Why communism wont work.

[Romber]

Now this is my view on Communism and why it wont work. This is mainly what I have picked up over my life about Communism and a little from Animal Farm.
One major problem of communism is the equality factor. Sure everyone is equal in rank, wealth, paycheck, land ownership, everything! This is where the problem lies. People have always, by nature, wanted more. This means everything I said above. Whatever chance they get they might try at more wealth or land. Now chances are they wont get it. But sometimes they do. Which now means not everyone is equal thus disrupting the very crucial part of Communism. If people aren't equal (basis of communism) then how will it stand. How will a building stay upright if its foundation (total equality) is taken out? It can't.

The goverment is also a problem. They have control over economic output. This means the goverment will decide on it own actions. This may not be everyones wants thus creating more inequality.

The Goverment adds more to the problems to communism. In order for communism to work, you need equal people and a equal and fair Leader. Of course there will never be a fair or equal leader in world history due to the fact Humans can't possibly stay at 1 point or stance in every situation. There are going to be times when emotions decide a decsion. But back to the goverment. Dictators will often make choices in their favor. This normally only benifits themselves and no one else. Creating inequality again.

A misunderstandment of Communist goverments is that they never are really communists goverments. They are running a socialists goverment unitl a certain point. Now let me make something clear. Socialism is bad. Its horrible goverment. One of the worst out there. But communism in its self is good. I'll tell you why. The goal of communism is to have no leaders, no goverment with organized society. This is good. All people are equal and make same amount and can get whatever anyone else can get. However this has never been achieved as a country. And realistically this unlikely due to the fact of massive cooperation and selfishless needed out of the people. As you can tell this process doesn't happen over night. It takes years and years to complete. And even at hat it wont be absolute communism. So you have to require the cooperation and willingness to give for a few years- maybe even decades. Its quite obvious how hard this will be achieved. And since you can only get communism through achieving total equality-and no country has yet to do that- then you aren't running a communist goverment, your running a socialist goverment (remember thats bad)

Now in small societies communism is much easier to achieve. But thats not the important part. Its the fact that communist just wont work with peoples motives and non-willingness to give stuff up. But reality communism is a good goverment-not socialism which communism is often mistaken for (but correctly termed as)

Feel free to comment, make corrections, add your opinion.

[stabskillz13]

How can you say that communism is good and socialism is bad, socialism, according to Engels, is the first stage of communism, The Dictatorship of the Proletariets, without it, communism is impossible. By the way, you really need to read the Manifesto before you go off on rants like this. Besides, communism has been implemented in various communes throughout the world, with good results.

[Romber]

Communism is very good in theory. But very hard to achieve. While trying to become a communist goverment, they are classified as a socialist goverment. And yes communism does work, but only in smaller groups. I wont deny that.

according to Engels, is the first stage of communism

Thats what I said. You go through socialism til you achieve communism.

[Machiavelli]

Another reason that Communism rarely works is that, with everyone being equal, there is no incentive for hard work. In a large community (ie. a country) it is near impossible to know everyone who is slacking off whereas; in a small group people can tell when someone is not pulling their weight.

[kingwaffles]

Communism is much more effective and much more likely to succeed in smaller groups because then you will probably have people who all want it to work, one of the things I think of as crucial for succesful communism. Everybody in the system needs to want the system to work otherwise it has to fail. Also whats so bad about socialism?

[Romber]

Socialism has a tendency to become a dictatorship. It also goes against economic principles thus maiking its economy fail. And yes communism is very good goverment in small groups as it can be regulated alot better. When a socialist or communist goverment fails, it goes to more of a dictatorship. This only really happens on a large scale. It doesnt become a total dictatorship but it has alot of dictatorhip qualities in it.

[vyvyan]

Communism is an excellent idea, but humans are just to damn greedy to make it work.

Socialism is good and is working all over the world right now.

[RLeary06]

So is capitalism.

