EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Communism

< Return to subforum
Page: 1234Most Recent
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Aug 10 2016 4:55 PM
What are your views on communism?
Is it successful for benefiting people long term?
Here is how I am defining it:
In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal") is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Not the western conception where the state owns all production and pays people equal amounts of money, this thread is not on that concept that isn't truly communist. Also, I am speaking about the end goal, not the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Basically, there is no state, all workers own(common ownership) the means of production(no business or private property), and there is no money. Everyone works and all that is produced is taken by the workers based on how much they worked(and is self-determined). There is no markets or medium of exchange. There would be barter for trade among people. People would work for things directly. No capitalists(private owners of economic production) to determine wages but instead the workers decide how much they get(goods and services). There would be no social classes either.
I thought of this a great idea and would like it but I realized some possible issues it could have when put in practice.
1. Money may be a natural consequence of exchange. An eventual currency(medium of exchange) may form to use instead of bartering.
2. There may be shortages in goods due to people taking as much as they want. There is no form of measurement(like prices) on goods.

What other issues and benefits do you see in this? What do you think overall?
Crow
By Crow | Aug 10 2016 5:13 PM
Bi0Hazard: 1. Money may be a natural consequence of exchange. An eventual currency(medium of exchange) may form to use instead of bartering.
2. There may be shortages in goods due to people taking as much as they want. There is no form of measurement(like prices) on goods.


That pretty much summates my opinion of Marxism / Anarcho-communism.

I categorize the early group of anarchists in the 1800's and early 1900's as being classical anarchists, because they advocated a variety of things, but most prominently supported non-forceful and participatory councils as a means of governing.

Those councils often exist in anarcho-communist political philosophy too. They explain the common means of production and division of resources in an anarchic society.
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Aug 11 2016 5:26 AM
Crow: You believe communism isn't sustainable long term?
Crow
By Crow | Aug 11 2016 5:34 AM
Bi0Hazard: Actually I believe it is impossible.

You cannot destroy classes, because total equality is impossible. Humans are not truly equal to one another, nor should we be treated the as if we are.

In terms of abolishing money, I believe that could happen. Not sure what the point is. Capitalism can exist without an established currency, and money makes trading easier.

Obviously I support a stateless society.
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Aug 11 2016 5:53 AM
Crow: Actually I believe it is impossible.

You cannot destroy classes, because total equality is impossible. Humans are not truly equal to one another, nor should we be treated the as if we are.

Classes in economics wouldn't exist in a society where people just take what they need from production. Even if someone had more goods than someone else, I wouldn't say that they are in different classes. Communism in practice wouldn't be totally equal.
In terms of abolishing money, I believe that could happen. Not sure what the point is.
Communists believe money is exploitative like markets and too restrictive.
Crow
By Crow | Aug 11 2016 6:15 AM
Bi0Hazard: Classes in economics wouldn't exist in a society where people just take what they need from production.

Yet there are always going to be those that have more.

Communism wants total equality, but only measures it in terms of economic haves and have nots. If we abolished money today, it would not extinguish the power of groups that had a lot of it.

Communists believe money is exploitative like markets and too restrictive.

Yeah, don't see it.

Without money, people barter, and that leads to disproportionate trade. Better to have it and need it as little as possible.
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Aug 11 2016 6:32 AM
Crow: Communism wants total equality, but only measures it in terms of economic haves and have nots. If we abolished money today, it would not extinguish the power of groups that had a lot of it.
Not receiving equal amounts. In Communism, you take whatever you need(self-determined), so there will be people who take more than others. It isn't meant to be 100% equal, just whatever you determine you earned. Yes, they want social inequality like the state and capitalism gone but not distributing to everyone the exact same amount of goods.
Yeah, don't see it.

Without money, people barter, and that leads to disproportionate trade. Better to have it and need it as little as possible.

