It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is communism GOOD?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:19 PM
The capitalism vs communism debate is a false comparison. Capitalism is an economic theory: it has nothing to say about form of govt; law & order; foreign or defence policy, except that "the market" must exist. Communism is a full political ideology.
The only true comparison is in economics. Fully polarised then, the difference is between where the worth of anything is determined solely by what people will pay for it (the market) & some govt body setting the price, likely with reference to Marx' ideas about intrinsic value based on the labour it takes to provide (command economy). Philosophically, this is an irreconcileable dichotomy.
Despite being told we live under capitalism however, in practical reality, we have 2 economies running side by side. Some industry is considered "strategic". Arms & Aerospace are obvious, but there are others. The price of the output is determined by negotiation between govt & producer, with little or no reference to the market, but rather to the intrinsic value of the product based on strategy minus production costs plus whatever can be extorted out of govt. This is similar to the EU Common Agricultural Policy, which keeps the price of food high by paying farmers not to produce, but despite their constant complaints, stabilises the market preventing fluctuations from causing many to go bust all at once. Thus we maintain the ability to suddenly increase food production should we ever need to, in time of war say. Recently, the same thinking has been expanded to "too big to fail" financial institutions. These are all de facto command economy decisions. The capitalism we have is far from "free market" & subject to a great deal of regulation & law, for the simple reason that, left to its own devices, the market does exactly what its supposed to prevent, ie stifle innovation, by the inevitable formation of monopolies & cartels.
The problem lies in misunderstanding this fact.
(More Below)

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:45 PM
Regulated capitalism works extremely well at producing maximum profits from each new innovation. Where it fails is that it is illegal for directors to do other than maximise profits for shareholders, thus, even with the most forward looking board, there is only so much that can be spent on development today to provide for profitability in 10-20yrs time. However, in our apparently solely capitalist system, people look to successful business & are naturally convinced that the ideals of capitalism are working well, not realising that in fact much of what goes on in the market as a whole is actually a result of command economy decisions & their knock on effects into other areas of commerce. No surprise then when the same people call for more & free-er capitalism as a recipe for success in heavily regulated industries.
We are quite fortunate to live in these times, where in a relatively short period we've seen the wholesale rejection of command economics & are seeing the collapse of over-zealous capitalism. Perhaps, just perhaps, we may emerge from this oncoming disaster (trust me, its going to be as bad as the 30s at least before it gets better) with the ability to be honest about what has happened. There is no Cold War whereby an ideology needs to be defended at all costs, regardless of the deception necessary to do so. Perhaps we can just accept that strategic decisions are best made & implemented more thoroughly & cheaper (by economy of scale) when overseen as govt mandated spending to begin work now so that it'll be there already when we need it 10-20yrs hence.
Perhaps capitalism can be left to do what it does best: make a fast buck & pay the tax necessary to provide the infrastructure that it thrives in.
In short we need a 3rd way...

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:56 PM
reply to post by Donnie Darko

True Communism is not possible. It is a mythical societal state that can not and will not ever exist.

It is used as a lure to trap people into a two class system with a ruling class that lives in luxury, while those who do the work split the leftovers and live with just enough to get by. The people pushing it know that true Communism is not possible.

The Soviet Union got closer than anyone and look what that lead to. Apathy was rampant. Without motivation and opportunity the human animal looses all motivation. No goal to strive for equals apathy and depression on a grand scale.

If hard work and study leads to an equal outcome with those who put in no effort, it removes all motivation beyond bare survival.

If I said to you, if you work twice as hard as the next guy and are twice as smart, you will still end up with the same minimal life and no rewards; how could that possibly motivate you?

Communism is basically the life of an ant in an ant colony. Problem is that ants have no emmotions, no desires; they are just machines. We are not. We thrive on challenge and reward. We need something to look forward to. We need a reason to get out of bed in the morning.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:07 PM
Communism is as Utopian a philosophy as capitalism is, and both are doomed to fail due to human nature. If you think Communism is the answer, look to what the Soviet Union became, or any of the other degenerated worker states. If you think capitalism is the answer, look around you.

Still, I consider myself a socialist. I believe the 'left' is the natural order of things: religious beliefs are inherently leftist in nature (regardless of what they spout today), and even the mighty capitalists warp left wing economics to keep themselves floating around, either ignorant or uninterested in the fact that they confirm Marx's analysis of them.

Capitalism and Communism are bound in a Hegelian system, a spiraling thesis vs. antithesis, producing the synthesis of corporatism that is new model of capitalism. It's tearing this world apart brick by brick, dollar by dollar, natural resource by natural resource. But this isn't the only synthesis can be produced: we could use a combination of these ideologies to our advantage. We could get our government to begin revoking corporate charters, we could demand that a cap be instituted on business size. Arrest the top power players, charge them with the crimes that they deserve to be charged with. Under a regulated, but not government owned, economy, the markets can continue. Competition can still happen, and wealth can still be accrued. The playing field is leveled, and who knows? Perhaps there can be protections for employees who want to turn their workplaces into worker co-ops.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:26 PM
reply to post by sparrowstail

So this applies then to Rich Daddy who wants to give his son an apartment building to lord over to get him started in the real estate business?
Inherited wealth is certainly a bane of our society. It is the very means by which TPTB became TPTB. So rich are they now that they dont even pay tax like the rest of us. The portfolios are so complex that it'd take longer than a financial year for a forensic accountant to figure out how much they have made. Instead these people negotiate their tax bill. Ha! Can you imagine that? Er... no, this year's not been so good, so I'm paying less... No, I dont have any proof...

