Print

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

[Dwarf]

Are there some?

[smigenboger]

What, communists? No there's no communists here on the Bay12 Forums.
Shut up dude, we only plot our communist ways on the IRC here. Civilians don't know whats up yet


Communism is sort of a catch-all term, what exactly do you mean by it?

[Dwarf]

Whatever form, Leninism, Maosim, Trotskyism, Marxism…
I'm not talking about Social Democrats or other generally leftist stuff, but Communism indeed.

[smigenboger]

I'm going to say I'd support communism as a form of economy for groups of 50 or less people. It just doesn't work once there's more people involved. Actually, I'd almost say just about any kind of government/economy works well with a small group of people, except capitalism, which almost by default requires an upper class and an underprivilaged working class.

[Dwarf]

Why wouldn't it work?
Communism must be supported by a government for a while until it and its ideology are accepted by the people, which are then capable of running without a government. That is, in a nutshell, true Communism.

But you are right about Capitalism.

[Dwarf]

And if you watch closely, you'll notice that Communism has not drove multiple countries into the ground, as is often stated. On the contrary.

Cuba, which is not a true Communist nation, although it's getting closer to being one, is literally the least run-down country of entire South America.
Clicky here.
Russia had pretty much nothing after WWI, the revolution and the various unrests afterwards, but it became one of the most powerful nations in a matter of decades.

[Lumbajak]

Communism is the best form of government. In theory.

In practice, the one person leading them all tends to let the power get to his head, and it's hard to get everyone entirely involved because not everyone knows everyone else, and it's hard to care about people you don't know.

That, and people tend to be greedy.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

I find that Marx did a good job at outlining the world that Jesus Christ seemed to promote. However, both of these examples had to fail in their goals in the end, given that a true communist order would require all citizens to understand how the shared well-being also maximizes the personal well-being. And humanity has shown over the centuries that while individuals can be very intelligent and have a broad vision, the average insight into the greater picture is nearly completely absent in the general public.

Thus, I consider communism a very nice idea and definitely a genuine positive utopia, but that is just what it is: a utopia. And because of that, I do not encourage communism in real life as trying to reach a utopia is a waste of energy and the automatic failure that comes with such efforts are very likely to bring with them a situation that is even worse then where we started off. Thus, I support capitalism as the system that fits the human nature most perfectly - rather encourage reality and try to improve it within its boundaries than fight for dreams doomed to fail.

Deathworks

[Dwarf]

Greediness?

It is yet to be proved that greediness is actually a part of the human nature.
Behaviour non-inherent to the human is created because the social structure or community leads to do so.
Greediness is encouraged in Capitalism, it's the road to riches and a perceived better life.

Consider however that we live in a true Communist society; there would be no reason to be greedy at all. People who are, for whatever reason, still greedy, would be condemned in a similar way we condemn thieves.

[LegoLord]

Greed is selfishness.  Selfishness comes from desire.  And desire is very human indeed.  Now in nature, would a lion think "If I don't share my prey, those other lions will die"?  No.  Greed is a survival tool, and in fact quite natural.  The lion wants all it can get, because if it doesn't constantly strive for that, it could die.  And lions certainly aren't the only ones.  In nature, a person doesn't need 5 billion other humans to help it survive.  So it really wouldn't care.  It only needs a small tribe.  Less than a thousand would do, or even smaller.  At least to the mind of man in nature.

For Russia, communism was like a sugar rush.  A wild, crazy, brief buzz, then a painful headache once it wore off.  People got tired of it.  People that were born to it didn't know anything else.  They didn't know things could get worse; to them, things could get better.  Some would want to make it better for themselves.  This is called ambition, and it is the bane of any country trying to adopt true communism, and is inevitable - it's only human, after all.  Communism is a great idea in theory.  But in practice, people are just too human for it to work.  Dictators rise.  Capitalist endeavors work their roots back in, one way or another (see China).  Things just fall apart.

The Soviet Union is gone, China is only communist by name, and Vietnam is going the same way.

[smigenboger]

This is my basic argument for communism, and it's pretty much what Deathworks said. It also comes off a little Armok-y, which is not bad, just a little too idealistic for reality

Communism would ideally be a utopian community, and could almost be perfected, but mankind just isn't ready for that yet, and probably never will be. At the moment, we simply lack the caring potential, the average intelligence just isn't high enough, and the ability to stifle the urge to use more resources for ourselves prevents us from achieving what real communism is. I'd say it works alright for small groups (like the Bushmen of Africa) since greed and the abuse of power and representation increases with size and management.

-E Ninja'd

[Armok]

Communism and humanity are incompatible.
Therefore people discard communism.
I say, we should therefore discard humanity.

[Dwarf]

Greed is selfishness.  Selfishness comes from desire.  And desire is very human indeed.  Now in nature, would a lion think "If I don't share my prey, those other lions will die"?  No.  Greed is a survival tool, and in fact quite natural.  The lion wants all it can get, because if it doesn't constantly strive for that, it could die.  And lions certainly aren't the only ones.  In nature, a person doesn't need 5 billion other humans to help it survive.  So it really wouldn't care.  It only needs a small tribe.  Less than a thousand would do, or even smaller.  At least to the mind of man in nature.

For Russia, communism was like a sugar rush.  A wild, crazy, brief buzz, then a painful headache once it wore off.  People got tired of it.  People that were born to it didn't know anything else.  They didn't know things could get worse; to them, things could get better.  Some would want to make it better for themselves.  This is called ambition, and it is the bane of any country trying to adopt true communism, and is inevitable - it's only human, after all.  Communism is a great idea in theory.  But in practice, people are just too human for it to work.  Dictators rise.  Capitalist endeavors work their roots back in, one way or another (see China).  Things just fall apart.

The Soviet Union is gone, China is only communist by name, and Vietnam is going the same way.

A lion does not hunt all he can get. He only hunts what he needs, because nature has an innate sense of sustainability. We do not see lions killing an antelope, putting it somewhere and going to hunt another one right away.
Also, what would one desire in a Communist society? What else could you want if you've got food, a home, and all other commodities required for living?

That being said, the Soviet Union did not even get a 'fair start'. Its accomplishments are remarkable when considering the fact they were constantly threathened by the USA and had to compete in an all-out arms race only few decades after essentially starting from zero (after WWI and revolution etc.).
In the end, the Soviet Union could only lose because the USA outspent it.
(Not that the Soviet Union was Communist in the first place. It was state capitalism)

And yes, Communist nations (which are, still, in fact not Communist) are failing due to intervention of the USA and, on the other hand, a Communist revolution in one country being quite worthless. Unless that country happens to have the required resources itself - as the Soviet Union did.

[ChairmanPoo]

*shrug* No economic system works too well, and capitalism is not exempt (not even in the western nations, as recent events show). I say whatever is dominant at one given time will likely be best suited for the time being (even if only so-so), by virtue of survival, insofar as it survives.

ANd of course, times change

[Jreengus]

Communism is the best form of government. In theory.

When did communism become a form of government?