Wouldnt communism/socialism be more stable due to social matters? Supposing that everyone is treated more equally, less fights, hatred and killings would be caused. People wouldnt need to fear for their existence, which could decrease crime rates, as well. Free markets and survival of the fittest rather tends to be the pure opposite. Maybe it sounds more fair on first glance, although a social agreement is premise for the competition.

Nature is the best teacher: Survival of the fittest can be cruel in both society and nature, but it also brings progress to society and in nature.

All lifeforms and technology exists tanks to this survival of the fittest/competition. With communism/socialism you have less competition, less progress, less cruelty, less life.

Communism expects everyone to be altruistic and to work for the collective. People aren't altruistic. Communism lead to everyone working less, producing poor quality, and nothing getting done.

Doctor's pay per year = 100,000

Garbage Collector's pay per year = 100,000

Why would i work my ass off when i could be a garbage collector and get the same pay

Firstly and most importantly, Communism is unachievable due to government corruption. Communism requires the following:

1. The state to eventually devolve due to being no longer necessary

2. People to work as much as they want, and not due to any requirement or motivation to do so

3. There to no longer be currency. It's not needed as a medium of exchange due to everyone just somehow magically only taking what they need from this pool of goods that has been created by the people who wanted to work.


All of the attempts at a communist state in history have ultimately ended at the socialist phase (in marxism, socialism is considered a step on the road to communism) because the government officials are living a great life, and are to corrupt to give that up.

People will not simply work as much as they want for the public good. Why would you want to bother working to produce stuff anyway if someone else is just going to do it for you and you can endlessly feed off of the public pool of resources at effectively no cost to you?

Sure, this mindset is okay if only a few people have it, since the larger segment of the population will still be producing food for these freeloaders, but if this realization becomes widespread, You will have a minority of people producing food for the majority freeloaders, since they have to do this to survive. In fact, by refusing to work, the freeloaders have essentially created a work requirement for the people that still are working, and these people to no longer have a choice to not work.

The worst part of this is that it essentially creates a class system:

1. The Lower class, suckers who produce food for everyone, despite the fact that everyone gets the same amount of food for themselves, regardless of whether they actually helped to produce any food.

2. The Upper class of people, who live the high life, never having to farm at all. They get their food for free, so why should they even think about resorting to the low class activity of producing food for the public good?

Given that the whole point of communism is to eliminate the class system created by capitalism, Communism as a whole seems pretty useless just for this reason.

The no currency thing essentially creates the problem I described above, although there is another horrible side effect of not having currencies: It takes away competition.

Why is it bad to have no competition? Without competition, there is no reason to innovate and create better technology. The whole point of a free market is that to stay in business, you have to have a better product than your opponent.

In Capitalism, You create a website to host a forum for us to discuss the merits of communism VS capitalism even though we are several thousand miles apart. This is obviously far superior to creating a building where we can meet in person and discuss these things. However, in a communist world, there is essentially no reason for this forum to ever exist.

In a communist society, there is simply no point. Why even waste time trying to invent a computer to make communication easier when you can just do nothing instead?

There is certainly no motive in helping the public good, because humans are obviously not motivated to do that. Everyone asks "What's in it for me", and essentially nobody does stuff for no reason other than to help out someone they will probably never meet.

Like I know what I'm gonna do. I'm going to go away from my life as a dude sitting around eating as much food as I want for free and doing pretty much nothing all day to invent a thing to let people who are thousands of miles away communicate effortlessly. Because it will help out everyone, so it is a worthy and noble cause.

No, this does not and cannot happen. If there is no motive for a thing to happen, that thing will not happen. And in communism, one of those things is Innovation.

So, to summarize:

1. Communism makes New/better technology impossible

2. It creates a class system, which is supposedly what it is trying to abolish.

3. It is completely impossible to achieve in practice, and results in a socialist state with an extremely corrupt government, very poor living standards and quality of life, and in most cases tens of millions dead to try to achieve this flawed communist state.

Edited 3/28/2016 13:35:41

Communism would only work in a world without corruption or bad people.
It's simply too idealistic to work

Attempts at small scale communism like the Democratic Soviets were pretty good. If you can't get out of the socialist phase though, good luck with running that mess.

All lifeforms and technology exists tanks to this survival of the fittest/competition. With communism/socialism you have less competition, less progress, less cruelty, less life.

I agree. but sometimes less is more. no competition isnt the goal, here. Btw the competition exceeded the goal of survival by far. For which reason do some people need millions and billions of dollars? what few have way too much, many have too less. At this point more equality could be useful!

Communism expects everyone to be altruistic and to work for the collective. People aren't altruistic. Communism lead to everyone working less, producing poor quality, and nothing getting done.

