a sort of "Ug's Boulders" type business, that would be considered Capitalism. Free Trade/Market and Capitalism are practically interchangeable. The only real difference is that Capitalism is where Capital is used (such as a place of business, labor, etc.).
As for renewable energy, I don't mind government giving grants to help fund research for renewable energy, but we've already created electric and hydro-electric cars. Plus, some counties actually use biomass energy. All are either recyclable or renewable type energies.
It's just that the most common that we use is oil because it takes a while to completely transfer EVERYTHING from one energy sources to another.
Also, we would be using a lot more Nuclear Energy if it wasn't for such opposition towards it (even though it has proven to be very clean, very efficient and very safe).
But your view on Communism is becoming stranger for every post you make. You're even admitting to not wanting Communism to happen at the moment, just when conditions are perfect... sure, that would be nice (Anarcho-Capitalism would also work in perfect conditions). And you seem to just argue for Anarchy, once again, if the conditions were perfect. The thing about Anarchists (Capitalist or Communist) is that they either say:
I don't think its human nature to fight over something. There will always be disagreements, but most of those have no reason to become violent. Disagreements are good anyways, they allow things like what we are doing now. Which is examining each others ideas, trying to find weaknesses in them. If a weakness is found the idea is reevaluate, and component parts of it which are bad are replaced. This stops the bad ideas from causing bad things.
We should use more nuclear energy, we should recycle the waste to. I think the opposition to it is mainly because people associate the word "nuclear" with nuclear bombs, and are not educated in the subject.
conditions are not perfect for a communistic society, which is basically the same as an anarchistic one. Conditions are good at the moment to raise awareness and understanding of some issues. You can create "temporary autonomous zones" now, which are microcosms of what a communistic or anarchist society would be like. I don't see how recognizing your possibilities is useless. It tells you what you should strive for, and what would just be a waste of time.
No... terrorism does happen, so obviously a lot of people have reasons to become violent.
And right now we're striving for more powerful and efficient technology along with ways to create world peace. Really now, even Marx said that Communism would just happen naturally (except that in the Manifesto, it would occur through revolution...)
But being a Communist but admitting that currently we can't be Communist is useless. Be a Capitalist if you agree that that's the system that is currently working. Or be a Fascist if you believe that currently we should have mixed economies. But if you want to be a Communist and be useful, go into the future when Communism can actually happen.
Yes, terrorism does happen... because they have reasons to; not because its human nature. These reasons can be eliminated. People want to eliminate terrorism, thus they will find these reasons and try to find creative solutions to take out the roots of terrorism.
Communism will/does come naturally, but for now its not going to exist on a large scale. Revolution may also be seen as a natural process.
If you want to be a communist and be useful, then be a catalysis so that Communism happens sooner. There is a reason why people say "it sound good on paper, but won't work" its because they agree with the basic principles but don't see how they can be practically applied. Thus as a communist you should find ways to practically apply such principles and when such ways already exist you should show people them. You should Understand that regulated capitalism could be a tool for bringing about communism, use it/support it when necessary but understand it can also hinder it so fight it when necessary. Also, working implies a standard. Something is working according to a standard of some type. In one sense capitalism is working, in another it isn't.
Do you truly believe that terrorism can be stopped? That we will find a way to just stop these madmen? Have you ever listened to the ramblings of a terrorist?
Al-Qaeda is driven by the texts of the Quran. Now, people like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot would propose the elimination of the ideal of any kind of religion (which is what they tried to do), but that involves massive censorship and genocide (which is what they did). O wait... it still didn't work. Religion is still pretty popular in all three of those countries (Russia, China and Cambodia). And that's just Islamic Terrorism.
You have people for abortion and you have people against abortion. Currently, abortion is legal (very legal), so the terrorists that we deal with are the ones who are COMPLETELY against it. They're radicals. Now, we can do what you proposed and make abortion COMPLETELY illegal. O shit, not only did we ban something that many women benefit from, but now we have extremists who want abortion to be legalized and now they're committing terrorists acts. Darn. At least the ban on abortion won't last because no government will be around to enforce that ban (because we're anarcho-communists now).
We also have Anarchistic terrorists. That's alright, we have anarchy now because of the Communist revolution. But shit, now we have insurgents who want the original system back (like what happened in Iraq). They're going to try and rebuild government and kill anyone who tries to stop them.
And finally, we have the people who want power. Those guys find guns, people, and WMDs to help them take that power. So now we have a dictatorship. Shit, this Communism thing was doing so well with the terrorists and all...
You think too ideally. Hell, you think that terrorists can be reasoned with and that any want to commit terrorism can be stopped. You're putting way too much faith into humanity and somehow implying that Communism would allow private property and big business to continue making innovations. None of this makes any sense, man. It's like if it turned out that Lord of the Rings was set in space this whole time, and Frodo was actually God.
I'm not proposing we stop religion, or stop abortion. I never said I think Terrorists can be reasoned with. For every thing, there is a infinite amount of causes because you can always asked "what caused that" and go back down the chain of causation. Terrorism isn't around only because of Islam, fire bombing abortion clinics doesn't only occur because abortion is legal. There are many things which play into it, and many possible solutions.
I have "faith" in human ingenuity, which is well supported empirically. You sound like the people who said we'll never fly or we'll never make it to the moon, etc. Just because something hasn't been done, doesn't mean it can't be.
