Communism: A Real Evil or A Victim of Propaganda?

[eyrei]

I'm sorry, I was unclear; I meant grew up in as a race. Meaning, competing for survival, among other species, among other cultures...

Does that not make it a learned behavior rather than something we were born with?

Note: Sorry, I'm a poor substitute for Socrates, but I am trying.

 

[amadeus]

Yet some well known US president broke international law with his fellows and attacked a land suspected to be the source of all evil...

It's okay. Carter may have injured us for the short term, but we did just fine after that.

There's a reason why communism failed. Communism is force. You don't have any choices.

Your job? Assigned. If the state can't find a job for you, you're off on a lifetime vacation to Afghanistan.

An apartment? If you get it, it's assigned.

The color of your car? If it ever comes.

Should I go to church? You can't! The secret police closed it down.

Capitalism is choices, capitalism is freedom. In the free world, the only slave you are is to yourself.

 

[newfangle]

newfangle is unlucky and gets crippled for life. Unfortunately, he was self-responsible, his family cannot afford the necessary treatment for him and depends on charity.

Fortunately, by my own hardwork I have insurance, and a healthy rainy day fund.

Everyone is responsible for himself.

Affirmatory!

You want pure egoism? This is asocial. Social would be to care for the unlucky. Not only by unsecure charity collected on Sundays in churchs and stuff like that.

Nothing like a few sentences that aren't connected in any way!

Now think of a social insurance, everyone is supposed to pay in. Poor unlucky newfangle gets at least the basic treatment. Not bad at all!

I'd consider the prospect that someone was forced by the government to take care of me to be far crueler than actually being crippled...

 

[storealex]

Fortunately, by my own hardwork I have insurance, and a healthy rainy day fund.

What if you became unable to work already as a child due to some accident, and you family didn't have an insurance, nor money. Then you could starve to death.

 

[eyrei]

It's okay. Carter may have injured us for the short term, but we did just fine after that.

There's a reason why communism failed. Communism is force. You don't have any choices.

Your job? Assigned. If the state can't find a job for you, you're off on a lifetime vacation to Afghanistan.

An apartment? If you get it, it's assigned.

The color of your car? If it ever comes.

Should I go to church? You can't! The secret police closed it down.

Capitalism is choices, capitalism is freedom. In the free world, the only slave you are is to yourself.

Did you actually copy and paste a 1950s advertisement?

 

[newfangle]

What if you became unable to work already as a child due to some accident, and you family didn't have an insurance, nor money. Then you could starve to death.

Irrelavent. I'm opposed to the government using force to help out anyone .

I personally would offer to help that child. But I'll be damned before someone else is forced to.

 

[amadeus]

Did you actually copy and paste a 1950s advertisement?

What did I exaggerate?

The assignment of jobs? Fact.

Chronic housing shortages? Fact.

Only one in seven families in the USSR owned automobiles? Fact.

Militant atheism? Well, I did exaggerate a little on that. If you were Orthodox, you weren't as repressed as the Jews.

 

[cgannon64]

Does that not make it a learned behavior rather than something we were born with?

This is true.

However, do you honestly beleive mankind can eliminate that from its collective philosophy?

Anyway, I think capitalism harnesses this attribute for good. In a capitalist society, it is in everyone's interest that you work. A greedy businessman does not want you to starve. He would much rather you work, own a home, buy a television, buy your kids fashionable clothes, etc.

 

[Speedo]

Communism is not "evil." It's just an extremely poor system which completely ignores the reality of human nature.

Of course, it does make it very easy for a person to take power and make it become evil (Stalon, Mao, etc).

 

[eyrei]

What did I exaggerate?

The assignment of jobs? Fact.

Chronic housing shortages? Fact.

Only one in seven families in the USSR owned automobiles? Fact.

Militant atheism? Well, I did exaggerate a little on that. If you were Orthodox, you weren't as repressed as the Jews.

