• The thing about capitalism is those that it works for really believe in it (and those that it does not work for of course tend more towards socialism/communism etc.)

    Completly disagree, those “leftish intellectual” (they are not rare) are in a great part disadvantage by these left wing mesure. I vote for Jospin even if i knew that i would loose money with him (compared to Chirac).


  • “supposing, of course, that they really buy into communism, and are not just giving lip service to it in order for advancement, perks, etc.”

    How far can giving “lip service” get you before there’s no one left to give lip service to? “Who watches the watchmen?” :o

    “Completly disagree, those “leftish intellectual” (they are not rare) are in a great part disadvantage by these left wing mesure. I vote for Jospin even if i knew that i would loose money with him (compared to Chirac).”

    FinsterniS, how would you define a “leftish intellectual?”


  • Seeing this as a perfect place to answer YB’s questions in the previous United Nations thread, I will try to answer his misconceptions on Communism.

    Here is the original message as posted:

    Moses(U.S.), Fisternis(Europe), Ghoul(Canada), Communism cannot work… If you take incentives out of work, then people do crappy ass jobs. Plus central planning/command economies are bad because some decisions have to be so decentralized they have to be made by individual people (Consumers) These are the problems are Communist countries get tripped up on.

    False! First of all, I like to contest you view that “If you take incentives out of work, then people do crappy ass jobs.”

    Now many people (especially those in the capitalistic machine) believe that rewards promote better performance. However, (as reported by the Boston Globe) a growing body of research suggests that this law is not nearly as ironclad as was once thought. Psychologists have been finding that rewards can lower performance levels, especially when the performance involves creativity. A related series of studies shows that intrinsic interest in a task - the sense that something is worth doing for its own sake - typically declines when someone is rewarded for doing it. For example, if a reward - money, awards, or winning a contest - comes to be seen as the reason one is engaging in an activity, that activity will be viewed as less enjoyable in its own right.

    I a related experiment, 72 creative writers at Brandeis and at Boston
    University were told to write poetry. Some students then were given a list of extrinsic (external) reasons for writing, such as impressing teachers,
    making money and getting into graduate school, and were asked to think
    about their own writing with respect to these reasons. Others were
    given a list of intrinsic reasons: the enjoyment of playing with
    words, satisfaction from self-expression, and so forth. A third group
    was not given any list. All were then asked to do more writing.

    The results were clear. Students given the extrinsic reasons not only
    wrote less creatively than the others, as judged by 12 independent
    poets, but the quality of their work dropped significantly. It was found that “Rewards have this destructive effect primarily with creative
    tasks, including higher-level problem-solving. The more complex the
    activity, the more it’s hurt by extrinsic reward."

    With the exception of some behaviorists who doubt the very existence of intrinsic motivation, these conclusions are now widely accepted among psychologists. Taken together, they suggest we may unwittingly be squelching interest and discouraging innovation among workers, students, and artists.

    The recognition that rewards can have counter-productive effects is based on a variety of studies, which have come up with such findings as these: Young children who are rewarded for drawing are less likely to draw on their own that are children who draw just for the fun of it. Teenagers offered rewards for playing word games enjoy the games less and do not do as well as those who play with no rewards. Employees who are praised for meeting a manager’s expectations suffer a drop in motivation.

    Plus central planning/command economies are bad because some decisions have to be so decentralized they have to be made by individual people (Consumers)

    This statement implies you have relatively little idea of what the advances in communism today. In contemporary, self-organizing communism, the decisions are made by the people using bottom-up planning (which leads to more democratic decisions by the masses). This way a high-synergy complex adaptive system can be achieved without need for a highly planned centralized government. I have discussed this before with cooperative anarchy - people working together without a formal central authority.

    With the coming of the 21st Century Information War, there does not have to be a need for a single, authoritative center. The overhead of the economy can revolve around a large number of groups or units, independent or semi-independent from one another. They would then perform analysis of the economy and the making of recommendations, coming to a loose consensus on what plans to implement. Now sometimes top-down methods are necessary (which YB is speaking of, I think), but we should first consider ways of accomplishing as much as possible without resort it. Bottom down planning includes much more parallelity, allowing greater brainpower to be applied to the problem. This way more knowledge and experience are gained.


  • In the Soviet Union, did the class system disapear? NO! It became much more Ironclad than in Capitalist countries.


  • The Soviet Union was a poor example of a communism. Instead of small groups of people organizing their economy, the Goverment tried to do it. It doesn’t work that way. A communism must be democratic to work.

    Due to the post WWII and present day envirment, it is currently impossible for a democratic communism to exist. The United States will involve itself in everything, and will always be sure to have a capitalism put in place. Therefore, the first Communism will be the US itself.


  • The best example of Communism that i can think of is in the Kibbutz in Israel. It was democratic and it worked very well, Some leasted longer than the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.


  • Therefore, the first Communism will be the US itself.

    Impossible, america is too individualistic and too capitalistic. When USA will not anymore be the first power, then maybe some new communist system will arise.


  • Emu, I agree with you entirely. The kibbutz is a great example. Its the only working communist system in the world. Israel is all bad!

    Guest (Fin), I’m talking future.


  • @Yanny:

    Emu, I agree with you entirely. The kibbutz is a great example. Its the only working communist system in the world. Israel is all bad!

    Guest (Fin), I’m talking future.

    I livedo n a kibbutz for a while and thought it was a great experience. It was something very new that can be learned from in Capitalistic societies. Melding Communism and Capitalism could make a system that could incorporate teh good elements of both. As it stands, both Capitalism and Communism in my opinion aren’t the greatest systems.


  • true communism – the theory stated by Karl Marx – sounds like a wonderful idea to me but this is the real world. that is why the capatialist system is more effiecnt.


  • @yourbuttocks:

    In the Soviet Union, did the class system disapear? NO! It became much more Ironclad than in Capitalist countries.

    This is your counter argument to my post? How utterly disappointing.

    @yanny:

    A communism must be democratic to work.

    As said by myself before, there is no other system inherently democratic as communism.

    @eyeless:

    true communism – the theory stated by Karl Marx – sounds like a wonderful idea to me but this is the real world. that is why the capatialist system is more effiecnt.

    The problem is that you are studying too much of the theories under Marx and Engles. There is just as much to gain from reading from the theories of the new era of influential communist. However brilliant The Manifesto may be, it is similarly outdated for the 21st century (read the coming of the information war) and should only be used as a template for the new communist movement.

    @yanny:

    Due to the post WWII and present day envirment, it is currently impossible for a democratic communism to exist. The United States will involve itself in everything, and will always be sure to have a capitalism put in place. Therefore, the first Communism will be the US itself.

    This is true. Look at the economic peril South America is currently in from adopting US capitalist modes. South America is on the verge of initializing groundbreaking, leftist reforms, though the United States Government gone through great pains to try and prevent that from happening.

    @guest:

    Impossible, america is too individualistic and too capitalistic

    I would not count out the Americans. If anything, a smoothly operating communist government would be more successful in America, Europe, or Japan due to their vast, modernized infostructure.

    @yanny:

    Emu, I agree with you entirely. The kibbutz is a great example. Its the only working communist system in the world. Israel is all bad!

    I wouldn’t say the only “communist” system in the world, but I do respect the Kibbutz system as a model for future communes.

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 5
  • 14
  • 28
  • 3
  • 8
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

32

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts