Page 2 of 3 [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Has communism done wrong to millions of people?
Yes 64%  64%  [ 29 ]
No 20%  20%  [ 9 ]
Maybe 16%  16%  [ 7 ]
Total votes : 45

BazzaMcKenzie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,495
Location: the Antipodes

26 Sep 2007, 7:17 pm

^^^ Heaven? That would be a theocracy wouldn't it :? - lol

And can't possible work? It works, but badly in lots of countries. A bad system works badly, and fails in the long run.



calandale
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,439

26 Sep 2007, 8:12 pm

BazzaMcKenzie wrote:
GoatOnFire wrote:
Communism in itself isn't bad. Communism is bad when people do it because people are bad. It doesn't take very many bad people to ruin a communist state.

Its an economic truism that bad systems fail in the long run. USSR no longer exists. QED


USSR never managed communism.
Probably isn't even possible though.



TheMidnightJudge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,669
Location: New England

26 Sep 2007, 8:49 pm

The concept is good, but government is too easily corrupted. I like socialism, control corporate corruption.



Mc_Jeff
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 180

26 Sep 2007, 11:02 pm

The problem with Communism is that it envisions everyone working for the 'common good', when people are too different for there to even BE a common good. This is why communism only works in very small scale environments, like communes, where people who don't want to be there or don't find that the common good works to their good, can leave.



GoatOnFire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,986
Location: Den of the ecdysiasts

27 Sep 2007, 1:19 am

BazzaMcKenzie wrote:
^^^ Heaven? That would be a theocracy wouldn't it :? - lol

And can't possible work? It works, but badly in lots of countries. A bad system works badly, and fails in the long run.


I'll stick with saying Heaven can be classified as authoritarian. In Heaven I am pretty sure God is the undisputed ruler and His word is law. :nerdy: If a bad system works badly and fails in the long run then there has never been a good system in the history of man. They have all eventually unraveled or are starting to show signs of unraveling in the long run.

I'll concede to you about the semantics on when I said "communism can't possibly work." Pretty much anything can work, not neccessarily well or in the right direction, but still working. I should have added something at the end like "communism can't work properly when people are using it over a long period of time."


_________________
I will befriend the friendless, help the helpless, and defeat... the feetless?


calandale
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,439

27 Sep 2007, 1:53 am

Mc_Jeff wrote:
The problem with Communism is that it envisions everyone working for the 'common good', when people are too different for there to even BE a common good. This is why communism only works in very small scale environments, like communes, where people who don't want to be there or don't find that the common good works to their good, can leave.


Well put.

The "common good" is such a mix of
individual parts, which people don't necessarily
agree upon. It's damned hard to get
excited about working for something
you don't agree with.



Aspie_Chav
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,931
Location: Croydon

27 Sep 2007, 2:20 am

Zwerfbeertje wrote:
Aspie_Chav wrote:
Comunism is week because it does not encourage compentition.


So what? Who or what's to say competition is necessary, or even beneficial?


Russia needs to compete in the global economy against those who choose the more competitive capitalism. It might servive if it protected itself from the outside by being a closed system. But I believe to my knowledge the russions tried this approach and it still didn't work.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

29 Sep 2007, 1:15 pm

I love how China claims to be communist, and yet has even more extreme division of wealth and class stratification than probably any other society in history. Whereas America tries to pretend to be capitalist after adopting several main tenets of the Communist Manifesto. Truly hilarious. In some places, people call themsleves communist/socialist because the ideals of a classless society that are attached to these words win the people's support. But in America, we can't call ourselvves such things because we have too many McCarthy-type Red-Scare mongers. Plus our culture values being "ahead" of others, so we can't express a goal of everyone being equal- everyone wants to be better off than everyone else.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


agmoie
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2005
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 333
Location: Britain

29 Sep 2007, 1:26 pm

Communism is a evil which is responsible for the torture,slave labour and deaths of tens of millions of people.Anyone with Asperger`s who advocates communism must hate themselves because people who did not `fit in` and people who were different were usually sent to the labour/death camps by the commies..



RedHanrahan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Sep 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,204
Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand

29 Sep 2007, 7:14 pm

Aspie Chav wrote -

'Russia needs to compete in the global economy against those who choose the more competitive capitalism. It might servive if it protected itself from the outside by being a closed system. But I believe to my knowledge the russions tried this approach and it still didn't work.'

Well to look at things in a broader context, Capitalist economies have traditionally prospered from successful wars whereas collectivist command economies do not. Simply put the USA was host economy to many corporate entities that made an awful lot of money out of the cold war and it's climate of fear and coercion whereas the USSR wasted it's limited resources trying to keep up.
I wonder if the constant propaganda and trade war waged against the USSR since the revolution of 1917 had not taken place and if the constant threats and hostility of the west had not been focused on them, well I wonder if perhaps left to do their own thing if they may have been more successful?

