why communism didn't work

[luiz]

What many seem to ignore is that even on theory marxism/communism is awfull.

Making everyone equal is unfair, because we are NOT equal. And to force equality, one MUST take away liberty. Without liberty, it's tyranny. So communism, even on theory, is tyranny.

And as I've said thousands of times, Marx's predictions were SO wrong that it's laughable. Marxism is laughable.

 

[Hayek]

Originally posted by Archer 007
How can you say they were communism? The people were never truly equal. It was a dictatorship in the name of communism (which happened to show communism would never work in the real world).

Well, there weren't any guaranteed property rights in either of the two countries and the people were really quite equally poor. It was just that some people were still paid more than others, but income differences weren't great. Or what is it that you mean by "truly equal"?

Why communism didn't work, or stank, anyway (only a few points):

Without any income differences, you will have much less motivation.

If the state is to decide what is to be produced and what isn't, it has to do that along very dictatorial lines, you can't have referenda about everything because that would be hyper-inefficient.

The state can discriminate against anybody because it is everybody's employer.

Lack of flexibility with five year plans. In Soviet Russia in the 60's, there were no razor blades, for instance. Too few were produced and this couldn't be changed.

No political freedom (this is at least very hard to avoid). If you want to spread propaganda, the state can prevent you from doing so on a whole lot of stages. The state controls all the media, printing presses etc.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Hayek

Well, there weren't any guaranteed property rights in either of the two countries and the people were really quite equally poor. It was just that some people were still paid more than others, but income differences weren't great. Or what is it that you mean by "truly equal"?

Why communism didn't work, or stank, anyway (only a few points):

Without any income differences, you will have much less motivation.

If the state is to decide what is to be produced and what isn't, it has to do that along very dictatorial lines, you can't have referenda about everything because that would be hyper-inefficient.

The state can discriminate against anybody because it is everybody's employer.

Lack of flexibility with five year plans. In Soviet Russia in the 60's, there were no razor blades, for instance. Too few were produced and this couldn't be changed.

No political freedom (this is at least very hard to avoid). If you want to spread propaganda, the state can prevent you from doing so on a whole lot of stages. The state controls all the media, printing presses etc.

The wages were drastically different.
I agree with you that communism would never work. The reasons you listed are why the USSR wasn't communism. Your right about refrenda being highly inefficeint, but without them it is not a true communism nation.

 

[Hayek]

Originally posted by Archer 007
The wages were drastically different.

That's not what my history teacher has told me. Sure, the Communist Party's chairmen made more than others, but there weren't any greater income differences between doctors and, say, factory workers.

The reasons you listed are why the USSR wasn't communism.

I don't quite understand what you mean, care to elaborate?

Your right about refrenda being highly inefficeint, but without them it is not a true communism nation.

On a strictly economical scale, it would be communism if the state owned everything. That's my definition, I'm not sure what your idea of communism is.

 

[nonconformist]

I think a real communist nation would not work, but a socialist liberal one would.

 

[Hayek]

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
The best for all of mankind and the entire world would have been if the humans wouldn't have evolved from the Stone Age. Before you start rolling your eyes or posting lol smilies, I mean it, and you should think about it.

I can resist rolling my eyes with some effort, but I've got to ask why you're saying this, because I sure can't think of why it would have been best for everything and everyone had man not evolved from the Stone Age.

And those blaming man for the (very grave) shortcomings of communism should ask themselves just what communism was intended for, if not men.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

but I've got to ask why you're saying this, because I sure can't think of why it would have been best for everything and everyone had man not evolved from the Stone Age.

Because from the Stone Age on, man consistantly destroyed his environment and destroyed entire species of animals. He consistantly developed new means of destruction intending to destroy the environment, and, ridiculously enough, himself.
Is that enough or do you think that mankind is doing the right thing?

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel


Because from the Stone Age on, man consistantly destroyed his environment and destroyed entire species of animals. He consistantly developed new means of destruction intending to destroy the environment, and, ridiculously enough, himself.
Is that enough or do you think that mankind is doing the right thing?

I think man is doing the right thing.
We are part of nature, and we won't destroy it.

 

[nonconformist]

Man has destroyed the need for evolution, and rendered Darwinism obsolete, though this is not necessarily a bad thing. But man continues to destroy everything that is around him, and even themselves in the sake of money.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

We are part of nature, and we won't destroy it.

Maybe then you should read up on some things like "Global Warming", "Extinction of species", "Water contamination", or "Pollution" to name a few things- in historical times, all caused by Man, and not very good to nature, don't you think. Blowing fumes to the air isn't either. Acid rain caused by various issues of pollution isn't good. Pumping wastes into rivers, lakes and oceans isn't good. Destroying forests isn't good, you know, many plants and animals die and can even go extinct by that. Mankind has always harmed nature, but nothing beats what he has done in the 20th century. General conciousness has always been that Man would be the superior race and has the right to decide which species of plants and animals must die and which may go on. But where does he take the right from?

