Jump to content

Tell me how Communism is bad


Holton
 Share

Recommended Posts

The issue with this claim that communism is untested is that it then relies on a definition of communism that is untestable.  Marxism in't really that difficult. It's supposed to be the natural end of economic development. Start with a state with advanced capitalism, move to a socialist setup and then eventually communism itself. Using it on an agrarian economy with nothing between basically barter to communism is obviously not going to work.

 

 

Communism is unrealistic, one that doesn't end in death of course. Unrealistic for the current time and obviously the past. The US' current economic stage is about where Marx said movement in that direction would begin. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not difficult except for the small matter that it's never been successfully attempted. I'm also curious as to why we couldn't also say that a capitalist system has never truly been attempted because there have always been regulatory controls imposed by governments in the functioning of economies. When this argument is boiled down to a theoretical discussion about a utopian outcome with no reference to why that utopia is unreachable, it is more suited to the province of spirituality and not one of reason.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not difficult except for the small matter that it's never been successfully attempted. I'm also curious as to why we couldn't also say that a capitalist system has never truly been attempted because there have always been regulatory controls imposed by governments in the functioning of economies. When this argument is boiled down to a theoretical discussion about a utopian outcome with no reference to why that utopia is unreachable, it is more suited to the province of spirituality and not one of reason.

 

All this talk of Communism never being successful or really attempted is bullshit. Capitalism nearly failed in the 30s. The only reason why we still cling to that outdated system is because we killed off 60 million people and forced open countries to trade in a post-war bipolar order. Keynes, as much as all the neo-liberals hate him, is the only reason why capitalism still exists. 

 

Again, the key issue is distribution. Communism is and always has been an issue of distribution. The communist states that emerged in the early 20th century were dependent upon a state apparatus to ensure the distribution of resources in an egalitarian fashion. You want to know when communism was successful? 1930s. When the rest of the capitalist world was in the Great Depression, the Soviet Union had double digit GDP growth. Communism worked then because there weren't any complex consumer goods to distribute, only basic materials such as pig iron and food. The microindustry was non-existent, and so was it was easier to manage by a human bureaucracy. 

 

Capitalism, in its purest form, is not utopian. Capitalism carries the eventuality of upward distribution bias by means of comparative gain. The only reason why capitalism still exists today is because there are no other kinds of economies that can accurately predict the needs and wants of consumers and then distribute those goods in an efficient manner. Even then, most countries understand that capitalism in its purest form eventually replaces the state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just hasn't worked when tried. Given the extreme costs of a failed government system(mass executions and the like), I'd suggest not trying it again anytime soon.

 

Mass executions are more indicative of an authoritarian government than a communist economy. If that were the standard, you would imagine the Nazis to be hardcore socialists. #nationalsocalistnotsocialist

 

Also, when people think of communism, why does everyone start to think of Mao and Stalin? You do realize that there is an equally as long time period of communism's existence post Stalin right?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously guys, there's not yet been a communist state. Acting like the ones that tried to jam it past what it's supposed to require doesn't prove it works or doesn't. The Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, was not a communist state, for example. They even included it in the name. For whatever reason (either translation group agreement or maybe naming for the future) the party is often named communist for some reason, but it doesn't make it so.We've had Stalinism, Leninism, Marxism-Leninism (which didn't make any sense), Maoism, whatever the Khmer Rouge strung together, North Korean juche, Maoism, etc. No attempted Marxism at any point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously guys, there's not yet been a communist state. Acting like the ones that tried to jam it past what it's supposed to require doesn't prove it works or doesn't. The Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, was not a communist state, for example. They even included it in the name. For whatever reason (either translation group agreement or maybe naming for the future) the party is often named communist for some reason, but it doesn't make it so.We've had Stalinism, Leninism, Marxism-Leninism (which didn't make any sense), Maoism, whatever the Khmer Rouge strung together, North Korean juche, Maoism, etc. No attempted Marxism at any point.

Yeah SOCIALIST is the operative word in Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, but not the operative word in National SOCIALIST German Worker's Party. This is pure sophistry and you should be doing better than this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I've just read through 7 pages of this thread and it is evident to me we need somebody who is a Communist, or something similar.

 

First lets answer the OPs question, why is communism bad?