How does the assignment of jobs in capitalism differ from that in communism? In capitalism, the decision is made by those in power in the structure of a company. In communism, the decision is made by those in power within the structure of the government. The decision is still made by someone other than you.

I'm really not sure of your 'fact' about housing shortages, so I will refrain from answering that for now, but I'd imagine that the devastation of WWII had something to do with it.

Regarding automobiles, those were a commodity, and not a necessity until very recently in every part of the world other than parts of Europe and the USA. Judging a communist government on its inability to compete with a capitalist one in the realm of commodities is always going to favor capitalist countries. Some people do not value commodities as highly as you do, and they are hardly a universal 'truth'.

Atheism should be encouraged as a stepping stone to actually finding some sort of spiritual enlightenment, as it causes a break from dogmatic thinking. I do agree that this factor did affect the downfall of many communist governments, however.

 

[eyrei]

This is true.

However, do you honestly beleive mankind can eliminate that from its collective philosophy?

Anyway, I think capitalism harnesses this attribute for good. In a capitalist society, it is in everyone's interest that you work. A greedy businessman does not want you to starve. He would much rather you work, own a home, buy a television, buy your kids fashionable clothes, etc.

Yes, I do believe it is possible. Though, as I said before, I don't believe we will gain something like the communist ideal through revolution or quickly in any other way. My goal, as always, is to point out to those who see any sort of communist ideal as evil that they have been misled, and that capitalism is not the ultimate good. I do not seek to show that communism, in its worldy manifestation to this point in history, is the ultimate good either. My point is that we should not discount the side of our nature that longs for belonging and harmony with our fellow humans.

Regarding the greedy businessman, he would not care if your nearly starved or lived in a substandard environment as long as you continued providing him with profit. It is this part of the capitalist ideal I would like to see eradicated.

 

[amadeus]

How does the assignment of jobs in capitalism differ from that in communism?

You get to choose what you want to be, if you can meet the necessary requirements.

In capitalism, the decision is made by those in power in the structure of a company. In communism, the decision is made by those in power within the structure of the government. The decision is still made by someone other than the you.

There are many companies with many levels to apply for application within. In the Soviet Union, there is [was] one state with one bureaucrat that maps out your life.

I'm really not sure of your 'fact' about housing shortages, so I will refrain from answering that for now, but I'd imagine that the devastation of WWII had something to do with it.

I'm talking about the 1980s. We destroyed Germany in World War II, and there was never any housing shortages in [West] Germany.

Regarding automobiles, those were a commodity, and not a necessity until very recently in every part of the world other than parts of Europe and the USA.

It was an example of the kinds of basic standards of living utilities that the Soviet citizens were refused.

Judging a communist government on its inability to compete with a capitalist one in the realm of commodities is always going to favor capitalist countries.

Admitting the victory of individiual achievment over collectivism feels pretty good, doesn't it?

Some people do not value commodities as highly as you do, and they are hardly a universal 'truth'.

If you did value anything in the USSR, it was refused to you. You didn't have a choice, whether you wanted something or not, because it was never there.

Atheism should be encouraged as a stepping stone to actually finding some sort of spiritual enlightenment, as it causes a break from dogmatic thinking. I do agree that this factor did affect the downfall of many communist governments, however.

Atheism wasn't encouraged, it was state policy. You do or you die.

 

[amadeus]

Regarding the greedy businessman, he would not care if your nearly starved or lived in a substandard environment as long as you continued providing him with profit. It is this part of the capitalist ideal I would like to see eradicated.

You can't eradicate something that doesn't exist.

How many companies can you name that make people worse off and they continue to purchase products from?

 

[eyrei]

You can't eradicate something that doesn't exist.

How many companies can you name that make people worse off and they continue to purchase products from?

I was more addressing their relationship with their employees. But I suppose the example can be offered of companies that advertise expensive shoes for children. The money spent on these trendy shoes by poorer families could easily be better spent on providing a healthier diet for their children, rather than fast food and frozen pizzas.

