Communism?

[nerdvincent]

I wanted to know: what is the problem with communism? It doesn't sound a bad idea to me. I said communism, not marxism or maoism.

[shrike]

Quote by: nerdvincent I wanted to know: what is the problem with communism? It doesn't sound a bad idea to me. I said communism, not marxism or maoism.

It cannot be implemented.

[Dieval]

Quote by: nerdvincent I wanted to know: what is the problem with communism? It doesn't sound a bad idea to me. I said communism, not marxism or maoism.

Why don't you explain to us why you don't think it's a bad idea?

[HelioPrime]

There is nothing wrong with an ideal of government and society.

What is wrong is people's reaction and view of any policy. Some people do not want a society where everyone has equal access to basic services provided for by their taxes.

[Objectivist]

There are several different variants of communism. What they all share in common is the goal of a classless and stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production.

The goal is to create a society that owns everything, can give people anything they need, and to stop one group of people control another group of people.

What they share is the theory of collectivism.

Collectivism is a theory that advocates collective thought, collective action, etc. It holds the collective (whether it is society, the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, etc.) as the standard unit of value.

The problem with this type of standard of value is that it ignores one vital fact. The fact that individuals comprise the collective and that the collective will not survive without the individuals that comprise it (but individuals themselves can survive without the collective).

Collectivism means the subjugation of the individuals to the group. It sacrifices the actions, the products, the brains of every individual it is comprised of to the collective.

Men have no inherit rights. Men only have the rights the collective gives them. Men have no right to live for themselves (they must live for the state). Men have no right to pure liberty (they only have the amount of liberty the state gives them). Men have no right to the pursuit of their own happiness (they only have the right to support and maintain the state).

Communism overlooks the fact that individuals are the source of everything good in this world. There is no such thing as a collective brain or a collective body. Another person cannot think for you. Another person cannot live for you. But that is what communism tries to accomplish.

Communism doesn't work because it is in conflict with reality.

[simple simon]

Quote by: nerdvincent I wanted to know: what is the problem with communism? It doesn't sound a bad idea to me. I said communism, not marxism or maoism.

communism [ˈkomjunizəm] noun (often with capital) a system of government under which there is no private industry and (in some forms) no private property, most things being state-owned comunism - Definitions from Dictionary.com

seems fairly simple to me to see what's wrong with that .... some in the US complain their 'rights' are being infringed upon ...... how about we go to a communist regime and see how they like it

[Rainbow]

Quote by: nerdvincent I wanted to know: what is the problem with communism? It doesn't sound a bad idea to me. I said communism, not marxism or maoism.

There is no problem with Communism.
Communism is even better than Democracy. However, it is the most suitable system on paper, as well as Democracy :-)
Enjoy whatever it is being called. Others have much worse one :-)))

[Got-Logic]

Political philosophy depends logically on a proper moral code of ethics. Communism advocates and requires the sacrifice of the individual to the collective. Communism does not recognize individual rights, meaning all property is owned by the state. To be clear, essentially the state owns your life, the standard from which all other rights are derived. The policies that develop as a result of accepting collectivism as a proper moral code devastate any incentives for individual productive achievement. Philosophically one must accept altruism as the moral ideal to promote collectivism. Altruism, does not mean benevolence, it does not mean to be nice and friendly to others. Altruism means “Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness” (Dictionary.com). Morality depends on an epistemological foundation. Fundamentally, epistemology askes the question; how does one know? Rationally speaking, there has never been a defense for altruism as a proper moral code. Epistemology depends on a correct metaphysical base. All knowledge, facts, and consequences depend on three basic axioms: Existence, identity, and consciousness. Collectivism implies sacrifice, where there is sacrifice there is someone collecting the sacrifices. Such is the society of slaves and masters. This is why collectivism and communism are in conflict with freedom and individualism. Communism reverses the laws of reality and the laws of nature, those who do not produce are rewarded, and those who produce are supporting the unproductive. Need, becomes a claim on the lives of others. There have been many examples of collectivism in the world; the most obvious examples are Soviet Russia, Vietnam, and North Korea. Each country has witnessed an unprecedented level of poverty, and misery. No rational, or moral good can come from accepting slavery in any form.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Objectivist Communism overlooks the fact that individuals are the source of everything good in this world. There is no such thing as a collective brain or a collective body. Another person cannot think for you. Another person cannot live for you. But that is what communism tries to accomplish. Communism doesn't work because it is in conflict with reality.

Yet would people from an eastern upbringing view that as a negative?

When raised in a non linear end result way of thinking the actions of the individual can seem of less importance that the whole group. A society can take on more worth than any single unit within it.

Even the view that individuals produce the results can be seen as the society they live in educates them and allows them to achieve things.

Communism only comes into conflict when it runs into those raised in the belief that the single individual is the greatest unit of existence.

To those of us in the west I think this seems alien because we have a more self centered society. We desire a form of government that allows us to express our own ideals and not be forced to go along with the flow.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Rainbow Communism is even better than Democracy.

...
Communism is about economy, democracy is about the distribution of the power in the state. Can you say that the spoon is even better than the table?
What about a communist direct democracy?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: nerdvincent ... Communism is about economy, democracy is about the distribution of the power in the state.

No. That is not quite correct.
Are you suggesting that a Communist state is not governed ?

[simple simon]

Quote by: Rainbow No. That is not quite correct. Are you suggesting that a Communist state is not governed ?

seems most Communist states in fairly recent history have been 'governed' right into the ground

the Soviet Union gave up and North Korea is hanging on by a thread

[Got-Logic]

Quote by: HelioPrime Yet would people from an eastern upbringing view that as a negative? When raised in a non linear end result way of thinking the actions of the individual can seem of less importance that the whole group. A society can take on more worth than any single unit within it. Even the view that individuals produce the results can be seen as the society they live in educates them and allows them to achieve things. Communism only comes into conflict when it runs into those raised in the belief that the single individual is the greatest unit of existence. To those of us in the west I think this seems alien because we have a more self centered society. We desire a form of government that allows us to express our own ideals and not be forced to go along with the flow.

I think that many people living in the east, are unaware of the benefits of
Capitalism. But, most of them will not deny you, the facts. The reality that most of them have no medical care, are starving, have no electricity, or have a third world standard of living. What produces wealth? What is the motive to produce? The results of communism or the incorrect philosophy are clear. Most people do not understand why they live in such horrible conditions. In a truly free society education is not at the expense of society, individuals have something to gain from an education. And, teachers have something to gain from individuals that wish to be educated. Society as such has no identity, there is only a number of individuals. Individuals must be free to choose to cooperate when it is to their mutual benefit or not. Clearly, if you look at the mixed economies that embrace more capitalism, you see a higher standard of living, and more wealth. Hong Kong is a prime example of this principle.

[Objectivist]

Quote by: HelioPrime Yet would people from an eastern upbringing view that as a negative?

That is the difference between Western and Eastern civilization. There's a reason why the western world has dominated the world for a majority of world's history.

When raised in a non linear end result way of thinking the actions of the individual can seem of less importance that the whole group. A society can take on more worth than any single unit within it.

I agree that individuals working together by choice and without force and coercion, are more productive and successful. Laissez-faire capitalism is such a system.

Under communism however, individuals are sacrificed to the collective through force and coercion. Individuals are forced to support both the strong and the weak, the workers and the bums, the geniuses and the retards...

But realize that the strong can survive without the weak. The worker can survive without the bum. The genius can survive without the retard. But the weakling, the bum, and the retard cannot survive without the the strong, the worker, and the genius.

The world relies upon the producers to make the world a better place. Under communism, the producers are strangled and controlled. And instead of creating a utopia, the opposite happens: Starvation, oppression, and mass murder occur.

Even the view that individuals produce the results can be seen as the society they live in educates them and allows them to achieve things.

The society cannot force the individual to learn and to force his brain to function. The society cannot force the individual to achieve whatever he wants to achieve. Any achievement is produced by some individual that has the will and the determination to achieve.

Communism only comes into conflict when it runs into those raised in the belief that the single individual is the greatest unit of existence.

Communism fails only through the false premises and ideas that it advocates.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: simple simon seems most Communist states in fairly recent history have been 'governed' right into the ground the Soviet Union gave up and North Korea is hanging on by a thread

Despite of onomastics and/or label, the Soviet Union could be called Communist state, hardly. I would rather say that the Soviet Union represented extremely oppresive form of tyranny, dictatorship, muzzling policy, etc. all together combined.
I am afraid there is no single state that we can take as a form of Communism that has emerged (in its real ideological and/or political form), ever.

[gela]

From what I can tell about communism.. the people can't vote in their leaders.
Their leaders are responsible for rationing everything out equaly and fairly.
Their leaders soon become very corrupt.. and so the few high status people get all the money and resources, and the majorit low status people get none.