[hockeycapn]

You are saying that it is an inate human desire to want more and be greedy. I disagree. I believe it to be a learned trait that is passed down to us through our culture. In order for communism to work of the scale of a counrty then the population would have had to be removed from their families at birth, if not before, and then raised by someone who is truely egalitarian, learn those traits, and repopulate and pass on those traits to their offspring. Even then no one in the group could come in contact with the western world as it may corrupt them.
To do this would take centuries.
We as a race have already gone down the road of capitalism, there is very little chance of there ever being a successful communist state that is indeed communist.
If you want to get close to communism then read about the Native Americans. They weren't communists but in some tribes everyone had equal voice. Yes there were chiefs, and a sexist devision of labor, but chiefs could not force the men to do anything like kings could in Europe. Natives had the right to disobey, and disagree. Even the Women.

[Romber]

You are saying that it is an inate human desire to want more and be greedy

Yes. If you are hungry would you not want more food? If you get paid, would you not want more money? It's natural to want more than what you have. Its called desire.

Socialism is good and is working all over the world right now.

And what countries are those?

[kingwaffles]

Yes. If you are hungry would you not want more food? If you get paid, would you not want more money? It's natural to want more than what you have. Its called desire.

I disagree, i think there can be times when people can forgoe things like that for the good of the community as a whole and like hockeycapn said, we've become a society based on greed so it will be ingrained into our children before they have a chance to learn something better.

[supermarcol]

I think the underlying problem with communism lies in its equality ideas. It want to give everything in equal amounts to everyone, yet we are NOT all equal. Although it is a very controversial thing to say, we don't have all the same aptitudes. Some are more intelligent then others, some are stronger, and some people are just overall better than others. So is it just that they get the same as someone who is less good then them? Should a doctor, who spent 12 years in school to save people's life get the same thing than an illiterate janitor? Although many poeple say we are created equal, we are not. Its a simple fact. Capitalism is very flawed, and bad in many way, but its the best we've come up so far. It emphasize opportunity. The problem is that somepeople will get more opportunities than others. But there are many people who started with nothing and ended up living very well due to capitalism. The best thing for a society is a meritocracy, like Ghengis Khan made. You start equal with the same opportunities as everyone, but through talent and hard work you can elevate yourself to a better status. Its just very hard to do this on a large scale.

[areon]

Wow lots of stuff to reply to!

I agree with all who have stated that greed is not a natural human trait. This is something born from the fact that for most of history in civilizations, most of the people didn't have enough to live comfortable lives. This is just a way to survive, but not everyone thinks about numero uno first. If you actually left the whole mindset of the "western world", you would probably notice that this isn't prevailant.

About socialism, Romber you do know the difference between that and mercantilism? Yes most dictators try to control the economy for their own gain. Socialism as a belief is that the government will be able to do certain things better like public transportation. You want to know why? Most governments have lots of money if they don't spend it all in the military. They can use this money to fund programs that don't need to make a profit. That's why companies will try to pay their workers less to improve their bottam lines; but the government won't have to worry about this if they spend responsibly. So remember about how you said communism is mislabeled, so is socialism.

Last thing I noticed equality, wow supermarcol do you realize what you assumed? Never has a society been created where the most "suitable" people for a job are the prime candidates. Capitalism is more about who has the right connections. The best stock market number crunchers are much less useful than say, I don't know, personally knowing one of the accounting people in a company. And about the Chenghis Khan referance, most of the society that he created revolved around fighting. So of course he would pick the most suitable to do conquest. But when he set all of his family as rulers to the many lands, they all didn't last more than a few generations. Again, if you leave the "western" mindset you will find that the value that people place in each other changes to different things than what they can provide.

[supermarcol]

I'm saying the most suitable people to do a job SHOULD be the prime candidates. I want a firefighter who can save my life, not one who happened to be the nephew of the mayor. And I'm not an expert or historian or anything, but from what I know, Ghengis Khan didnt just create a society that revolved around violence, he made a lot of social advancement and was really ahead of his time. He almost ruled over the world, he must have been doing something right . He also was responsible for the death of millions of people . Anyway, my point is that equality is not what we should be thriving for, more like justice. Because giving equal stuff to 2 people is not always just. I could start a whole argument about positive discrimination, but this wouldn't follow the topic of this thread. In the end the perfect society is a just one, not an equal one.

[Romber]

I disagree, i think there can be times when people can forgoe things like that for the good of the community as a whole and like hockeycapn said, we've become a society based on greed so it will be ingrained into our children before they have a chance to learn something better

And where did our first anscestors get the greed from? They developed it on their own. We were born to naturaly want more.

yet we are NOT all equal. Although it is a very controversial thing to say, we don't have all the same aptitudes. Some are more intelligent then others, some are stronger, and some people are just overall better than others. So is it just that they get the same as someone who is less good then them?

ahhhh Social Darwinism. The theory is true to a point. Then it gets rediculus.