Did man fly before airplanes, blimps, air balloons etc were invented? Did man go to the moon before rocket ships? It is indeed suddenly changing what humanity has been doing since the beginning of time. Before that technology, man never flew, never visited the moon. Technology effects our social relations, I wouldn't know a certain girl, or be as easily in good contact with many friends if it wasn't for technology. Because of technology, we are currently heading towards a "global village".
Band societies are alive and well, they are the common and natural social units we call friends. You can view these as primitive communism, which is the basis for modern communism/Anarchy. Engineering will lead to a freer world, it already has; is there any reason to think it'll ever stop? Engineering will improve the means of production, make them cheaper, decentralized, etc; it already has, is there any reason to think it'll ever stop? Eventually it'll lead to decentralized production systems where individuals have control over their own economic situation, where their likely to share resources when necessary, and with those systems inplace much authority would be unnecessary. One of those productive systems have already been created: computers. Musicians, writers, etc can now distribute their work cheaply, widely, and without the need of the recording, publishing, etc industries(authorities). It also allows for a freer market, although not necessarily a capitalistic one.
You're confusing technology with the basic psychology of man. Makes sense; The Communist Manifesto did not understand Psychology at all. Technological progression has been happening, sure, but that is very different from just changing how human beings are. War has always been happening, sex has always been happening, and selfishness has always been happening. Through Anarchy, 2/3 of these things will run rampant in a bad way instead of an effective way (as it currently does).
As long as Capital is used, it will be Capitalism. Capitalism is merely a more organized free market (but naturally organized). As I stated; technology, property, labor, etc. If musicians are using instruments, they're using Capital.
The material conditions of man, determined by means of production which are determined by technology, shapes the mind of man. Man isn't exactly a tabula rasa, man is selfish and that is good. Selfishness isn't necessarily bad. Selfishness will eventually stop wars, as it has always started them and always ended them. What reason would war have in a technological advanced enough world, how would it appeal to a self-centered being at all?
Perhaps religion? Technology is based on science, which is based on empiricalism. Religion will progressively, naturally and slowly be regulated into oblivion as is currently happening. Atheism has risen for a reason and is more common among the well educated for a reason as well. This reason is the training in empiricalism which technology needs to advance. Also, most religious people are not violent so their religion would be inconsequential without an authority to use it as a tool.
Perhaps material/wealth? well materials will be freely and easily provided for because of technology.
If capitalism is simply the use of capital, then communism, socialism, feudalism etc are also capitalism.
Anyway, you're depending way too much on the idea that religion and idealism in general will somehow dissolve because our technology will one day become THAT advanced. Even advanced enough so that human beings couldn't possibly be selfish enough to want to fight for more, or just try to make more than everyone else.
Sure, it's possible (anything's possible), and if that ever happens (which if it's going to happen, it's going to happen through the private sector), than your dream of pseudo-communism truly Capitalism will naturally take over any need for government or regulation.
Not sure if you're a troll... or just really clueless about what you're talking about.
1st. cuba isn't totalitarian? ask a cuban? well... much of my family (including father) left Cuba to escape oppression... so I guess I did ask a Cuban... and he said yes.
Never been a Communist country? what kind of Communism? If you are referring to Leninism or Stalinism... then yes, it was under Lenin and Stalin.
I lived in Cuba it's oppression maybe back then when there was a lot of trouble with the US. It was but not now or the last 6 years. I am referring to Marxism. Cuba is not totalitarian I am happy there.
The Cuban Missile crisis was decades ago, so I guess the only other US problems would be the embargo... which still exists.
Or is it the rule of Fidel being switched to Raul?
So what changes in the past 6 years are you referring to? Or are you like some people who escaped with my uncle, believing that the Socialist system of Cuba was easier to live under than the Capitalist system of America?
And I'm glad you're happy there, but that has nothing to do with whether something is totalitarian or not. Raul Castro is the ONLY leader, and everything is under his and his followers. You can not decent from their rule.
And yes, Marxism has never existed. But Stalinism and Leninism has, so there have been Communist countries.
Also you can leave the country by plane and not by "escaping".
Leninism didn't really "exist" it only gave aspects. Lenin tried to get Communism in the name of Leninism but failed terribly. In communism you have no currency. Lenin stupidly stated that you can have communism in one country, but he was wrong, for communism to work, you need the whole world to become communist.
Once again, you are saying that Marxism is the only way Communism could exist.
ideally, yes. However, you must not have read what I wrote, for I pointed out the difference between ideal Communism and realistic Communism (also, on this site, I've written many times some notable differences between ideal and realistic/applied Communism).
If, to you, Marxism is the only way to accept Communism, I suppose Randism is the only way to accept Objectivism (so I guess we'd all have to live in a mountain).
We're talking about politics in respect to Literature. You can't say that the Soviet Union was Marxism, but you can say that it was a form of Communism. Stalin's Communism.
Socialism is just a system of economics. The Manifesto even used the term interchangeably with Communism because, to Marx, Socialism was the goal for the workers. They could only achieve this through a Communist revolution.
Communism is an entire philosophy. It goes far beyond the bounds of basic politics. Stalin worked to make his country that system. The USSR applied State Socialism, and use the State to keep the foundations of Communism intact. He basically kept Communism in its birthing field. What Marx predicted was if a leader (like Stalin) succeeded, government and the State would wither away. So really, one could easily argue that Stalinism was not even that far from Marxism. it was just the initial step.
