Is Communism Right?...

[JerichoHill]

Thats not the point, the point is that you could have a very democratic goverment with extensive civil rights and the economy be communist. After all, communism is really just a type of economy.

No you can't.

Freedom must be both economic and social at the same time, or freedom is trammeled upon.

I already convinced 2 posters that Communism is a failed ideology. Shall I try for 3 ?

 

[Phlegmak]

Yes, it obviously makes perfect sense that since one left-leaning (economically, mind you) ideology was flawed, then all left-leaning ideologies must also be flawed... not even to mention the fact that most American liberals lean to the right when it comes to economics, but to the left when it comes to social issues.

Yeah, if X was bad, then anything even remotely resembling X must also be bad. Great logic there

Stop right there. Communism is not merely an economic model, it's a social model (everyone is equal). Communists in the 20th century Soviet Union and China implemented those social policies by killing nonconforming members of society (as well as other ways, of course). Do NOT tell us that communism is merely an economic model.

 

[Elrohir]

With the exception of few historical periods I would say it is completely wrong. US has always been leading in domestic and street crime with Russia only catching up only in the past (democratic) decade.

The rest of the points are not worth a bother.

So you don't count millions of innocents sent to die in the gulags as a crime?

 

[Gelion]

No, the Spartans were not primitive by any means, but they have an alien culture that i cannot identify with communism. I don't really know if the Spartans produced any philosophers of note nor their history very well. My knowledge about the period and region was sadly spurred by a computergame Rome:Totalwar .

Then I could only advise to do three things: read read and read
Sparta was an interesting society worthy of a deep study. It also produced philosophers "en masse" not to explain life, but to live life. To live a life like a real human being is also an art . Spartans did a far better job in that than most Greeks. But hey after all Diogenes never did find the "Man" he was looking for. He only found good "Children" and those were the Spartans.

Links between Communism and Sparta and Cold War and Peloponessian war are evident to me. The second pair is so alike I can't explain it....

 

[warpus]

Stop right there. Communism is not merely an economic model, it's a social model. Communists in the 20th century Soviet Union and China implemented those social policies by killing nonconforming members of society (as well as other ways, of course). Do NOT tell us that communism is merely an economic model.

Communists are free to implement whichever social policies they wish (if they have the power to do so), but that doesn't mean that communism is inherently a social model. It's an economic model.

 

[Gelion]

So you don't count millions of innocents sent to die in the gulags as a crime?

People were not sent to Gulag for street crime ever since Stalin. Political prisoners are not usually involved in street or domestic crimes and gulags were filled with political prisoners.

Now to answer your question, which had nothing to do with what I said: "yes I do".

 

[Elrohir]

People were not sent to Gulag for street crime ever since Stalin. Political prisoners are not usually involved in street or domestic crimes and gulags were filled with political prisoners.

Now to answer your question, which had nothing to do with what I said: "yes I do".

You may have stipulated "street crime" as opposed to simple crime, but neither Alpha or I did.

 

[silver 2039]

Communists are free to implement whichever social policies they wish (if they have the power to do so), but that doesn't mean that communism is inherently a social model. It's an economic model.

Having read the Commounist Manfiesto I would say thati it is a socio-economic model.

 

[Gelion]

You may have stipulated "street crime" as opposed to simple crime, but neither Alpha or I did.

I dont know what Alpha said and I'm getting confused on what you wanted to prove. A re-formulation of what you were trying to say might help...

 

[warpus]

Having read the Commounist Manfiesto I would say thati it is a socio-economic model.

That particular interpretation/implementation of communism does have social aspects to it, yes. We are discussing communism in general, and not particular implementations though, correct?

 

[Elrohir]

I dont know what Alpha said and I'm getting confused on what you wanted to prove. A re-formulation of what you were trying to say might help...

He said that there was less crime in Communist Russia than in the US. I disagreed, and said there was more. You said there was less street crime, which I can't say for sure about. We're talking about two different things.