 

First of all, communism is not a single ideology. There are multiple variations such as Anarcho-Communism, Council Communism, Classical Marxism and Leninism-Marxism. I am going to assume you are referring to Classical Marxism, since it is what most Communist ideologies are drawn from.

  • Classical Marxism is being slowly outdated. The cornerstone of Marxism is the idea of a Worker-Peasant class (referred to as the Proletariat) being the larges, most predominant and most important class within a capitalist society. Massive changes to how agriculture and farming, coupled with the education systems of the first world has all but eliminated the peasant class in the first world. The automation of labor is slowly usurping the relevance of the worker/laborer as well.
  • Classical Marxism's revolutionary theory has been proven wrong. Marx theorized that in a Capitalist system, the Proletariat would over throw the rich (Bourgeois) and establish a Communist Society. This has never happened in any capitalist society. All nations that have underwent a revolution toward Communism overthrew Feudalism not Capitalism (Russia, Cuba, China (sort of)).
  • Marx's analysis of Feudalism (which used Dialectic Materialism) stated that a Feudal society could only give way to a Capitalist society. Evidently by the Communist revolutions of the world, this is again another fault in Marxism.

Now onto other problems in this thread has encountered. Why the USSR, Cuba and China aren't Communist and why comparing this statement to the 'No True Scotsman' argument is wrong.

  • First of all, Communism (unlike capitalism, which is a laze-fare economic system) is a written ideology, anything that varies from communist theory is simply not Communism. In order for any nation to be Communist it must have a collectively worker owned means of production. What does this mean? The workers from a factory must be able to control it directly (rather than it being controlled by a CEO, boss or owner). It is the same with farms and other agricultural industries.
  • The USSR, China and Cuba never identified as Communist nations, but Socialist nations. (It's in the bloody title for Christ sakes: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). None of these countries ever had worker controlled means of productions. Modern China isn't even Socialist because of its free markets.

Were the Nazis were Socialists?

  • No, economically or socially. Socialist means that the means of production is controlled by the state (supposedly on behalf of the workers, but that a story for another time). While the Nazis did implement universal healthcare and nationalized some industries, they retained a great deal of Germany's private industries. Any system that retains private industry cannot be Socialist.
  • Economically, the Nazis were closer to social democrats and extremely far right wing Socially. This why the political compass places them as center authoritarians.

Now does the state exist in Communism?

  • Classical Marxism: Yes, but it is small and non-intrusive. (Marx describes it as withering.)
  • Lenin-Marxism: Yes, and it is a centralized state and has some authoritarian and un-Communist tendencies sometimes.
  • Anarcho-Communism: No, and it is extremely decentralized.
  • Council Communism: Yes, and it is also worker controlled and is decentralized too.
  • Stalinism: Not actually communism, but a tyrannical dictatorship cleverly disguised as such. (The Means of production is state controlled, as is everything else.)
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Socialism/Communism don't work.

 

http://www.dailywire.com/news/16126/people-literally-starving-thanks-socialism-hank-berrien

 

I don't know how many people will have to starve to death before some people get it through their thick skulls, but the sooner, the better - for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without referencing the classic strawman arguments - why oppose an ordered society that distributes surplus among the people? I'm actually looking for serious theory here, not just pointing to China and saying how bad they are.

 

Why do you believe communism is orderly or distributes surplus?

 

Communism ultimately boils down to a cult of personality in how democracy works.  It's a popularity contest in the definition of useful work.  That sort of chaos inevitably results in a deficit.

 

If you want a sense of fraternity, then create or join a club.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh... and all the criticism in this thread against ideology in preference of empiricism is nonsense.

 

In reality, there's a difference between facts and evidence.  Just because things happen doesn't mean things are recorded.  Likewise, records can be fudged.  Human nature is fallible.  We use ideology to bridge the difference between facts and evidence as well as address the fallibility of human nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

communism is retarded. Nobody would work hard, everyone would sit on their asses, collect welfare, get healthcare, all that shit. It will fail due to human nature. It's an ambition killer. That's why capitalism is the best system in the world.  You work hard, you do better for yourself and your fam.

 

Eh...

 

Capitalism is best because it allows people to succeed by working smart, not hard.  Communism is worst because it depends on people constantly pushing their nose to the grindstone to show they're valuable members of the working class.