American's don't actually have a good understanding of communism. They don't know what it is.. that is why they consider it bad. The reason for this ofcourse is American propganda over the cold war telling people communism is evil when any sane person knows that communism is as evil as capitalism. Communism is a form of an economy.. it was the russian government who was 'evil' not the economy style.
That's a stereotype. Americans have the best educational facilities on Earth, thus we are taught very well. I have not met anyone who did not understand communism. Communism eliminates the strive to work hard and do well. If Bill Gates had lived in Cuba he would have had no strive to invent anything, people invent things to make money. The term "evil" comes from religion, according to the Communist Manifesto, Communists are godless. Thus they are evil, according to definition.
A small number of Americans are taught well. Those who have a lot of money. Getting good grades doesn't actually mean you know about things around the world. I know you think you know about things around the world... I doubt it... but w/e you know is probably more than 80% of Americans cause you're ignorant. You're probably one of the more knowledgeable Americans and that's not saying much.
So maybe a FEW of you are taught very well... but that doesn't mean nothing when it comes to understanding things out of your spoilt bubbles.
I have not met anyone who did not understand communism.
Americans don't even understand capitalism.. how would you expect them to understand communism? They may know the definition of the words... but that's just it. How many of them do you actually think UNDERSTAND it. The effects, benefits, strengths, weaknesses, liabilities, history etc? Barely any. Only those who may have studied it.
Communism eliminates the strive to work hard and do well
lol. YOU don't understand communism.
according to the Communist Manifesto, Communists are godless. Thus they are evil, according to definition.
Communist Manifesto is just the marxist form of communism. It has been around (and been practised) by humans for several thousand years before him. But you should've known that right? And wtf is this evil thing sbout? lmao retard.
A small number of Americans are taught well. Those who have a lot of money. Getting good grades doesn't actually mean you know about things around the world. I know you think you know about things around the world... I doubt it... but w/e you know is probably more than 80% of Americans cause you're ignorant.
America has the best schools in the world, the public schools all do very well, along with the private schools. I actually do not think I know that much about things around the world, I'm only 12 years old.
Americans don't even understand capitalism.. how would you expect them to understand communism? They may know the definition of the words... but that's just it. How many of them do you actually think UNDERSTAND it. The effects, benefits, strengths, weaknesses, liabilities, history etc? Barely any. Only those who may have studied it.
Benefits of Communism: Everyone is equal, you never lose your job, you always have a steady flow of income.
Weaknesses of Communism: Slackers get paid just as much as you do, extra hard work doesn't have any effect on your income, you sometimes can't chose your profession.
lol. YOU don't understand communism.
Sure...
Communist Manifesto is just the marxist form of communism. It has been around (and been practised) by humans for several thousand years before him. But you should've known that right? And wtf is this evil thing sbout? lmao retard.
but w/e you know is probably more than 80% of Americans cause you're ignorant. You're probably one of the more knowledgeable Americans and that's not saying much.
Why, thank you. I am only 12 years old and a foreigner has mistaken me for being in the top 80 percentile =) Obviously you have never been to America, I am probably only smarter than about 10-20% of the American population.
You're feeble attempt to explain communism to me shows how little you actually understand it. All you've done is quote from a textbook.
Communism didn't start with Marxism. Communism has been integrated into societies before him. Just as capitalism has been there before Adam Smith. Communism in its most basic form is an economy/social structure based on communities/groups.
I have been to America. They're pretty stupid on the whole.
I don't even own a textbook about communism. If communism has been around for so long, then tell me a civilization who used it before the Soviet Union.
If America is so stupid then how come we have so much money? How come the smartest people in the world are Americans? Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc.
i just want to point out one thing i think is important. Making money is NOT the main reason to invent. How about necessity is the mother of invention? How about wanting to contribute to humanity? Wanting to make the world a better place? Wanting to solve a problem? Curiousity? Wanting to feel valuable and be loved? Competing with others like yourself? Etc... I think people invent for a lot more reasons than to get filthy rich. and i believe people who invent great things value a lot more than money and being rich. There are more rewards in life than money. There are plenty of people who work hard at difficult things for not much money and STILL feel rewarded. Once a person's basic needs are met money is NOT the most important thing. Competition IS a part of human nature. It will exist in ANY organizational system humans put themselves in. Money didn't invent competitions and competition is not exclusive to capitalism. and for the record i don't think communism works except in very small groups. and btw pure capitalism and Christianity are contradictory.
explain open source, it often times(but not always) has no profit motive; yet is alive and healthy; actually thriving because of its superiority in many regards over traditional production methods.
Also, godless people are not "evil". It is clearly evident that an atheist can live a moral life.
Because of those damned dirty apes. Yup! You heard me! After watching Planet of the Apes and seeing the Communists' true colors no patriotic American would stand for such a world!
? you get your idea of communism from a movie called "planet of the apes" which i fail to see how that movie relates to communism. How about you get your idea of communism from the communist manifesto, or actual communist literature.
I agree, Kill the fucking dirty apes! These communist scumbags have really fucking fucked me off and any other motherfucking patriotic fucking Austrian.