This might be an extreme idea of communism. Although, I doubt that communism instantly leads to poor quality, less production and nothng getting done. For example: Nowadays products have a very short lifetime due to poor quality - poor quality is rather a capitalistic device to increase production and profits. Less working isnt such a bad idea idea at all, referring to the recent production standards. You dont need the same effort to a certain quantity of a certain product than maybe 50 or 100 years ago. With involving technology decreasing working hours should be accompanied. everything else only causes the enrichment of few. and 'nothing getting done' might be a hyperbole for less is getting done. Is this such a big deal? Some might already argue that technical and economical development is too fast and goes out of control.
Finally, altruism is an attitude everyone should be capable to learn. At least community feeling and compassion are good things to achieve.

This might be an extreme idea of communism.

Nope. Communism means that there is no personal property, so there are two reasons why somebody would work: 1. they are altruistic and want to help communism progress, or 2. a politruk holds a gun to their head and tells them they need to work.

I doubt that communism instantly leads to poor quality, less production and nothng getting done.

Every historical example would disagree with you. Lada is not exactly the symbol of quality among cars, is it?

poor quality is rather a capitalistic device to increase production and profits.

Under capitalism, the consumer can decide what quality he wants. Sometimes the consumer decides in favour of high quality, high price, sometimes in favour of low quality, low price. Communism means low quality, high price, long waiting queues.

Less working isnt such a bad idea idea at all, referring to the recent production standards. You dont need the same effort to a certain quantity of a certain product than maybe 50 or 100 years ago.

Keep in mind that there are many types of work. Work doesn't only mean production of food, cars etc, but also services, research and so on. What you are implying is that the world is ready, and we don't need to do anything anymore. A great deal of people would disagree.

Finally, altruism is an attitude everyone should be capable to learn. At least community feeling and compassion are good things to achieve.

Altruism in moderation is good. A communist system expects 100% altruism. What that leads to is a backlash where everyone becomes cynical and eqoistic. Compare East and West Germany. East Germans are on average very xenophobic, racist, anti-Semitic, pro-nazi compared to West Germans. And with racist, I don't mean the typical progressive claptrap about not being a leftist multiculturalist, but actual racism.

www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/images/dprk-dmsp-dark-old.jpg

I agree. but sometimes less is more. no competition isnt the goal, here.

Not sure if you've ever read any of Marx's bullcrap writings (I personally haven't), or even done the slightest little bit of research on communism; But yes, that is the effect, if not the entire goal.

Btw the competition exceeded the goal of survival by far. For which reason do some people need millions and billions of dollars? what few have way too much, many have too less. At this point more equality could be useful!

If people can have a better life by working harder, it provides an incentive to work harder and improve life for everyone by innovating, donating to charity, selling stuff that people actually want, etc. Communism expects everyone to do this without any motive.

This might be an extreme idea of communism. Although, I doubt that communism instantly leads to poor quality, less production and nothng getting done.

Yes, it does. If there is no reason to produce high quality goods over low quality ones, people will always produce low quality ones because it's easier to produce them.

In capitalism, there actually is a motive, since people will not buy low quality goods, but will instead look to another company that produces high quality goods. This essentially means that the company making shitty stuff can either make better stuff, or go out of business.

For example: Nowadays products have a very short lifetime due to poor quality - poor quality is rather a capitalistic device to increase production and profits.

Poor quality goods are only produced because people keep buying them. This obviously means that people think they are better off having these poor quality goods than having no goods at all.

Finally, altruism is an attitude everyone should be capable to learn. At least community feeling and compassion are good things to achieve.

Sure, it would be cool if everyone just worked for the benefit of everyone else, but it doesn't happen without a motive. Capitalism provides this in the form of you being able to advance socially by working harder, but communism does not.

Trying to make this simple.

You must realize this, or everything I say will be worthless: People are assholes.
They will never work when they can sit around. Capitalism seems cruel. But because helping people gets you money, people are willing to help out. Not for others, but for themselves. But it helps others anyway.

I suggest Animal Farm as a good read. Short too.

@Paugers

Out of curiosity, do ya'll think a state of true communism or maybe a utopia could be achieved through the use of AI and robotics? No one will have to work if they do it for us thus complete equality?

This is a good point. I think it is possible, but we need to make sure the robots don't start thinking like humans. Somehow, we would have to give them a work ethic and someway to prevent them from rising. Furthermore, even if robots do everything for us, we would still need some people to watch the robots, which means not everyone would just be sitting around. And those watchers would probably become like a gov't, and take a lot for themselves. Plus, resources might be slim.
TL;DR: possible if we get lucky, but likely to get fucked up and end with a robot revolution.

And remember, kids, it was that evil capitalism that made those robots so communism can work!

First of all there has never been a communist nation, by definition, so historical comparisons are pointless. Obviously Communism is a concept you can only try to achieve - like counting to infinity. In my opinion it is a way of developing a certain idea of society, that balances things out, in the favour of social justice.

Out of curiosity, do ya'll think a state of true communism or maybe a utopia could be achieved through the use of AI and robotics? No one will have to work if they do it for us thus complete equality?

