"Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity" (3 Viewers)

[Enteebee]

The whole 'works in theory' thing, which I hear and have seen in this thread way too often, you really have to blame Homer Simpson for. It seems the Simpsons have done more to establish the idea for this generation that communism is a flawed theory than any historical account.

 

[Kalashnikov47]

Communism would only work if humanity is perfect, yet humanity is not, therefore Communism does not work.

For example, if everyone only gets paid according to their need, then why would anyone choose to do the harder work? There has to be some punishment and reward for laziness and hard-working.

 

[ASNSWR127]

Communism would only work if humanity is perfect, yet humanity is not, therefore Communism does not work.

For example, if everyone only gets paid according to their need, then why would anyone choose to do the harder work? There has to be some punishment and reward for laziness and hard-working.

Because i am sure that there is other satisfaction in jobs apart from capital... I for one did not pick my career because of the money (Paramedics - most trusted, most neglected!).

That is all part of the communist way as well - it is the state controlling the available resources.

 

[HonestJohn]

Communism, works in theory but not in practice, for communism to truly work there would be no leaders, simply a communal process of decision making, alas this is impossible, alas communism in its true form is impossible.

 

[beve]

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

 

[Darrow]

Communism, works in theory but not in practice, for communism to truly work there would be no leaders, simply a communal process of decision making, alas this is impossible, alas communism in its true form is impossible.

Communism - People = Working political process

John has it right
Read Animal Farm for more info

 

[Captain Hero]

Man the more I read about genetics, biology and neurology, the less likely I find the notion of this whole paradigm shift in thought over enough of the population for it to take memetic hold.

 

[Silver Persian]

Man the more I read about genetics, biology and neurology, the less likely I find the notion of this whole paradigm shift in thought over enough of the population for it to take memetic hold.

Well...these society wide shifts in consciousness do happen (think shift from feudalism to capitalism, French revolution, industrialisation etc.), but they take a long time, usually involve a lot of political opposition and require a number of simultaneous crises + changes.

 

[Gerald10]

Communism failed because people are inherently imperfect and there is nothing you can do about it.

People care about themselves and their family first - without going into the technical side its why capitalism and to an extent democracy work better than any other system.

Its not wrong or evil to try a new political/economic philosophy is there is some chance of success. It was an experiment - it went wrong - doesn't make it evil.

Evil has intent - most that support communism do so with the best interests of mankind at heart, whether rightly or wrongly.

The capitalist system in its purest form is far more evil. But it remains the best way to bring a level of quality to people's lives if properly managed.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Sigh, I thought this thread would die off now. Sad I have to deal with this new influx of ignorance.

Communism would only work if humanity is perfect

Evidence or gtfo

yet humanity is not

Evidence or gtfo

therefore Communism does not work.

Whilst your conclusion is logically valid your premises are false. There is 32 pages where I have explained this already. Look over them and stop embarrassing yourself.

For example, if everyone only gets paid according to their need

Communism is the abolition of wage labour. "Work" will no longer be "paid".

then why would anyone choose to do the harder work?

1. For the same reason that humans today when not coerced still engage in labour, that is, for leisure, for charity or for personal benefit.

And now to pose the same question to you:

2. It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital. - Marx, Communist Manifesto

There has to be some punishment and reward for laziness and hard-working.

1. There is, nature provides it for us.

2. Then how can capitalism work?

Communism, works in theory but not in practice, for communism to truly work there would be no leaders, simply a communal process of decision making, alas this is impossible, alas communism in its true form is impossible.

If only I had a dollar for every time I've heard this, I wouldn't be a communist.

1. What is your understanding of "communism"? To be quite frank I think you have no idea, just like most all posters in this thread.

2. In what way does it work in "theory"?

3. If "communism" doesn't work in practice, why didn't your theoretical model take the factors which lead to it's failure into account.

4. How do you define "Leader"? Why can "communism not work" if "leaders" exist?

5. What is a "communal process"? Why is it necessary for "communism" to "work"

In summary, think before you post.