In theory, like Socialism, it all looks good on paper but we, as Americans, have never seen a solid representation of a Communist state in which the poor had any chance at all of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and becoming better than they are.
I think the theory of Communism is a very good one. Everyone gets what they need and gives what they can. The government receives the wealth and distributes it equally to everyone. The problem with this lies within the human nature. Every government leader of a Communist society has become corrupt and failed their society and its needs. The people as well have not followed through with their part. They take more than is necessary and do not give as much because they know they will receive the same as everyone else. In theory, its great; in reality it doesn't work. People are coming down hard on the idea, which is not where the flaws lie.
Because the core idea of communism has been distorted by dictators like Stalin and Castro. We see so many examples of communist nations in trouble, and we don't want that to happen to America.
Communism is bad because it destroys that thing that drives you to do better. Why would you kill yourself at work while everyone else is doing the bare minimum? Would you do their job as well to make up for their lack of efficiency? And at the end of the day, will you accept the same pay as those that were inefficient? What if they took the fruit of your labor and paid you what they thought it was worth instead of what you thought it was worth. And what if you found out that the ruling class had it better than you? Have you read Animal Farm?
Communism is bad because it destroys that thing that drives you to do better.
This point is meaningful if and only if we assume that humans weren't driven or motivated to do better, or creative until the middle 19th century.
Why would you kill yourself at work while everyone else is doing the bare minimum?
Why even assume that everyone else is doing the bare minimum?
And at the end of the day, will you accept the same pay as those that were inefficient?
Why is pay even an issue? Communist and Socialist literature regards the means of production and private property, not how much you get paid to do a specific job.
What if they took the fruit of your labor and paid you what they thought it was worth instead of what you thought it was worth.This doesn't make much sense. Communism still proposes a standard of exchange. While you can certainly try to pay what you think something is worth, it doesn't mean that a seller has to sell a commodity at that price.
And what if you found out that the ruling class had it better than you?
Communism is classless.
Have you read Animal Farm?
Yes, have you read Communist or Socialist literature? Woman on the Edge of Time, Of Cannibals, Herland, the always popular (though rarely read...) Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital?
This is definitely a challenging proposition to find arguments and evidence for or against. Language is a symbolic represenation of an idea, person, place, or thing. And is perceived differently in people's mind. Why should it be any different for the words "communism," "democracy," or "capitalism?"
The definition of the above terms never came to fruition because of the mindset of those who dared use it for control and domination. Furthermore, it is a formidable challenge to put those governing systems into practice. It takes great sacrifice and an egoless society.
The definition of a word can denote one thing, but in reality it is something totally different. Until human beings learn to live in harmony and not one over the other, will we ever have a peaceful and egalitarian form of government beyond criticism and name calling.
Yes, animal farm is a book about Communist Russia, probably the most imperfect "Communism" ever to exist. it was more of a Capitalist, Fascist state than a Communist state and therefore is no basis for argument against Communism.
Implementations of communism and the concept of communism are two very different things.
Just because you read Animal farm does not mean you are a communism expert. If you can say that communism is bad based off a book then I should be able to ignore everything I know about capitalism, look at the financial industry debacle of recent years, and say I am an expert on capitalism.
The concept of communism has value.
Do investors, stock traders, CEO's, etc deserve to make 100 times more money than the lumber jack that works long hours at an extremely labor intensive and dangerous job?
This link, http://blackfriarsinc.com/sizing-release.html estimates that in one year, us companies will spend 1 trillion dollars on marketing. That's one million millions, its a lot of money. Communism doesn't have marketing. In a perfect communist system, the best products would be found and would be made available with no capital being spent on convincing people which one they should like. Eliminating competition eliminates a lot of waste. Capitalism can be extremely wasteful. Our implementation is definitely wasteful.
I'm no expert on either, but i know that just because we have yet to see a viable and fair implementation of communism doesn't mean that there will never be one or that we can't learn anything from the concept.
Apparently the quality of one particular Chernobyl factory made by communists wasn't exactly amazing... Communism has its pluses but there hasn't been a single one that's been really successful so far.
Simple- There has been no communist country to begin with. More importantly Socialist countries have been doing the same mistake the USSR did. Sweden is a very good socialist country.
that is because we used to PRODUCE things in the US .. now we trade with communist countries that have child labor so we can buy CHEAP TRINKETS. Give up your trinkets. Produce something, CHANGE THE WORLD!
That's true, but what you are arguing is the way Communism has played out throughout history. The reason the theory doesn't work in reality is because of human nature. I agree with you on that, but what about the theory?
I don't have the right to control our army or vote in the senate.
I'm not saying i want to be able to control the army or vote in the Senate, but evil dictators have nothing to do with the principles of communism. You can have communism in a democratic society.
Of course you're right, but the theory of communism is based on equality. Every government is a wee bit corrupt, and things never go as planned. I treated this debate based on pure theory.
I like the "All men are created equal" theory. Not the "All men are equal and everybody deserves equal results no matter what" theory.
What if we get payed the same and you do more work? Our founders knew that people don't put in an equal effort, that can't be fair. All they could do is give us equal opportunity. Do we have a perfect system? No. But equal opportunity should always be the goal.
Believe me, I know the flaws of communism. And socialism. And democracy. No need to tell me. I was just making the point that, yes, actually, in theory, communism and socialism are pretty solid ways to live. But in practice, communism particularly doesn't seem to work out.