 

[eyrei]

You get to choose what you want to be, if you can meet the necessary requirements.


There are many companies with many levels to apply for application within. In the Soviet Union, there is [was] one state with one bureaucrat that maps out your life.


I'm talking about the 1980s. We destroyed Germany in World War II, and there was never any housing shortages in [West] Germany.


It was an example of the kinds of basic standards of living utilities that the Soviet citizens were refused.


Admitting the victory of individiual achievment over collectivism feels pretty good, doesn't it?


If you did value anything in the USSR, it was refused to you. You didn't have a choice, whether you wanted something or not, because it was never there.


Atheism wasn't encouraged, it was state policy. You do or you die.

I'm rather unimpressed at your ability to show how life in the Soviet Union was worse than in the US during the post WWII era. Its just not that hard. When have I held up the Soviet Union as the epitomy of communism or, more specifically, communist thought though? It was a party dictatorship, and little more. The writings of Marx were used to persuade the proletariat to revolt, and then they were repressed again by those seeking power. Regardless, I don't have the desire to continue this line of argument, as it goes nowhere and does not further anyone's understanding of the world, communism or capitalism.

 

[cgannon64]

I was more addressing their relationship with their employees. But I suppose the example can be offered of companies that advertise expensive shoes for children. The money spent on these trendy shoes by poorer families could easily be better spent on providing a healthier diet for their children, rather than fast food and frozen pizzas.

Hopefully their parents aren't so stupid as to buy shoes over what is necessary. I trust the poor to be distrustful of corporations, to the point where they avoid crass consumerism, but not to the point where they vote socialist.

 

[microbe]

According to what I learned about Maxism, Communism is the ultimate social system. But to schieve that, the society has to have very high and efficient production which can satisfy the need of all human beings. So everyone picks what he needs, and works not for a living but for the good of working.

The problem of the current "communism" is that the social production hasn't reached that level, and thus it's just a dream - it's a mess if everybody wants to take and nobody wants to give.

Now I do not know for sure if Communism is ever possible, but imagine some day most of the work is done by robots, and supplies are really sufficient for all the human beings..Big Brother might come.

 

[Free Enterprise]

I'm pretty sure the Russians felt better under Communism than they do under Capitalism.

Actually the Russian Federation's economy is one of the least (though not the least) capitalist systems in the world.

Recall that the Soviet Union definitely implemented Glasnost yet Perestrokia strangely was slow in coming. In China the opposite occured and in an analogous fashion the opposite is occuring economically: China has one of the fastest growing economies in the world while Russia has one of the more stagnant.

 

[ElBagOCrap]

The way I see it is this: If an entire communist country, or socialist country, what have you, goes into international debt, we're talking huge monetary losses, people, then their people will ALL lose, collectively. Then, there will be no incentive to work harder, when your wages will only go down...In the American democracy, even in our worst moments of economic despair, we were able to pull out of it, and become stronger.

 

[Free Enterprise]

. Now sure, everything is capable of becoming corrupt, but was the fall of Communism due to the corruption, or the nudge that rival Democracies imposed upon it? Couldn't it just as easily have gone the other way, with America fragmented and the CCCP leaning on the world?

The answer is "no". The study of economics has been honed to the level of demonstrating that the system can be analyzed quite effectively. The Soviet Union had little chance of effectively maintaing the technological innovation necessary to establish Eurasian hegemony. Very few countries that were near the Soviet Union could trust the Soviet motives. Even Maoist China's forces actively engaged Russian troops. Japan of the 1980s would not have been so easy to deal with provided it acquire nuclear weapons. The existence of non-American and non-Soviet nuclear weapons prevented the S.U. from using the only thing in its arsenal that could keep it as a semi-super power: a vast quantity of nuclear weapons. The Soviet economy was losing ground to its competitors for most of its post World War II existence.