[stabskillz13]

Darwinism isn't a ridiculous theory in any form, its ruled the way this entire planet has developed since its creation. We got greed in the first place by a few different people, no one said that everyone was born not greedy, just that most people wern't, clearly there are exeptions.

[kingwaffles]

The idea of Social Darwinism isn't really Darwinism it smore of a propaganda tool that tries to bend Darwin's theories to prove the dominance of a certain nation or race. Yes, it is a ridiculous idea, it beleives that some groups of people are just naturally better than everyone else, think the Aryan Race idea, whihc is definetly not true.

[stabskillz13]

Ah I see, I thought it was something else, still, its not completely wrong, I mean, some races really are better adapted to certain tasks then others. Besides, what supermarcool was talking about wasn't Social Darwinism, he just said that some people were better in areas then others, which is completely true.

[supermarcol]

Ahah! I am no neonazi, don't worry. I do beleive some "race" (i dont like the word) are better adapted at some stuff then others (e.g. esquimos and cold) but I was speaking more at an individual level. That kind of differences also exist inside a "race". The problem with the line of thought I have expressed is that it doesnt take into account human compassion. Although a handicaped person can't "perform" well in some area, I don't want them to fend for themselves or leave them to starve or worse kill them! Its definetly not a simple issue, or it would have been solved a long time ago. The thing is that if people that had the best aptitude for a job were used there, the productivity of our society would allow for better care of those who need it. I don't think this is darwinism, because its not about the strong surviving, we are organised in a society and we must take care of the "weaker" links. Its just that we could do much better at that then we are doing now.

[Romber]

Besides, what supermarcool was talking about wasn't Social Darwinism

He said some people are better than other just because if they are more intelligent or stronger. Social Darwinsim is like the same thing. It means people are going to better than others because they adapted better or first.

We got greed in the first place by a few different people

Yea so those people had gene traits or similar ideas that created greed.

What I'm saying is, according to waffles, is that there was never greed before. It was just taught to generations growing up. Well you have to learn something before you teach it. Someone, Somewhere wanted more than what they could have. thus greed was created.

The idea of Social Darwinism isn't really Darwinism it smore of a propaganda tool that tries to bend Darwin's theories to prove the dominance of a certain nation or race

Nicely said. It was created to explain why some people were doing so well in times of bad. Its just an exscuse.

[stabskillz13]

Besides, what supermarcool was talking about wasn't Social Darwinism

He said some people are better than other just because if they are more intelligent or stronger. Social Darwinsim is like the same thing. It means people are going to better than others because they adapted better or first.

That's not Social Darwinism, it's just plain Survival of the Fittest, besides, are you saying that people who are stronger and more intelligent arn't better? They possess the ability to maintain their own lives, while the handicapped must have some sort of help, in my opinion, ability to live=better.

[Romber]

That's not Social Darwinism

Then what is?

you saying that people who are stronger and more intelligent arn't better

when did I say this?

[stabskillz13]

That's not Social Darwinism

Then what is?

From what I understand, it's the same principal, but applied to an entire race.

you saying that people who are stronger and more intelligent arn't better

when did I say this?

When you called it Social Darwinism, and dismissed it as a ridiculous theory.

[Romber]

Yes I cant change the facts around. Social Darwinsim was a social theory largley accepted back in the early 1900's. I was stating the facts. It was believed that some people were rich and could succeed at life just because they were "better". This is rediculus. But remember I said to a point. Having strength or intelligence gives you a head start in life. But go to the weight room or study harder and pay attention in class will make you more intelligent. Thats when Social Darwinism is dismissed. You dont have the advantage anymore.

So I guess, to clear things up, I'm for and against Social darwinism. Its true to a point but then it turns false.

[Famous Agent]

Social Darwinism isnt something that you are "for" or not. Just like you cant be "for" evolution because its a proven fact (Lets just leave that debate for now). Social darwinism, in essence, is the belief that the rich will push the poor off (not intentionaly) as to control the population. It is more like the pessimistic little brother to some of the beliefs held true in capitalism.