Communsim is not good



  • “What has more government centralization brought to the United States? Less than 2 percent of Americans are farmers, yet the Department of Agriculture adds still more bureaucrats. Before 1950, the government largely stayed out of the housing business. Now we have housing projects in all of our major cities, and the government, an absentee landlord, couldn’t care less. The private sector can build housing more cheaply, with an incentive to maintain the property and screen tenants. During the 1980s, the “decade of greed,” charitable contributions by corporations and private citizens increased by at least 30 percent. Why? People had more disposable income, paid fewer taxes, and therefore gave more away. Americans are among the most generous people on Earth. But people want their money to go to people and organizations that they choose and trust.”

    America went trillions in debt in the 80s, and social spending and beauracracy went UP! Regan was the biggest damn liberal of them all, but he cut taxes with money that didn’t exist. Regan won us the cold war by possibly pushing the USSR over the edge (though they were going that way to begin with), but he increased social spending and with it the middle class’s share of wealth (but not wealth itself) declined.



  • @HortenFlyingWing:

    “What has more government centralization brought to the United States? Less than 2 percent of Americans are farmers, yet the Department of Agriculture adds still more bureaucrats. Before 1950, the government largely stayed out of the housing business. Now we have housing projects in all of our major cities, and the government, an absentee landlord, couldn’t care less. The private sector can build housing more cheaply, with an incentive to maintain the property and screen tenants. During the 1980s, the “decade of greed,” charitable contributions by corporations and private citizens increased by at least 30 percent. Why? People had more disposable income, paid fewer taxes, and therefore gave more away. Americans are among the most generous people on Earth. But people want their money to go to people and organizations that they choose and trust.”

    America went trillions in debt in the 80s, and social spending and beauracracy went UP! Regan was the biggest damn liberal of them all, but he cut taxes with money that didn’t exist. Regan won us the cold war by possibly pushing the USSR over the edge (though they were going that way to begin with), but he increased social spending and with it the middle class’s share of wealth (but not wealth itself) declined.

    weird how Canadians follow Americans. This sounds just like Mulrooney in the 80’s ('cept for that whole “winning the cold war” bit. I think everyone ultimately “won” the cold war.



  • @HortenFlyingWing:

    Communism only works if everyone is a perfect communist. If not, the system, dependent on a “group effort” of sorts, would collapse upon itself. Capitalism has greed and we all know it. It is what makes capitalism “bad.” You say, “societyies weren’t always like that” or people can be “good christians.” impossible.”

    A society of Christians!? I hope I never see the day when the whole world becomes like that! 😛 Also, I probably did say societies “weren’t always like that.” Some were even worse (feudalism) and some were even better (Kibbutz).

    @HortenFlyingWing:

    Three examples.

    Look at a parking lot…in Shea stadium. If everyone was courteous and didn’t cut eachother off, everyone would get out by 11:00. But people literally steal time from eachother, because to any driver they are “selfish pricks.” So you don’t need a cap[italist society to foster greed. All you need is an oppurtunity to take or corrupt anything. Society can be corrupted, and Communism IS NOT the andidote to it. [/quote]

    Ah, but you forgetting, Communism is the antidote. However, no antidote can bring back a society so infected with greed. Hopefully, capitalism hasn’t degenerated the people that far. As for human nature being inherently greedy, I can also say Humans are inherently social – probably even more so. The basic form of human societies has been cooperative and, despite Market pressures to be otherwise, on the whole still is. Capitalism itself is inherently monopolistic and only maintains the sham of competition through state intervention to curb those tendencies. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs,” that is the statement of intent. Equality of opportunity is the basis of communism. There are, though, people who don’t simply give in to that “human greed” and who still have some real ideas: a world where everyone is equal and where oppression (capitalism) has been destroyed.

    @HortenFlyingWing:

    When you are a little kid (or maybe still) you go to the supermarket. You see the gummy worms in the plastic bin with the knob, so you take three and eat them. Now if no one did that, gummy worms would be cheaper…but guess what, people steal, because there is an oppurtunity to take something they want. Your parent probably did not tell you to “steal the gummy worms”, no one has to. You are born with desire, and with that you DEVELOP greed. Pretty simple.

    I have no idea how a little kid coming up to take gummy worms translate into higher prices, at least at the scale. In a communist society, kids are free to take what they want within certain means. Also, when you take those gummy bears, is it a good feeling? Maybe not right when you commit the act, but afterwards you do feel guilt and shame inside. Imagine how much this effect would be amplified in a communist society? Also it would seem strange how 1 in a class of 35 (average sized classroom here) would resort to stealing “coins” – what about the other 34?

    @HortenFlyingWing:

    You are in first grade. Your teacher, Mrs. Whitman, has a collection of foreign coins for the class to play with. You really like them, and they are “the classes” and they are supposed to be “shared”, but what the hell, stick a couple in your shoe! Your parents, teacher, and class never condoned this, but guess what, you like the shiney or odd looking coins. The greed is acquired, and now there are less coins to go around. I guess Mrs. Whitman won’t bring anymore in then.
    (Happy ending: I returned the coins!)”