Communists don't like assigned numerical values on labor and goods/services(believing they are much too restricting). They believe it is best for people to take what they need without any measurement.
admin
By admin | Aug 11 2016 1:57 PM
Bi0Hazard: I disagree on your point regarding money and goods. Communities can manage those things between themselves. I don't know that such a society could survive without courts but before you even get to that point there's a bigger problem - what do you do with unemployed people?
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Aug 11 2016 4:19 PM
admin: Communities can manage those things between themselves.
Valid point.
what do you do with unemployed people?
If someone doesn't contribute then they are simply not part of the economy(giving and receiving goods and services).
admin
By admin | Aug 11 2016 5:05 PM
Bi0Hazard: So that assumes that full employment always happens without a central state, or that some people are just unlucky / screwed. Doesn't sound that good to me.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Aug 11 2016 5:14 PM
admin: How does it assume that?
There is nothing you do with people that don't contribute. They are just not part of production(and receiving).
admin
By admin | Aug 11 2016 5:17 PM
Bi0Hazard: And without receiving they die.
Assume that there are always less jobs than people. Now clearly some people will die.
Therefore the assumption must be there are more jobs than people ie full employment, unless you want people to die.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
cooldudebro
By cooldudebro | Aug 11 2016 7:32 PM
There is a very simple reason why communism will never work. Whenever you divide the classes; and, make it to where it is unnecessary for people to specialize in a field to earn more money, they will simply slack off. Just as many people easily abuse the socialistic welfare system we have in the USA, even more people would abuse such a socialistic society. Money is needed for trade and bartering of good for other countries. There would also be greed as many people would take more than needed. You are also taking away businesses which took years to grow and giving it to the state. This isn't fair to the people who made and grew said business. There are plenty more problems with communism and socialism. However, this is all I will address.
Thumbs up from:
Crow
By Crow | Aug 11 2016 10:48 PM
admin: So that assumes that full employment always happens without a central state, or that some people are just unlucky / screwed. Doesn't sound that good to me.

Full employment doesn't exist with the central state. There are always more potential jobs than there are people too.

And he is absolutely right. If you are not working, then you are not apart of the economy. Same here, if it were not for welfare sustaining lazy deadbeats.

Therefore the assumption must be there are more jobs than people ie full employment, unless you want people to die.

So what? People die.

Those that do not contribute to the economy are either forced to relocate to where the they can be economically productive, or bite the dust.

That's just how it is and always has to be in a sustainable world. I am not crying over the statistic.
Thumbs up from:
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Crow
By Crow | Aug 11 2016 10:50 PM
cooldudebro: I believe there are other rewards to hard work than just money, but few people have the foresight and character to recognize them.
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Aug 12 2016 6:59 AM
cooldudebro: There is a very simple reason why communism will never work. Whenever you divide the classes; and, make it to where it is unnecessary for people to specialize in a field to earn more money, they will simply slack off.
The rewards would be goods and services in exchange for your work.
People may slack if they can get as much while working less, so there is a potential issue there.
There would also be greed as many people would take more than needed.
Another issue that I pointed out, this may result in shortages if people can take whatever.
You are also taking away businesses which took years to grow and giving it to the state. This isn't fair to the people who made and grew said business.
What do you mean the state? Communism is stateless, unless you mean the transition where the economy becomes more socialist(Dictatorship of the proletariat).
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Aug 12 2016 7:13 AM
admin: That's how it would work unless you donate goods to the unemployed(charity). Otherwise, they don't receive goods and services. Makes sense to me, if you don't contribute to the economy, you are not part of the economy(so you don't receive from the economy). It is much better to work than live off of charity or welfare. It works that way in capitalism too.
admin
By admin | Aug 12 2016 1:26 PM
Crow: Technology always reduces the pool of jobs while often increasing the number of people. Over time that collapses employment structures.

I am. I want everyone to live nice lives even if they can't work. So that would be my immediate problem with the OP.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
admin
By admin | Aug 12 2016 1:27 PM
Bi0Hazard: "Better" is relative. For the downtrodden unemployed, states are better. For greedy fat cats, charity is better.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Crow
By Crow | Aug 12 2016 10:50 PM
admin: Technology always reduces the pool of jobs while often increasing the number of people. Over time that collapses employment structures.


Verifiably false. Technology has given rise to great industries.

It does cause displacement. Which is where specialists are driven from their field, while a new category of specialty is now for hire.

I am. I want everyone to live nice lives even if they can't work. So that would be my immediate problem with the OP. '

The writer of the OP is saying that those who cannot work (very few people) can be sustained by their families/charity

If you think that is not enough, then go ahead and make an argument against it.

For the downtrodden unemployed, states are better.

You mean the deadbeat loafers in Detroit who produce kids like machinery to cash in on government child support?

Were you referring to the trailer trash slobs that utilize every welfare check to purchase narcotics?

Is this in reference towards the backwater hicks who funnel all their welfare money into their anti-government militias?

In my world, the downtrodden masses have always been the working class core. The kind of men and women that take 4 jobs just to make ends meet, because governments and corporations suck the life out of them.

I haven't met one competent person that I have ever felt incapable of making money in our society. Even Robin Hood gave money to people with jobs.

For greedy fat cats, charity is better.

The largest form of welfare in the world is corporate welfare.

Best to wisen up on who is really profiting off of the state.
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Page: 1234Most Recent