 

Ambition gets killed because people are told to work hard.  They sacrifice long-term efficiency for short-term effectiveness.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Communism is a system that makes the state more powerful, this isn't good.

Also, the planified economy takes money from who works harder and give to who works less, it promoves the laziness.

And there's also the fact that communism (and also socialism) goes against the three pillars of western civilization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialism/Communism don't work. Tell that to all the nations using it and doing much better in most ways than than the American system.

 

http://www.dailywire.com/news/16126/people-literally-starving-thanks-socialism-hank-berrien

 

I don't know how many people will have to starve to death before some people get it through their thick skulls, but the sooner, the better - for everyone.They'd be more apt to offer us assistance than we would them.

 

 

Why do you believe communism is orderly or distributes surplus? Who knows what it is? It hasn't been tried yet.

 

Communism ultimately boils down to a cult of personality in how democracy works.  It's a popularity contest in the definition of useful work.  That sort of chaos inevitably results in a deficit.

 

If you want a sense of fraternity, then create or join a club.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh...

 

Capitalism is best because it allows people to succeed by working smart, not hard.  Communism is worst because it depends on people constantly pushing their nose to the grindstone to show they're valuable members of the working class. No one succeeds through hard work, it's mostly luck.

 

Ambition gets killed because people are told to work hard.  They sacrifice long-term efficiency for short-term effectiveness.  

 

 

Communism is a system that makes the state more powerful, this isn't good. Communism requires the absence of a state.

Also, the planified economy takes money from who works harder and give to who works less, it promoves the laziness. We're going to have to start moving towards universal basic income in the near future or something similar once robots replace most of the jobs and assuming we want to continue to have an economy.

And there's also the fact that communism (and also socialism) goes against the three pillars of western civilization. Most of Western civilization is already socialist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Karl VII

I think true communism as a system is some sort of utopia.

It is generally a good thing, but it`s not something we are able to achieve right now (idk maybe in the future) due to the greedy human nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marx was a capitalist researcher. The first step you need to even start thinking about advancing towards communism is a very advanced capitalist state like the United States. You can't do it in agrarian economies no matter how much you try, which is why so many of them failed or had to adopt entirely new doctrines to cover that up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Communism is a system that makes the state more powerful, this isn't good. Communism requires the absence of a state. 

Also, the planified economy takes money from who works harder and give to who works less, it promoves the laziness. We're going to have to start moving towards universal basic income in the near future or something similar once robots replace most of the jobs and assuming we want to continue to have an economy.

And there's also the fact that communism (and also socialism) goes against the three pillars of western civilization. Most of Western civilization is already socialist

Communism doesn't requieres the absence of a state, it needs a state to order the things, or else it would be a anarchy. Also, statization of the industries is one of the proposes of communism.

 

When robots replace most of the jobs, it will be the same as today: People will be paid by intelligence, not by force. And if A.I. become smart enought, it's simple: people will win money based on how many robots they have, it will still be a capitalist world, people can't be paid equally because they don't produce equally.

 

Most of the western civilization is already socialist, I agree, but you know why? Here in Brazil, we have some conservative study groups that show us why our country is facing such a crisis, it's because in 1964  Czechoslovakia intelligence service was planning on turn the south america in a new soviet union, so they formed guerrilla groups and they tried to implant a communist state in Brazil, so the millitaries took the control over the state and stopped the revolution. Most of the ONGs that are supported by the government have the propose to promove class fight, just like Marx said.

 

Some fonts: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMzD3Bc4B6I

http://membros.brasilparalelo.com.br/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsF8i1LuCr4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Communism doesn't requieres the absence of a state, it needs a state to order the things, or else it would be a anarchy. Also, statization of the industries is one of the proposes of communism. Not sure where you're getting that idea

 

When robots replace most of the jobs, it will be the same as today: People will be paid by intelligence, not by force. And if A.I. become smart enought, it's simple: people will win money based on how many robots they have, it will still be a capitalist world, people can't be paid equally because they don't produce equally. UBI is going to have to come if we want to continue having an economy

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it doesn't. It's setup to not require that. You may be thinking of socialism, but that has already been demonstrated to work extremely well and in countries where it's practiced it beats our statistics so thoroughly it's almost funny people being so against improvement due to Cold War word association, apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.