No sources or links.. its only the assumption I have. I could very well be wrong.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Objectivist There are several different variants of communism. What they all share in common is the goal of a classless and stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production. The goal is to create a society that owns everything, can give people anything they need, and to stop one group of people control another group of people. What they share is the theory of collectivism.

I agree .

Quote by: Objectivist Collectivism is a theory that advocates collective thought, collective action, etc. It holds the collective (whether it is society, the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, etc.) as the standard unit of value.

Wrong. Collectivism is the collectivisation of the means of production and industries. It has nothing to do with uniformisation of the brain or whatever.

Quote by: Objectivist The problem with this type of standard of value is that it ignores one vital fact. The fact that individuals comprise the collective and that the collective will not survive without the individuals that comprise it (but individuals themselves can survive without the collective).

So?

Quote by: Objectivist Collectivism means the subjugation of the individuals to the group. It sacrifices the actions, the products, the brains of every individual it is comprised of to the collective.

We are the collective. Where is the sacrifice?

Quote by: Objectivist Men have no inherit rights. Men only have the rights the collective gives them. Men have no right to live for themselves (they must live for the state). Men have no right to pure liberty (they only have the amount of liberty the state gives them). Men have no right to the pursuit of their own happiness (they only have the right to support and maintain the state).

Oh man I said communism, not stalinism. You just have the right the state gives you, no matter is it's a capitalist or a communist system. You work and you eat, then the State lives, it's the same everywhere. There is no sacrifice of the soul to the state, no matter what Reagan said.

Quote by: Objectivist Communism overlooks the fact that individuals are the source of everything good in this world.

Hey, you wouldn't lose your name for a number, don't worry. Maoism prohibited art and stuff, not communism. You work, you've got money. You don't, well you die. So I consider that you are working for you. When you work in a car factory, do you build your own car? No, you buy it. Same for communism.

Quote by: Objectivist There is no such thing as a collective brain or a collective body. Another person cannot think for you.

There is no democracy?

[GSM:Xtreme]

Quote by: HelioPrime Yet would people from an eastern upbringing view that as a negative? When raised in a non linear end result way of thinking the actions of the individual can seem of less importance that the whole group. A society can take on more worth than any single unit within it.

I agree, and this was demonstrated quite clearly during the Japanese conquest of the Pacific.

Communism only comes into conflict when it runs into those raised in the belief that the single individual is the greatest unit of existence.

Again i agree; people in the western world are raised to come to their own conclusions, to think independently, and to believe their life is worth more than the good of the population (though to a micro- degree, but inevitable in a capitalistic society)

People already have judgments of values of certain careers over others:
"My job as a doctor is more difficult than the garbage man's, so why get the same rewards?"

One can make a perfect analogy to an ant colony. They all do what they have to, whether it be move dirt or tend the babies, when they need to do it. That is because they do not care what their neighbor is doing, they do their part and survive.

This type of isolationism will not work for social-needy humans, but to a degree it can be relevant. People think they know what jobs should be rewarded more than others, but when all people erase those set values, passed down from our fathers and theirs, communism may have a fighting chance.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: gela From what I can tell about communism.. the people can't vote in their leaders. Their leaders are responsible for rationing everything out equaly and fairly. Their leaders soon become very corrupt.. and so the few high status people get all the money and resources, and the majorit low status people get none. No sources or links.. its only the assumption I have. I could very well be wrong.

NO!!!

Soviet Union, Cuba, China and stuff were marxist based. Marxism say there must be a bloody revolution, a dictatorship then a communist state. Well they stuck with the dictatorship, they never really become a full communist system.
The closest country to "true communism" would be, in fact, Norway, the country with the highest HDI in the world.

I'm not, in no possible way, marxist!

We can do a communist democracy as well as we can do a capitalist democracy, and we can do a capitalist dictatorship as well as we can do a communist dictatorship.

COMMUNISM AIN'T STALISNISM

[GSM:Xtreme]

Quote by: nerdvincent Quote by: Objectivist There is no such thing as a collective brain or a collective body. Another person cannot think for you. There is no democracy?

Good rebuttal to a good point run a muck. If you truly want to live with no collective brain or body, I believe the term is anarchist.

According to Lock, (or Hobbs?) people will give up some natural liberties for protection from others, the measure of how much men are willing to give up has many variables though.