    I don’t know, but are these questions are a little trivial? Why don’t we move a step up to questions that actually relate to the economy? I would say the same thing. Since you returned those coins, wouldn’t this be an irregularity of capitalist practice? Wouldn’t you go, “Heeheehee… know I can sell these coins on the black market!” Upon noticing the missing coins, Mrs. Whitman decides to suspend the whole class from recess until the coins are returned – no questions asked. With this punishment applied to the whole class (even worst, if someone saw you do it), would you be still be bent on keeping those coins are returning them? I know I wouldn’t.

    @HortenFlyingWing:

    Communism relies on people pulling their weight, and when they can’t enough people are sharing and working so EVERYONE would benefit. But that is impossible with man.

    Funny how man often accomplishes the impossible, not matter how improbable. I guess the Earth is still flat, huh? 😉



  • Moses, it doesn’t matter if Communism would work in a perfect world, it is a chicken and the egg. Communism will create a perfect world, but Communism requires a perfect world.



  • I will always fight for what I believe in, even if that does force me to build a better world. Communism does not require a perfect world but a unified one. If People can be perfect, but if they’re not willing cooperate, then what’s the use of communism?



  • Don’t get me wrong Moses, I think a better world can be built with socialistic ideas involved. However, the only society I can imagine which could support full Communism is a society which would not need it.

    If I at all believed that COmmunism was feasible Moses, I would be waving the hammer and sickle right beside you. However, I am a pragmatic idealist, and I know that it could not work.



  • @cystic:

    @HortenFlyingWing:

    “What has more government centralization brought to the United States? Less than 2 percent of Americans are farmers, yet the Department of Agriculture adds still more bureaucrats. Before 1950, the government largely stayed out of the housing business. Now we have housing projects in all of our major cities, and the government, an absentee landlord, couldn’t care less. The private sector can build housing more cheaply, with an incentive to maintain the property and screen tenants. During the 1980s, the “decade of greed,” charitable contributions by corporations and private citizens increased by at least 30 percent. Why? People had more disposable income, paid fewer taxes, and therefore gave more away. Americans are among the most generous people on Earth. But people want their money to go to people and organizations that they choose and trust.”

    America went trillions in debt in the 80s, and social spending and beauracracy went UP! Regan was the biggest damn liberal of them all, but he cut taxes with money that didn’t exist. Regan won us the cold war by possibly pushing the USSR over the edge (though they were going that way to begin with), but he increased social spending and with it the middle class’s share of wealth (but not wealth itself) declined.

    weird how Canadians follow Americans. This sounds just like Mulrooney in the 80’s ('cept for that whole “winning the cold war” bit. I think everyone ultimately “won” the cold war.

    huh???

    "Hopefully, capitalism hasn’t degenerated the people that far. "

    You don’t get it moses, it isn’t capitalism that “degenerated” people, it is unrelated greed.



  • @yourbuttocks:

    Don’t get me wrong Moses, I think a better world can be built with socialistic ideas involved. However, the only society I can imagine which could support full Communism is a society which would not need it.

    If I at all believed that COmmunism was feasible Moses, I would be waving the hammer and sickle right beside you. However, I am a pragmatic idealist, and I know that it could not work.

    exactly.

    “Communism does not require a perfect world but a unified one. If People can be perfect, but if they’re not willing cooperate, then what’s the use of communism?”

    People can cooperate and be nice and work together WITHOUT COMMUNISM. PEOPLE CHOOSE NOT TO, NOT BECAUSE OF CAPITALISM, BUT BECAUSE THEY CARE MORE ABOUT THEMSELVES.



  • @HortenFlyingWing:

    @yourbuttocks:

    Don’t get me wrong Moses, I think a better world can be built with socialistic ideas involved. However, the only society I can imagine which could support full Communism is a society which would not need it.

    If I at all believed that COmmunism was feasible Moses, I would be waving the hammer and sickle right beside you. However, I am a pragmatic idealist, and I know that it could not work.

    exactly.

    “Communism does not require a perfect world but a unified one. If People can be perfect, but if they’re not willing cooperate, then what’s the use of communism?”

    People can cooperate and be nice and work together WITHOUT COMMUNISM. PEOPLE CHOOSE NOT TO, NOT BECAUSE OF CAPITALISM, BUT BECAUSE THEY CARE MORE ABOUT THEMSELVES.

    Exactly 😄



  • “You don’t get it moses, it isn’t capitalism that “degenerated” people, it is unrelated greed”

    Then communism will still work 😉 . It’s true that greed was around before the invention of the capitalist system, but capitalist presents so many more ways in which to promote greed and to accelerate its growth. This has become so grotesque that greed is actually embraced, rather then rejected.

    “People can cooperate and be nice and work together WITHOUT COMMUNISM. PEOPLE CHOOSE NOT TO, NOT BECAUSE OF CAPITALISM, BUT BECAUSE THEY CARE MORE ABOUT THEMSELVES.”

    So you would care no more for a love one or a best friend? However, communism naturally benefits almost everyone, yourself included.