Actually that's not true because the 8th plank of the communist manifesto states those to do not contribute to the collective good, will not get anything from it.
Some of the comments here are bafflingly ignorant. Are we talking about Communist Theory and Principle or the Communist states? Regardless, in short, both completely suck. There is a vast amount of literature critiquing both and for very good reasons. The most fundamental problem with Communism is that it simply does not comport with human nature. We are incentive driven creatures. Communism eliminates this incentive, people become frustrated, and quickly try to leave the system...and that is where totalitarianism comes in. Another fundamental problem with communism is that of technological stagnation. An economic system based upon individual choice allows for technological and social advance through entrepreneurship and trial and error. A centrally planned economy applying the labour theory of value will result in stagnation as individual enterprise is stilfed. Furthermore, while Communism claims to be acting in the interest of the group, the problem again is that the group is comprised of INDIVIDUALS. Socialism and Communism have no pricing mechanism. Thus, they simply try to create what the groups thinks it needs/wants regardless what the individuals want. Essentially for Communism to work, the system would have to know simultaneously what each individual desires, the quantity of that good, and the amount each individual is willing to pay for that good and service in order to make the group happy. Well, as we all know, no such mechanism in Commumism exists.
But such a mechanism does exist where we all know all what each person is willing to pay for something, the quantity they desire it in, and what they particularly desire...and it is called the FREE HAND...and it exists in Capitalism.
There is nothing wrong with Communism on paper, it sounds like a good idea, but in reality it does not work because it takes away the self-preservation that drives any economy. All you have to do is look at the horrible conditions that people were living under in the former Soviet Union to see why it doesn't work. People didn't strive to work harder because the knew the government would pay them the same not matter how hard they worked. The the government was going to keep them alive no matter what so they did not have to have any sort of self-preservation.
Now while it may be true that communism itself fits basic criteria for a sound ideology, it overlooks one crucial fact. Humans, by nature, fight to be better than one another albeit by economic or social reasons. Thus the people who are the ones you see commentating or making points in the media don't want to enter a system where they would be put on the same playing field as everyone else. Since they make what we see, we think that as well.
Capitalism is the economic model in the US, and there are many wealthy men and women who profit from this system. When a rival system comes along that threatens to make the working class rebel against managerial staff, you can bet that these people don't want to lose their cushy lifestyle and will spread out misinformation.
In other words the top wealthiest don't want to lose their wealth so they cheat the bottom by spreading information that makes them act against their best interests.
Most people don't understand the concept, or the difference between communism and socialism. Regardless of popular circulated belief, socialism is not a welfare state or any of this American liberal/progressive crap that tells you to sacrifice for the "greater good." There is no greater good other than yourself. Anyone who has properly studied socialist literature knows that socialism is simply the extension of democracy into the workplace. Laborers come together to vote on who should run the business and whether or not to delegate business decisions to this individual while he is elected, or vote on decisions themselves. Every worker has a say in the business if he/she so chooses. They also vote on fair wages, and nobody say something like "They would just vote themselves all the money." If they did this, the business would fail and they'd all be out a job. It truly puts power and responsibility into the hands of the working class, and eliminates the capitalist class, the exploiters. In capitalism, the only difference is that the same person rules over the business for life, much like an empire. Not only to they make all the decisions, but they also take part of the profits of your labor, or capital. This is why they are called capitalists. They did not earn that capital, you did. And they have no right to it just because they own the business, it is your capital.
Now, communism really is a fantasy world, a utopia. Utopia literally means "nowhere." It won't happen. Marx thought it would, he hoped! But no. Communism is supposedly a society that results from a period of uninterrupted socialism, where wealth and labor are so evenly distributed that a means of exchange (money) is not needed.
The majority of Americans that believe that communism is the way to go are more than likely one of three things. Liberal, Poor, or Stupid. I apologize, but this can be true because: 1) Liberals believe that all people should be equal, no one should be left out, and everyone should have the same rights as others. 2) The poor don't want to be poor anymore and know that this can give them the advantage they need. 3) The stupid do not realize that this will take away their rights, freedoms, and make it so that you can never become more successful than others. They also do not realize all the sacrifices we have had to make to keep our country free. The major problem with this is that the world cannot become perfect, ever, no matter what it can not become close to perfect, but many believe that this view will make all our lives better by making us all equals. This limits how much we can succeed. This means no more bonuses, no reason to try harder at jobs, school, etc. America is free, try to keep it that way. By the way this was written by a 14 year old, so you don't have to listen to me, but this is just my view...
I absolutely agree with you about not being able to become successful, however I disagree about Liberals believing in communism, because I'm a Liberal that doesn't believe in it.
I would like to say, as an American, that many Americans simply do not understand the concept of communism. However, the biggest reason Americans don't want communism is because it has always failed, and no one knows of an example of a successful change to communism. Also, many Americans want to feel rewarded for their hard work, where as in a communist system an individual can not advance them self in society no matter how hard they work
Mainly because they have been brainwashed into hating the very mention of communism or socialism as horrible evils that stop rich people from having all their fun. It is a fear encouraged by the rich upper classes, and a fear that is cultivated amongst the lower classes by said upper classes so that the workers contribute towards their own downfall.
