Communism

[Kyon]

I just want to get your opinions on this. Is it a system you think could possibly work? Your views on it? Are you a Communist?

[ProHypster]

I think it could work when we invent robots to do work for us and Yeah it sounds like a lazy world but that's where we are heading now anyways ...

 

I wouldn't vote for any communist parties right now in any major country as it is too early and most of them are probably fake too due to the messy communist history, as the word communism is a very powerful propaganda tool for the wrong person during a crisis in a country because of the promises it has and because of the situation in the country.

 

Right now the farthest optimal government (for most countries' people) is probably a Social Democracy. Through votes it looks like the EU are slowly heading to either communism or anarchism. Something along the lines of Trotsky is happening in the EU and other social democracies like the Ukraine. I may be wrong and we may go back 100 years to right wing capitalism though if the governments find themselves unable to sustain themselves due to too high wages and bonuses and too little production.

 

Some countries like USA and Russia are most likely forced for a different government type (Right wing Republic) as they are too large and too important in the world so they can't afford too much social reforms for their people as generally production probably does drop with social reforms although I'm not sure about that.

 

Generally I think Right Wing government tend to be good for cheaper mass industry and left wing governments are good for individual art and luxurious things. I can't explain that right now very well, just a hypothesis.

 

I'm a Social Democratist right now. If I were a German I would live in Germany right now.

In the long run I believe communism could work.

 

Now ideologically speaking.

If you think about it governments are like systems in a corporation. Your boss is the government. In a Communist society all workers are the boss, but will you be productive enough to not go bankrupt when all workers are bosses? As I see it, today probably not. In a Social democracy you have a boss but you get a lot of money and vacations and free stuff, will that be productive though when you take too many vacations and salary to not get the corporation bankrupt...?

If you go bankrupt in this scenario the corporation (IRL would be country) collapses.

[Kyon]

Right now the farthest optimal government (for most countries' people) is probably a Social Democracy. Through votes it looks like the EU are slowly heading to either communism or anarchism. Something along the lines of Trotsky is happening in the EU and other social democracies like the Ukraine. I may be wrong and we may go back 100 years to right wing capitalism though if the governments find themselves unable to sustain themselves due to too high wages and bonuses and too little production..

Sorry if this is a bit off topic but Trotsky was the powerful guy Stalin had deported and later assassinated, right? Now if you are referring to a form of government he envisioned, I don't know about it and would you please enlighten me?

[ProHypster]

Right now the farthest optimal government (for most countries' people) is probably a Social Democracy. Through votes it looks like the EU are slowly heading to either communism or anarchism. Something along the lines of Trotsky is happening in the EU and other social democracies like the Ukraine. I may be wrong and we may go back 100 years to right wing capitalism though if the governments find themselves unable to sustain themselves due to too high wages and bonuses and too little production..

Sorry if this is a bit off topic but Trotsky was the powerful guy Stalin had deported and later assassinated, right? Now if you are referring to a form of government he envisioned, I don't know about it and would you please enlighten me?

 

Basically Trotsky was a Menshevik leader, a party for a transition to communism slowly, through voting and reforms, he said eventually governments would become communist when they are ready.

 

Lenin was a Bolshevik leader who said that communism could only be achieved through elimination of the opposition.

 

Initially Lenin and Trotsky were close in theories of what communism would be but then disagreed on this point exactly. When Lenin finally overthrew the government and everything Trotsky famously came up to him and said that he did a grave mistake and basically predicted that communism would be seen as a dictatorship. But I guess Lenin was just to paranoid.

 

After that Trotsky moved to Mexico. 30 years later Stalin had him found and assasinated showing the power of the KGB at the time and the paranoid Stalin.

[Vapymid]

Ideal communism (from each - according to his abilities, to each - according to his needs) cannot exist. Like perpetual motion machines, it will violate the laws of thermodynamics.

 

You can achieve an approximation to communism in small communities, such as kibbutzes, but only because there is the larger world with which you can trade.

 

In politics, what is commonly considered "communism" is nothing of the kind. Ideologically, it is based on the principle that individuals (their rights, their needs) are secondary to those of the society as a whole and that the product of individual's labour belongs to the society. This sounds seductive to people who consider themselves disadvantaged (because they expect that they will get a greater share of the total product than they could otherwise expect).

 

However, in reality all that happens is that this total product becomes personal property of a small ruling oligarchy which in the end inevitably increases inequalities, disrupt the production and collapses the system.

 

Regards

[Collective Foal]

Communism is a fantastic prospect, but humans are too stupid to work together and abandon most of their personal desires. I COULD be volunteering my time at a soup kitchen instead of playing video games when I get home from school, but frankly, I really don't want to. I might prefer it someday, but it's impossible for everyone to willingly self-sacrifice.

 

I'm more of an anarchist, and anarchy is the true product of any perfect communism, maybe any government for that matter. Mutually assured destruction is the best way to keep people in check. For example, in today's society (in the USA, at least), raping a girl will get you sent to jail. But, in an anarchist environment, raping a girl will get your head blown off by her daddy's shotgun. Which was more effective at keeping you from raping that girl? Exactly. Anarchy is humanity in its perfect environment.

