Communism and Why It's Bad

[Greenday]

This is something I'd like clarified for me. Just why IS communism bad? I can't figure this one out. It's just a style of government. It's not Nazism. Everyone gets an equal and fair chance.

People point to Russia and say they were evil because they were communist. $20 says they were saying the same thing about America. Stalin didn't run a true communist country.

America was built on the idea of equal and fairness. Communism is actually making everything equal and fair for everyone. I mean, capitalism rewards the rich and screws over everyone else. And no one finds this evil apparently?

[Saydrah]

"Communism" as practiced by Russia and China stifled innovation, depressed the economy, and caused the rise of dictatorship.

That was NOT the Communism Marx envisioned in the Manifesto.

I'm a huge fan of Marx, and I think if and when society progresses to the point of practicing Marxism as Marx outlined in his writings, the world will be a far better place for it. Communism has not failed- it's just never been tried. The governments Russia and China called "Communism" were dictatorships.

Marxism starts with one single basis: The antithesis to Capitalism- that is, NO MORE CAPITAL.

If a government includes capital (money or anything that serves as a rate of exchange for valuable goods or services) it is not the government Marx envisioned, period. Russia and China have always had money- they just tried to give the same amount to everyone, and ended up giving dictators the lion's share. Until a system is attempted with no monetary basis whatsoever, Communism will not have failed or succeeded- it will, like now, never have been attempted.

Marxism is not evil. It's also not YET possible. However, it's my belief that advancing technology will create a Marxist society in the next couple hundred years. The biggest fear when technology makes a huge leap is that jobs will be lost, right? Why are people scared of androids? Because if you have androids to do jobs, you don't need people filling them. The argument against that is that the more technology, the more you need people to repair and build that technology- but many of those processes can be automated, right?

So what if we actually reach that level- where 50% of jobs in the world can be done by machine? You have either huge job losses, or you have a fundamental change in the structure of labor. IMO, the latter will occur, and the result will be remarkably like Marx's Manifesto- humans do about four hours of labor each day doing necessary jobs that humans are needed to do, for the benefit of society- not for money or gain. The rest of the time, they are free to pursue whatever they are passionate about, leading to overall gains for society- people who would have been doctors will passionately practice medicine and research, artists will still create, etc. The ability to own what you have with your own labor created will be intact, but the system of using capital to force someone else to direct their labor in a certain way will not.

[ArenaBoy]

The type of government practiced by Russia and China is not pure communism. The definition of communism was more or less skewed that way because that was what we were witnessing in comparison to Marx.

And Saydrah, I have to disagree with you. No matter what it isn't possible. Human nature is a fickle thing and people like to own things. It's in our blood. You know the communes from the 60s? Where everybody was happy sharing the work? They admitted that they started arguing over whose turn it was to do the dishes and that it led onto other things such as power trips and egos. People are going to be people and I don't see it happening. Never underestimate human nature.

Greenday: If you want to see what pure communism and pure capitalism is like the best comparison that I can offer is our sports leagues in terms of business. Ours is entirely social to a degree. Whereas in Europe it's PURE capitalism. If you finish in last place for example you get sent down to the lower leagues and the teams that finished in the top of the lower leagues are sent up. Imagine where the Pirates would be if this was practiced.

[Saydrah]

ArenaBoy, I find that most people who disagree with that haven't read the Manifesto, or have only read the Manifesto and nothing else by Marx.

Marxism doesn't aim to abolish the human concept that ownership can be established through one's labors. If I plant and water a fruit tree, some jerk next door doesn't just get to come pick all my plums and walk away. However, I also don't get to tell the jerk next door's son, "Pick these plums for me and I'll give you $10," then go out and sell the plums for $100 and keep $90.

Marxism eliminates capital, not ownership- it eliminates the ability to own someone else's labor.

Yes, there are a lot of unanswered questions, and I am not a genius and can't answer them. Marx was, and maybe he could have if he were alive to ask, but he's not. However, I don't doubt that someday they'll be answered. I'm sure people who lived under feudalism and slavery thought that there was no way out of that system. The argument can be made that capitalism is just feudalism and slavery with fancier words, and I don't know that I'd disagree; but it's an improved VERSION of feudalism and slavery, with fewer flaws. It's not perfect, and the next system that arises won't be perfect either- utopias only exist in fairy tales. But I think the next, or the system after the next, will resemble Marxism.