Communism - People = Working political process

Very thorough analysis you have there.

Also since when is communism a "political process"

John has it right

If you agree with him maybe you would care to defend his pathetic "arguement"

Read Animal Farm for more info

I've read it twice matter of fact. Maybe you aught to read the Communist Manifesto or the 1844 Philosophic and Economic Manuscripts or The German Ideology or Socialism: Utopian or Scientific or Capital. But hey, then again, ignorance is bliss right.

PS. Good luck with the 95 UAI aim, if your arguement here is any indication of your academic ability, I wouldn't bother turning up on the day

Man the more I read about genetics, biology and neurology, the less likely I find the notion of this whole paradigm shift in thought over enough of the population for it to take memetic hold.

Public self-assurance is not a substitute for an argument.

Also, Silver Persian is correct. If you want evidence of such "paradigm shifts" look at history.

Communism failed because people are inherently imperfect and there is nothing you can do about it.

1. Define "communism". As before, I don't believe you even know what it is.

2. In what sense are people "inherently imperfect"? By what standards are you judging this "perfection"?

3. In what way does this supposed "imperfection" imply the inevitable failure of communism?

4. Why is there "nothing you can do about it"? Why is humanity's supposed "imperfection" incurable?

People care about themselves and their family first

I'm happy to use this as a premise for discussion. Matter of fact, I have previously in this very thread.

without going into the technical side its why capitalism and to an extent democracy work better than any other system.

And if I want to go into the technical side?

How do you define "capitalism?
How do you define "democracy"?
Why does humanity's self-interest make capitalism a "better system"?
Why does humanity's self-interest make democracy a "better system"?
In both cases, what is the "system" in question measured "better than" with reference to?

It was an experiment

Communism was never, is not, and will never be and experiment. It is the social movement of the working class which abolished the present state of things. *Read the sig*

most that support communism do so with the best interests of mankind at heart

A Marxist worth his weight would never have the interests of "humanity" at heart. The Marxist outlook is a class outlook, any talk of or appeal to "humanity" or the "people" is (petty-) bourgeois idealism.

I'm going to ask this one last time. Please, people, if you are going to argue in this same manner, don't bother! All you are doing is showing off your ignorance and inability to piece together an arguement. Instead of embarrassing yourself and wasting my time, go read a book instead

 

[melanieeeee.]

all hail communism.

 

[Cookie182]

Or maybe you just can't follow what I'm saying...

Lol I got a much better reaction then I anticipated

Of course it would be frivolous for me to actually engage in a conceptual debate with you, since I freely admit to not having the necessary background- i.e. have not read all the books you have. Then again that does invalidate my points, as political theory often requires no reading- it is SUBJECTIVE at heart. If you were to actually run for government, everyone votes based on a variety of influences and the majority of the population are not informed.

Getting to the point, you still completely diverted my question. I am truly interested, as I find it rare, that a 16-17 year is so fundamentally attached to a philosophical concept at your age (I’m not denying your knowledge here and nor am I insulting you) and I was truly wondering what factors motivate you to take such a strong ideological stance? To simply rephrase, what are your current problems with the Australian political system? Conversely, what do you agree with currently in our adopted political system?

Now where you let your self down is the winded posts where you consistently imply your superiority on the subject. We do get it. Of course most posters have not read what you have, but that does not fully invalidate their opinion. If Communism is so far from the ideal that it is seen to be by the average, uninformed individual then why is this the case? Why the negative stigma?

Additionally, no one is denying your intelligence, in fact I am impressed with your level of comprehension and argumentative skills whilst still in year 11. However, a major pitfall in your style is a deviation from the posts content towards unnecessary, rhetorical questions which add no substance and bring inconsistencies to your argument. You don't need a definition for every word somebody writes. Perhaps you should start supplying the answers to the 30 or so questions you raised on the previous page. Also, the ad hominem regarding a poster, his predicted UAI and academic ability is not only completely false but completely irrelevant.

Now please deliver a kind, intelligent reply directly related to my questions. You can have your own question time in a separate post.

