Communism is bad?

[XCV]

Re: Communism is bad?

I didn't really take your friend's/father's quote seriously as soon as they included "God-denying" as part of their reasoning.

In any case, the idea of communism is good. But the result never turns out as it is originally intended. That refers to the corruption, bureaucracy, etc. you're talking about.

More likely, however, most people misuse the word "communism". Some extreme Americans might say that Sweden or Canada is communist, when really, it's just a slightly lefter leaning capitalistic society. To be truly communist, it's a much longer road to the left than that. I suggest your father/friend don't swing that word carelessly; use the word as is it actually defined.

This is the idea I generally use when my friends/teachers bring this up.

Yeah, it's a good idea on paper. But to quote Lord Acton: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

If you haven't read it already, Animal Farm provides a pretty good reference.

EDIT: Christ I got ninjad like 4-fold

[Reincarnate]

Communism is aimed to prevent a classless society. That is to say, the government plays a bigger role in determining what you own. Your money effectively goes to the government as tax, and then the government, in turn, gives you the means to have clothing, employment, and food. In other words, you're guaranteed basic necessities as long as you play the game.

It sounds reasonable on paper, but it's often idealized and doesn't work well in practice. The problem is that when the government basically decides your lifestyle for you, there's no profit motive on your end. You don't get more if you work harder, so there's little incentive to innovate/excel/develop/create/pursue anything when you can just do the bare minimum and be just as well off as anyone else. The other issue: The economy depends on collective output. When you have a society producing at a suboptimal rate, that means there are often shortages. Goods are crappier. People who are in the government tend to take larger cuts because there's nobody to tell them otherwise.

As a result, the average individual lives a rather dull, monotonous life. You get housing, sure, but it's utterly small, shit housing with uber-thin walls, no air conditioning, etc. Regarding food, in America, you can pop into a store, buy something, and be on your way in seconds. Under a communist rule, governmental food distribution practices are usually extremely suboptimal. Lines are huge and you've got like 4-5 people involved in your transaction, and it takes forever. Jobs are often monotonous and dull with little satisfaction or real output.

On a more psychological note, you're in a society that is meant to be very collectivist and communal. Individual considerations are squelched because everything you do should be for the greater whole. There's usually a lot of fearmongering and propaganda put into effect to scare people into submission. It generates a large aura of distrust and it makes you afraid to even speak to your neighbors because it was a huge risk to get accused of something that would result in an easy arrest.

Various costs ultimately become too hard to take care of. Buildings crumble, medicine is scarce, etc.

The crucial problem of communism is that it teaches you to be submissive to power and it doesn't incentivize you to be very productive. You could be brainwashed to love your country under fear of punishment. It's not that communism as a concept implies that you NEED to be abusive to your citizens, or that you NEED to kill people, etc. It's just that the type of system that communism puts forth, when coupled with untapped power and human nature, results in a system that is typically oppressive and harsh.

Now, capitalism is another approach to the issue. It's based on private ownership and typically an open market. Which is to say, if I create my own goods I can trade them with you for your goods for a price we agree on, and nobody else has to be involved (other than, say, government taxing). This kind of system means there are more opportunities when it comes to business and innovation. When you've got competition, there is a drive to push forth and innovate/do things better/provide more value. In other words, hard work and brains are rewarded.

However, the nature of competition can often be unfair. Competition can sometimes lead to a scenario where you've got a monopoly, where one group controls resources and nobody else has a chance to compete against it. This sort of scenario works against the driving motors of capitalism to begin with, as monopolies lead to untapped power and stifling of innovation and (usually) economic suboptimalities. But this is where antitrust law and government rule tend to step in and try to rectify things to keep the open market open and competition thriving.

Ultimately, capitalism gives you an incentive to provide your own financial well-being and freedom, but it can also lead to unfair competition and unequal distributions of wealth. Not everyone is born with the same financial opportunities, freedoms, access to education, etc, and so sometimes it's not possible for some people to gain a competitive advantage to succeed in a capitalist society.