[Seshat]

Study McCarthyism. The Wikipedia entry is a decent place to start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism


The capsule summary is that 'communist' was a label - the label could have been anything - that was used to denote 'enemy'. The philosophy of communism was irrelevant to the political and propaganda events of the day.

[Greenday]

I know what McCarthyism is. It was some guy labeling anyone he didn't like traitors to the country. And since the Russians were our enemy at the time, and they were "communist", he decided to call his enemies commies. People were too stupid to stand up for him and it led to a vast fear of communism.

I had just hoped though that people would have wised up after this many years. Looks like for the most part they haven't.

[Seshat]

As far as I know, that's still the only reason communism is popularly seen as 'bad'.

(Not that there aren't bad things about communism - it seems that humans still haven't invented a form of civilisation that doesn't have its down-sides. But there's no reason I know of that communism is inherently bad/wrong/evil, just flawed like every other system so far devised.)

[Giggle Goose]

My poli sci professor once told me that Communism can't be achieved in countries without the necessary capital to begin with. Generally speaking, China and Russia were poor and it's working badly. You can't equally distribute resources when they're scarce to begin with.

[CancelMyService]

There's also the argument that communism was labeled as something bad because it went against the ideas our economy is based on. If people looked into non Soviet style communism, our whole economy of getting people to spend more money than they can afford would grind to a halt. There's just too much invested in that line of business to allow any opposing viewpoint remain unsmeared.

[IDrinkaRum]

Plus, if I can remember from the Communist Manifesto (I haven't read Das Kapital by Marx), but according to Marx, once everything has been distributed and everyone is living in peace, love, happiness and equality, the Government itself dissolves. Marx doesn't say how the Government knows it's the time to dissolve, the Government will just do it.

To understand, Marx's political philosophy about man is that Man is born good and will only want what is good for his fellow man. (As compared with the other political philosophies: Man is born evil and it is up to other men to make sure the world doesn't go to heck in a handbasket).

According to Marx, man is like a 3-year-old, and when you tell them not to do something, they'll do it (laws). Man doesn't think to rape, murder, burglarize until he is told not to. "Why can't I kill my next door neighbor? I never thought about killing him, but now that I'm not allowed to do it, I'm going to!" Just like a toddler: "Mommy said not to shove this penny up my nose. Why not? I'll do it anyways!"

So anyone in power, really doesn't like Communism as Marx envisioned it, but they do like the fact they can make their people completely dependent upon them.

[lordlundar]

The biggest problem with communism is that it isn't applied properly. Communism is meant to be an economic system, not a political system. America for example is a democracy that has a capitalist economy.

Communism as an economic system actually has a potential to work, but it requires 2 things:

1. Total acceptance. If anyone tries to be better off than someone else, it will produce materialism and will destroy communism.

2. A solid government. It cannot be fascist or reliant on material gain. Once the government feels it is better than the people, it fails.

These are the reasons why Communism can't work. In theory it's a good idea, but it's too fragile on too many factors to be practical. Technically, capitalism is the same way. The only real advantage is that it plays to the worse part of human nature.

As for why it's 'evil', the US is a capitalist economy, which is the antithesis of communism. Two extremes on the economic scale. And the more extreme it is, the easier it is to be blinded to the benefits of the other extreme. Then there was McCarthyism. Basically one person stirring up those emotions and having the charisma to get the followers.

[Spiffy McMoron]

My poli sci professor once told me that Communism can't be achieved in countries without the necessary capital to begin with. Generally speaking, China and Russia were poor and it's working badly. You can't equally distribute resources when they're scarce to begin with.

If I remember my history professors correctly, Marx actually envisioned the people's revolution happening first in great Britain, simply because they were the most advanced country at the time he was writing. Unfortunately, Marx didn't see a couple of things coming:

1) Conservative governments taking some communist/socialist reforms, implimenting them, and gaining popularity for doing so. (Don't believe me? Look up Bismarck and Prussia/Germany. Bismarck was a conservative, but to keep people happy he enacted labour laws and old-age pension--socialist ideas.)

