Communism being good?

Okay, so at my college, my prof of economics began discussing the effects of communism and the terrible things that it brought along with it. After hearing that, my friend turned to me and began to argue against that and stated that if communism were to be executed better, it could actually be better for society as a whole (not thinking about the individual Entrepreneur or business). Thinking about it, if EVERY country adopted and implemented the theory of Communism with some tweeks, we might just be better. Yea, a lot of rich people (upper 1% of the world the own most of the world's money) would not be happy at all. But all the people dying from starvation and malnutrition would be better off with this. So taking into account on the humanitarian good that it could bring into the world, what is your opinion on this?

Alright, now I'm back.

Firstly, hahahah predictable -rep from the peanut gallery (let's get that out of the way). Okay, let's dig in.

colombian wrote:After hearing that, my friend turned to me and began to argue against that and stated that if communism were to be executed better, it could actually be better for society as a whole (not thinking about the individual Entrepreneur or business).

Well yeah, sure. And if Capitalism were executed better it too could be better for society as a whole. Congratulations, you just learned what idealism is.

colombian wrote:Thinking about it, if EVERY country adopted and implemented the theory of Communism with some tweeks, we might just be better.

What would countries such as the US, Europe, etc gain from switching over to Communism?
What tweeks would they create?
How do you make every single country, all with various backgrounds, fit under one ideological label?

colombian wrote:Yea, a lot of rich people (upper 1% of the world the own most of the world's money) would not be happy at all.

Understatement of the year considering Communism pursues a moneyless society and a redistribution of land/resources.

colombian wrote:But all the people dying from starvation and malnutrition would be better off with this.

How? This cannot be your premise, it is so flimsy I could easily dismiss it and this thread would be over. There will always be starving people, regardless of your ideology. Saying that changing everyone to Communism would make everything better is wishful thinking at best.

Why would they be better off?
How would this compare to pure Capitalism?

colombian wrote:So taking into account on the humanitarian good that it could bring into the world

Woah, woah, woah that's a pretty far leap. You merely stated that it would, you never proved anything.

Please make a follow up post and start citing sources or there will be more problems than answers in this thread.

Communism isnt a system that works without given certain people absolute power to get rid of people who arent as faithful to the ideology. And absolute power means no real equalism.

Sure it seems nice, but every single person in the world would have to think this was the way to go, for it to actually have a chance of working

My grandparents and my parents both lived at the time when our country has been under communism regime. They all say living at those times were fantastic compared to how it is nowdays.

Basically almost every person that lived in those times said communism was way better.

I can't say which system is better as I have no personal experience with communism but I can pretty much say capitalism is shit.

I think that capitalism is violating human rights but in more hidden way while communism did that in a more direct way.

Broeder wrote:Communism isnt a system that works without given certain people absolute power to get rid of people who arent as faithful to the ideology.

Which is to say, power will always rise in a void of it. Russia is an example of this, as without a central power people like Stalin took power.

Broeder wrote:Sure it seems nice, but every single person in the world would have to think this was the way to go, for it to actually have a chance of working

Which is why it wouldn't. The world is too diverse for such a thing to happen. Pure ideology isn't something you can cookie-cutter into every single country.

Julij2 wrote:My grandparents and my parents both lived at the time when our country has been under communism regime. They all say living at those times were fantastic compared to how it is nowdays.

Basically almost every person that lived in those times said communism was way better.

"My long lost grandparents both lived at the time when [x] country had been under a communism regime. They all say living at those times were completely HORRID compared to how it is nowdays.

Basically almost every person that lived in those times said communism was way worse."

See how anecdotes are faulty when they're just opinions?

Julij2 wrote:I can't say which system is better as I have no personal experience with communism but I can pretty much say capitalism is shit.

Citation needed.

Communism claims that every man on Earth owns everything in joint ownership with each other. Basically, all matter and life is owned equally and the labor production is controlled by a group of people working at an equal level. The problem most people have with this is that it collapses the hierarchy and makes a median for everyone. This isn't truly a negative thing, as Communism also believes in abolishing currency because they feel that wage slavery (that is, making money is the only way to survive) is a result of fiat currencies.

However Communism completely overlooks what Broeder mentioned, that power will always rise when there is no one there to fill the roles of decision makers. Mass ownership of everything is extremely difficult because every single thing would have to be accepted by the group. You can then see that this is where the varying countries would diverge on their belief in what should happen. There is no way that everyone will go the same way on everything, so you would have to have a group of people manage the assets while the majority opinion is found. This management group has filled the void now, and this leads to further problems because they now won't just give up their positions.

Julij2 wrote:I think that capitalism is violating human rights but in more hidden way while communism did that in a more direct way.

Citation needed.