 

[Gelion]

He said that there was less crime in Communist Russia than in the US. I disagreed, and said there was more. You said there was less street crime, which I can't say for sure about. We're talking about two different things.

Guess so....
My point was that, yeah, there was less street and domestic crime.

 

[El_Machinae]

There is an efficient amount to invest in each person, before which you fail to maximize returns, and past which pays diminishing returns.

Most models after that merely argue about how much is the appropriate amount.

 

[Phlegmak]

That particular interpretation/implementation of communism does have social aspects to it, yes. We are discussing communism in general, and not particular implementations though, correct?

Communism is an attempt to make everyone equal; therefore it is a social model, even moreso than an economic one. If you're talking about something else, then it's not communism.

 

[GinandTonic]

Economic communism would work is people were perfect (perfectly efficient, didnt need to be motivated by personal gain, never corrupt etc etc).

If people were perfect we wouldnt need communism anyway (people wouldnt need to be made to give their surpless to those in need etc).

To each acording to his need, from each acording to his ability sounds good and Marx gives a masterful analysis of the capitalist system. Implementing this in practice is impossible as history has shown.

 

[warpus]

Communism is an attempt to make everyone equal; therefore it is a social model, even moreso than an economic one. If you're talking about something else, then it's not communism.

Any social effects that stem from a particular implementation of communism are not part of the original definition of the term, which is purely economic.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Ah I used to be a bit of a commie. Then I realised that what I really was is a Left-liberal who likes social freedoms and the wealfare state and fair wages, a fair democracy and workers rights.......which really isn't communism because that can all go perfectly well within an economy/scoiety where private ownership exists and people vote.

Where are you from?

I am just a little bit tired of teenagers who grew up in stable Western democracies, who say that communism is fine. You know what? You have no damn idea what kind of evil it was.

To be fair, thats because to them communism is 'from people to people etc' whilst to eastern Europeans communism is the Soviet Union.

It's different interpretations.

No society or social order can be estabilished in a short period of time. In my opinion Communism failed primarily because its leaders tried to transform their respective society too quickly.

More that they tried to impose it on people, rather than it being what the people wanted.

Basic idea of communism is 1) abolishment of private property. This can be gradual or sudden. 2) classless society. 3) people working together for common good. Apart from that it depends on what brand of communism you follow.

See ths fundamental problems with this are
a)people like priavte property, they like having things to themselves
and b)There will never be agreement on what the 'common good' is.

Freedom must be both economic and social at the same time, or freedom is trammeled upon.

The problem with too much economic freedom is that it allows some people/compaies to manipulate and take advantage of people. So better to use taxes to redistribute the wealth somewhat to make it more 'fair'. A minimum wage is a great example of restricting economic freedom for the benifit of the majority of people. Sick pay and holiday pay are 2 more examples of restricting economic freedom for peoples benifit....with complete economic freedom companies could use and abuse workers and not give them these basic rights.

So yes, whilst economic freedom in terms of allowing private ownership is good, it must be regulated and sometimes restricted, especially in thing slike healthcare where public funding is best because it means patients are put before profit.

I've picked up on this comment because whilst I believe in almost complete social freedoms (with minimal rules, i.e. regarding harm to others) when it comes to economic freedoms I do not think they can be to that extent.

 

[amadeus]

The problem with too much economic freedom is that it allows some people/compaies to manipulate and take advantage of people.

People will hear about this dishonest business and they will refuse to purchase from them -- the shyster is put out of work. Privately-operated public interest groups would immediately put so much bad press on this business that it would have no other choice but to change it's business model or fold.

A minimum wage is a great example of restricting economic freedom for the benifit of the majority of people.

I will assume that the majority of people in the United Kingdom are earning more than minimum wage, so how does it benefit them? Basically, a minimum wage doesn't protect people from exploitation, it protects the worst of the labor force from having their livelyhood taken away due to their negligence/incompetence.

The market protects people from "unfair" wages. No person would work for a grocer if the wages he paid were too low for anyone to find it to their benefit to voluntarily show up and work for that business.