Also, because communism tends to get fucked up pretty quickly. You see, the problem with communism is that it is usually run by a government, and governments fuck everything up. The greatest example of a communist/socialist society that worked was the Spanish anarchist revolution in the 1930s. Unfourtunately, that revolution was halted by Stalin, the authoritarian bastard face. The problem with anarchy is that there is no proper military to defend the borders (which there shouldn't be), so anarchist societies always get overrun fairly quickly.
Read Animal Farm by George Orwell. 1984 by George Orwell. The Trial by Franz Kafka. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Communism is an idea, a fantasy. It always ends up the same way.
Well, I think communism is about as good as any goverment/econimic system.
The way communisim works is that people go to their job and work for a wage. That wage is used to by the things that other workers worked to produce. The workers work in a goverment facility. That profit is spended by the goverment for new schools, roads, buildings
Alright, so a few problems I've seen here, first of all I'm awestruck by the people comparing Open-Source (an INFINITE resource) to things like grain, and beef (FINITE resources)
Communism in my view does not work, for reasons greater than just human nature, there is simply not enough room on earth to produce the kinds of mass goods necessary to keep everyone living a decent life, money on marketing does not really translate to goods, if you take 1 trillion from advertising and invest it into food production, you'll still be limited by things like the reproduction rate of cattle, the time it takes for agricultural resources like vegetables to grow, so on and so forth.
While Capitalism is wasteful, the competition creates a higher quality in the products produced in a Capitalist country as opposed to a Communist country, things like Quality tests, Disease Control would suffer as a result of the frenetic production of goods necessary to feed to whole world and keep everyone happy and as such a Communist country is much more likely to suffer from widespread disease.
However, it is my opinion that Communism is not meant to be applied Worldwide, but rather in small communities, that's why in Communism there is no concept of Nation or Land.
Also, the Russian government was not single-handedly responsible for the killings of Christians and burning of churches in Russia, Marx himself was extremely opposed to the concept of Religion that he blamed for a large part of the world's suffering, it's very difficult to change the whole religious view of a nation overnight without somekind of persecution and the forced closing of any kind of religious building.
In a way, you cannot truly eliminate religion without repression and violence, and even then it takes decades for the remnants of it to fully dissipate.
Communism is not "Bad". But I hate it. It does not give anyone any rights. It takes them all away. If you have freedom and rights, your are responsible for what you do and what you decide to do, right or wrong. You are responsible for your success and your failure. Too many immature people assume that their failure is due to the "MAN". Their failures are due to their weaknesses, their successes are due to how they use their own strengths in concert with their weaknesses and the natural unfairness of what they have and don't have and too still succeed. Freedom gives everyone rights but no privledges, we ALL have to earn privledges, no matter what. Humans are not born equal. Although we wish we were. This is not the family you are born into (rich or poor). For example, if someone wants to be a pro-basketball player but he is 5'2" he is unlikely to beat out a man 7'2" tall. He can do it but it is unfair. He will have to be the very best 5'2" player ever. It is unlikely to succeeed. So he may not be a pro basketball player but he might be a great mathematician because of the skills of logic he was fortunate to have. The pro basketball player that is 7'2" may not have those math skills so he may never be a mathematician (he might have those skills and then he has to make the choice-democracy). So people aren't born equal. Not a single one of us. So what, in a democracy those unequalnesses do not hold you back from succeeding, they do funnel you towards doing what is best for you, if you take the responsibility to do it. There is no "MAN". There is ONLY YOU. Communism allows everyone to follow the same rules that the "leaders" or the "MAN" make and we all have to equally follow them and be equally rewarded whether we do anything or not. Whatever the "MAN's" rules may or may not be, we must follow and we cannot change them. They are also responsible for us like a mom and dad are responsible for their children in a democracy. Under communist rule, all decisions are made for you. If you work hard and do well and give everything to everyone that doesn't work, can't work or works less than you do, for whatever reason you are a good communist. There are no incentives to do better. There is no incentive to help anyone either. The "MAN" helps everyone. Just like in Cuba or China. They are great examples if you love communism. Hippies loved communism. If you do too well in China, they take everything from you, possibly kill you for being a traitor because you worked too hard. In a democracy, you have to be more self reliant and self responsible. So doing well is hard but, you can do better in a democracy than in a communist state, unless you are selected to be one of the communist dictator-like the leaders. Then you will do well. I prefer being responsible for myself, succeeding on my own and with the help of others that I also help we grow richer and stronger. That was America. We have moved forward towards socialism and communism.
Communism is a choice that Americans voted for on November 6, 2012. We had the right to vote for communism and socialism and Americans did. Americans now like communism and socialism. It gives "The MAN" control to force everyone to be equal even though no one really is. In Democracy we all have the right to be whatever we want to be but, that is controlled by what we actually are and what we are willing to do. We decide, we struggle and we succeed. Not "the MAN". In communism and socialism, the MAN DID IT. The MAN built it. In democracy, you and the people you help and they help to succeed, succeed. This occurs by self discipline, choice and the tenacity to do it.
Communism isn't technically a bad thing... the "bad" communism that most people know is a corrupt screwed up version called Maoism, that and Stalinism. Marxism, Communism, and Leninism were good things. The word Communism comes from the Latin word "Communis" which literally means "shared" or "belonging to all". if I were to give an example of what Communism is: If I wanted to start a small business, the government would say "Sure, let us construct the building for you, and help start it up too!... For Free" in actual Communism everything is shared and free.