  • You think in Communistic system greed disapears. A new upper class is created out of the party/government just like capitalism, except no upward mobility.



  • A New upperclass is NOT created. Elected Representatives will be at the same status as everyone else before they were elected and after they finish their term.



  • “You think in Communistic system greed disapears. A new upper class is created out of the party/government just like capitalism, except no upward mobility.”

    False, where did I ever say this? In fact, I mentioned several times that even under communism, greed will not be eliminated. And I’ll even say it again if you want me too. What we can do is keep greed at a minimum and do our best to submerge it, unlike in capitalism were is encouraged (both directly and indirectly). Ditto what Yanny said on your “new upper class.”



  • @F_alk:

    @yourbuttocks:

    You think in Communistic system greed disapears. A new upper class is created out of the party/government just like capitalism, except no upward mobility.

    I think it would have as much upwards mobility as a capitalist system. It’s just different “virtues” that you need.

    Not true, the buck buys you respect. Where can you get that in a communist society where you are gifted at farming so you have to farm? There is upwards mobility, I have seen it. Don’t tell me there is not…maybe not in Germany though.

    "Then communism will still work . It’s true that greed was around before the invention of the capitalist system, but capitalist presents so many more ways in which to promote greed and to accelerate its growth. This has become so grotesque that greed is actually embraced, rather then rejected. "

    Communism promotes Greed, Jelousy, and Envy just the same. If not more laziness and greed. It promotes people working hard, correct? In a school, you would have to study hard to not do physical labor, correct? There is already competition to do better than others…and if you decide to sit back and do nothing, whats stopping others?

    “So you would care no more for a love one or a best friend? However, communism naturally benefits almost everyone, yourself included.”

    I would rather save my Dad’s life than yours. I would rather save your’s than Joey Bishops (because i never wrote to him.) Our society brought me up to care about the people more who you know more. An ideal society would have everyone care for everyone. Thatneeds to be done before Communism even starts, and just starting that up isn’t worth the consequences.



  • @Yanny:

    A New upperclass is NOT created. Elected Representatives will be at the same status as everyone else before they were elected and after they finish their term.

    but they have more power, authority, and influence. They can work together, and get nicer cars and food.

    Hey we elect president bush and he ups his salary! He’s equal though…



  • @TG:

    “You think in Communistic system greed disapears. A new upper class is created out of the party/government just like capitalism, except no upward mobility.”

    False, where did I ever say this? In fact, I mentioned several times that even under communism, greed will not be eliminated. And I’ll even say it again if you want me too. What we can do is keep greed at a minimum and do our best to submerge it, unlike in capitalism were is encouraged (both directly and indirectly). Ditto what Yanny said on your “new upper class.”

    but greed is encouraged both directly and indirectly by communsim as well.



  • I would say so. Is there a need for desire? Yes. A need for lavish desire? I’m not to sure about that…



  • @F_alk:

    @HortenFlyingWing:

    @Yanny:

    A New upperclass is NOT created. Elected Representatives will be at the same status as everyone else before they were elected and after they finish their term.

    but they have more power, authority, and influence. They can work together, and get nicer cars and food.

    @HortenFlyingWing:

    @F_alk:

    I think it would have as much upwards mobility as a capitalist system. It’s just different “virtues” that you need.

    Not true, the buck buys you respect. Where can you get that in a communist society where you are gifted at farming so you have to farm?

    So, the buck buys you respect.
    Power, authority and influence don’t.
    Please eplain this to me, it sounds so awfully paradox.

    The thing that you mention in the upper posting here is what i meant with “mobility and different virtues”. Instead of money the mobility comes from maybe graduating from the party’s elite university instead of Yale etc.

    exactly what i’ve been talking about. All communism does is exchanges a cash-based currency for something else. “Ahhh . . . you are a faithful (yet lazy, stupid, etc.) member of the party, eh comrade? Here’s a comfortable job with x, y, and z perks. If you do produce, if you don’t produce - no difference, you get no reward aside from knowing that you’ve marginally bettered or worsened the lives of some other citizens.”



  • You are forgetting something, comrade. Even with those “Elected” from the Communist Party (or any other depending on the FW of the people), they still have to maintain normal jobs as would anyone else. Holding a position of office is in itself a “Privilege” (in the sense that you can be recalled at anytime), not a granted. Also, those “faithful” are not often the “lazy” people you think - they work hard to show their faithfulness in communism.



  • @TG:

    You are forgetting something, comrade. Even with those “Elected” from the Communist Party (or any other depending on the FW of the people), they still have to maintain normal jobs as would anyone else. Holding a position of office is in itself a “Privilege” (in the sense that you can be recalled at anytime), not a granted. Also, those “faithful” are not often the “lazy” people you think - they work hard to show their faithfulness in communism.

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

    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.)



  • 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?” 😮

    “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.


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 7
  • 1
  • 2
  • 8
  • 20
  • 34
  • 1
  • 1
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

47
Online

14.9k
Users

35.6k
Topics

1.5m
Posts