There is a theory that states that economic "thumbs" are suitable for easy and relatively non-technological industrial production however economic and political "fingers" are needed to develop advanced technology and produce things such as computers, television and numerous other items. Thumb based economies have trouble using or producing such equipment because you cannot just force someone using slave labor to produce such items without running a big risk of very, very low quality products (which are often very dangerous because they start fires, are toxic, and many other things). If you want to read more about this idea then perhaps consider buying this book: Comparative Politics: Domestic Responses to Global Challenges Fourth Edition by Charles Hauss

Corruption had very little to do with the fall of Communism though it did cause some problems. Corruption may weaken a state however it is not the fundamental cause of a failed system rather it is either a result of an unforunate thing prevalent in many systems and thus not being responsible for the failings of all who share these problems. The inability of any command economy to produce its citizens with a standard of living that is equal to those that utilize a primarily free market economic system is certainly the reason the Soviet Union was forced to claim (most of the successor states still have a ways to go to be classified as truely using the free market).

An authoritarian (during the Stalinst period totalitarian) system such as the Soviet Union would not have reform itself so drastically (which has not been implemented very successfully as noted by the distinct less market oriented economies of the large portions former Soviet bloc) if it had a chance of being successful (it had a relatively large period of time to prove that it was capable of success yet this never came to fruition). The Soviet Union had a lot going for it if one examines the population and natural resourecs yet still it failed to produce the economic goods needed to compete with so much of the West and Japan (even Taiwan (started very poor and gained massive ground), Mexico in recent times (has started taking the capitalist road recently), and South Korea (started very poor and outpaced command economy performance by a huge margin). The command economy and free trade are mutually exclusive in terms of ideology so it would be somewhat irrelevant to blame a lack of trade on the failings of the command economy because that means that at least a part of the command economy ideology is flawed rather than that being an excuse.

The presence a democratic government may help economic growth however it is small potatoes compared to the economic system itself. The Germany of World War I was quite strong economically and was far from very democratic. In fact it was one of the world's top economies and was gaining ground/increasing the margin of wealth over most of its European rivals.

There are different communist ideologies although none really work well. The command economy varients definitely do not work because they cannot probably produce and distributed resources properly. In addition it is hard to conduct fair and useful trade with a command economy.

Now a pure free market system would be economic anarchy though there would be problems it would not be as descrutive quite as a pure command economy. A system which is much more on the free market end than on the command economy is the best. The exact percent is still unknown however it would be at least 80% free market.

Marxist communism is in a certain way somewhat like the free market. Both postulate economic anarchy and the ability to do what you want for your employment. However Marx thought a "dictatorship of the proletariat" would be necessary which is decidedly against freedom. Plus he was anti-freedom of religion in general and therefore largely against civil rights.

It is not clear how you would keep a the entire world communist without a government to enforce the system. The Marxist faction would probably remain a small group (as it has in real life).

Other forms of communism used by governments ("realist" communism) are usually a mixture of totalitarianism with a command economy.

Anarchy plus socialism does not happen in real life because the conditions and parameters of economics are opposed to the system. The standard of living is too small for most to like such a system.

The conclusion from history and historical economic records demonstrates that the command economy does not produce a standard of living approaching that see in state adopting a free market economy and have been capitalist roaders for at least forty decades (you cannot just look at overnight results rather it is necessary to track long term trends). The issue of Marxism is somewhat different. Marxism is not feasible on a large scale (not recommended on a small scale either though) therefore states do not ever follow Marxist ideology and instead usually become very totalitarian (impossible ideologies often do this in an attempt to implement what cannot be implemented by more moderate methods).

Regardless of any propaganda against communism the facts are strong enough to stand scrutiny and consequently make known the inability of a command economy to provide the standard of living, GNP or GDP, per capita GNP or GDP, freedom, and technological innovations that are prefered by the vast majority of people and can be achieved by a proper implementation of a primarily free market economy in which the state does provide certain roles.