*No sarcasm intended within this post.

 

[Cookie182]

It is far better to debate these so called "failed political theories" then not at all and maintain the status quo indefinitely.

Why? I mean making the assumption that the theory has 'failed' (many would agree, others here would argue against) then why should we debate something that we have labelled as unsuccessful? Is that not a waste of resources if it was undertaken at a serious level? Since communism is a complete paradigm shift from our current political system, and realistically we know that completely shifting our political system is not going to occur, would we not be better off debating new ways of improving our current system rather then debating an ‘assumed’ impossible philosophy?
Could be wrong there, only my two cents. I’m interested in seeing what you guys think.

 

[auerbach]

Big claims you make there. Care to bag them up with an arguement I haven't wiped the floor with already in this thread?

But the burden of proof is not upon me. Sure I could throw in Russia, Vietnam, China...but I won't. Why don't you tell me of one successful communist system that exists beyond the realms of theory.


No Marxist worth his weight would ever do such a thing. Maybe you don't understand the difference between "utopian socialism" and "scientific socialism"?

When did I say Marxists were worth their weight? You know as well as I that that argument is often used. I'm not debating the weakness of it, rather pointing it out. Neither scientific socialism nor utopian socialism work in practice. Both systems are crude and vague ideologies that rely upon nations of robots if ever they are to function properly.

Communism? Dictatorship? I don't follow you.

My point is that to say "it works in theory" is a ridiculous argument, for in theory so too does a dictatorship work.

1) Define perfect world
2) Refer to the above quote from Marx indicating otherwise. Only a "perfect" political system would correspond to your given definition of a "perfect world"
3) Since when do Marxist claim the world is perfect? Far from it matter of fact! We critique it based on it's division into classes, taking the revolutionary class struggle as the basis of our politics.

A perfect world by my definition is quite obviously different to your perfect world. When I say perfect world, I am pointing out the fact that for communism to work, it relies upon a world of non-questioners perhaps not a perfect world but a world without revolt or sense of injustice despite its obvious presence. I know Marxists do not claim the world is perfect, if they did their ideolgies would not be needed would they? Marxists in fact say that a Marxist world would be perfect (at least closer to perfection) but as discussed herein that claim is flawed because for Marxism to work the world would already need to be "perfect".

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

But the burden of proof is not upon me. Sure I could throw in Russia, Vietnam, China...but I won't. Why don't you tell me of one successful communist system that exists beyond the realms of theory.

Hello. None of those examples were truly communist. See you later.

 

[auerbach]

Hello. None of those examples were truly communist. See you later.

I'll say it again, the burden of proof is on you. Give me an example of a successful communist system.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Give me an example of a successful large hadron collider

UH OH THERE ISN'T ONE! WON'T WORK! DISASTER! COMMUNIST CHINA! NUDE CONSPIRACIES!

 

[auerbach]

Give me an example of a successful large hadron collider

UH OH THERE ISN'T ONE! WON'T WORK! DISASTER! COMMUNIST CHINA! NUDE CONSPIRACIES!

That is possibly the most childish argument I've ever seen. "Communism doesn't work, but neither does a particle accelerator...therefore communism is good" Let me also point out that a hadron collider does not rely on the illogical, it is based on hard physics. Communism relies on the absurd and the completely irrational. I put it to you again, now for the third time: give me an example of a successful communist system.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Cuba

 

[auerbach]

Cuba

So China, Vietnam and Russia aren't true communist nations...oh but Cuba! It's the world's pure example of glorious communism in action! Ludicrous. Let's examine this "successful" communist system shall we?

GDP: $11 000 per capita (Need I say more)

HDI: 0.838 ranked 51st (Your beloved Israel is ranked 28 places above. The top 20 are all non-communist)

Life expectancy at birth: 77.08 ranked 56th (Your beloved Israel is ranked 37 places above)

I'm not going to go statistic-searching, my point is that if Cuba even is true communism, it hardly lives up to the standards of the great democracies of the world.