Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[atomicwinter]

I would consider myself Marxist. I believe in his theory's, but I do not believe however that the world is ready to truly implement them. We will have to come together as a species united under a common goal before we make any headway with communism. However, a country would try to implement it, but it would not be perfect, but they can try to be as perfect as possible and I do think that it would succeed in that aspect.

[Dwarf]

Finally.

[Il Palazzo]

@Armok There's no proof that it is against human nature, as stated before.

@bjlong Why do you think everybody's a janitor in Communism? Education is indeed very important in Communism. However, everybody gets the same 'wage'. It's just that nobody chooses a job for the money - but because he wants to do it. This also ensures to some degree that people are not slacking off. They're enjoying their jobs.

Unlike some of us, you obviously haven't lived in a communist country. Slacking off and poor job quality is the defining characteristic of communist working class.

Anyway, who'd want a toilet cleaner's job? Or nuclear waste disposal one? Or <name your worst job idea here>?

So people are not competitive by nature? Sounds great. Then you and your pal fall in love with the same girl and the shit starts flying. Or do you all just share equally? What if you do, and the girl likes your pal better anyway?

Come on.

[Cthulhu]

I can't handle taking the bad with the good, so I put my faith in pie-in-the-sky idealistic societies where all the fundamental elements of human nature that make it impossible go away by magic.

And don't give me that "There's no proof" thing.  Have you ever been outside?  Competition is the engine of progress, man.  What do you think spurs evolution?  Love?  Altruism?

I used to be a Communist, but I also used to have a kidney stone.  It all passes in time.

[Solifuge]

So people are not competitive by nature? Sounds great. Then you and your pal fall in love with the same girl and the shit starts flying. Or do you all just share equally? What if you do, and the girl likes your pal better anyway?

Come on.

Obliquely Relevantint: there are happy multiple-partner relationships. A great many of them, in fact. Not something I'd do, but I have personally known people who "share" partners and are happy.

Possessiveness and competative fighting has happened since time immemorial. However, idea of competition has evolved to accept cooperation as well... tribes made of groups of same-minded people may compete with other tribes, yet share and cooperate within their tribe to overcome others.

As the idea of "community" expands to an ever larger scale. I don't think it's too far-fetched to think that, with a government that rewarded cooperation, and pooled resources to be spent at the whim of the majority, there could be a large, cooperative, and harmonious pseudo-communist society. You can't expect it to be magically immune to personal desires, beliefs, or prejudices, though, but a shift of perspective to honor fellow citizens in a unit similar to a family or clan could make such a society plausible.

Promoting a model of Idyllic Communist Anarchy isn't practical unless you can propose a way in which you can make people agree with your worldview. Honestly, not everyone feels that universal cooperation is right or good... and this system necessitates that everyone would be of the same opinions on everything... homogenity of thought, which is a terrifying notion in its own right.

[Dwarf]

The USSR was not communist. China is not communist.
Cuba is somewhere midway and doing quite good actually - better than the USA in some aspects.

There is a difference in hatred between two people and 'general' hatred, like racism.

And, finally: It's quite simple. Everybody cleans up the mess he makes.
That also includes the innovative people - get an engineer to clean toilets, and chances are self-cleaning toilets are developed in no time.

[Cthulhu]

No.  You can clean up after people, I'm going to go better myself.  If that doesn't mesh with your worldview, I heard there's a queue forming for tissue rations at the Ministry of Paper Products.

[Il Palazzo]

USSR might've not been communist, as you think of it, but it did make use of the workforce-assignment system of which you spoke. It's this single aspect that has been proven to be a fallacious idea.
People are lazy, and no amount of wishful thinking can change that.

Communism will only become feasible, if we'll get conquered by an army of mind-controlling illthids or somesuch. Otherwise our human nature will get in a way and mess things up. Selfishness, familial bonds, laziness, ambition, desire, fear - all these would have to go. Do you think that it's possible, or even desirable?

[Aqizzar]

Wanting more than somebody else when you can live happily, well nourished etc. is greed. Read above.

Damn straight it is, and I'm greedy.  I want more stuff than my necessary allotment and I don't want to work very hard for it.  There, I just broke your True Communism.  Make me not greedy and then we'll talk.

Why would somebody not like someone else?
Today, this is mainly due to racism, homophobia etc.
In Communism, there would be no reason at all to hate someone else because he's got a different skin colour or other irrelevant matters.

Putting aside how blithely you ignore perfectly similar people hating each other all the time, you obviously have no idea how racism works if you think people need a material impetus to be racist.

Define systematic inefficiency.

I could, but since you don't seem to think universally equitable material provision doesn't need a system of any kind to happen, despite all of human history to the contrary, the explanation would be completely lost on you.