Sick pay and holiday pay are 2 more examples of restricting economic freedom for peoples benifit....with complete economic freedom companies could use and abuse workers and not give them these basic rights.

Again, the profit motive and the incentive system are enough to provide people with these benefits. State regulation is an unnecessary burden held over from early industrialization; there is no longer sustainable benefits from having a workforce that is both too poor to afford the goods and so unsatisfied with their positions that productivity falls.

So yes, whilst economic freedom in terms of allowing private ownership is good, it must be regulated and sometimes restricted, especially in thing slike healthcare where public funding is best because it means patients are put before profit.

Are they? Or are you simply creating incentives for doctors to encourage unnecessary hospital stays and additional medication? Public health insurance should be voluntary, not nationalized. If it is my choice to find my own health coverage, what right do you as the state have to tell me I can't?

I've picked up on this comment because whilst I believe in almost complete social freedoms (with minimal rules, i.e. regarding harm to others) when it comes to economic freedoms I do not think they can be to that extent.

When the state has access to your wallet, they will have access to the rest of your body as well. It should come to no surprise to you when the so-called "social" freedoms are restricted as well.

 

[CartesianFart]

If we could make some kind of communistic principle innoculated toward the institution of the 3 branches of United States,we could probably have better representatives and more leaders who are dedicated for the public zeal.As long as corruption is a common place in our Federal government in Washington,why can't we change it for the better?Communism is always the attempt to solve not only corruption of the public goods but an ideal for public virtue making.

Here is some possible example on how to make our leaders better.

1.All legistlators(Both house of Congress)and the President that is elected by the people will be given the term for life.
2.All leaders should not own private property instead lives in public government housing.This will produce public spirit and abolish any cynicism from the people in viewing that their leaders are selfish in nature.
3.If beared any childeren,then they should be taken away so that they will not know their identity.We must end hereditary nepotism.Example=Bushes,Kennedys and etc.
4.If certain acts that is treasonous by these leaders shall be executed by trial if found guilty.

 

[ComradeDavo]

People will hear about this dishonest business and they will refuse to purchase from them -- the shyster is put out of work. Privately-operated public interest groups would immediately put so much bad press on this business that it would have no other choice but to change it's business model or fold.

Thats only because in the past governments have introduced these regulatons and so forth so it has become the norm (and now legal requirement) to expect companies to give sick pay and holiday.

I will assume that the majority of people in the United Kingdom are earning more than minimum wage, so how does it benefit them? Basically, a minimum wage doesn't protect people from exploitation, it protects the worst of the labor force from having their livelyhood taken away due to their negligence/incompetence.

It benifits them because having a minimum wage means wages rise in general, especially in areas where companies compete to hire the best workers. Also there alot of people (especially shop workers) whoa r eon minimum wage or only earn 20-30p more an hour, so a minimum wage does drive average earnings up.

The market protects people from "unfair" wages. No person would work for a grocer if the wages he paid were too low for anyone to find it to their benefit to voluntarily show up and work for that business.

Soemtimes I have to wonder if you really understand how desperate people get for work. People don't just automatically get work, there aren't jbs everywhere.

Again, the profit motive and the incentive system are enough to provide people with these benefits. State regulation is an unnecessary burden held over from early industrialization; there is no longer sustainable benefits from having a workforce that is both too poor to afford the goods and so unsatisfied with their positions that productivity falls.

You trust companies too much.

Are they? Or are you simply creating incentives for doctors to encourage unnecessary hospital stays and additional medication? Public health insurance should be voluntary, not nationalized. If it is my choice to find my own health coverage, what right do you as the state have to tell me I can't?

Look at your country. Look at mine. Mine has better healthcare. Yours is only good for the well off.

When the state has access to your wallet, they will have access to the rest of your body as well. It should come to no surprise to you when the so-called "social" freedoms are restricted as well.

Why? tahts just a flippant statement with no real substance to it. I don't see how paying tax to fund hospitals and schools means I shouldn't be allowed to buy weed form a shop.