I really don't want to have to bring out that list of "how many people has Communism" killed because that premise is entirely faulty. It blames an ideology for the actions of humans, much like you are doing now.

JIGL0JAY wrote:Alright, now I'm back.

Firstly, hahahah predictable -rep (let's get that out of the way). Okay, let's dig in.

colombian wrote:After hearing that, my friend turned to me and began to argue against that and stated that if communism were to be executed better, it could actually be better for society as a whole (not thinking about the individual Entrepreneur or business).

Well yeah, sure. And if Capitalism were executed better it too could be better for society as a whole. Congratulations, you just learned what idealism is.

colombian wrote:Thinking about it, if EVERY country adopted and implemented the theory of Communism with some tweeks, we might just be better.

What would countries such as the US, Europe, etc gain from switching over to Communism?
What tweeks would they create?
How do you make every single country, all with various backgrounds, fit under one ideological label?

colombian wrote:Yea, a lot of rich people (upper 1% of the world the own most of the world's money) would not be happy at all.

Understatement of the year considering Communism pursues a moneyless society and a redistribution of land/resources.

colombian wrote:But all the people dying from starvation and malnutrition would be better off with this.

How? This cannot be your premise, it is so flimsy I could easily dismiss it and this thread would be over. There will always be starving people, regardless of your ideology. Saying that changing everyone to Communism would make everything better is wishful thinking at best.

Why would they be better off?
How would this compare to pure Capitalism?

colombian wrote:So taking into account on the humanitarian good that it could bring into the world

Woah, woah, woah that's a pretty far leap. You merely stated that it would, you never proved anything.

Please make a follow up post and start citing sources or there will be more problems than answers in this thread.

First of all I didn't -Rep you.. I don't do that for arguments.. If I made a dumb comment then that's on me.. Idc if people (you) are harsh about it.. You can choose to believe me or not it's up to you.. also i actually +repped u.. And two, I will make a new post answering the questions posed for me in a little cause I have school right now. But expect me back =)

JIGL0JAY wrote:

Broeder wrote:Communism isnt a system that works without given certain people absolute power to get rid of people who arent as faithful to the ideology.

Which is to say, power will always rise in a void of it. Russia is an example of this, as without a central power people like Stalin took power.

Broeder wrote:Sure it seems nice, but every single person in the world would have to think this was the way to go, for it to actually have a chance of working

Which is why it wouldn't. The world is too diverse for such a thing to happen. Pure ideology isn't something you can cookie-cutter into every single country.

Julij2 wrote:My grandparents and my parents both lived at the time when our country has been under communism regime. They all say living at those times were fantastic compared to how it is nowdays.

Basically almost every person that lived in those times said communism was way better.

"My long lost grandparents both lived at the time when [x] country had been under a communism regime. They all say living at those times were completely HORRID compared to how it is nowdays.

Basically almost every person that lived in those times said communism was way worse."

See how anecdotes are faulty when they're just opinions?

Julij2 wrote:I can't say which system is better as I have no personal experience with communism but I can pretty much say capitalism is shit.

Citation needed.

Communism claims that every man on Earth owns everything in joint ownership with each other. Basically, all matter and life is owned equally and the labor production is controlled by a group of people working at an equal level. The problem most people have with this is that it collapses the hierarchy and makes a median for everyone. This isn't truly a negative thing, as Communism also believes in abolishing currency because they feel that wage slavery (that is, making money is the only way to survive) is a result of fiat currencies.

However Communism completely overlooks what Broeder mentioned, that power will always rise when there is no one there to fill the roles of decision makers. Mass ownership of everything is extremely difficult because every single thing would have to be accepted by the group. You can then see that this is where the varying countries would diverge on their belief in what should happen. There is no way that everyone will go the same way on everything, so you would have to have a group of people manage the assets while the majority opinion is found. This management group has filled the void now, and this leads to further problems because they now won't just give up their positions.

Julij2 wrote:I think that capitalism is violating human rights but in more hidden way while communism did that in a more direct way.

Citation needed.

I really don't want to have to bring out that list of "how many people has Communism" killed because that premise is entirely faulty. It blames an ideology for the actions of humans, much like you are doing now.

nwo if kn ow what a compmeng fuckta g you +'re

I should start off by saying that communism in china and russia was not even communism at all, it didn't follow the ideas of marx even in the slightest. if true communism were implemented today we'd see a lot less problems. this system we have now is the polar opposite of communism, where the rich rule rather than the working class.

true communism suggests that there be no money, and no classes, and that the working people rule rather than the rich 1%, this would be the best system for an advanced civilization.

attk master wrote:I should start off by saying that communism in china and russia was not even communism at all, it didn't follow the ideas of marx even in the slightest.

