Communsim is not good

I never understood why it is assumed that under a communist system all production decisions would come from one source. I believe that communism could work if these decisions were made at a more local level. Techniques similar to those used by the current capitalist systems could, I believe, quite easily be applied to communism

@yourbuttocks:

Moses, command economies do not work. Think about it this way, what if sacramento made decisions about what the businesses in Los Angeles would produce, and how much. Would Sacramento do a good job? Would they have a good handle on how many widgets from Los Angeles are needed, for example? Or would they have a good idea of how many widgets were needed in Los Angeles?

Read Bossk’s post on communism at a localized level. Also, with your widgets example you assume that X amount of widgets would be produced in order to meet the demands of a good handle. This is capitalist thought. In communism, there would be ample supply of widgets (overproduction, which is the big no-no of capitalism) to be used for handles. Also, it would seem that all decisions would come from those who live in Sacramento. In reality, it is a gathering of the elected council from different regions of the world – recalled at any time. As Engles said, “Above all, it [communist society] will generally have to take the running of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole, that is, for the common account, according to a common plan and with the participation of all members of society. It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association – in a word, the so-called communal ownership of goods.”

@yourbuttocks:

Moses, some people are always going to be better off than others. It is an unfortunate fact of life. In Communism, it is the Commie Party. In Capitalism it is generally the person who is harder worker/smarter, or is in family of such person. Which is better?”?

And if everybody in the Communist party, everybody benefits. (This is a generalization, in reality other parties could and would exist under the communist system) Remember as Lenin said, “If everybody is a bureaucrat, then nobody is a bureaucrat.” Also, why must everything about Communism revolve around, “Well it’s not fair, he got more than me!” This is total fraud, communism teaches you to take what you need – even if that means you need a little more (or a little less) than the next person. A lot of people ask me, in communism, is everyone the same? (as in gets the same or needs the same). Marx teaches us to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability – meaning that some will naturally need more than others. A doctor usually requires more “tools” and “equipment” than the average postal worker.

@TG:

@yourbuttocks:

ks"]Moses, some people are always going to be better off than others. It is an unfortunate fact of life. In Communism, it is the Commie Party. In Capitalism it is generally the person who is harder worker/smarter, or is in family of such person. Which is better?”?

And if everybody in the Communist party, everybody benefits. (This is a generalization, in reality other parties could and would exist under the communist system) Remember as Lenin said, “If everybody is a bureaucrat, then nobody is a bureaucrat.” Also, why must everything about Communism revolve around, “Well it’s not fair, he got more than me!” This is total fraud, communism teaches you to take what you need – even if that means you need a little more (or a little less) than the next person. A lot of people ask me, in communism, is everyone the same? (as in gets the same or needs the same). Marx teaches us to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability – meaning that some will naturally need more than others. A doctor usually requires more “tools” and “equipment” than the average postal worker.

But everybody being in the Communist party is not very democratic, is it? Or are we going to assume that people’s ideas about democracy are not democratic as far as communistic ideals go?
Also, the average postal worker does not put in the same hours, have the same decisions, or the same responsibilities as a doctor. They have less to take home at night, less to do during the day, different hours, significantly less training. The “tools” and “equipment” are already provided by hospitals (unless the doctor chooses to work in the community in which case about 1/3rd of their income goes to pay for these), but these are not the reasons why a doctor would want to live and work in a communist society.

• lazycrypt

“But everybody being in the Communist party is not very democratic, is it? Or are we going to assume that people’s ideas about democracy are not democratic as far as communistic ideals go?”

Democracy is intertwined with communism; communism is a higher form of it. Also, next time, read what I place in parenthesis, those are usually the most important. “(This is a generalization, in reality other parties could and would exist under the communist system)” What I was trying to refer to was the communist society and not the communist party.

“Also, the average postal worker does not put in the same hours, have the same decisions, or the same responsibilities as a doctor. They have less to take home at night, less to do during the day, different hours, significantly less training. The “tools” and “equipment” are already provided by hospitals (unless the doctor chooses to work in the community in which case about 1/3rd of their income goes to pay for these), but these are not the reasons why a doctor would want to live and work in a communist society.”

Again, read closely to what I write. In my previous post I said “A doctor usually REQUIRES more “tools” and “equipment” than the average postal worker.” This means that the average doctor uses more than the average postal worker. Also, where does the equipment provided by hospitals comes from? Do they make their own?

@TG:

Well you’re right in the way that you do need a force to maintain obedience before the transition from capitalism to higher-level communism. However, Stalin was one ruler (you can count the Bolsheviks but most of them were either purged or forced to support Stalin’s actions). In lower-level communism, the power lies in the armed state of workers. Therefore, it is the majority rule by force, not just one man. This is the “inequality” (though small inequality) that Marx talks about in order to prepare for the withering of the state.