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:50 PM
In response to all those that replied to my comment.

Communism will work when everyone is on the same page.

Unfortunately not everyone will be on the same page in a large society.
This is why Communism will fail. Only when everyone is on the same page will it work the way it should.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:57 PM
reply to post by Someone336

Capitalism can be great. However for it to work effectively a Capitalistic government has to be setup more as the "umpire" and has to enforce the rules effectively. So that there can be an "even playing field" for everyone that would like to make money.

Regulation is the key. Without it things will spiral out of control. And we've seen this a few times already in the past 100 years.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 03:19 PM
I have to say I agree with the Dalai Lama in silent thunder's post. Without true compassion, no system can be truly successful. If the leaders are blinded by lust for power, money, etc. the citizens are doomed to failure. That is why in Earth's history, there as yet to be a fully successful government.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 03:20 PM
You know why communism will never work? Because human beings have an instinct to control more resources than the next person so that we can obtain the best mating opportunities we can & provide the best security for our offspring. It is as simple as that.
You know why capitalism will never work? For the exact same reason. Once you have children, it makes no sense to risk what you have on the next venture, unless you are tremendously rich, but even then, you're well served to use your wealth to protect your position: keep others down, form alliances to do this more efficiently, use those alliances to squeeze more out of what you already have, buy off potential competition & liquidate, etc.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 03:40 PM
reply to post by mlmijyd

Its really quite funny when people of intellect come on here and say the sort of insightful things they do and not see the irony in their statements when applied to their current existence?

Thank you for adding me to people of intellect group, however i feel that i am not really there.Hopefully ,yet..
As for the rest - shameful self-quote

Of course other systems have flaws too ,even those mentioned above. But they do not force you to be totally dependent on state because you own nothing.

This is huge difference. One can accept to be hamster in the wheel of huge system producing power for few,as long as he gets little he needs and lot of junk he does not. But one can also freely leave this corrupt, fixed and generally wasteful system and live on its own. Because you can grow YOUR food on YOUR property and survive.
But in Communism you cannot have any property at all, you are totally dependent on state - if you want to be part of the game for some plastic junk or not. This is huge difference.
Top dogs in Western world can do a lot of bad things but they know they have limits since people are individuals. Top dogs in regimes that tried to become Communistic ones can do whatever they want because people are not only one of the state resources de facto as in the West, but also by law.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 03:57 PM
reply to post by Donnie Darko

In their ideal form, Communism and Capitalism would function almost identically with the only difference being that Capitalism includes "Money" as a means of exchange.

The hypothetical I like to give (especially when arguing with self-described Objectivists) is the notion of a society where everyone performs tasks which are determined to be the a good fit for their natural skill set. In exchange for performing these services within a closed society, they are issued a Work Token which can be used to receive the goods and services of the others in the Society.

Framing it this way, I will generally be told that it sounds like Communism (the "Work Token" semantics tends to seal the deal). It then point out that I have more or less described Galt's Gulch from Atlas Shrugged.

The problem is that neither system really provides for the inevitable presence of nitwits, incompetents, buffoons and slackers. (or the genuinely handicapped for that matter) Communism forces the welfare of these elements into the hands of the able and competent. Capitalism leaves them by the wayside to become angry, hungry, desperate and dangerous.

Nor can these systems run efficiently when infiltrated by power mad con-men, hucksters and authoritarian control freaks. That's how you get Lenin, Stalin, Sam Walton, Dick Cheney et al.

This is why human nature will shoot any -ism you can find straight out of the water.

But to answer your question, Communism can be just as good or bad as any other system out there.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:33 PM

Originally posted by Manouche
You mean that communist Russia had a system designed to actually look after others first ?

"Looking after others" is so much conditioned into the Eastern European psyche through Communist Rule that they struggle greatly to get out of their "poor, poor you" victim-roles to become happy and prosperous.

The "poor me" mentality is a direct result of marx dictum that you are not a sovereign individual but an oppressed idiot.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by Skyfloating]

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 05:27 PM

Originally posted by silent thunder

Originally posted by mlmijyd
reply to post by silent thunder

Oh for goodness sake people. Communal living and cooperation is what we do!!!!! Its the natural way for us to be, its only our negative programming and Global Elite manipulation of our lives that prevents it and has us on this hamster wheel of struggling to pay ‘their’ never satisfied Bankster taxes. Simple.

A judcious study of history reveals all kinds of brutality and savagry on every continent, among all peoples, long before there were "banksters." It is true that there have been successful examples of communial living and cooperation throughout history, but they are generally exceptions to the rule and generally didn't last very long before devolving into petty infighting.

