Communism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Communism » Communism

Communism
Can it work but only in theory?

Page: 1 2 3

Communism

shaheen
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 04, 2009
Location: Plano, Texas

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 11

Posted 10/05/09 - 06:00 PM: Subject: Communism	#1
Communism's only flaw is that nobody took into consideration the factor of human greed. In theory, if the ones in charge never get greedy(almost impossible i know) , communism could work. however, given that factor, communism could never get successfully manifested in our modern day society. Distribution of wealth is something that would be a welcome(at least by me) change in our society. Im talking about pure Marxist and Engleist(<?) communism. Not Maoist or Leninist. The basic theory. With a Capitalist society, an economic minority dominates the hardworking working class. This is exactly what Marx stated in his manifesto. Now think, doesn't this apply to our modern day America? Those with power, keep power, regardless of circumstance. Doesnt that sound a lot like the Bushs? In our Capitalist society, far far too much emphasis is placed on the value of materialistic goods. With communism, we are given our necessities, thus freeing ourselves of the jail that is our material goods based nature. Discuss I do not consider Cuba to be a successful communist country. Edited by shaheen on 10/05/09 - 06:15 PM. Reason: Clarification
Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand. Karl Marx

Z. Thustra
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 28, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 10

Posted 10/05/09 - 07:15 PM:	#2
Communism is flawed in every way, from its core on out. In order to make everyone equal you have to have someone to equalize them, which makes the equalizers unequal to everyone else. Forced distribution of wealth breeds inequality, despite what marxists seem to think. It makes the equation: productivity > reward or productivity < reward, and maybe, if lucky, a few people find themselves at productivity = reward. thats inequality. If justice means getting what you deserve, communism is obviously completely unjust. It's wrong in principle, which is why anytime a group has gotten close to it, millions have died. In a capitalist society, minus governmental corruption and interference, an economic minority may control most of the wealth, but that's because they created it, and they don't have the power to "dominate" anyone, if that word is implying force. in a purely capitalistic society, those with power can only keep power if they keep performing (if were talking about CEOs). And as far as presidents, they are elected. What does "too much emphasis is placed on the value of materialistic goods" mean? What is the "jail that is our material goods based nature"? In capitalism no one forces you to buy anything. You don't like material goods; don't buy a lot of them. Communist societies care just as much about he value of their material goods, I assure you. The only difference is that the government controls it all under communism. And using the word "jail" to describe the free market just seems silly. It's all just meaningless grandstanding. "I do not consider Cuba to be a successful communist country." What country WOULD you consider to be a successful commuist country? Edited by unenlightened on 10/06/09 - 12:10 AM. Reason: capitals, punctuation.
http://www.zazzle.com/philosophergifts http://modernartisterrible.blogspot.com

CallforDuty
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 16, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 4

Posted 10/05/09 - 07:57 PM:	#3
"Communism's only flaw is that nobody took into consideration the factor of human greed." Really..? I rather see greed and competition to be a necessity in the development of mankind. It's the driving force that drives economic prosperity. You are correct that greed equates corruption and disobedience from the rule of law. Thus he or she should be punished for their lack of respect to the law. It has nothing to do with economic theories. "Doesnt that sound a lot like the Bushs?" Please don't tell me that Bush carried capitalism in his economic policy. I think he was the most socialistic president till Obama came in. Another flaw from communism theory is their disdain for the privae property. Read the communist manifesto, they call for the abolishing the property. If a man has the right to self-ownership, to the control of his life, then in the real world he must also have the right to sustain his life by grappling with and transforming resources. Which means he must be able to own the ground and the resources on which he stands and which he must use for his own goods( or what you call it "GREED=EVIL")
The finest virtue of a great thinker is the magnanimity with which, as a man of knowledge, he intrepidly, often with embarrassment, often with sublime mockery – offers himself and his life as a supreme sacrifice.

atightropewalker
On par with an amoeba.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 128