Who says they want to give that power away? Keep it! Most people, in all societies work for above all, theirselves, not the common good. Even people who support communism support it only because it offers an increased quality of lifed for themselves, and then others…This flaw is more than that, it is the greed that is an open wound in our society, and communism would only rub salt into it.

Now I don’t want to say “communism is bad” and not have any real reason for it (and god knows moses, you and I have told eachother the same thing a million times! :) ), but I must say that the long term effects of human greed in a society that would compensate everyone would be harmful, because the society would lose to will to work and would no longer strive, and eventually, not enough food would be grown, and there would not be enough clothes to keep man warm.

Look at the economic downturn in France.

@HortenFlyingWing:

I must say that the long term effects of human greed in a society that would compensate everyone would be harmful, because the society would lose to will to work and would no longer strive, and eventually, not enough food would be grown, and there would not be enough clothes to keep man warm.

In order for communism to work, the average person needs to realize more than his immediate conditions. If the worker wants quality products he will have to make quality products; if he wants enough food then he will have to grow food. This is not to say that everyone will have a garden, but if the society wants to eat then they will have to grow the food. People, believe it or not, do not work for money; they work for what the money can buy. If people really only want money then I suppose they would behave as Wingy indicates

About France, we are still the 5th power and you are making a dangerous correlation if you think the success of America is in large part due to it’s economical system (American are still very good economist/manager). Germany is not as liberal (in economy) as the UK; it is still more powerfull.

Also i would agree with Bosk, but i don’t think humanity has the vision for capitalist…

“most people’s thoughts move around in a circle with radius zero, which they call their stand-point”.

• David Hilbert, German mathematician

@bossk:

In order for communism to work, the average person needs to realize more than his immediate conditions. If the worker wants quality products he will have to make quality products; if he wants enough food then he will have to grow food. This is not to say that everyone will have a garden, but if the society wants to eat then they will have to grow the food. People, believe it or not, do not work for money; they work for what the money can buy. If people really only want money then I suppose they would behave as Wingy indicates

Bossk is right. Money is what we call the great lie. People don’t fall in love with money – they fall in love with what it can buy. If it were otherwise, then nobody would be spending his or her precious “papers.” Again, I use the example: let’s say you have a $10,000 bill (they exist). You could use it to go and buy a 48-inch HDTV, a small motorcycle, or 200 pounds of candy. That bill cost the US government less to print than a sheet of newspaper. So why does money work? You can’t take a newspaper and buy a motorcycle. But everyone in the world is in on a secret. Everyone is going along with the great lie: they’ll pretend your scrap of paper is worth a motorcycle as long as you will. You can’t take this bill to a government bank and exchange it for gold. Money is nothing but a false promise everyone’s made with everyone else. Also, what makes gold so valuable? Other then being used as an electrical conductor, it doesn’t have much use – at least nothing that can be replaced with ordinary metals. Yet a piece of gold the size of my thumb should be enough to feed someone for well over a year. Why is this? Because it is rare, shiny, hard to make?

@HortenFlyingWing:

Now I don’t want to say “communism is bad” and not have any real reason for it (and god knows moses, you and I have told each other the same thing a million times! ) .

And god knows how many times I had to answer your question, “Greed ruins everything” and “Corruption ruins everything.” :wink: I think that is about the 10th topic that deals with communism – not bad, eh?

@FinsterniS:

about France, we are still the 5th power and you are making a dangerous correlation

I don’t know… I heard California has the 5th largest economy (though I’m not sure this would also mean ‘power’) in the world. Strange considering we’re not even a country :roll:

Quote from TG" I don’t know… I heard California has the 5th largest economy (though I’m not sure this would also mean ‘power’) in the world. Strange considering we’re not even a country"

I dont know, California population is the same as all of Canada.
Crazy! :o

That’s nothing, look at Japan! Over 120 million Japanese live in a country smaller then California! :)

Anyways, I did a bit of researching of the World economy and it says that California surpassed France (poor French :-? ) in 2000-2001 to become the 5th largest economy in the world according to the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation. And if Los Angeles County was a country, it would be the 19th largest economy in the world (though I’m unsure where New York City would place).

For some quick facts of California

• Fifth largest economy in the world (as said already)
• Gross State Product is $1.4 trillion (enough to make Bill Gates shiver)
• State’s economy is the largest of all U.S. states (well until Texas starts bulking up…)
• State’s economy represents 13% of nation’s economy
• Largest population of all U.S. States (reason for 13% of nation’s economy)

Here’s what Gray Davis (our incompetent Governor :P ) had to say,

“In 1999, we were the world’s 7th largest economy. In 2000, we were the world’s 6th largest economy. And in 2001, we became the world’s 5th largest economy. In a recent meeting with Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of England, I told him that we had England in our sights, and would soon overtake them as the 4th largest economy in the world.”