Communism can suck because it is like distributing suffering equally. Capitalism can suck because not everyone is born equal.

These are the major problems with government and economics: Equality, utility, and scarcity. We live in a society where people can produce things that provide utility to others, but not everyone is capable of providing the same levels of utility, and not everyone wants the same things, nor is it easy to make sure there's enough to go around to meet demand. So you have to figure out how to have a society that effectively results in the best life for the most amount of people. How are you going to keep power in check? How are you going to deal with those in society that provide nothing yet want free hand-me-outs? How are you going to stimulate innovation? How will you ensure everyone is effectively employed, happy, and safe? How will you deal with wealth distribution?

These are not easy questions. All you can try to do is move the sliders on the scales until you reach an optimal sweet-spot. But the optimal sweet-spots are always changing with the times, and sometimes we're not even sure how to solve for those sweet-spots. Sometimes moving the sliders themselves can be costly.

[~kitty~]

Re: Communism is bad?

What I heard from someone who lived in China was that the housing given to them in the public sector (otherwise known as the "Communist" sector) was middle class. They have laws in effect that prevent social inequalities and racial discrimination, and slander is not tolerated. The debate was, however, who decides what's considered "slanderous" and how do we monitor those in power? The private sector is where the suffering and poor working conditions exist, from what I was told. They're usually living in the smaller villages and the managers of the factories are the ones getting all the money while the ones working under them get paid a drastically low amount of money.

However, the details upon freedom to move between these, and the law specifics, as well as a few other things is where things start to blur and I can't get a good picture of what it really is. It may not really seem fair, I guess, but for China's population it's not like there's a lot of ways to prevent mass suffering. My question isn't only directed towards China, though. I'm wondering what happens in these other countries as well, because they can't be nearly as bad as how they're portrayed, especially since no country is practicing Communism true to the ideals. Not that it'd work?

Do you get what I'm trying to ask for?

[Wustenei]

Re: Communism is bad?

it's not really communism itself that's bad the purpose it's set up for is good it's the leaders that make it a bad thing to have

[~kitty~]

Re: Communism is bad?

it's not really communism itself that's bad the purpose it's set up for is good it's the leaders that make it a bad thing to have

Not trying to troll post, but this was put into CT for a reason. That logic can be true about any form of government.

[kommisar]

Re: Communism is bad?

Given the history of communism, it's pretty much all it's been about.

Too much power given

[RB_Quackies]

Re: Communism is bad?

Basically communism is just total and utter rule by the government, for "the good of the country as a whole". Even if that includes wasting a few lives on the way. To answer your question, "How does communism kill its people?" It's basically communism (in malpractice) may spark revolts, (or revolution attempts, which is happening in China right now) and the government will kill as many as they have to to stop it. Without regard for them whatsoever, as long as it's to stop a revolution.

As far as communism goes, the basic ideas of it, pretty much to have a plan for your entire life, everyone is promised a job, place to live, and food pretty much for life; as long as they are loyal to the country. Sounds pretty good, right? Well, in reality, it is, only without power hungry leaders. Marxism, which is the original based communism follows almost perfect rules in a Utopian society where everybody is equal, and nobody is left down in the dumps, to contradict with laissez-faire economics, or "let it be" capitalism.

To correlate communism with China in more recent days is a little bit off, because they have been much more lenient with business in the past 10 years, and are pretty much shifting into a socialism-Marxism type of government. However, America on the other hand, "land of the free" has shifted from pure laissez-faire capitalism (absolutely no health care restrictions, minimum wage, worker benefits, NOTHING besides what's best for the business) has slowly been becoming otherwise. Our 3 republican presidents of the booming 20's, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover, established this as "The business of America, is business" and basically, ever since then, we've been drifting towards what people consider "communism" and that is, to end where I started off, total and utter control by the government.

I hope I answered at least some questions you might have

Edit: DAMNIT KOMMI I HATE YOUR SIGNATURE

[Xx{Midnight}xX]

Re: Communism is bad?

