Obviously Communism has a bad name, because of all the corruption that got into it in Eastern Europe and Russia back in the day, and more or less destroyed the countries. But, that wasn't anything close to what real Communism was meant to be, it was supposed to be a long slow processing easing a country into an ideal society.

Humans can not be perfect, but with what the world knows now, hopefully how to avoid such mass corruption, maybe we should give communism a shot?

People give you weird looks when you actually suggest something like that, but Communism played out theoretically perfect would be the closest thing to a perfectly harmonious society that we could ever achieve on earth.

I hear people say why Communism was so evil, because of the governments not caring about the people and using them was worthless pawns in war. But what would be wrong with a well-running Communist society? Can someone tell me?

I'm sick of these shitty Canadian governments constantly fucking things up, and I'm seriously considering voting Communist next election.

Thank you very much.

Canada isn't communist?? When did that happen?

Capatalism isn't any better when it comes to corruption then Communism.

so you acknowledge that humans are not perfect, and then follow with a statement that requires of communism PERFECT adherance to its tenets for it to work? you, my friend, have just identified the implicit problem therein.

communism CAN work. amongst a small and willing group of citizens, communism will work. a necessary condition, however, is that these people turn human nature on its head. that is, they must be willing to relegate self-interest subservient to the interest of others. the problem is when (and it is a matter of when, not if) you begin to cast the communist net too far and incorporate individuals who fail to put the interests of others before themselves.

so, communism will work amongst a small number of willing participants. and this number must be fixed, or the number can only increase when including other willing members. the implicit problem - children. this is why it is a question of when, and not if, communism will fail. the introduction of children introduces an unknown element. yes, they could become like the other members and not be self-interested. but somewhere along the line, you get a child who rejects the tenets of communism.

communism as a policy is fatally flawed because it requires of uninterested parties rejection of human nature. all humans act in their perceived self interest, regardless of the outcome of their decisions. always. in all circumstances and under all conditions. communism asks of all to act in a manner contrary with the human condition.



communism can work. see above.

the closest analogy to a functioning communist regime is a family. when all family members act in the interests of the other members, all is well. what often breaks up this well-balanced orchestration? children. again, see above.



so you seek to force your chosen lifestyle and wishes upon unwilling (and often unwitting) citizens? how very communist of you. if person A won't go along with whatever initiatives you deem he or she should, how will you get person A to go along with what you want? instead of choosing a system that accomodates and respects incentives, you choose instead to motivate dissenters with what? a gun? or some other threat?

communism cannot work when you begin to incorporate unwilling members. and my guess would be that there would be at least 10 or 12 unwilling people in canada.



no, thank you.

yes it is, because we and the press have freedom of speech

*yawn*

look, no system is perfect. communism is flawed. socialism is flawed. capitalism is flawed.

of the three, however, only capitalism stands a chance of longevity. in the long run, incentives matter. and capitalism is the only system that respects and rewards basic human nature.

and don't confuse my defense of capitalism with defending american capitalism. american capitalism is a bastard of state intervention and capitalism, and breeds a particularly virulent strain of capitalism - crony capitalism. yuck. the potential for corruption, centralization of power, and centralization of wealth is much greater in america's hybrid form of capitalism.

oh well, just my two cents.

Freedom of speech does not get rid of corruption. It just means a majority of the venues of freedom of speech need to be in control of those acting illegally. Otherwise the people may revolt. If half this country were like me and overly outraged at the Pentagon's missing 3.3 trillion American taxpayers dollars, we'd see change quickly. This on top of the many things this and past Administrations have done in regards to keeping secret those that not only do we pay for but have no reason to be kept secret other then to conceal something from us, Cheney Energy Task Force ring any bells. GAO having to sue the Executive Branch to get documents that they have never had a problem acquiring from any past Administration.

And I couldn't agree more with this statement:

I agree with nearly everything kthodos has said in this thread.

if your idealized version of communism includes the confiscation of private property for public use then, yes, there is a very important reason that communism will not work. it is one of the most important (and sadly, overlooked) features of capitalism in that it guides resources to where they are most needed and ensures that resources flow to where they are most highly valued: prices.

any system that relies on central planning is surely hamstrung by the lack of time and place-specific information that is required in a society of exchange (just because property is public does not necessarily mean that people's propensity to exchange is curtailed). would any central planner be better equipped to gauge the scarcity, and therefore the price, of bagels at your corner bakery than the baker himself? no.

there is no "invisible hand" in communism precisely because resources are communal, and therefore rewards (and costs) are diffused through the commune. there is no effective stewardship of resources because prices are not allowed to fluctuate. further, there is no means to competently measure what something is worth. why? what something is "worth" is inherently subjective and best determined by the individual in current possession of said good. communism cannot reconcile this conflict.

no way to evaluate what something is worth = no way to price the good.
no way to price the good = no signals to society as to what produce more or less of.
no signals of what to produce, or how much of it to produce = an economy riddled with shortages, surpluses, and black markets.

sound familiar?

an economy that relies on anything other than prices will fail.

What is the difference between communism and socialism?

Because communism doens't work. If people don't have incentive to try they won't.

so·cial·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

com·mu·nism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmy-nzm)
n.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.
---------------------------------

so, according to these definitions, socialism is a precursor to communism.

You're a lazy uninspired individual aren't you God Eat God?

Communism may be suited for subsistance farmers, but it is certainly not suited for this day and age. The age of the automobile. The age of technology. There is simply no practical use for such rubish. It would not benefit a modern society because it goes against the very notions of human instinct. Once you begin to build such a society, it will certainly begin to part at the seems. It's human nature, not Marx's fault.

I'll take a stab at it. Communism in general is not a bad thing. Neither is Utopia, Heaven, or Nirvana. But it takes a human populous believing in that ideology to make it work. Beyond that, it takes not a single person in that country being lazy, and someone like me agreeing to be a farmer instead of a film director because it is what is best for the country. In essence, I lost my freedom and humanity because I am forced to engage in a certain role in society, instead of persuing the concepts that make me happy.

To take a step further, Christianity is a great concept, but if we were all forced to embrace it we would turn into really shitty Christians. A good idea does not translate into a working society unless all of us agree with that particular idea. Tell Hitler that he has to be a radish picker in South Africa. I am all for Utopia, but if I'm the one destined to pluck the fucking harp, then I will try my hardest to bring it all down. I would venture to guess that 90% of the human race agrees with me.

If there were no greed in the world then Communism would work. Unfortunately the world is stacked full of the stuff.

What do you call the kind of government that is like capitalism, except that the government doesn't let corporations and rich individuals piss on every citizen and lawmakers actually give a shit when a huge proportion of their constituents are hungry, sick, and/or poor?

fantasy.

Then why the fuck would you vote to give them more control?

Vote Libertarian!