why communism didn't work

[Dann]

Originally posted by Benderino
I'm more of a fan of the world for the intellectuals, by the intellectuals.

Intellectuals can't shovel dirt or use a hammer. The world will come to a grinding halt.

On topic, I did ask a local friend here, who was also a Party member, about their definition of communism. He claims that there has never been a "proper communist state". Not the former Soviet Union, not China, not Cuba. All of these are "socialist states" instead. Communism to them is that global utopian society where no government as the way we see it is necessary anymore. It's merely an ideal to which the socialist states strive to achieve.

Of course, I personally believe this is impossible, with human nature the way it is. Which do you think will work harder, a worker who knows he can be fired if he goofs off but will be rewarded for extra work or one who is assured of perpetual job security but nothing else?

 

[nonconformist]

In a true Marxist state there will be no need for police, an economy, or a government.

 

[Benderino]

Originally posted by Dann
Intellectuals can't shovel dirt or use a hammer. The world will come to a grinding halt.

Perhaps, but we'd also find utopian paradise, for the great thinkers (who tend to be wealthly, for they get a better education and become capitalists...hence the society in which we live in now) can advance civiliation.

What's the point of shovelling dirt if it does nothing to progress the human race? Shovelling dirt never invented electricity, solar energy, refridgeration, combustion, etc.

 

[Oruc]

Nope!

 

[Dann]

Originally posted by Benderino
Perhaps, but we'd also find utopian paradise, for the great thinkers (who tend to be wealthly, for they get a better education and become capitalists...hence the society in which we live in now) can advance civiliation.
What's the point of shovelling dirt if it does nothing to progress the human race? Shovelling dirt never invented electricity, solar energy, refridgeration, combustion, etc.

Ah but for every brilliant invention made by an intellectual, you'll still need hordes of other people to do the actual dirty work, like laying railroad tracks, erecting telegraph poles, welding steel, pouring concrete, should I go on?
With all the brilliance of a WWI battleship captain, will the ship even move without those half-naked blokes in the boiler room shovelling coal?
The world needs BOTH kinds of people, intellectuals AND grunts.

 

[M37]

To answer to original queston lets assume we have two people
Mr Smith, Mr. Joans

1. Mr. Smith decides to become an MD Mr. Joans decides to become a factory worker.

Mr. Smith makes 250rubles per month.
Mr. Joans makes 250 rubles per month.

Mr. Smith whent throgh 4 years of medical school
Mr. Joans got High school

Now why would Smith want to work around the clock for years studying to become a MD only to work long hours and get paid as much as the guy next door - Joans who now makes widgets for spring twisting robots in the US?

In other words few people will want to invest 4+ years if thier getting paid the same thing as the person who makes widgets.

 

[Dann]

Also don't forget 4 years of medical school costs heaps of money.

 

[EvilCommieMan]

One cannot rightly say that socialism/communism doesn't work, as it is actually an extremely recent occurrence regarding economic systems. It took over five hundred years for capitalism to evolve into the form it is today and become the predominant economic system, and it will take just as long for socialist economies to becomes just as predominant… but they will, eventually.


BTW: China and Soviet Union were not true socialist economies, they were totalitarian state capitalist systems. If you want an honest to goodness example of social democracy, take a look at FDR and his administration. Socialist economies are actually largely “mixed” economies, as it mostly consists of the government providing a leash and collar for the corporate entities, instead of the state dictating the means of production (unless in an emergency situation).

I’d also state that the biggest deciding factor in the destruction of the Soviet Union was not America, or even capitalism. It was Stalin and his evisceration of the Russian people. He basically disregarded Lenin’s true vision for the Soviet Union, murdered Trotsky, and caused so much internal damage to the Soviet Union that it’s a miracle they lasted as long as they did.

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by EvilCommieMan
One cannot rightly say that socialism/communism doesn't work, as it is actually an extremely recent occurrence regarding economic systems. It took over five hundred years for capitalism to evolve into the form it is today and become the predominant economic system, and it will take just as long for socialist economies to becomes just as predominant… but they will, eventually.

How do you know that? Do you have any proofs or evidence that socialism will become the dominant economic system, or are you just saying that because some lame XIXth century "prophet" said so?