@ agmoie - what you have written is one eyed nonsense and your obvious bias is visible in the use of terms like 'commies', lol. I would suggest you read up on global capitalism and it's ramifications before you lay these crimes solely at the feet of those nasty 'commies'

peace j


_________________
Just because we can does not mean we should.

What vision is left? And is anyone asking?

Have a great day!


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

30 Sep 2007, 12:34 pm

RedHanrahan wrote:
Well to look at things in a broader context, Capitalist economies have traditionally prospered from successful wars whereas collectivist command economies do not. Simply put the USA was host economy to many corporate entities that made an awful lot of money out of the cold war and it's climate of fear and coercion whereas the USSR wasted it's limited resources trying to keep up.
Well, not really, capitalist economies suffer from bad resource allocations due to wars and can often times have post-war recessions due to rapid changes in the job market. The fact that certain companies made money is not a sign of success, what is ignored is the companies that would have served the people better that did not get that money, really, the virtue there is perhaps a greater dynamism.
Quote:
I wonder if the constant propaganda and trade war waged against the USSR since the revolution of 1917 had not taken place and if the constant threats and hostility of the west had not been focused on them, well I wonder if perhaps left to do their own thing if they may have been more successful?

The USSR would have been more successful but its system would still ultimately fail, it just might take longer. The economy of the USSR by its nature was terrible and corrupt, the inequality of wealth was amazingly higher than in the US, the ability of the nation to pollute without regard for welfare was there to a great extent, and the pricing system in the USSR was very very bad which means that surpluses and shortages were the norm. I see no reason why these systems would necessarily be better if they were left more to themselves.
Quote:
@ agmoie - what you have written is one eyed nonsense and your obvious bias is visible in the use of terms like 'commies', lol. I would suggest you read up on global capitalism and it's ramifications before you lay these crimes solely at the feet of those nasty 'commies'

No, I think he is right. I think that you include imperialism and the ridiculous efforts of the US during the Cold War as elements of capitalism while others among us would not seeing them as political maneuvers and in the case of the former, a redistribution of wealth from everyone to particular rich groups. It might also include the views had on sweatshops. Really though, I still do not consider them comparable, the best argument that could be made would really be a separation of the economic system from the political system, and some scholars have argued that a highly political economic system(such as any government controlled system) will end up towards totalitarianism with greater ease.



history_of_psychiatry
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,105
Location: X

30 Sep 2007, 2:51 pm

Communism IN THEORY is supposed to be perfect. When a country is run on a communist system though, it doesn't work. Communsim takes away individual freedom. Yes, it is supposedly "fair" and "equal", but it doesn't work. There are small farming communities and such that run on a communist system and for them it works because it is a small community and everyone knows each other. However, it doen't work when running an entire country on that system. Especially not one the size of russia.


_________________
X


RedHanrahan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Sep 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,204
Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand

30 Sep 2007, 3:36 pm

To isolate the idea of 'communism' as the cause of failure in any attempt at 'communistic' living is folly.
What I tried to do [admittedly with some clumsiness] was point out this fact.
To look at the failure of the USSR and lay the failure of radical social change to bring about a successful society - and by successful I will say 'greatest benefit to the most peoples' - and assume that it was some inherent flaw in the kaupapa is simple mindedness.
Russia as a society has a very interesting history, the regions of the Russian empire span such a diversity of culture and environment it is truly amazing that any sense of cohesiveness has ever existed yet a little over 100 years ago my own country built a network of coastal defenses in fear of them.
Russia was still a feudal society when America freed the slaves, meaning they had serfdom, a system where the oligarchs quite literally own the peasantry and free men require a patron, several cultures that have long histories of conflict are vying for power....
The social flux that resulted from the dissolution of the serf system and the ideologies that gripped the minds of a newly free but utterly impoverished 'working class' struggled in the minds but also on the streets of Russia while peasants struggled with new concepts and responsibilities.
By the time the social unrest initiated by collectivist ['red'] anarchists and nihilist revolutionaries was expertly manipulated by some purportedly 'communist' factions into the experiment that was a SOCIALIST USSR everything was a compromise and undermined by factionalism and all too individualistic agendas, none of this however is any proof of any kind of inherent evil or failure in the ideology that is communism.
There are in fact many successful examples of societies where the aspirations of the people have been expressed in 'communistic' social policy, and humane government in Central and South America.
The statement that 'capitalism' [a practice not an ideology] is responsible for much of the evil in the world would in fact be much more accurate as the links that show direct responsibility between a practice and an effect are much more easily argued whereas to draw a direct link between practices done in the name of an ideology are much harder to maintain.
This all brings me to my main point here, the proof is in the pudding, and I will respond to your actions not your ideology, religion or philosophy, for those are entirely your affair.
peace j


_________________
Just because we can does not mean we should.

What vision is left? And is anyone asking?