2) Power-grabbers. Mussolini was a communist at one time, but when he couldn't get into power with that, he became a facist.

As lordlundar mention, communism is meant to be an economic system. However, communism have morphed into a discipline that arcs across various subjects, under various names, that have a similar idea--that a differing class system is the major source of problems. It may be called Communism, Marxism, Leninism, Socialism, or Critical pedagogy, and you can find it in:

-History
-Political Sciences
-Sociology
-Education
-Economics

And I'm sure that this list is incomplete, as well.

[IDrinkaRum]

Spiffy - according to my Poli Sci professor, Marx thought the only country who was good enough for his Communism was France. That's why the Communist Manifesto was originally written in French, not Russian. He knew the Russians would screw it up. :p

Yes, it's economic-based, but there is no government. That's why no one gets in power or rich or whatever with it. There is no need for laws in a communist society, ergo, there is no need for Government. Government is bad. They bind the minds, the hearts, the desires of the working class, creating laws to keep the "little guys" down, making it easier for the rich to steal from the poor, etc., etc.

[AFPheonix]

Spiffy - according to my Poli Sci professor, Marx thought the only country who was good enough for his Communism was France. That's why the Communist Manifesto was originally written in French, not Russian. He knew the Russians would screw it up. :p



That's actually a pretty good point. For some reason, it seems like Russia really needs to have a strong national leader for their cultural identity. They're doing it again with Putin. It's like they need a Tsar to function.

[Fuzzykitten99]

The biggest problem with communism is that it isn't applied properly. Communism is meant to be an economic system, not a political system. America for example is a democracy that has a capitalist economy.

Communism as an economic system actually has a potential to work, but it requires 2 things:

1. Total acceptance. If anyone tries to be better off than someone else, it will produce materialism and will destroy communism.

2. A solid government. It cannot be fascist or reliant on material gain. Once the government feels it is better than the people, it fails.

These are the reasons why Communism can't work. In theory it's a good idea, but it's too fragile on too many factors to be practical. Technically, capitalism is the same way. The only real advantage is that it plays to the worse part of human nature.

As for why it's 'evil', the US is a capitalist economy, which is the antithesis of communism. Two extremes on the economic scale. And the more extreme it is, the easier it is to be blinded to the benefits of the other extreme. Then there was McCarthyism. Basically one person stirring up those emotions and having the charisma to get the followers.


I don't like communism because it eliminates my freedom to choose how to live my life. I want to live my life how I see fit, not how the government thinks I should live it or that they know better than me.

Communism stifles innovation because it means government has total control over all resources. When government has total control over all resources, they must ration them. Where would this world be today, without the free enterprise and capitalist system of the US? Inventions and healthcare advances that were made here first, have revolutionized the world.

This guy actually explains communism fairly well and why it won't and never will work: http://www.xanga.com/ethansudman/641899798/why-communism-doesnt-work.html

I like his last point: "Another related issue here, of course, is the "garbageman problem" - specifically, how do you persuade people to become garbage men, janitors, or other undesirable jobs? In Communism there is no incentive to take these jobs. To say that "people would do it because they know it's in the interest of society" is nonsense; if that is true, then why aren't more people willing to do these jobs now?"

[Sylvia727]

I don't like communism because it eliminates my freedom to choose how to live my life. I want to live my life how I see fit, not how the government thinks I should live it or that they know better than me.

In a utopeian world, you would have the freedom to immigrate to a country with a politcal/social/whatever system you agreed with. So in this world, the only people living in a communist society would be the ones who chose to live this life. Communism would be how they saw fit. </devil's advocate>

[BlackIronCrown]

America was built on the idea of equal and fairness. Communism is actually making everything equal and fair for everyone. I mean, capitalism rewards the rich and screws over everyone else. And no one finds this evil apparently?

Ah ha! One I can sink my teeth into.

Communism - both pure Marx and Marxist-Leninism Communism - relies on one thing to make it work: That everyone has the best interests of everyone else at heart.

