Thread: Communism

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Thats the thing about "communism" and why it won't work. If people excel, and invent a better mousetrap say they expect to be rewarded. Communism says the individual is unimportant and the whole is all. So if you have twenty dollars each should have one, if your mousetrap makes an extra ten you only get fifty cents and so does everyone else. YOU are not rewarded for your effort any more than those who made no effort are.

That is true only if the sole motivation of why people do or do not do something is material reward. Obviously this is not the case in real life. Consider this forum as a proof.

I am not disputing whether communism will work or not, just that sociology and economics is much more complicated than the usual simplistic arguments about cost and benefit. Not only people's decisions are not purely rational, but even when a decision is rational, the values that go into it are extremely subjective.

And every person I've seen who has been against social security is only until they get to benefit from it, at which point they would gladly accept whatever benefits they can get - I guess the principles against a bad system are overweighted by the ones that if it exists may as well get some use of it.

Social security is a pyramid scheme that will eventually collapse under its own weight, just like every other pyramid scheme has before it. That's a whole different topic.

The reason communism will not succeed, in my opinion, is because once people get a taste of absolute power, they will not let it go. The USSR had this. After a "communist" system was put in place, did Stalin step down? No...he just kept on doing what he was doing.

Another reason it won't work, is it's hard for people to follow an ideal without a figure-head, if you will. People need a leader. Ideally, communism is entirely without a single leader.

Socialism is a much more realistic political program. I am not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's easier to achieve (and many nations such as France, Italy, Sweden, etc. have) and the USA is not far from it. We'll get frighteningly closer if Hillary gets the big seat as well. I think if that happens, I'll go join our friends in the great white north for a few years until the damage she does can be undone. That's also another topic.

Capitalism, in it's true open-market form, is the way to go, if you ask me. But then again, nobody's asking me, so take it for what it's worth.

(Side note: Fascism isn't the extreme version of conservativism. And don't give me the tired old lines your history/poli-sci teachers gave you. They just prove me right. Bake on that one for a while.)

There was never communist system in place in any country. As far as I'm aware, all official doctrines in 'communist countries' were that they are at the socialism state, moving towards the next stage - communism.

I don't know enough philosophy to comment on what really communism is, whether it needs leaders or is supposed to be completely decentralized. And I don't really see how the statement about power precludes any other political system. Capitalism is as far as I understand economic, not political system. But free market is an ideal - as long as you have political structures that can change the rules, the economic entities will try to influence them for their own benefit.

But at the end of the day each society decides what their political and economic system will be. If Hillary Clinton becomes a president that means that enough people voted for her and want her to be. Just like when George W Bush won the election. The rest can vote again next time, or go to the great white north (if said north will have them) and wait till stuff changes.

Taking this in the "hijack" direction...

I think the best thing that I, as a Republican, can hope for is Hillary winning the Democratic nomination. I would love to see the landslide that would ensue for McCain. It'd be a sight to behold.

You're right. Capitalism is an economic philosophy, not so much a political one. However, political philosophies influence economic and social ones, so a political philosophy that would permit free-trade capitalism is already on the right track. I like Republicanism (not what most people think) moreso than a Democratic state.

I think we got a pretty good thing now, although I'd like to see states with some more rights and government with a few less. I'm happy enough though.

Originally Posted by kasperitis

Socialism is a much more realistic political program. I am not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's easier to achieve (and many nations such as France, Italy, Sweden, etc. have) and the USA is not far from it. We'll get frighteningly closer if Hillary gets the big seat as well. I think if that happens, I'll go join our friends in the great white north for a few years until the damage she does can be undone. That's also another topic.

living in a socialist country I can assure you that the USA isn't anywhere near being a socialist country.
Btw, Hillary will have to try really hard if she wants to do as much damage as dubya.

Originally Posted by Bruno

living in a socialist country I can assure you that the USA isn't anywhere near being a socialist country.
Btw, Hillary will have to try really hard if she wants to do as much damage as dubya.

You have a point, but I feel that we're talking about different kinds of damage. Hillary's damage scares me. Dubya's damage can be undone in a year.

uhmm, i'm puzzled what are you really afraid of? what is that long term screwup that Hilary Clinton can do that will never be undone?

And if you are afraid of the power of the president, perhaps the political system isn't good enough. I mean you can't love a system only because you like the people who are currently in power. It goes both ways, really.
If George W Bush can claim more power for the presidency that power stays there for when the other side gets to rule.