[Doom Shepherd]

Communism sounds good on paper, put in practice it can't work on a large scale.

 

We are humans. We make a GAME out of playing the system to our advantage. We break rules. We lie, cheat, and steal. We are ambitious, and we always, ALWAYS want more than we have.

 

The only way that could EVER work is if we no longer had a scarcity economy. If resources and energy were infinite, that would upset the whole apple cart. But that's not likely to happen until the rest of the world goes as space-crazy as I am, and decided to make it happen.

 

In practice, it never worked. You always had the Party bigwigs living it up better than the rank-and-file, creating class in a supposedly classless society. Because that's what people do when they get power.

 

Anarchy? Yeah, that doesn't work either. Eventually, power ends up in the hands of whoever has the nastiest thugs and the biggest guns. To continue the example above, in an anarchy, a GROUP of guys with shotguns can to whatever they want to that girl, and daddy's just going to have to live with it. Shoot one, and the other four will shoot YOU. Or, one jerkass with a gun can overcome a dozen decent people without guns. It falls apart at a touch.

[ProHypster]

I forgot to mention communism has and can work on a small scale (village, city or small region/microcountry) but as many people here probably agree it cannot work on a large scale because it is unproductive.

 

I still believe it can work once we make robots do our work though. Anyone thought of that? I mean eventually I'm pretty sure there will be robots working for every industry except for art. By then the government will either be an anarchy or something like communism. But that's my theory that I thought of during a tennis match and haven't disproven yet...

[Vapymid]

I still believe it can work once we make robots do our work though. Anyone thought of that?

 

On the first glance it appears that with robots it can work... But in reality, robots of such advanced development as those ones will just decide to cut out the redundant middle man (so to say )

 

And I am pretty sure that you cannot create robots productive enough without them having AI as complicated and fuzzy as human intelligence - in fact, such robots mentality will be quite indistinguishable from human's.

 

Actually, the Time Machine by Herbert Wells is a remarkable thought experiment on just such a possibility (with Morlocks being the robots). I think we have an instinct which tells us that the moment we relax and rest on our laurels another species (natural or artificial) will take over and swipe us away. I'm sure this is not an empty premonition - it's the way the Nature works and we, being a part of it, know it deep down in the marrow of our bones.

 

Regards

[ProHypster]

And I am pretty sure that you cannot create robots productive enough without them having AI as complicated and fuzzy as human intelligence - in fact, such robots mentality will be quite indistinguishable from human's.

Well this is where I disagree. I think excellent robots would be the ones which could replicate a designers vision from a simple computer sketch. IMO Humans will still need to have a few jobs as designers, robot supervisors, Peace supervisors, artists and inventors. But these jobs (Except for artists) will probably be taken by less then 1% of humans and I'm sure we can find enough volunteers for that or an exchange for their work other then money.

 

Untill some madman abuses the robots or recreates human intelligence we would have an almost perfect world....

[IneptGuard]

I still believe it can work once we make robots do our work though. Anyone thought of that?

 

I'm not that educated on the subject however, I've always seen communism as something that looks great on paper but just doesn't work when the human variable is factored in. I don't think a communist government can work as long as there are people making decisions. I actually think that the exact opposite would work, where humans are governed by computers and policed by machines. Although even then some asshole in his garage would find a way to hack robo-prez and ruin it for everyone. Humans are competitive, corruptible, greedy and untrustworthy by nature and while I don't believe that that makes up the majority of the population, all it would take is the right man (asshole) in the wrong place (A place of power) to bring this house of cards crashing down.

 

While I know that this is true of most governments I feel like a communist government is more likely to fail due to people screwing it up because of it's focus on equality.

 

Sorry if this is poorly worded, I'm really tiered and about to take a much needed nap.

[Michael Archer]

Dalipose, what do you mean by "work"? Do you mean to ask "can happiness and prosperity occur with communism?"

 

Answer: no, and there's a very simple reason why. I could point you to where it's been tried, (e.g. North Korea, Soviet Union) but I'll try to explain why.

 

Communism is the theory that an individual has no right to exist for himself or his own sake; rather, the individual exists as a means to an end for the government or "the people" to dispose of him in any way he sees fit. In communism, the individual isn't seen a human or an individual: he's seen as a tool.

 

Because he's not an individual--but a tool--he can't really own anything. He can't own property, he can't own his body, and he can't own his mind. All these things belong to something else to dispose of when it's not needed any more.

 

In practice, this means that the communists make people try to believe that there are negative consequences for everyone else is one person becomes successful. The communists orchestrate a purge--a "genocide" if you will--of all the men of talent. Marx wrote that the capitalist achieves success at the expense of the working man; it's easy to see why people of ability would be murdered in mind, if not in body. A communist government is not a body guard, but a ruthless gang that initiates force on people for subjective--and therefore immoral--reasons on defenseless citizens. The only virtue of anarchy I can think of is that an individual makes the tools he needs in order to defend himself; in communism, not only is that virtue gone, the individual is forced to make the tools for the robber.

