Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)

Is communism as bad as people say

1356710

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,159 ✭✭✭✭ Danzy


    Innately altruistic as well.


    They'll give to others what they wouldn't give to themselves.



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,560 ✭✭✭✭ Wanderer78


    we ve clearly just taken a wrong turn with capitalism, it wasnt doing too bad before this turn, problematic of course, we clearly need to create a new form of capatalism, and fast, or we re probably fcuked!



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,304 ✭✭✭ The J Stands for Jay


    We've had 40 years to solve the wrong turn. We're stuck with at at this stage.



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,560 ✭✭✭✭ Wanderer78


    i call bulls1t on this one, we ve reinvented capatalism many times, it can be done, we just need to have the will and just do it, many still dont realise and understand that we just took this wrong turn, you d be surprised by the amount of people that bring such arguments towards some baffling debates over captalism v's communism v's socialism v's........... we ve actually been encouraging this form of capitalism, willing it on, ever since its creation, its also disturbing to see the amount of people that beleive capitalism has always been like this, no it hasnt!



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,304 ✭✭✭ The J Stands for Jay


    And there you've explained why we're stuck with it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 26,560 ✭✭✭✭ Wanderer78


    ...but we re actually not, many have realised this situation, many are currently working on what we can do next, where we can go with this, where we want to go with this, and those numbers are actually growing, hopefully we can continue to grow these numbers, and just make it happen, humanity is highly dynamic, we re always in a constant state of flux and change



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,581 ✭✭✭ whippet


    what Communism fails to address is the reality of risk and reward. If everyone gets the same level of reward then there will no reason to risk anything ... why risk a lifetime of being a doctor and all the stress that comes with it if you can work in a coffee shop for the same reward?

    Since the evolution of humans risk and reward were always in play - crossing a body of water to see what rewards are on the other side, chasing a wild animal to kill for reward of better food.

    As someone mentioned earlier - Communism is still a theory which has had no successful practice .. while capitalism isn't a utopia at the moment it is better than any practicing communist experiment which we have seen.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭ growleaves


    If you're referring to the "theory of Communism" in Marx and Engels, the rationales for resentment, mass lethal violence, abandonment of any ordinary morality in favour of class struggle etc are all baked into the cake.

    The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, libertarian socialism would not be experienced as good "in practice" unless you jettison Marxism.

    Also we seem to ignore how degraded we are in our system now, especially since 2020.

    We have scapegoating, rule by decree, student fanatics using political ideology to drain joy from life, resentment, cancelling, lockdowns, "equity" (redistribution of wealth as 'racial justice' for crimes historical or imagined), demonisation of 'white males', exclusion of unvaccinated from parts of society, mass surveillance, digital lockout systems etc., etc.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,466 ✭✭✭✭ Thelonious Monk


    The current system we live in is a one way ticket to the planet being totally destroyed, and wars over resources. As much as communism didn't work in the past, our current system isn't working either if you take the limitations of the planet into account, even though for now we have charmed lives what we are doing to the world and how we are managing things will come home to roost sooner or later.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,693 ✭✭✭✭ jmayo


    There is nothing that can't be explained via cows.

    This is especially to pi** off the greens.


    WORLD IDEOLOGIES EXPLAINED BY REFERENCE TO COWS

    FEUDALISM

    You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

    SOCIALISM

    You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn

    with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The

    government gives you a glass of milk.

    FASCISM

    You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of

    them, and sells you the milk.

    PURE COMMUNISM

    You share two cows with your neighbors. You and your neighbors bicker

    about who has the most "ability" and who has the most "need". Meanwhile,

    no one works, no one gets any milk, and the cows drop dead of

    starvation.

    RUSSIAN COMMUNISM

    You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government

    takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it

    on the black market.

    PERESTROIKA

    You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the Mafia takes

    all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the

    "free" market.

    STALIN'S COMMUNISM

    There is a five year plan to agree how to deal with cows. The secret police take your two cows and leaves you to starve. If you disagree they shoot you and send your family to a gulag. The secret policemen are then shot by other secret policemen and the cows are shot because they saw it all.

    (Btw this is my own one)

    CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM

    You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.

    DICTATORSHIP

    You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

    PURE DEMOCRACY

    You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

    REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY

    You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the

    milk.

    BUREAUCRACY

    You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed

    them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then

    it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the

    drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the

    missing cows. HELLO EU.