Posted 10/06/09 - 02:24 AM:	#4
Communism has so many flaws it is sad. Of course none of these were clear at the start, not helped by the fact he created a rational system to explain it, but they existed nonetheless. Its problem was that it was an ideal, and so was doomed to failure. Capitalisms relative success has come about because it has evolved practically not from an ideal so, unsurprisingly, it works better. Do not mistake this for thinking it the right system, however. As for Socialism I find the arguments against interesting. Surely as an economic ideal it is perfect. We all have the same resources to do as we please, rather than the system we have where the minority can do as they please. (Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate. - Bertrand Russell) Obviously practically it is horrible and I'm happy to see Capitalism continue but I wish for more perspective. I couldn't understand getting more money for doing more (simplistically speaking) but the difference between the top and the bottom is horrendously large and the people with money are continuing and extending it by dangling the carrot of great wealth in front of the poor (the so-called 'American Dream') when they will essentially never attain it and where the rich continue to remain rich. Essentially do the owners of Wal-Mart or BP, or whoever, need to be multi-billionaires when they could be multi-millionaires? Are they worth in excess of 75 times more than their base employee? To me that seems out-of-control and just a little proportion could make life a lot happier for a lot more people and essentially the same for the very wealthy and thats a shame. And I apologise for the lack of coherence, I have all these ideas but I struggle to get them on to paper. And as this is my first post I apologise if this breaks any forum rules, or if simply it is impolite or unfriendly - neither are intentions of mine.
"An honest religious thinker is like a tightrope walker. He almost looks as though he were walking on nothing but air. His support is the slenderest imaginable. And yet it really is possible to walk on it." - Ludwig Wittgenstein 'It is the duty of the human understanding to understand that there are things which it cannot understand...' - Søren Kierkegaard

Kamerynn
Vetran Lurker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2005

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 159

Posted 10/06/09 - 03:14 AM:	#5
shaheen wrote: In our Capitalist society, far far too much emphasis is placed on the value of materialistic goods. With communism, we are given our necessities, thus freeing ourselves of the jail that is our material goods based nature. The form that the above takes is what I reject. In my opinion, it is not the case that capitalism results in materialistic emphasis - that's putting the cart before the horse. Capitalism is the result of our materialistic emphasis. shaheen wrote: With a Capitalist society, an economic minority dominates the hardworking working class. This is exactly what Marx stated in his manifesto. Now think, doesn't this apply to our modern day America? Those with power, keep power, regardless of circumstance. Doesnt that sound a lot like the Bushs? Again, this has nothing to do with capitalism (as a cause), in my opinion. The American dream is to own enough capital to not have to work (others work to make one's dreams come true). This is what results in the class division, not some "ism." If people were of a different mind, and wished to cooperate with their fellow workers instead of be above them the hierarchy - if they wanted to co-own the means of production with their fellow laborers instead of giving them a mere wage and taking the lion's share of the profit - then things would be different. Nothing in capitalism stops people from cooperating within a workplace and sharing the profit and responsibilities. Nothing about the free market entails a class distinction; the class distinction merely results from human nature - from our predisposition toward wanting to be at the top of a hierarchy. What we have is what has resulted from our freedom - from the freedom inherent in the market. The market isn't to blame for this; freedom isn't to blame; capitalism isn't to blame. We are to blame.
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller

dimitri
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 23, 2008

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 290

Posted 10/06/09 - 06:22 AM:	#6
Principle of capitalism or rather market - is universal principle. You can not escape it! Every man has his own (!) plans in his life. All kind of plans!!! To realize them he has some resources. His life, time, skill, power, things belonging to him, his knowledge etc. He needs the help of other people for realization of his plans. The only means to get this help is - exchange (!!!!). For instance if he needs money and is good looking, he can exchange his services as a model with some modelling agency for money... He must do such exchanges freely. He must look for an appropriate person of which services he needs and who needs his services, negotiate with him about the temrs so as to achieve maximum benefit for minimum expences. Like in courting a woman, for instance which can be described as negotitiation about the terms. so this principle encompasses the whole our relations with every other person. The market helps us in finding the best conditions. We have other people and can choose among them. As well as they can choose on their part... You are free to do what you want with your resources: body, skill, power... and you can not make exeption for your property! Your property is also your resource like any other. Or you can not hope to realize your plans. You are always optimising your resources, you economize them, exchange for wnat you need more. It's economics! We are ecnomical creatures. Communism is unable to see this principal fact. Which has many very important consequences.Which in their turn make communist or socialist economics impossible or perhaps just nonsence.If you try to remove property from the list above you will destroy society... Too keep people alive you will then need some repressive apparat, which can not be economically effective... Etc. Edited by dimitri on 10/06/09 - 06:28 AM

psychotick
Dazed and confused

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 05, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 123