Communism is good on paper and in theory, just terrible in execution.

[bmah]

Re: Communism is bad?

However, America on the other hand, "land of the free" has shifted from pure laissez-faire capitalism (absolutely no health care restrictions, minimum wage, worker benefits, NOTHING besides what's best for the business) has slowly been becoming otherwise. Our 3 republican presidents of the booming 20's, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover, established this as "The business of America, is business" and basically, ever since then, we've been drifting towards what people consider "communism"

Yes, this is what I meant earlier when referring to people who don't know what communism is. America has been so ingrained into pure capitalism that many people would consider a slight bit of control from the government as a communist act (and instant misuse of the word thereof). Maybe it's time to incorporate a healthy mix of both ideologies instead.

[~kitty~]

Re: Communism is bad?

Basically communism is just total and utter rule by the government, for "the good of the country as a whole". Even if that includes wasting a few lives on the way. To answer your question, "How does communism kill its people?" It's basically communism (in malpractice) may spark revolts, (or revolution attempts, which is happening in China right now) and the government will kill as many as they have to to stop it. Without regard for them whatsoever, as long as it's to stop a revolution.

As far as communism goes, the basic ideas of it, pretty much to have a plan for your entire life, everyone is promised a job, place to live, and food pretty much for life; as long as they are loyal to the country. Sounds pretty good, right? Well, in reality, it is, only without power hungry leaders. Marxism, which is the original based communism follows almost perfect rules in a Utopian society where everybody is equal, and nobody is left down in the dumps, to contradict with laissez-faire economics, or "let it be" capitalism.

To correlate communism with China in more recent days is a little bit off, because they have been much more lenient with business in the past 10 years, and are pretty much shifting into a socialism-Marxism type of government. However, America on the other hand, "land of the free" has shifted from pure laissez-faire capitalism (absolutely no health care restrictions, minimum wage, worker benefits, NOTHING besides what's best for the business) has slowly been becoming otherwise. Our 3 republican presidents of the booming 20's, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover, established this as "The business of America, is business" and basically, ever since then, we've been drifting towards what people consider "communism" and that is, to end where I started off, total and utter control by the government.

I hope I answered at least some questions you might have

Edit: DAMNIT KOMMI I HATE YOUR SIGNATURE

However, this doesn't answer the details I'm looking for, though it does answer some of the questions I've had. Where did you get your information, by the way? How do you know your basis for information isn't skewed? I want to see sources as well to back some of the claims, and I want some opinions which are clearly presented in your statements, but I want some more clearly defined opinions as well. Does that make sense or am I being unclear, because I've always had a problem with being unable to express myself in a way people understand.

[bmah]

Re: Communism is bad?

What exactly are you looking for...

[vvav]

Re: Communism is bad?

Communism's theory and practice don't mesh, to me at least. Marx's proletarian uprising is exactly what happens when communism is actually put into place, bringing about supreme irony when a communist regime represses people attempting to enact the ruling regime's own theory. Communists have pretty well ****ered their own theory by taking the bourgeoisie out of power and then placing new leaders in their place, who are just as bad as the last ones. Marxism at its core really shouldn't be about totalitarianism. It should be the opposite, really, with the actual people ruling. It just never turns out that way in real communist countries. I think we just naturally set people up as leaders because that's the way our social system has evolved; there will be no such thing as a true workers' state as long as we ourselves are human.

Not trying to talk shit about communism, though. I like the idea of communism, but I have doubts about its practicality. The human race has spent too many millions of years ****ing each other over to suddenly start living in a fair and equal society. I'd love to be proven wrong.

[~kitty~]

Re: Communism is bad?

What exactly are you looking for...

Well, you know how Quackies said people died from Communism because they were killing the people who were revolting? What exactly had started these revolts, or what is believed (believed that started them)? I also want to know what some of you guys think about some of the things going on in these countries and how they handle them.