And again, people are using the "it just doesn't work" approach. It does not need to be enforced, because in a proper communist society, the longing of possessing more than somebody else has been abolished, the desire of having more is a product of inequality. All you produce is going into a communal, distributed pool where everybody is free to take whatever he needs, because taking more than that is wrong and people 'stealing' are not tolerated.

And, now, explain to me why tribal communities require near-religious adherence. It's a fact that stone age tribes lived in a pretty much communist way - what you hunt goes to the pool, what you gather goes to the pool, take what you need from the pool, take more and you'll be persecuted.

See all previous points for most answers.  I don't have to explain the societal adherence, because you already acknowledged it.  Taking more and stealing are persecuted and not tolerated, eh?  Persecuted how?  Everyone is free beat up anyone they think has more than their fair share?  By definition, if one person has enough human greed to take more than their share, then you're acknowledging that humans can be greedy and irrational, and if you're going to give everybody the authority to persecute and recorrect the system themselves, you're going to have greedy hateful liars doing so to their benefit.  Oh, what's that?  There will be rules for how and when you persecute and dis-tolerate people for having too much stuff?  Whaddaya know, you just made a government.  Welcome back to every human society that has ever existed.

Saying "It just doesn't work" is a perfectly valid response when every case and example in history agrees with that statement.  And you can establish that through about ten seconds of logical deduction, because by simply admitting that human fallibility exists, you necessarily establish that human societies require governments to correct human fallibility, staffed themselves by fallible humans.  Quod erat demonstrandum, stateless universally equitable communism is impossible.  You're welcome.

[Labs]

This is quite an interesting political debate but I think we all know that CAPITALISM is the greatest and will prevail over all.
 
Guys.... the CIA are right behind me. Run! Run while you still can! Their European agents are coming for you Dwarf!

 
 
 
 
 
But really, I agree with what's been said more than once in this thread; Communism would work if we weren't so human. Capitalism has many faults and isn't working. I myself am a bit of an Anarchist.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

But really, I agree with what's been said more than once in this thread; Communism would work if we weren't so human. Capitalism has many faults and isn't working. I myself am a bit of an Anarchist.

Of course, anarchy doesn't work even in theory :) :) :)

Deathworks

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

Communism doesn't work because people. A democracy based on regulated capitalism is, so far, the least bad system.
Communism cannot work unless want is removed, and the only two ways to do this is either to have absolutely everything in enormous abundance (and I mean everything), or to start doing nasty things to people's heads.

[Cthulhu]

Wanting more than somebody else when you can live happily, well nourished etc. is greed. Read above.

Damn straight it is, and I'm greedy.  I want more stuff than my necessary allotment and I don't want to work very hard for it.  There, I just broke your True Communism.  Make me not greedy and then we'll talk.

I'll brofist to that.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

Wanting more than somebody else when you can live happily, well nourished etc. is greed. Read above.

Damn straight it is, and I'm greedy.  I want more stuff than my necessary allotment and I don't want to work very hard for it.  There, I just broke your True Communism.  Make me not greedy and then we'll talk.

I'll brofist to that.

Brofist seconded.
Jesus, three way brofist.

[bjlong]

Please remember, everyone, the US isn't a purely capitalist society. In fact, China's the closest thing to pure capitalism around! The US is more of what's called "mixed capitalism," where socialistic policies supplement capitalism.

My point, Dwarf, was that there are sucky jobs that need to be done. And who's going to do them? Who's going to want to do them? Wouldn't you rather be off writing poetry or something?

There's also the idea that doing some things requires more from people than doing other things. Going to school for years and years to become a surgeon, where you're constantly in high-pressure situations and dealing with guilt because you couldn't save this dude's life on the operating table, that takes a lot out of someone. Shouldn't he be rewarded for this incredible investment?

However, a country would try to implement it, but it would not be perfect, but they can try to be as perfect as possible and I do think that it would succeed in that aspect.

I see where you're coming from, but haven't we tried this with Cuba, China, and the USSR? One of those failed, one turned to cut-throat capitalism, and I'm not too sure about Cuba, but it's never been that much of an economic power.

What do you think spurs evolution?  Love?  Altruism?

Yes. The dinosaurs were ruling the earth, but a tree-squirrel said that that wasn't fair. So the dinosaurs, in their insurmountable goodness and love, summoned a meteor that destroyed most of the life on the planet, allowing the tree-squirrel to evolve into us.

Dinosaurs. The original Jesus.

Wanting more than somebody else when you can live happily, well nourished etc. is greed. Read above.

Damn straight it is, and I'm greedy.  I want more stuff than my necessary allotment and I don't want to work very hard for it.  There, I just broke your True Communism.  Make me not greedy and then we'll talk.

I'll brofist to that.

Brofist seconded.
Jesus, three way brofist.

Bartender! Brofists all around. This one's on me.