That's the only flaw. No, really - that's it. It relies on you having the best interests of your fellow humans at heart. Essentially, it requires everyone to be idealistic.

Now, take a look at the people around us IRL and let that sink in.
Your boss - he totally has your best interest in mind, right?
Your political leader?
The neighbor across the way?
Etc?

Unofrtunately, a political system based on idealism hitches up. So do economic systems based on idealism. They forget that we, as humanity, are regularly selfish little bastards.

As for capitalism, it works the other way around. It's based on you being a selfish bastard. Thus, it tends to work fairly well.

[ArenaBoy]

"In every language, the first word after "Mama!" that every kid learns to say
is "Mine!" A system that doesn't allow ownership, that doesn't allow you to
say "Mine!" when you grow up, has -- to put it mildly -- a fatal design flaw."

"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."

Frank Zappa.

[protege]

Communism stifles innovation because it means government has total control over all resources. When government has total control over all resources, they must ration them.

That was why most 'companies' under communism didn't last long after the late 1980s. Take the company that made East Germany's infamous Trabant car. Those things sold, along with Ladas, Zapos, and similar vehicles, simply because they had a captive market. They didn't sell very well outside of the Eastern Bloc nations...mainly because they were pretty crude compared to Western offerings. Needless to say, once the Wall came down, the companies that made those vehicles, suddenly found themselves without customers! By then, everyone wanted a 5-year-old BMW, VW, or similar vehicle...and didn't want to wait for it!

When the first Trabants came out in the 1960s, they were simply a way to get the Bloc mobile. As such, they were pretty crude and basic. Three-cylinder, two-stroke engine, etc. (I should mention here that the Trabant's emissions were pretty bad. This wasn't the fault of the design, but that of the owners. For those who don't know, a two-stroke requires oil added into the gasoline. At the time, it was common belief that if they added twice as much...it would last twice as long. Sadly, all it did was spew out pollution.) Anyway, what happened with the Trabant, is that even though they sold well...the company never made any money on them, but there was never any left over to develop the product.

Why was there never any money? Simple--it all went back to the government, who divided it up to various other enterprises, including a fair chunk back into the higher-ups in the Communist party. (Kinda ironic when you think about it--structurally, it was almost *exactly* like capitalism. That is, a few well-off people at the top, and a huge "middle class" below them....) Money, along with all resources were rationed by the government. That eventually caused shortages, and multiple-year-long waiting lists, simply because the government couldn't move fast enough to prevent them.

[Slytovhand]

"In every language, the first word after "Mama!" that every kid learns to say
is "Mine!" A system that doesn't allow ownership, that doesn't allow you to
say "Mine!" when you grow up, has -- to put it mildly -- a fatal design flaw."

"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."

Frank Zappa.

I thought the next word they learnt is "no!". "Mine" is merely a word they say (repeat, parrot etc) until sometime after 2 years old when they start to get an identity of 'self', so that 'mine' has something it can relate to...???

Anyway - a bit more on track... humans are the way they are because that's the way they've been brought up. (take abused kids as an example - why do so many turn into the abuser later in life? Because that's what's 'normal').

You bring someone up in a utopian way, they're far more likely to develop utopian ethics - presuming they don't have 'interference' from other cultures/societies.

So - communism will work well - when people don't get the idea of ownership and screwing other people over. And the country can make it happen..

Russia and China's problems with 'communism' was also the massive amount of people to look after across a massive amount of country - and without either the infrastructure or primary industries to deliver. That's why either England or France would have been his designated targets - they have a smaller population, a good enough infrastructure, across a smaller land base with fairly good rural pastures. And, at the time, had a ruling class walking over the workers (just for the added bonus of revolution :p)

So.. my boss might not have my best interests at heart, but neither does anyone else in this day and age... that's the culture that I've been brought up in.

Those 'undesireable' jobs are only 'undesirable' because we put jobs into a heirarchy... when it comes down to only doing about 4 hours a day helping out society, and spending the rest of the time pursuing our own passions, that won't be a problem (I mean - just think of yourself now... if you could do just 4 hours working at a job you hate, but get everything you need to pursue that which you dearly love - wouldn't you do it??)


Slyt