A) When everybody shares, they all lose their incentive to work, meaning everyone shares a lot less than most people have under capitalism
B) Communism will almost always yield a dictator who lives like a king, when his people starve. That's kind of like what America was like before the revolution, though it wasn't as extreme. King George was just a jerk, rather than a ruthless executioner.
Winston Churchill gave a quote about communism, going something like: "capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth, whereas communism is the equal sharing of complete misery.
Communism is the majority race's best friend in any country. True communism where a dictator is in place and a two party Pollitt bureau style government system of, both, liberal and conservative is a sure fire way to rid a society of "undesirables". Conservative communists known as "hardline communists" always end up with control of true communist countries. Stalin, for example, was a staunch hardline communist and ended up killing more than 35 million of his political enemies within a 25 year time frame. The things that make a socialist states ( communist country ) tempting for many Americans is because once you come to look at the itemized issues that communism solves even the most anti-communist begins to soften. In a proper socialist state minorities are drummed out and oppressed ( murdered and imprisoned ) special interests like "Gay rights" would be a thing of the past under a proper socialist state. Morality is strictly enforced in a proper socialist ( communist ) state. Freedoms are removed from the general populace in order to instill "the state over individual want and need" mindsets in people and to do away with individualism and personal intellect. This is so that every one understands clearly that there is no one or no thing above the state. This also builds strength rather than weakness in people in a communist ( proper socialist ) state. Drug dealers are publicly executed in a proper socialist state, a able body man or woman that will not pull there own weight for the state are publicly executed, etc, etc, etc. just as it is in modern day China. The former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ( U.S.S.R. ) under hardline communist leaders went as far as to ban "foreign languages" from many of their cities streets by deeming non Slavic languages as "enemy behavior" and "spying against the state". Men and women could be taken from there homes without warrants and imprisoned without trial for their liberal anti-socialist ( anti-hardline ) views. In a proper socialist state like in the former U.S.S.R. the secret police could arrest and imprison anyone, anytime, anywhere for the smallest of offenses. The reasons many Americans love the thought of communism is because liberals actually believe that it works out best for them and their side, but in truth communism works out best for conservatives and the GOP whether communism gets off to a slow start in America or not. Liberals truly believe that communism ( socialism ) is meant to help poor people and minorities when, in fact, it is meant to favor the hard working, the strong, the authoritarian type and the ruthlessly brutal. Marxism its self is a "only the strong survive" outlook. The reason that so many Nationalist Socialists favor this form of government is because they know that it favors whites in a majority white nation and that every one else ( minorities ) will suffer and suffer badly. This is why I never could understand why blacks in America were so big on communism because it will mean their ultimate end. University grads fresh out of college with a twisted view of communism don't understand the nature of communism even though they seem to back the notion the most in the U.S. If you've ever visited the Communist Party U.S.A.'s website you'll see youtube video where Gay men and women think that communism is all the rave, but they too would be considered enemies in a proper socialist state. The reasons we know that minorities and special interest groups would be enemies of the state in an American communist system is because of "Hardline Communist" views and as stated above hardline communists always end up with all the power in a socialist state. Only an idiot would believe that hardline communist wouldn't end up with control of a communist system in the U.S. and only vain shallow liberals would believe that they themselves would not be top on the list of enemies of the state in a communist U.S.
Communism is an idealism, not a reality. It is unlikely that it will ever be. It is a shame that this is the case but it is still a reality which must be lived with. American's in particular only dislike communism due to the fact that when they had majority of power, it was challenged by the other superpower at the time, Russia. It is not so much about communism as nationalism.
they have been brainwashed by the capitalist's that rule them.
if you went around the states with a camera and mic and questioned americans on what is communism / what are the pros/cons....most would sound like idiots.
The simple argument towards why American are against communism is it doesn't stand for the basic fundamentals that America was founded on. Communism is based on society in which the government has complete control over its people. The heritage of freedome is so strong within the American people it would take generations to institute communism in America.
Please don't confuse totalitarian regimes with Communism, just because some totalitarian regimes used "Communism" as a title for their experiment. Communism is antithetical to large government.
I am actually intimately familiar with the Communist Manifesto. I will even summarize it for you: it is first important to note, however, that the Communist Manifesto is not only a call to arms, but a post-Hegelian historical analysis and critique involving what has come to be known as the Dialectical and Historical Materialism(s).
Marx begins: there is a specter in Europe called Communism. 1a. Enemies of whatever political party will use it to denigrate their opponents. Communism represents that which haunts the bourgeoisie establishment and its supporters
But, this is a historical analysis. And as such, we must deal with history. 2a. The history of all hitherto human society is the history of class struggle. (Dialectical materialism) 2b. The modern bourgeoisie (capitalists) have not gained their status through ability, but the theft of resources from the preexisting Feudal system in Europe, and the passage of history. 2c. The modern bourgeoisie society, with its classes and systems of discipline (i.e. an education) that would teach the petite bourgeoisie (shop operators, small business owners, artisans etc.), and the proletariat that the bourgeoisie are in their "proper place" is merely a continuation of that feudal system. 2d. Thus, history is one of antagonism, and the Capitalist society is merely a space for which the bourgeoisie may operate so as to perpetuate their historical, "feudal" power over the masses. According to Marx, we are living a kind of Hegelian master-slave dynamic in a Capitalist society.