Originally posted by EvilCommieMan

BTW: China and Soviet Union were not true socialist economies, they were totalitarian state capitalist systems. If you want an honest to goodness example of social democracy, take a look at FDR and his administration. Socialist economies are actually largely “mixed” economies, as it mostly consists of the government providing a leash and collar for the corporate entities, instead of the state dictating the means of production (unless in an emergency situation).

If wou think FDR policies were true socialism, you're obviously not a commie

Originally posted by EvilCommieMan

I’d also state that the biggest deciding factor in the destruction of the Soviet Union was not America, or even capitalism. It was Stalin and his evisceration of the Russian people. He basically disregarded Lenin’s true vision for the Soviet Union, murdered Trotsky, and caused so much internal damage to the Soviet Union that it’s a miracle they lasted as long as they did.

You may state that, but you're wrong.
Stalin was responsible for making the USSR last as much as it did. He was no doubt a monster, but a really brilliant politician. He harmed the russian people bad, but imrpoved the power and economy of the Soviet Union.
And Lenin was not much better then Stalin. he also enslaved the russian people, and executed his political enemies. And just like Stalin, Lenin used capitalist policies when he needed to(the NEP)
But on one point I agree with you: it was not America or capitalism that destroyes the USSR - it was communism.

 

[sebanaj]

I'd prefer an state that only mantains perfect police and law. With very small taxes, free commerce, and the Laws of Commerce regulating prices. Social Policies provokes that the people get used to it, and abuse the State by asking for things all the time whenever a problem arises. A good regulation of inmigrants is also needed, accepting only the Capital, but keeping national labour.

 

[Benderino]

Originally posted by Dann
Ah but for every brilliant invention made by an intellectual, you'll still need hordes of other people to do the actual dirty work, like laying railroad tracks, erecting telegraph poles, welding steel, pouring concrete, should I go on?
With all the brilliance of a WWI battleship captain, will the ship even move without those half-naked blokes in the boiler room shovelling coal?
The world needs BOTH kinds of people, intellectuals AND grunts.

I don't disagree with you there. Both are necessary. But communism only provides for the workers, and that's not fair to the intellectuals.

 

[Benderino]

Originally posted by emu
how can you exclude the stupid people like that

How could he exclude the smart people like that?

 

[nonconformist]

As far as I'm concerned, intellectuals ARE workers, as long as they are contributing to society. If it is the owner of a company, who inherited, or otherwise obtained a company, and spends all his days playing golf, and lazing around, then I find that unacceptable.

 

[Benderino]

That never happens. They still have to manage. Donald trump still works his ass off. It's not that easy of a life, but one we ALL aspire to have nonetheless.

 

[nonconformist]

I really don't think Bill Gates does much work. And Matt Groening; he invented the Simpsons, sure he should get paid for that, a reasonable amount, but all he does is live off the profits. He does next to nothing. There are people doing extremely unpleasant and dangerous jobs out there being paid peanuts. It has been like that since at least Marx's time.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Unskilled people were doing unskilled work long before the lndustrial Revolution. Try Sumer 5000 years ago. While societal ranking predates the rise of city states in the middle east, the differences became more apparent after cities appeared. Even in the first cities, those people in power (choose your own definition of what this means) have always found a way (pay, coercion, status, slavery etc.) to have others do the dangerous, unpleasant or boring jobs. Wealth accumulation gives one choices and those choices can include power, freedom from drudgery and access to information and other people of importance.

Paleolithic tribal societies did not have a mechanism to accumulate material wealth so that an elite class could take power. But as soon as the agricultural revolution provided the means of wealth accumulation, humans adapted to it very quickly.

How does one determine what "reasonable amount" Matt Groening should be paid? Who should make this decision? How do you know he does "next to nothing"? Maybe he spends time taking violin lessons, visiting museums and playing with his kids. I would guess he spends a bunch of his money, providing income to those of us who aren't rich.

 

[Benderino]

Originally posted by nonconformist
I really don't think Bill Gates does much work. And Matt Groening; he invented the Simpsons, sure he should get paid for that, a reasonable amount, but all he does is live off the profits. He does next to nothing. There are people doing extremely unpleasant and dangerous jobs out there being paid peanuts. It has been like that since at least Marx's time.

How do you know what Groening does or how much he makes? I'm sure Gates is constantly at meetings, working hard at reinventing his company and keeping his technological industries ever progressing.