Hillary is a self-proclaimed "progressivist". She's a socialist in every sense of the term. When you give people things for "free" (or in this case, certain social programs paid for by the government) it gets almost impossible to get revert those things back to their old ways.

Don't believe me? Just bring up the topic of getting rid of social security and privatizing it (the way it should be). Or try to get rid of unions or even mandated pensions, which happen to be RUINING good companies like GM. They make money, but not enough to pay the pensions of the employees who were too lazy to save money themselves, so they demanded that GM give it to them.

But ask any of them if they'd be willing to give up these "free-to-them" programs and you'll get an earful.

Once you give something to someone, it's nearly impossible to take it away. But take away something, as many people accuse Bush of doing, and the people will reinstate those things as soon as possible.

Bush took things away. We'll get that back. I'm not worried about that.

Hillary will "give away" healthcare and things of that nature. Being someone who RELIES HEAVILY on quality healthcare, and who is willing to work hard enough to get what I need, I would be scared to death of a government funded program. You really want your healthcare taken care of by the same bureaucracies that created the DMV?

Nothing in this world is free. Somewhere, someone is paying for it.

Originally Posted by kasperitis

Hillary is a self-proclaimed "progressivist". She's a socialist in every sense of the term.

Hmm, I'm not sure I know what 'every sense of the term' is and something tells me you aren't quite sure either

Yes, giving things free is indeed hard to reverse - subsidies are my favorite example.

Just bring up the topic of getting rid of social security and privatizing it (the way it should be).

Got anything to back up 'should'?

Or try to get rid of unions or even mandated pensions, which happen to be RUINING good companies like GM. They make money, but not enough to pay the pensions of the employees who were too lazy to save money themselves, so they demanded that GM give it to them.

Shouldn't people have the right to unionize? If a company spends more than it earns then it goes bankrupt. If I agree with my employer that they ought to pay me amount X in salary and amount Y in pension, then as long as that employer is in business that's our contract. Whether I choose to have X+Y given as a salary is between me and my employer. If you don't like to be unionized, find a job that has no unions.

Bush took things away. We'll get that back. I'm not worried about that.

Took things? Like what?

Hillary will "give away" healthcare and things of that nature. Being someone who RELIES HEAVILY on quality healthcare, and who is willing to work hard enough to get what I need, I would be scared to death of a government funded program. You really want your healthcare taken care of by the same bureaucracies that created the DMV?

Nothing in this world is free. Somewhere, someone is paying for it.

Of course, nothing is free and whether your healthcare is administered by the government or by HMO it's still the same thing - risk management and it has different overhead. I can't see how one is significantly better than the other. They are just different - if the current system worked well, wouldn't everybody be all happy to just have it?
Not sure what's up with DMV though, for one as far as I know these are state based and not federal and you seem to have issues with the federal government. Or are you suggesting there should not be regulations whatsoever? The constitution does mandate that federal government establish roads, so presumably it gets to control what it establishes. Unless you think the constitution ought to be changed.

I have no idea what Hilary Clinton's health plan is about. Or anybody else's. I don't vote, though. But I think that if you're concerned with her health plan you ought to get familiar with it and bring up the specific issues you have problem with. Otherwise you're just repeating the propaganda on your favorite media.
From what you said I can only infer that you are afraid you will be forced to have healthcare administered by the government, which will be inefficient and ineffective. Is that her plan, though? I don't know, just asking if you know for sure that's her plan, or you think that must be her plan, because she's a socialist.

Originally Posted by gugi

That is true only if the sole motivation of why people do or do not do something is material reward. Obviously this is not the case in real life. Consider this forum as a proof.

Under communism there is no "reward" material or otherwise. to reward the individual with anything including recognition would be to the diminish the rest of the group and result in inequality. you can't have that!!!

My reward for being here is the pleasure of sophisticated conversation and the crude jokes that make my day brighter. Avery material benefit.

Originally Posted by gugi

And every person I've seen who has been against social security is only until they get to benefit from it, at which point they would gladly accept whatever benefits they can get - I guess the principles against a bad system are overweighted by the ones that if it exists may as well get some use of it.

SS is a bad example. It is designed to be a forced savings plan. Thats why it is a bad idea it robs us of the freedom to choose what we want to do with out money. In favor of allowing the government to keep it for us, something they suck at.