So, the arrival of the bourgeoisie (capitalists: those who own the means of production (not to be confused with simply "rich people")) is the result of a historical process. 3a. And with each revolution in the means of production and exchange, the bourgeoisie have attained an equivalent level of political power. 3b. This power according to Marx rises to the extent that "the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." For many Americans, that should sound very familiar.
And since the end of the feudal era, Man's natural connection to his production has been replaced with a heartless "cash payment". We are all no more than wage laborers, individual commodities ourselves, who have lost a level of consciousness and identity, and lowered to a level of simple economic calculation. 4a. it should be noted that the bourgeoisie requires the constant revolutionizing of the means of production. And it has functioned in such a manner that property and so forth have become increasingly centralized into the hands of a few (plutocrats). 4b. But so to has the labor been increasingly centralized, transported from the rural areas to the great metropolises.
But, "we" (Communists) strive for Democracy. And the "battle for Democracy" can only be won when the masses acquire political and economic solidarity, and political and economic power. 5a. This requires the ultimate dissolution of the class system, as such. Since it is the historical force of the dialectical materialism (2a.) that does injury to the democratic process, and the ability of the masses to move within the political sphere. 5b. Class consciousness arises, calling for a direct struggle with the bourgeoisie. 5c. At first, the bourgeoisie will be able to move the proletariat as they begin to revolt. And for a time, they will succeed in encouraging the proletariat to fight the enemies of the bourgeoisie on their behalf. The proletariat end up fighting the proletariat (the progressive liberal vs the reactionary conservative), and this will continue throughout the struggle. 5d. But, because the bourgeoisie have centralized labor, and labor now sees the common thread of their un-powered and unconscious, disfranchized state, begin to form union. 5e. As the bourgeoisie see the strength of the proletariat class rising, they will begin to attempt to fortify their already "acquired" status. But, having no meaningful "thing" to fortify themselves, the proletariat class (which includes the proletariat, the petite bourgeoisie and those bourgeoisie who are sympathetic) will seek to destroy all previous institutions of individual private property, since that property is not in their hands and only in the hands of the very few.
The aim of the Communist Party is to form the proletariat into a class, and dissolve bourgeoisie supremacy. 1a. The Communist Party merely expresses already existing relationships (i.e. between production and history, and of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie).
The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property (means of production: factories etc.. That is to say, capital, as such, would be removed as "private property"). 2b. "Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! There is no need to abolish that..." Marx argued. ...industry has already destroyed much of it, and still does. 2c. Wage labor does not produce property. It produces capital. 2d. But, to be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production ( a distinction between "a capitalist" and a wage laborer in a capitalist society). Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion. 2e. Capital is a social commodity and not a private one. The Communist Party would see capital belonging to those who created it (the collected action of the society). It belongs to "everyone", as such.
In the bourgeoisie society, wage labor only seeks to increase labor (or the labor force). And as such, labor exists to increase the available capital to the capitalists. 1a. In such a society, it is the capital that is independent and has individuality, because it is that which all of our concerns are oriented. The laborer (what he calls "the living person") has no individuality, nor is he/she independent, because the laborer is dependent on capital and their wage. 1b. In the Communist society, labor is used to enrich the laborer. 1c. But, because the capital has been tied to individuality and independence, any attack on capital (and its system) becomes an assault on "freedom and individuality". 1d. The historical laborer (he/she who is trapped in the class struggle, and the education of the bourgeoisie) is horrified at the promise to do away with private property. But the Communists only seek to socialize that property, which nine-tenths of the population are already without. Its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. 1e. You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" the capitalist means no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property, since you neither own the property, nor can claim individuality as you are a dependent laborer. You are defending the private property of someone who has been subjugating you (see Malcolm X's House vs Field Slave/Negro dichotomy).
But, Communism seeks to dissolve private property so that no man may subjugate another man's labor. It does not deprive a man of attaining the fruitful products of his or her society.
According to Marx, there will be a transitional period between the revolution and the Communist society. 1a. It will require that the state retains ownership of the means of production. But the state is no more than the class of the proletariat. This ownership will require despotic inroads on property and production. It will require a centralized bank (crediting etc), control of communications and transportation networks. Free public education, equal obligation to work, to retain the education of the masses and the "class consciousness" as such. 1b. But, if history has been supplanted, then also will the proletariat as a class cease to exist. It is at that time when the transition to Communism is complete: no classes, no "state" as such; it will be dissolved, since the collective proleteriate was the state. 1c. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. Communism.
Marx then proceeds to make distinctions between "types of Communism'. But, for the purposes of the Manifesto as a historical analysis, the summary is complete.
They're not. In order for Communism to even have a chance of being effective, it's required to put the government in charge of everything. How else would the wealth, food, etc be distributed among the people 'equally'?
Though despite the efforts initially made at Communism in any government, it inevitably breaks down into a totalitarian regime. It is the natural evolution of the theory due to one significant but often overlooked variable: human nature.
Communism is founded upon the same and similar principles as America was. There is a reason why communists were partially allied with democrats(different people then current American party) during the time of Marx.
Life, liberty and property; and obviously the pursuit of happiness. Capitalism means the average persons life is that of the wage slave, limiting their right to their own life and liberty. Most people also will not own much property and be limited on pursuing their happiness.