|
Sweetleaf
Metalhead
Joined: Jan 07, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 14798
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:44 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| scubasteve wrote: | | Sweetleaf wrote: | | I've already heard this attempt at proving why communism should fail......grades are not really comparable to an economic system. So I will leave it there. I know I am supposed to say the third option is best and the first one is supposed to represent communism the third is supposed to represent capitalism. |
The first one is communism in theory. The second one is communism in practice.
There is no "supposed to say" here. I'm curious whether people here would honestly be motivated by the good of the group, as much as their own personal interest. If you are, more power to you.
As for the comparison... We work for money. We work for grades. One often leads to another. Is it really so different? |
And I think it is a terrible comparison, because its based on the premises of people not getting anything out of what they put in which is not the goal of communism...the idea is people contribute what they can and are provided for based on the collective effort. I personally would have no problem doing something to contribute to the greater good.
giving everyone the exact same grades regardless of whether or not they put any effort into the work, is not really comparable to communism.........there is nothing in communism about refusing any self improvement. But people really must be hopeless if they only way they will do anything at all is if it involves the chance of getting more than someone else.
_________________
It's like alice in wonderland except, my names not alice and this is the real world not a dream. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29300
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sweetleaf wrote: |
And I think it is a terrible comparison, because its based on the premises of people not getting anything out of what they put in which is not the goal of communism...the idea is people contribute what they can and are provided for based on the collective effort. I personally would have no problem doing something to contribute to the greater good.
. |
Why should A do anything for B if there is nothing in it for A? People do for other people either because there is affection or because some of value will be received in exchange (not necessarily money).
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sweetleaf
Metalhead
Joined: Jan 07, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 14798
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | Sweetleaf wrote: |
And I think it is a terrible comparison, because its based on the premises of people not getting anything out of what they put in which is not the goal of communism...the idea is people contribute what they can and are provided for based on the collective effort. I personally would have no problem doing something to contribute to the greater good.
. |
Why should A do anything for B if there is nothing in it for A? People do for other people either because there is affection or because some of value will be received in exchange (not necessarily money).
ruveyn |
There is something in it for both...didn't you read my post, contributing to the greater good or the community would in effect reward both parties.
_________________
It's like alice in wonderland except, my names not alice and this is the real world not a dream. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Oldout
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 10, 2012
Posts: 1539
Location: Reading, PA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Who decides what is the greater good? The biggest problem with The Communist Manifesto is that nowhere is how decisions are made ever really discussed. Remember even Marx and Engels later criticized the manifesto. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sweetleaf
Metalhead
Joined: Jan 07, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 14798
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oldout wrote: | | Who decides what is the greater good? The biggest problem with The Communist Manifesto is that nowhere is how decisions are made ever really discussed. Remember even Marx and Engels later criticized the manifesto. |
Ok that wording is of obnoxious......good of the community I should say. Like in a small commune I imagine people put in work and then all the goods are shared by the collective. Communism in its true form would resemble that, now wether it would ever exist or not is another matter.
_________________
It's like alice in wonderland except, my names not alice and this is the real world not a dream. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Oldout
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 10, 2012
Posts: 1539
Location: Reading, PA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| There are still Aborigines in Australia for those of you who like deserts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sweetleaf
Metalhead
Joined: Jan 07, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 14798
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oldout wrote: | | There are still Aborigines in Australia for those of you who like deserts. |
and this means what exactly?
_________________
It's like alice in wonderland except, my names not alice and this is the real world not a dream. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Oldout
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 10, 2012
Posts: 1539
Location: Reading, PA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In a weird way they could be considered "communist".
Bye my time at library is up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TM
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 04, 2012
Posts: 2122
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The core problems with communism is:
A: Everyone has to agree to abide by the system and stand by their word.
B: It requires authoritarian leadership to be implemented and executed in the beginning, such leadership is rarely willing to give up power once it has been attained.
C: It offers little incentive to work harder on a large level. In effect, in a group of 30 - 100 people or so, communism works well. In a country of 10 million + people , most of whom have never met each other its tricky to get by the natural tribalism and self-centered nature of human beings.
D: It tends to assume that the country is already at a level of near full industrialization or that this must be done rapidly in order to avoid the system collapsing. The macro-economic implications here are enormous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Aspie_Chav
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Age: 39
Posts: 3025
Location: Croydon
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oldout wrote: | | Who decides what is the greater good? The biggest problem with The Communist Manifesto is that nowhere is how decisions are made ever really discussed. Remember even Marx and Engels later criticized the manifesto. |
Who decides who will work the unpopulars like sawers. Under equal rights ,just as much men as women would have to work them. Without the natual forces of capitiism, one would have to create loads of laws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sweetleaf
Metalhead
Joined: Jan 07, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 14798
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TM wrote: | The core problems with communism is:
A: Everyone has to agree to abide by the system and stand by their word.