I would like to say that while it may not have followed Marx, Stalinism is a form of collectivism that I would like to point out remains as a negative example. I in no way believe that there is some sort of group of people under one flag of ideology that can be classified as something specific, so I just wanted to point that out as my position.

attk master wrote:if true communism were implemented today we'd see a lot less problems. this system we have now is the polar opposite of communism, where the rich rule rather than the working class.

The problem is that "true communism" doesn't exist. Me telling you that I would want to pursue true capitalism in America means so very little that it's not worth noting. So why say you want to pursue true communism? It just won't happen. The difference is that you can strive towards a macro political and economic entity, but you can never reach it without strangling liberty.

attk master wrote:true communism suggests that there be no money, and no classes, and that the working people rule rather than the rich 1%, this would be the best system for an advanced civilization.

And now we reach a point (or rather, points) that I would like to debate with you about.

Firstly, let's talk about "no money". Abolition of money is abolition, plain and simple. Abolition of a good, commodity, service, etc does not make it any less likely to have. The government (or an entity standing as the government which completely flies in the face of your second comment about no classes) has to step in to enforce the prohibition of anything. But that is just a small pain compared to the bigger problem: Without money, things don't have value. Now, I am a proponent of resource backed currency rather than fiat currencies. Both of these things have value, regardless of how arbitrary they are. With an abolition of money, there is no value.

The reason a currency system was invented was that there was a common median of exchange in which things could be moved across. The abolition of currency means that the value is to whomever sets it. The quasi-government that would be created in the vacuum of a removal of classes would be the ones setting the value, as they would have to claim the resources (remember, again, that if everyone has claim to everything equally, the amount of disagreements over what belongs to who would be endless). If money exists, production flows even if the government regulates it or it's in a black market. The abolition of money would be an absolute negative as even with an abolishing of fiat currencies, you have to have a median of exchange. In this generation, there is no way for us to fall back on a barter system. With a removal of a fiat currency, something else would take its place (such as BitCoins or other type of item/good/resource).

As a final point for this post, I can agree with your point about a classless society. I am not actually much of a macroeconomics type of person. I see the school of Capitalism and Individualism as a better school of thought, but I also see that Capitalism has its share of bad roots. I believe that macroeconomics is too easily manipulated by the State at large, and that the only way to perfect a smaller system is to live it at a micro level. Here is a link to the wikipedia page for Agorism, I recommend it for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism

JIGL0JAY wrote:

attk master wrote:I should start off by saying that communism in china and russia was not even communism at all, it didn't follow the ideas of marx even in the slightest.

I would like to say that while it may not have followed Marx, Stalinism is a form of collectivism that I would like to point out remains as a negative example. I in no way believe that there is some sort of group of people under one flag of ideology that can be classified as something specific, so I just wanted to point that out as my position.

attk master wrote:if true communism were implemented today we'd see a lot less problems. this system we have now is the polar opposite of communism, where the rich rule rather than the working class.

The problem is that "true communism" doesn't exist. Me telling you that I would want to pursue true capitalism in America means so very little that it's not worth noting. So why say you want to pursue true communism? It just won't happen. The difference is that you can strive towards a macro political and economic entity, but you can never reach it without strangling liberty.

attk master wrote:true communism suggests that there be no money, and no classes, and that the working people rule rather than the rich 1%, this would be the best system for an advanced civilization.

And now we reach a point (or rather, points) that I would like to debate with you about.

Firstly, let's talk about "no money". Abolition of money is abolition, plain and simple. Abolition of a good, commodity, service, etc does not make it any less likely to have. The government (or an entity standing as the government which completely flies in the face of your second comment about no classes) has to step in to enforce the prohibition of anything. But that is just a small pain compared to the bigger problem: Without money, things don't have value. Now, I am a proponent of resource backed currency rather than fiat currencies. Both of these things have value, regardless of how arbitrary they are. With an abolition of money, there is no value.

The reason a currency system was invented was that there was a common median of exchange in which things could be moved across. The abolition of currency means that the value is to whomever sets it. The quasi-government that would be created in the vacuum of a removal of classes would be the ones setting the value, as they would have to claim the resources (remember, again, that if everyone has claim to everything equally, the amount of disagreements over what belongs to who would be endless). If money exists, production flows even if the government regulates it or it's in a black market. The abolition of money would be an absolute negative as even with an abolishing of fiat currencies, you have to have a median of exchange. In this generation, there is no way for us to fall back on a barter system. With a removal of a fiat currency, something else would take its place (such as BitCoins or other type of item/good/resource).