Have a great day!


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

30 Sep 2007, 3:53 pm

RedHanrahan wrote:
To isolate the idea of 'communism' as the cause of failure in any attempt at 'communistic' living is folly.
How is it folly? There are good theoretical reasons to attack communism as inferior to capitalism for a large society. Now, I don't think that anybody has stated that communism is absolutely the only reason for failure, however, the fall of the soviet union was to a good extent economic.
Quote:
By the time the social unrest initiated by collectivist ['red'] anarchists and nihilist revolutionaries was expertly manipulated by some purportedly 'communist' factions into the experiment that was a SOCIALIST USSR everything was a compromise and undermined by factionalism and all too individualistic agendas, none of this however is any proof of any kind of inherent evil or failure in the ideology that is communism.
There are in fact many successful examples of societies where the aspirations of the people have been expressed in 'communistic' social policy, and humane government in Central and South America.

Actually it is. One of the major arguments against communism is that it requires everyone to be on board with the same ideas and same overarching plan. Your argument that because people were not on board with those same ideas and overarching plan is merely feeding into an argument we would make against communism.
"The effect of the people's agreeing that there must be central planning, without agreeing on the ends, will be rather as if a group of people were to commit themselves to take a journey together without agreeing where they want to go; with the result that they may all have to make a journey which most of them do not want at all."-Friedrich Hayek
Now, frankly, I have not seen any successful implementations of communism ANYWHERE, and that includes South America and Central America so I consider your claim of successful communism to be nonsense. All I have seen is failed attempts to create communism across the world, and that includes South America and Central America.
Quote:
The statement that 'capitalism' [a practice not an ideology] is responsible for much of the evil in the world would in fact be much more accurate as the links that show direct responsibility between a practice and an effect are much more easily argued whereas to draw a direct link between practices done in the name of an ideology are much harder to maintain.

Except it isn't. Capitalism is both, communism is both, to claim that such is untrue is ludicrous nonsense and indicative of a failure to fully understand what is being dealt with. To claim that capitalism is responsible for much of the evil in the world is also nonsense, there is often a complete failure in distinguishing between capitalist elements and non-capitalist elements made by proponents of the idea that capitalism is evil and many of the ideological capitalists do denounce those elements of the system as being perverted invasions of the capitalist system brought upon by foreign ideologies and call for a fuller implementation of their system.
Quote:
This all brings me to my main point here, the proof is in the pudding, and I will respond to your actions not your ideology, religion or philosophy, for those are entirely your affair.

The proof isn't in the pudding, all that is in the pudding is a failure to understand the nature of the argument. This is an ideological argument, to call it anything other than that is idiocy. Frankly, saying that the proof is in the pudding might as well be my argument given the tremendous growth that occurred in capitalist systems and the fact that they actually have increased the material well being of people within the system.



RedHanrahan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Sep 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,204
Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand

30 Sep 2007, 4:05 pm

Has communism done wrong to millions of people?

Is that not the question addressed here?

It was preceded by an even more ludicrous one but for some reason that was edited ??
Perhaps it is you who does not understand the item under discussion? or are you too 'awesomely glorious' to contemplate that?

In reality there is no point in this exchange because every point either of us makes will be countered by some detail the merits of which will come down to our selective attachment to subjective values and we will both just get stroppy and as you pinko-hating-raghead-shootin'-god fearin' yanks are all a bit too hot headed these days to want to engage with you can have your cheap victory now, keep the ball I can get another, I'm of home now, bye... have fun....
peace j


_________________
Just because we can does not mean we should.

What vision is left? And is anyone asking?

Have a great day!


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

30 Sep 2007, 4:14 pm

RedHanrahan wrote:
Has communism done wrong to millions of people?
Well, attempts to practice communism have.

Quote:
It was preceded by an even more ludicrous one but for some reason that was edited ??
Perhaps it is you who does not understand the item under discussion? or are you too 'awesomely glorious' to contemplate that?
I am going under the most pragmatic way to discuss this matter. If we argue that communism is an abstract then frankly we have avoided the entire reason for the thread.

Quote:
In reality there is no point in this exchange because every point either of us makes will be countered by some detail the merits of which will come down to our selective attachment to subjective values and we will both just get stroppy and as you pinko-hating-raghead-shootin'-god fearin' yanks are all a bit too hot headed these days to want to engage with you can have your cheap victory now, keep the ball I can get another, I'm of home now, bye... have fun....

Ok, that is the same in most exchanges on some level, the difference in this exchange is that there are logical premises and such that can be examined. Yes, of course, fear my yankness. :roll: I'll take victory wherever I can get it though.