 

That's why communism can never achieve prosperity: all the creators and the producers have no reason to work, because slaves have no ambition other than from the point of a gun.

 

P.S. Communism doesn't work in practice, because it doesn't work in theory. Anyone who says it works in theory is guilty of context-dropping, as demonstrated above.

[Blue]

I am not in favor of a system which ardently rejects Christianity.

[ProHypster]

That is true, it is the most brutal point in communism....

The point was that during the 19th century a majority of people used religion as an excuse for almost anything.

Almost all wars and actions of leaders were justified with religion. Religion was basically denoted to only mass propaganda and communications between the Czars and the people. The Czar defended almost all his actions by saying that God put him on earth to lead the country, it is no coincidence that he was ruler.

 

Since,

 

Relations in either socialist or communist society, i.e., in socialist society's highest development, will be thoroughly transparent and will not require such auxiliary methods as deception, lies, falsification, forgery, treachery and perfidy.

 

And of course Marx seeing at that time how religion was used, being an atheist himself, it wasn't hard for him to decide that religion is the same thing as said: deception, lies, falsification and most of all excuse.

 

However times have changed, people & leaders are now either humanists or capitalists. Leaders do not do things because of religion, we do them for either humans, or capital, but not religion anymore. People living by religion now actually follow it instead of try to understand it the way they want to by selecting unclear words and sentences in the religious books. I would even say humans and money are like the 19th century "religion". Wars are now mostly about money or humans.

 

So what I think is that since religion doesn't fall under the category "deception, lies, falsification, excuse" anymore, with the exception of terrorists of course, it is no longer necessary to remove it.

 

But that's what I think, again I'm only a social democrat as so far.

[alphabetagamma]

My grandfather has a saying, "If you're young and not a socialist you have no heart, if you're old and socialist you have no brains". The same would seem to apply with communism as well. I'm quite young myself, but it always seems like the young are demonstrating for the systems that don't work. Communism doesn't work, Anarchism doesn't work and Laissez-Faire capitalism would end you up in essentially the same situation as communism. They sound like paradise, but paradise doesn't exist.

 

I am not in favor of a system which ardently rejects Christianity.

Don't confuse an economic system with a history of oppressive governments using that system. Relegion is not directly related to communism.

[Doom Shepherd]

Religion? and Communism?

 

I know a bunch of people who call themselves Christians. About half of them give it lip service, and have some general non-intrusive belief in it. The other half treat it like a RELIGION.

 

I have met rather fewer Communists, but the same proportion prevails. Some people treat Marx like a prophet, and his books like their Holy Writ.

[ProHypster]

Communism doesn't work, Anarchism doesn't work and Laissez-Faire capitalism would end you up in essentially the same situation as communism. They sound like paradise, but paradise doesn't exist.

 

This is basically where I call a huge objection and biased opinion.

 

I will also make my own interpretation on your quote if you don't mind.

 

If you're young and not a socialist you have no heart

 

So here he means that socialism (the idea) is a good thing and a brave thing. When you are young.

 

if you're old and socialist you have no brains

 

And suddenly when you turn old it isn't. Yet the only thing that changed is you not the idea.

 

From this analogy we can see that from this quote the meaning is actually not that socialism is stupid but rather that being a socialist will only take away time from your life as governments and people will never reform socially (Although not anymore)

 

There is a bunch of other meanings in that quote too but I think that while being a socialist can be stupid the idea of socialism is not.

[Doom Shepherd]

Basically, the saying means that your outlook on life is greatly influenced by the amount of XP you have.

 

For instance, when you are a child, free cookies are AWESOME!!!

When you are a diabetic adult, you have gained XP, and that's when you realize that free cookies are tasty, tasty POISON.

[ProHypster]

Basically, the saying means that your outlook on life is greatly influenced by the amount of XP you have.

 

For instance, when you are a child, free cookies are AWESOME!!!

When you are a diabetic adult, you have gained XP, and that's when you realize that free cookies are tasty, tasty POISON.

 

Since when is diabetes XP ???

If anything diabetes is more like the result of either foolishness or chronic poison because of someone's foolishness in your family tree or a third variant where you are just very unlucky.

I could also question such things as, so if you were reborn you wouldn't eat cookies at all? (or whatever the new story tells us) Which I doubt.

 

But, anyway continue this communism thread.

[alphabetagamma]

The quote implies that when you're young you have heart but not brains, so socialism is appealing, but when you're older you have the brains but not the heart to see the flaws in socialism. I'm not anti-socialist but I thought the quote would apply to anarchism and communism.

Communism doesn't work, Anarchism doesn't work and Laissez-Faire capitalism would end you up in essentially the same situation as communism. They sound like paradise, but paradise doesn't exist.

 

This is basically where I call a huge objection and biased opinion.

Of course it is. It's my opinion.