From what I heard from somebody, China is doing a good job to keep a relatively peaceful environment over there. Also, I feel like people say things about other countries as if all that is behind it is the "power hungry" and "greedy." To allow such power to rise, a condition must be set for it to happen, right? What are some theories about why it is allowed to happen if it's so bad? I kind of want a little bit of history mixed with some of the current stuff... and I can't think so well because it's noisy here 24/7 so I may have made some confusing statements. Sorry.

[Wineandbread]

Re: Communism is bad?

China's not really very much Communist at all actually, from what I hear. They just declare that they are.

I won't echo everything that people have already said, but human nature will never allow for communism to work "ideally".

[RB_Quackies]

Re: Communism is bad?

However, this doesn't answer the details I'm looking for, though it does answer some of the questions I've had. Where did you get your information, by the way? How do you know your basis for information isn't skewed? I want to see sources as well to back some of the claims, and I want some opinions which are clearly presented in your statements, but I want some more clearly defined opinions as well. Does that make sense or am I being unclear, because I've always had a problem with being unable to express myself in a way people understand.

My information comes from studying under (in private lessons) Mr. Lipchitz (Joseph) and Mrs. Chen (Shehong), department head of history at UMass Lowell, and then head professor of U.S. and Chinese History at UMass Lowell. As well as reading a lot about the 1920's into 1930's for the history on Laissez-faire economics. For information on a general basis, I use Sirs database, which requires a paid subscription therefore I can't cite anything directly and apologize for that. Honestly, there's not too much room to go for information being skewed or altered, because I'm basing most information on current events relating to the definitions of communism, marxism and capitalism. However, what exactly are you looking for opinions on? You've asked a few questions and I've tried my best to answer to my ability, but let's get to the heart of them.

Well, you know how Quackies said people died from Communism because they were killing the people who were revolting? What exactly had started these revolts, or what is believed (believed that started them)? I also want to know what some of you guys think about some of the things going on in these countries and how they handle them.

From what I heard from somebody, China is doing a good job to keep a relatively peaceful environment over there. Also, I feel like people say things about other countries as if all that is behind it is the "power hungry" and "greedy." To allow such power to rise, a condition must be set for it to happen, right? What are some theories about why it is allowed to happen if it's so bad? I kind of want a little bit of history mixed with some of the current stuff... and I can't think so well because it's noisy here 24/7 so I may have made some confusing statements. Sorry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUw7P-WCnUk

^ for China, and their culture; this is EXTREMELY unruly, almost unbelievable riots, similar to the SWAT team killing hundreds of people on the streets in America (things are a lot worse over here), so trust me, it is not peaceful in China you're thinking of Japan, which is dealing incredibly well with their situation, and there has not been one riot or revolt, and the country still has the lowest crime rate in the world; even in a dire situation for food (so Japan is the calm one, not so much China, as it was in the 50's - 60').

I will say countries have a power hungry and greedy government wherever it's necessary and truthful, not only about others. I would probably say that our government is definitely the most greedy, and places like Libya, China, and North Korea's are terribly terribly power hungry dictatorships. However, a situation doesn't really need to be set for China, seeing as how it dates back to emperors ruling in their dynasties (sometimes lasting up to 600 years in a family line! The same is with Japan, but more honor and less hostility towards current leaders). So as far as a situation being set for power to rise, it didn't necessarily need to because the position was already there, just with technological and economical advancements of the late 20th century corrupted many positions more than it should have.

Since many leaders have been being overturned (Egypt, Libya) in extremely large rebellions, the Chinese government has been worrying that the same is going to happen to them, but Francis Fukuyama from the Wall Street Journal gives reasons why China isn't ready to revolt yet, one being "For one thing, China is more clever and ruthless in its approach to repression". The overall jist of the entire article (which I will link) is referring to the ruthless government of the Chinese, which in the past 15 years especially has displayed that the living standards (and the lives) of the common-people does not matter.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703560404576188981829658442.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

I hope this post finishes off the rest of your questions, and if not; please be specific and thorough in asking (and list the questions) so I can have an orderly way of answering them, if I can.