B: It requires authoritarian leadership to be implemented and executed in the beginning, such leadership is rarely willing to give up power once it has been attained.
C: It offers little incentive to work harder on a large level. In effect, in a group of 30 - 100 people or so, communism works well. In a country of 10 million + people , most of whom have never met each other its tricky to get by the natural tribalism and self-centered nature of human beings.
D: It tends to assume that the country is already at a level of near full industrialization or that this must be done rapidly in order to avoid the system collapsing. The macro-economic implications here are enormous. |
Authoritarian leadership is actually contrary to communism, considering it is supposed to be a classless society...so a ruling class would not be part of it. Why should the constant goal in life be 'work harder' maybe if everyone was not so focused on working for money we might be able to be more innovative, solve more problems and find the most efficient ways to produce and distribute goods. But obviously the thought of a world with no money probably scares some people.
_________________
It's like alice in wonderland except, my names not alice and this is the real world not a dream. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Aspie_Chav
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Age: 39
Posts: 3025
Location: Croydon
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TM wrote: | | is already at a level of near full industrialization or that this must be done rapidly in order to avoid the system collapsing. The macro-economic implications here are enormous. |
If communism is workable, it should work from the grown up. From an undevolped country to a developed one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TM
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 04, 2012
Posts: 2122
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sweetleaf wrote: | | TM wrote: | The core problems with communism is:
A: Everyone has to agree to abide by the system and stand by their word.
B: It requires authoritarian leadership to be implemented and executed in the beginning, such leadership is rarely willing to give up power once it has been attained.
C: It offers little incentive to work harder on a large level. In effect, in a group of 30 - 100 people or so, communism works well. In a country of 10 million + people , most of whom have never met each other its tricky to get by the natural tribalism and self-centered nature of human beings.
D: It tends to assume that the country is already at a level of near full industrialization or that this must be done rapidly in order to avoid the system collapsing. The macro-economic implications here are enormous. |
Authoritarian leadership is actually contrary to communism, considering it is supposed to be a classless society...so a ruling class would not be part of it. Why should the constant goal in life be 'work harder' maybe if everyone was not so focused on working for money we might be able to be more innovative, solve more problems and find the most efficient ways to produce and distribute goods. But obviously the thought of a world with no money probably scares some people. |
Even Marx and Engels conceded that society could not become leaderless over night and would have to be under strong, authoritarian leadership for a period of time before communism could be realized in practice. The problem is, it always stops at that point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sweetleaf
Metalhead
Joined: Jan 07, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 14798
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TM wrote: | | Sweetleaf wrote: | | TM wrote: | The core problems with communism is:
A: Everyone has to agree to abide by the system and stand by their word.
B: It requires authoritarian leadership to be implemented and executed in the beginning, such leadership is rarely willing to give up power once it has been attained.
C: It offers little incentive to work harder on a large level. In effect, in a group of 30 - 100 people or so, communism works well. In a country of 10 million + people , most of whom have never met each other its tricky to get by the natural tribalism and self-centered nature of human beings.
D: It tends to assume that the country is already at a level of near full industrialization or that this must be done rapidly in order to avoid the system collapsing. The macro-economic implications here are enormous. |
Authoritarian leadership is actually contrary to communism, considering it is supposed to be a classless society...so a ruling class would not be part of it. Why should the constant goal in life be 'work harder' maybe if everyone was not so focused on working for money we might be able to be more innovative, solve more problems and find the most efficient ways to produce and distribute goods. But obviously the thought of a world with no money probably scares some people. |
Even Marx and Engels conceded that society could not become leaderless over night and would have to be under strong, authoritarian leadership for a period of time before communism could be realized in practice. The problem is, it always stops at that point. |
Of course it would not be over-night.......and since authoritarian seems to describe the direction our government is going in, it appears they are right the government will have to become that way to the extent people get fed up and eventually the system collapses....which then would allow for a communist society. Or we'll try capitalism it's hard to say how things will go after the system collapses.
_________________
It's like alice in wonderland except, my names not alice and this is the real world not a dream. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Jacoby
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Posts: 4020
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How can communism exist without authoritarian leadership? What happens to people that don't want to work for the collective?
"Communism" can only work in a small subsistence tribal environment and even those are certaily hierarchical societies. We'd still be living in caves if we lived according to communistic principles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
  |
Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index
-> Politics, Philosophy, and Religion
|
Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