This is a nice idea that also came into my mind. I doubt there will ever be an utopia or a perfect society. My point is the direction of evolution. In your scenario boredom and egoism would still be a big problem. People need an employment and purpose in their lifes. and finally they need recognition for their efforts. which will be difficult to maintain.

Not sure if you've ever read any of Marx's bullcrap writings (I personally haven't), or even done the slightest little bit of research on communism

whats your point, here? pointing out that you have no idea what you are talking about and it is a waste of time to read your text walls?

In capitalism, there actually is a motive, since people will not buy low quality goods, but will instead look to another company that produces high quality goods. This essentially means that the company making shitty stuff can either make better stuff, or go out of business.

In general this is true. Unfortunately, you didnt understood what I was referring to. It is common fact that companies sell low quality products on purpose! maybe quality was a misleading term here. Most products are designed to come apart after the warranty claim is exceeded.
The effort, which is made to invent techniques to manipulate a product is counter productive in many ways. If you could implement a bit more social (communistic) attitude, you might decrease profits but you would increase contentment and confidence in society.

Doctor's pay per year = 100,000

Garbage Collector's pay per year = 100,000

Why would i work my ass off when i could be a garbage collector and get the same pay

Doctor's pay per year = 100,000

CEO of Volkswagen pay per year = 15,000,000 possibly improving through economical crisis ..

Compare East and West Germany. East Germans are on average very xenophobic, racist, anti-Semitic, pro-nazi compared to West Germans. And with racist, I don't mean the typical progressive claptrap about not being a leftist multiculturalist, but actual racism.

This comparison is flawed, because it is an exaggerated representation of the presents. East and west Germany are part of the same country/government. Bad infrastructure and education standards in east Germany have massively been caused right after the reunion by the new government to eliminate economic competitors!

Also, wow, one of the old forumers is here. Time for nationalism versus Communism

This comparison is flawed, because it is an exaggerated representation of the presents. East and west Germany are part of the same country/government. Bad infrastructure and education standards in east Germany have massively been caused right after the reunion by the new government to eliminate economic competitors!

Ah, I see you're a true believer. So Soviet communism was better than capitalism. East Germany was better than West Germany. Only after the reunification East Germany's problems began.

But the same that can be said about East Germany can be said about Russia. And it's a different country from Germany, no?

You're an idiot if you hate socialism. If you do please mail me about it.

The fundamental flaw with communism is that its hypocritical in practice. In every attempt at a Communist Revolution, its required an ultra-elitist vanguard to propagate the change. The problem is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. No vanguard can be trusted to act in the self-interest of the populace, and will in almost all circumstances use the newly formed political apparatus of the state to increase their own power and wealth at the expense of the "common-man" whom they were originally fighting for. In effect the Communist philosophy that inspired the likes of Lenin and Mao and Castro inevitably have the effect of being auto-digested.

Simply, communism is the replacement of one group of oligarchs or authoritarian elitist rulers with another set of oligarchs or authoritarian elitist rulers.

Also @Ox: We're talking about Communism, not socialism. The two philosophies should be separated at all times when possible. Socialism is in historical reality a compromise 3rd way economic doctrine meant to reconcile the conflicting theories of communism and capitalism.

Edited 3/28/2016 16:34:49

I hate socialism!

Ah, I see you're a true believer. So Soviet communism was better than capitalism. East Germany was better than West Germany. Only after the reunification East Germany's problems began.

Im sure I made perfectly clear, that I didnt refer to soviet communism, which wasnt communism at all except by its name. Furthermore I referred to the problems you mentioned, not problems in general.

But the same that can be said about East Germany can be said about Russia. And it's a different country from Germany, no?

whats your point?

You're an idiot if you hate socialism.

thanks, for the brief summary. I entirely agree!

EDIT:

JaiBarat, I agree. Lets better use the terms of communism and capitalism as rather opposite directions (or vectors) in social evolution, both representing an extreme.

The problem is that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

This applies to both systems. Anyways I believe that a society should have more social (communistic) than capitalistic aspects. In fact a society shall represent the majority instead of favouring an elitist minority.

Edited 3/28/2016 17:08:07

In general this is true. Unfortunately, you didnt understood what I was referring to. It is common fact that companies sell low quality products on purpose! maybe quality was a misleading term here. Most products are designed to come apart after the warranty claim is exceeded.

Yes, that is true.

It's not really relevant to the theoretical comparison of Capitalism and Communism, since in theory, a company that doesn't manufacture goods to break will generate more profit since they're providing better service.

What we are doing here is a theoretical comparison by the way; You said as much:

First of all there has never been a communist nation, by definition

The effort, which is made to invent techniques to manipulate a product is counter productive in many ways. If you could implement a bit more social (communistic) attitude, you might decrease profits but you would increase contentment and confidence in society.

I'm not sure why you're assuming that communism inherently produces better products than capitalism. Care to explain?

You're an idiot if you hate socialism. If you do please mail me about it.

I could argue the same about proponents of socialism, who seem to want to ignore the hundreds of millions of people who have been killed under socialist governments.

Edited 3/28/2016 17:05:34