Posted 10/11/09 - 10:53 PM:	#7
Hi, True communism has never existed in this world and probably never will, except in Star Trek of course! The problem is about more then simple money. Its about power and status and sheer human honeryness! All the people collectively own all the resources and all the means of generating wealth, then they also have to collectively share in all the decision making. Most of even the best communes fall apart there as you get a few strong willed individuals making the decision for the rest. Even nunneries have mother superiors! Meanwhile people are all individuals, and some are greedy, some have abilities others don't and believe they should be compensated for them, some are lazy and want to receive without giving of their labour, and some want to make the decisions or be seen as the higher status elite. Ego, greed, laziness, power hunger or a belief in self wisdom, all of these individual traits, some would say character flaws, destroy the very heart of communism. Communism is an economic system for saints, capitalism a system for flawed, greedy, self serving, power hungry, lazy human beings. Cheers.

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 10/11/09 - 11:49 PM:	#8
No it cannot. Despite the conflicting views of 'true' communism and the conventional communism, it should be underlined that Communism as an idea is not attainable because it is void of any relevance to the law of existence. There is no collective - and there is always a hierarchy. If you do not accept uneven distribution of resources, you have a major problem understanding Nature. If you accept this unevenness, Capitalism leaves certain avenues open for you to secure your own resources while Communism does not, which would you rather want? No chances at all, or chance for those who try (might not succeed)? Communism is in reality monarchy, however, monarchy that is opposite of what it actually was. We have peasants ruling over peasants with dynasties instead of monarchs. There is no difference.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 10/12/09 - 12:55 AM:	#9
shaheen wrote: Communism's only flaw is that nobody took into consideration the factor of human greed. Actually, I think communism was a direct response to the problem of human greed. The flaw was that greed could not be contained under a political system where anyone could hold wealth and power where people could compete. shaheen wrote: In our Capitalist society, far far too much emphasis is placed on the value of materialistic goods. With communism, we are given our necessities, thus freeing ourselves of the jail that is our material goods based nature. Every society is a complex "game theory" simulation. The balance is between competition and cooperation. Communism was extreme cooperation, (relying on nobody attempting to compete), and capitalism is extreme competition, (relying on not too many people cooperating). I think a lot of the members here will point out that such a balance can never be regulated. The amount of cooperation and competition depends on the availability of resources. In the "Star Trek" universe, which appears to be communist, it is supposed that poverty has been eliminated along with competition, (although this doesn't seem to be consistent).
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Odin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 214

Posted 10/12/09 - 07:12 AM:	#10
shaheen wrote: Communism's only flaw is that nobody took into consideration the factor of human greed. In theory, if the ones in charge never get greedy(almost impossible i know) , communism could work. however, given that factor, communism could never get successfully manifested in our modern day society. Distribution of wealth is something that would be a welcome(at least by me) change in our society. Im talking about pure Marxist and Engleist(<?) communism. Not Maoist or Leninist. The basic theory. With a Capitalist society, an economic minority dominates the hardworking working class. This is exactly what Marx stated in his manifesto. Now think, doesn't this apply to our modern day America? Those with power, keep power, regardless of circumstance. Doesnt that sound a lot like the Bushs? In our Capitalist society, far far too much emphasis is placed on the value of materialistic goods. With communism, we are given our necessities, thus freeing ourselves of the jail that is our material goods based nature. Discuss I do not consider Cuba to be a successful communist country. Communism's practical flaw is that it is a system devoid of justice and individual productivity. Its ethical flaw is that it enslaves everybody to everybody. If my 'duty' is to labor for the survival of someone else, I am a slave to that person.

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.