 

[Hayek]

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
Because from the Stone Age on, man consistantly destroyed his environment and destroyed entire species of animals. He consistantly developed new means of destruction intending to destroy the environment, and, ridiculously enough, himself.
Is that enough or do you think that mankind is doing the right thing?

Man is doing the right thing. Economic growth initially leads to more pollution, but after a certain point (I think it was a GDP of around $10.000 per capita), more growth leads to less and less pollution. Sure, there are quite a few dangers to the enivronment, but things can get (and are getting) better. As long as we have economic growth, anyway.

Would you really rather have a much shorter life-span and lead a very uncomfortable life?

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
Maybe then you should read up on some things like "Global Warming", "Extinction of species", "Water contamination", or "Pollution" to name a few things- in historical times, all caused by Man, and not very good to nature, don't you think. Blowing fumes to the air isn't either. Acid rain caused by various issues of pollution isn't good. Pumping wastes into rivers, lakes and oceans isn't good. Destroying forests isn't good, you know, many plants and animals die and can even go extinct by that. Mankind has always harmed nature, but nothing beats what he has done in the 20th century. General conciousness has always been that Man would be the superior race and has the right to decide which species of plants and animals must die and which may go on. But where does he take the right from?

You are WAY to pessimistic about mankind, and if you allow me to make a guees I would say that you have problems with depression

Let me make some points:

1-With technological advances, the echological consciense is growing, and will keep growing, and we will not reach the "point of no return".

2-Before the 20th Century, people only lived up to 40 years on average. Today, on the rich nations, on average people live up to 80 years. Even in the poorer countries, life expectancy is today higher then ever(with very few exceptions). Do you think this was a bad thing?

The fact is, we never lived so well in the entire history of mankind.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

Man is doing the right thing. Economic growth initially leads to more pollution, but after a certain point (I think it was a GDP of around $10.000 per capita), more growth leads to less and less pollution. Sure, there are quite a few dangers to the enivronment, but things can get (and are getting) better. As long as we have economic growth, anyway.

Hm. Mankind existed for several hundreds of thousands of years without such things as economical growth, and all other living creatures do so as well. You know, just because we were educated in the 20th century doesn't necessarily mean that everything that occured these last 100 years were for the better.

You are WAY to pessimistic about mankind, and if you allow me to make a guees I would say that you have problems with depression

It's true, people like you could easily depress me, but I'm above that.

By the way, did it occur to you that Earth might not only there for mankind?

2-Before the 20th Century, people only lived up to 40 years on average. Today, on the rich nations, on average people live up to 80 years. Even in the poorer countries, life expectancy is today higher then ever(with very few exceptions). Do you think this was a bad thing?

Yeah, but in return, many plant and animal species have got a life expectance of NOTHING because they are extinct-Man made them extinct.

 

[Hayek]

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
Hm. Mankind existed for several hundreds of thousands of years without such things as economical growth, and all other living creatures do so as well. You know, just because we were educated in the 20th century doesn't necessarily mean that everything that occured these last 100 years were for the better.

Why do you keep making a problem out of man's existance if we're heading in the right direction anyway? During those many growthless years, man's conditions weren't exactly great.

And I repeat my question: Would you rather live in a cave/hut and have a much shorter life span and lead a very uncomfortable life?

 

[nonconformist]

Would you prefer to live in a world surrounded by nuclear fallout, pollution, and the human race destroying itself?

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Originally posted by nonconformist
Man has destroyed the need for evolution, and rendered Darwinism obsolete, though this is not necessarily a bad thing. .

Um, no. All that is happening is that the things humans look for in mates is changing. These days people go for good looks or money more than sheer physical prowess. Therefore, good looking rich people are gonna reproduce more than ugly poor ones. If that aint evolution then I dont know what is.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Originally posted by luiz
What many seem to ignore is that even on theory marxism/communism is awfull.

Making everyone equal is unfair, because we are NOT equal. And to force equality, one MUST take away liberty. Without liberty, it's tyranny. So communism, even on theory, is tyranny.

And as I've said thousands of times, Marx's predictions were SO wrong that it's laughable. Marxism is laughable.

What he said.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Originally posted by nonconformist
Would you prefer to live in a world surrounded by nuclear fallout, pollution, and the human race destroying itself?

Sometimes I think that us humans were better off climbing trees and eating bananas...

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by Darth_Pugwash
Sometimes I think that us humans were better off climbing trees and eating bananas...

No one is stopping you.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Originally posted by newfangle
No one is stopping you.

Burgers dont grow on trees you know!

Anyway, that wasnt my point. What I meant was that we, as a species, have done more harm than good to this planet. I guess what I meant was the planet was better off when we were climbing trees etc

Geez...I sound like a hippie...