Here’s how the world economy measures up (these stats are from 1999, so some countries might have been juxtaposed as compared with today

No Nation GDP1 Per Capita GDP Real Growth2
1 United States (boo-yah! 8)) $ 9,299 bln. $34,108 5.0%
2 China 4,800 bln. 3,850 7.0%
3 Japan 2,950 bln. 23,379 0.3%
4 Germany 1,864 bln. 22,708 1.5%
5 India 1,805 bln. 1,803 5.5%
6 France 1,373 bln. 23,280 2.7%
7 United Kingdom 1,290 bln. 21,822 1.9%
8 Italy 1,212 bln. 21,362 1.3%
9 Brazil 1,057 bln. 6,151 0.8%
10 Mexico 866 bln. 8,630 3.7%
11 Canada 722 bln. 23,295 3.6%
12 Spain 678 bln. 17,297 3.6%
13 South Korea 626 bln. 13,345 10.0%
14 Russia 620 bln. 4,237 3.2%
15 Indonesia 610 bln. 2,823 0.0%
16 Australia 416 bln. 22,158 4.3%
17 Turkey 409 bln. 6,241 -5.0%
18 Thailand 389 bln. 6,413 4.0%
19 Argentina 367 bln. 9,990 -3.0%
20 Netherlands 365 bln. 23,096 3.4%

France is still pretty high up on that list. In fact, I expected lower. I’m surprized India is that far up too.

Bill Gates isn’t quivering at California’s income, he probably owns half of the state.

“Bill Gates isn’t quivering at California’s income, he probably owns half of the state.”

Nah, Bill Gates is content to own just one coastal fortress AKA Seattle, Washington. :D

“France is still pretty high up on that list. In fact, I expected lower. I’m surprized India is that far up too.”

If you take a look at India compared with 20 years ago, expect them to be major players (like China and Japan) in the future. However, their main problem is that in addition to having 5th largest economy, they’re the 5th largest borrower. Expect great things for India if they can curve the massive over population and stravation.

What I also find intresting is Mexico (though not surprising since CA and Mexico are two of the greatest trading partners) beating Canada in terms of economy. Perhaps a little North American rivalry?

Anyways, for those intrested on how the other countries placed, I have stats that round out the top 50 (again, remember this is 1999, so a lot of countries has moved up and down the ladder [Taiwan being a big example :)]

21 Taiwan 357 bln. 16,144 5.5%
22 Iran 348 bln. 5,333 1.0%
23 South Africa 296 bln. 6,818 0.6%
24 Pakistan 282 bln. 2,042 3.1%
25 Philippines 282 bln. 3,554 2.9%
26 Poland 277 bln. 7,162 3.8%
27 Colombia 245 bln. 6,235 -5.0%
28 Belgium 243 bln. 23,905 1.8%
29 Malaysia 229 bln. 10,718 5.0%
30 Egypt 200 bln. 2,973 5.0%
31 Switzerland 197 bln. 27,077 1.4%
32 Saudi Arabia 191 bln. 8,882 1.6%
33 Austria 191 bln. 23,417 2.0%
34 Bangladesh 187 bln. 1,471 5.2%
35 Chile 185 bln. 12,362 -1.0%
36 Sweden 184 bln. 20,648 3.8%
37 Venezuela 183 bln. 7,878 -7.2%
38 Portugal 151 bln. 15,265 3.2%
39 Greece 149 bln. 13,935 3.0%
40 Algeria 148 bln. 4,741 3.9%
41 Vietnam 143 bln. 1,851 4.8%
42 Denmark 128 bln. 23,839 1.3%
43 Czech Republic 121 bln. 11,750 -0.5%
44 Peru 116 bln. 4,357 2.4%
45 Norway 111 bln. 25,076 0.8%
46 Nigeria 111 bln. 1000 2.7%
47 Ukraine 110 bln. 2,198 -0.4%
48 Finland 109 bln. 21,053 3.5%
49 Morocco 108 bln. 3,641 0.0%
50 Israel 105 bln. 18,331 2.1%

@TG:

What I also find intresting is Mexico (though not surprising since CA and Mexico are two of the greatest trading partners) beating Canada in terms of economy. Perhaps a little North American rivalry?

note, however, that Canada has the world’s 3rd largest per capital (after US and France) - much higher than poor mexico.
Also our economy growing quite quickly . . . :)

people will not change

People change, they evolve. Not only our body evolve, but our society, our philosophy. You statement is just good for conformism, and am i not sure we can afford to live in a so competitive world, maybe our little technological toys will make us pay for our egoism.

Do you think the first sapies were able to integrate a society like our ? Nein ! Communism is not working for now, we are not ready for that, it is still a noble objective. Idealist are never very realistic in someway, but they trace the future…

If I can see more than what is sitting right here in front of me, I think most people can; it’s not like I’m above average. It’s simply a matter of letting people become aware that this isn’t the only way.