    CAPITALISM

    You don't have any cows. The bank will not lend you money to buy cows,

    because you don't have any cows to put up as collateral.

    PURE ANARCHY

    You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your

    neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.

    ANARCHO-CAPITALISM

    You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

    Irish Green Party (another one of my own)

    All cows are got rid of because they create methane and are going to ruin the world. People can drink almond milk because it is vegan, even though almond production is huge drain on water resources around the world.

    People can eat soya derivative products instead of beef even though soya is grown on land that was once rainforest. Anyway no one will be living in the countryside to raise cows as the countryside will be full of bears and wolves. Plus side is that the bears and wolves will have to start eating all those greens out cycling of a weekend.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,651 ✭✭✭ Yurt2


    One of the many myths about communism.

    A doctor did not not get paid the same as someone sweeping the floor of tractor factory in Kharkiv.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11 Fergall


    If we had true equality, not some false sense of equality based on race/gender then I'm certain people would have more respect for one another.



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,560 ✭✭✭✭ Wanderer78




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,570 ✭✭✭ joseywhales


    Capitalism has been and is very successful. Never has life been better. That's not to say there isn't death disease and despair out there but there is relatively less than there has ever been. People's expectations have grown exponentially with humanity's success, so naturally we need to keep evolving to satiate our unstoppable greed. We are hitting issues with how sustainable our eco system is. We will adapt and overcome this too, even if we are all walking around in biohazard suits living on soilent green. Humans are very robust and adaptable, like big intelligent rats, we will always survive somewhere unless there is a cosmic event outside of our control.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,565 ✭✭✭ patnor1011


    They never are. However, that does not mean they do not want to impose it on you. :)



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,560 ✭✭✭✭ Wanderer78


    theres a strong possibility our ego's of invincibility could becoming untrue!



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,045 ✭✭✭ Brussels Sprout


    Like a lot of things in the political arena this new found "red scare" is firmly rooted in American politics. Politicians like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would be considered relatively centrist by European standards but the political spectrum is so warped over there that they are slandered as "communists" and "marxists" because they are in favour of things like universal public healthcare and not letting corporations run roughshod over the people.

    It's reductive and lazy in the extreme but guess what - it works! Most American voters have no idea of the nuances of political ideology. For them it's an easy sell that the only alternative to their current system of rampant, oligarchic capitalism are totalitarians regimes such as Cuba and Venezuela. Nobody ever talks about the "horrors" of Denmark and Norway. Also for a lot of Americans there is a deep suspicion and arrogance when it comes to anything foreign. For them, whatever America does is automatically the greatest. Paradoxically these Americans will often most likely state that American "is going in the wrong direction" but they'll be more likely to attribute this to "creeping socialism" than to anything else.

    To answer the actual question - Communism was a lofty ideal but it turns out that it's impossible for humans to implement it and thrive due to the way that we are psychologically hard-wired. As that great sage Homer Simpson remarked : "In theory Marge. In theory Communism works". However when the term is used nowadays it's typically not actually referring to communism but instead to any vaguely redistributive policies or government actions such as regulations that would curtail large corporations or wealthy individuals.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭ growleaves


    Soylent green is people (ie. cannibalism). I wouldn't call becoming a cannibal and wearing a hazmat suit permanently overcoming and adapting.

    All contemporary leftist political visions are wholly bleak and anti-utopian, and based on either catastrophising or systems of resentment leading to redistribution.





  • Doubtful, because human nature interferes. Humans are essentially tribal. They form groups and allegiances, seeking power/influence so that they can benefit their preferred group. In any kind of competitive environment, outsider groups will be seen as threats, marginalised or demonised to reinforce that they're not worthy of being of that group, and so, it's excusable to take from them, to benefit your own group.

    At every point in human history, irrespective of the ideology in place, whether that was communism, capitalism, socialism or a mix of them, you can see the same sense of behavior played out. Invariably, leaders emerge with the backing of various groups, which promote the viewpoints and values of a selection of groups, enforcing their views on the overall population.

    In any case, to enforce the idea of true equality, you would need to have a government system willing and able to force the population to comply, which in itself, would remove equality, because that government would seek to protect itself. It's the reason that democracies are failing after a hundred years of implementation. Politicians seek to gain more influence/power for their groups, decreasing the influence/power of the electorate and protecting/elevating their own profession at the same time. The public service, under the government, becomes bloated and receives a range of benefits hidden from the general public, due to the procedures/organisation that becomes more convoluted over time.