As a final point for this post, I can agree with your point about a classless society. I am not actually much of a macroeconomics type of person. I see the school of Capitalism and Individualism as a better school of thought, but I also see that Capitalism has its share of bad roots. I believe that macroeconomics is too easily manipulated by the State at large, and that the only way to perfect a smaller system is to live it at a micro level. Here is a link to the wikipedia page for Agorism, I recommend it for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism

true communism/capitalism/etc. may be hard to achieve, but it is possible to achieve. if money were to be abolished the value of things won't disappear, i would pay a lot for gold if i were to need it to make an electrical component because i know gold is a very good conductor. the resourced base money system is a very good system, much better than fiat money, we really should go back to that. capitalism is an extremely powerful and effective system, better than communism if implemented correctly, individualism should always be a right as well, even in communistic society. agorism is a good system, but i don't see it being able to do betetr than capitalism, agorism on a micro-scale would be a great thing, maybe if a mixed agorism-capitalism system were implemented then we may have less issues.

i really need to start capitalizing things...but i'm too lazy. XD

attk master wrote:true communism/capitalism/etc. may be hard to achieve, but it is possible to achieve.

I'm sorry to say that you're only deceiving yourself if you believe that. The reason there is a "true" there is because "true" is replaceable with "pure" and the thing is, there is no way for a pure ideology to exist outside of hypotheticals. Too many factors play into ideology that would corrupt it. Parental hierarchy, natural resources (or lack thereof), previous leaderships, and political neighbors all play roles into ideology and can potentially crack any structure in place.

attk master wrote:if money were to be abolished the value of things won't disappear, i would pay a lot for gold if i were to need it to make an electrical component because i know gold is a very good conductor.

Now, you just contradicted yourself because gold at one time was, in fact, a currency of itself. The value of things doesn't disappear in terms of how people perceive them, but the monetary value for them disappears and is left with only the value that people place on it with their own items.

Consider what you just said: "I would pay a lot for gold". What would you pay for your gold with if currency were to be eliminated tonight. What resources or items do you have that would pay for gold? This is purely rhetorical, as not everyone has the resources or items to do business every day and so the whole plan falls apart purely on a macro scale.

attk master wrote:the resourced base money system is a very good system, much better than fiat money, we really should go back to that.

100% agree.

attk master wrote:capitalism is an extremely powerful and effective system, better than communism if implemented correctly

I don't think you understand that you're right now comparing two opposite ends of the political spectrum and saying one would be good, but the other would be better.

attk master wrote:individualism should always be a right as well, even in communistic society.

I'm sorry to tell you but Communism, Socialism, and any other form of collective society is the antithesis to individualism. You can tell from the grouping of ideology "collectivism" that there is a focus on the collective.

attk master wrote:agorism is a good system, but i don't see it being able to do betetr than capitalism

How so? Agorism is a market anarchism which is to say a belief in the free market. Capitalists believe in free markets as well. Communists, on the other hand, do not. It is not my call to push someone one way or the other, but your posts appear to be a bit of a flip-flop between two different CONFLICTING political/economic ideas. Communism is a net negative no matter how you look at it.

Please answer my points about monetary policy, I don't think a discussion of Agorism is conducive to this thread's topic and I apologize for referencing it.

A lot of people show hated towards communism due to the socialist states that have existed such as the USSR. However the USSR did not even properly follow the original theory from where communism developed from which is from Karl Marx himself. The ideology in USSR was different to that and was only to benefit the communist party (Bolsheviks) as a whole. They can be interpreted as Stalinism/Lenninsm. The ideology kept on changing throughout the whole period of the USSR (from NEP to Collectivisation to Khrushchev Peaceful Co-Existence). In Marx's theory, Russia wasn't even ready for Communism as it a revolution of the Proletariat comes from a highly industrialised state.

I actually admire Lenin and how he brought about the Revolution in Russia to change the society as a whole. I just believe Communism is portrayed in a very negative light due to the events that have happened in the past. Karl Marx's initial theory of it was for the benefiting of society by achieving total equality. However Stalinism differed from that.

To be fair state control can lead to better efficiency of the economy and and for the country as whole. But the main problem is that who is to say the next leader would be good compared to the last one? That is the one major flaw.

As people say, Democracy isn't the greatest... but it is the next best alternative

Julij2 wrote:

I think that capitalism is violating human rights but in more hidden way while communism did that in a more direct way.

Define human rights.

Chief wrote:

Julij2 wrote:

I think that capitalism is violating human rights but in more hidden way while communism did that in a more direct way.

Define human rights.

According to Wikipedia, Human rights are "commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone). These rights may exist as natural rights or as legal rights, in local, regional, national, and international law.

Sorry, I didn't think it through when i said define human rights. I meant to say give me examples. I'd like to see what people think citizens have as "rights".