Humans are carnivorous apes and we didn't make it to the top of the food chain by being all warm n' fuzzy n' stuff. Just ask a Roman slave or an Egyptian hauling blocks to build the pyramids.

maybe that idea of history is all wrong?

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 06:37 PM
reply to post by Donnie Darko

That vaudville act of Mark's and Engle's were swallowed whole by a large portion of the human population because it sounds oh so scientific...Forget for the moment Karl Marx never worked a day in his life, (he was an expert at sponging off his friends), his insane banter is contrary to commen sense. This boob did not have a clue into how people think, or why they do the things they do. Lets just look at a few of the areas he talked about in Das Kapital. To site all the brain farts this guy had would keep me typing for the rest of my life.

The over riding emphasis on who controls "the state" still boils down to control of all production, etc, by a few select people. If one assumes those in power will be a cross between Bill Gates and Mother Terasa, I could live with that. Rule number one in understanding just about any thing the human race is involved with is people have a tendancy to act in their own self interest. To assume at some point when due to all the benevolent intentions of the commisars, society will experience one transending orgasim, and the state will just wither away tells me two main things about you. You have a very poor grasp of human history and no grasp of psychology.

I will state the obvious. Once someone has power, they don't give it up willingly. As for politics, when you get to the extreme left, communisim, or extreme right, facisim, they look identical. They are identical. Their army's may have different uniforms, but thats the only difference. Any dictatorship will often talk about "the masses". More ignorance. Just who the hell do you think the masses are? Their a bunch of INDIVIDUALS holding a meeting. Lenin took it a step farther with his comment; "the end justifies the means". Demegods of the world unite. (At least the Russians at last stuck that f***** in the ground where he belongs.)

Under Stalin tens of millions died, most worked to death. (It is telling that the only world leader that put one over on Stalin was Hitler). And lets not forget Mao and his little red book which should have been shoved up his little red, well you know. We will never know how many of his own people Mao killed. Estimates run to as high as 40 million. In the sixties Mao bragged his country could absorb a full scale nuclear attack from both the US and USSR. The death toll would exceed 300 million. Mao is reported to have said who cares? I still have more then enough to take over the world. (I'm not making this up).

In a previous occupation I spent some time in Eastern Europe. Most of the time in Bulgaria and Romania. I wasen't there as a tourist. I saw how those people lived. Every one was worried about some one dropping the dime on them. Parents diden't trust their own children, and children diden't trust their parents. My God, what a horrible way to live. People diden't care about there being nothing in the stores. They worried about that knock at the door. Thats a snapshot of Communisim. Or replace the word communisim with dictatorship. It's all the same. As always, please forgive spelling errors.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 06:58 PM
Communism is lovely in theory, but never works in practise. People are naturally greedy, and there will always be people that want more than others.

In communist countries such as North Korea we see the government saying that the wealth has been distributed evenly etc. when really the leaders live in luxury whilst the people live in poverty.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 07:03 PM
Just to answer the question "is communism good"?

Well, no it is not. Communism has proven to be bad, bad, bad. Oh, I know there are those who cry that capitalism is bad too and they are here in this thread saying how terrible it all is and this, that and the other. Pleaes keep in mind that you are typing on a keyboard which is the direct result of capitalism. If mankind was entirely hobbled to communism it would stagnate.


posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 07:16 PM
Communism is not pure communism until there is no need for government, and people live in a utopia.

That's according to Mr. Marx.

In principle, it's fantastic, and I'm sure many other civilizations have some kind of communist type of government, but unless the entire world is communist, and corruption is gone; it will fail.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 07:18 PM
reply to post by arbiture
You know, I agree with much that you just posted, but I have to say I dont believe you have read Das Kapital. At most, I suspect you've seen a few quotes & then read into them what you were taught at an American high school.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 07:33 PM
reply to post by paraphi

Pleaes keep in mind that you are typing on a keyboard which is the direct result of capitalism.
Well, capitalism did do its best to stifle the personal computer revolution, in the form of IBM. Regardless, the net itself is a product of US govt funded research at DARPA & handed over to the world free & html was created by Tim Berners-Lee at CERN & also given to us for free.

If mankind was entirely hobbled to communism it would stagnate.
I agree. The operative word tho is "entirely". A command economy approach to strategic provision of essentials has always proved more successful than the patchwork that results from leaving them to private enterprise & then having to subsidise provision in unprofitable areas, or go without.

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 07:52 PM
I believe in a communistic society, but it's bound to fail due to "human nature."

There's potential for a pure communist world, but that potential is extremely low due to humanity being "preconditioned" currently. Everyone is preconditioned to believe money/materialism is everything and be a service of self. With these assets communism will fail inevitably. To think communism can strive in a world that's on the path of serving self is completely idiotic to believe.

The best option to have is to start a pure communist civilization, and show by example how far a communist economic system can progress humanity. The second option is to precondition humanity to being entities that's on the path to serving others generally, which will take centuries to accomplish. Convincing the general public that their way of life is controlling and leading them to an abyss of darkness, is nearly inconceivable to accomplish.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by GrandKitaro777]

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in