    I had some hope for an equal society in terms of gender and race when I was a teenager/young adult (late 80s/90s). That hope is gone completely, because every time equality is approached, the desire remains to punish for what went before, guaranteeing more rights/benefits for the previously disadvantaged group in the name of equality.... while retaining the label as being a victim. Regardless of the changes, and advantages extended in society, that "disadvantaged" group remains deserving of support... and the case of double standards are embraced.

    Simply put, while individuals may want equality, groups don't. They want advantages specific to themselves. That's basic human nature, and a continuance of the tribal aspect.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,570 ✭✭✭ joseywhales


    I don't think either democracies or capitalism is failing. I means look at the quality of life in western democracies, it's never been better. The noise is just that and at least if I hear some noise I know we have the freedom to express ourselves, even if I believe the content is mostly nonsense.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    When people talk about free healthcare and education in Cuba... how do they convince themselves that it's literally free?!



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,560 ✭✭✭✭ Wanderer78


    ...and this is where the disconnect begins, western democracies have actually been in serious trouble, ever since the implementation of this form of capitalism, as we have gravitated towards more plutocratic rule and control throughout this period, and still are



  • Registered Users Posts: 998 ✭✭✭ dublin49


    Communism hopelessly tries to contain man's greed and Capitalism very successfully celebrates it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,560 ✭✭✭✭ Wanderer78




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,570 ✭✭✭ joseywhales


    How does one measure merit objectively? Capitalism does reward merit in that the flow of capital will go toward the asset that returns greater capital which objectively proves it's merit. How are we to ensure efficient allocation of resources without capitalism. I can only see conflict of interest and corruption in any other system. Unless we all agree to be governed by an artificial intelligence we will always have some corruption. It is true that the wealthy have greater influence politically but at the end of the day we still have universal suffrage, the right to protest, the freedom of expression and an independent judiciary(not in us or Poland apparently). The average person now, not just the wealthy, has objectively a better life than throughout history(based on prevalence of conflict, disease, slavery, free time, access to education). Life is terrible but it has never been better.



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,560 ✭✭✭✭ Wanderer78


    ...its amazing the amount of people that will jump in and announce all sorts of statements and logic, without actually being able to see whats occurring in reality, we ve clearly entered a period of capitalism thats highly dysfunctional, and not doing exact what it says on the tin, we re all starting to experience the almost exact same problems, highly dysfunctional property markets, to the point a growing number of people are simply unable to gain access to this critical need, and also highly dysfunctional health care systems, these two entities alone are a major sign, something isnt going right. a common failure in such debates is the default towards comparisons to the historical past, of which many of the facts shared, are actually true, but a severe inability to see our now reality!



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,581 ✭✭✭ whippet


    in other words there was no equality - so it wasn’t communism as per the theory.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭ JimmyVik


    I have several friends who lived under communism in different countries. Not one of them has a good thing to say about communism.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,570 ✭✭✭ joseywhales


    If we do not use history to set expectations then what do we measure against? I hope it's not what we imagine it should be like in theory. Implementation is the hard part. A lot of people can't afford a modern house, that doesn't surprise me. A lot of people are stuck on long wait lists waiting for medical treatment. These things were never guaranteed. But objective metrics suggest that life is better now than throughout history. Apparently historical comparison is invalid for some reason.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 937 ✭✭✭ bob mcbob


    I agree that there is wealth inequality and a concentration of wealth is a huge problem but communism is not the answer.

    I think that the answer to this problem is already known but it is too difficult for politicians to implement as it would lead to wealth flight.

    Watch the documentary "Capital in the 21st Century" from. the book by Thomas Pinketty

    The book's central thesis is that when the rate of return on capital (r) is greater than the rate of economic growth (g) over the long term, the result is concentration of wealth, and this unequal distribution of wealth causes social and economic instability. Piketty proposes a global system of progressive wealth taxes to help reduce inequality and avoid the vast majority of wealth coming under the control of a tiny minority.

    However, at the end of 2014, Piketty released a paper where he stated that he does not consider the relationship between the rate of return on capital and the rate of economic growth as the only or primary tool for considering changes in income and wealth inequality. He also noted that r > g is not a useful tool for the discussion of rising inequality of labor income.[2]



Advertisement