Communism - Yea or Nay?

[l0l0lpur32]

I'll cut to what you consider to the chase. Yes, the wage differentials can be huge in capitalism, but what if the bottom rung of the ladder is still higher than what could be achieved under communism? A trickle down effect inevitable occurs in capitalism when the prosperous recycle their wealth back into the market and so bring up the wealth of everybody on the ladder.

 

 

 

This doesn't mean that the ultimate goal is that the bottom rung reaches the same level as the top rung. That'll never happen. But when the bottom rung is achieving by and large the same opportunities, healthcare, education and support that would be afforded to the top rung then I can't see what the problem is. Some people will go on to become more successful than others. But they may have worked hard, and they're simply being rewarded for it.

I could accept that if it werent the case that the richest nations on earth, like america and the uk didnt have so many homeless.

 

Really for nations as rich as us getting rid of the homeless problem shou'd be a doddle.

 

 

 

The majority homeless (For Ireland anyway) became homeless through their own faults, drug addictions and alcohol abuse. Why should the government bail people out who became homeless through their own faults and will most likely relapse again, it's not fair to the taxpayer.

 

Nah, it's because of the evil capitalists opressing them :lol:

[munkis]

I'll cut to what you consider to the chase. Yes, the wage differentials can be huge in capitalism, but what if the bottom rung of the ladder is still higher than what could be achieved under communism? A trickle down effect inevitable occurs in capitalism when the prosperous recycle their wealth back into the market and so bring up the wealth of everybody on the ladder.

 

 

 

This doesn't mean that the ultimate goal is that the bottom rung reaches the same level as the top rung. That'll never happen. But when the bottom rung is achieving by and large the same opportunities, healthcare, education and support that would be afforded to the top rung then I can't see what the problem is. Some people will go on to become more successful than others. But they may have worked hard, and they're simply being rewarded for it.

I could accept that if it werent the case that the richest nations on earth, like america and the uk didnt have so many homeless.

 

Really for nations as rich as us getting rid of the homeless problem shou'd be a doddle.

 

 

 

The majority homeless (For Ireland anyway) became homeless through their own faults, drug addictions and alcohol abuse. Why should the government bail people out who became homeless through their own faults and will most likely relapse again, it's not fair to the taxpayer.

 

 

 

thats making it extremly easy for yourself

 

 

 

we got constant unemployment in the west there are more people wanting jobs then there are jobs

 

this also have alot to do with it people who grow up on last step of society who are never getting a real chance to education who are constantly told they will end up a drunk loser then they get unemployed being turned down and often humiliated when searching for jobs

 

that they give up and resort too abuse is not 100% their false if u think like that u have a very scary wiew of people probobly based on not knowing these people

 

 

 

make sure there are jobs for everyone fight unemployment first afterwards can you complain about people being "lazy" and [cabbage] like that

 

 

 

also its a human right to have a place too live.... but maybe human rights doesent matter to you?

[RichieMcD]

 

 

 

The majority homeless (For Ireland anyway) became homeless through their own faults, drug addictions and alcohol abuse. Why should the government bail people out who became homeless through their own faults and will most likely relapse again, it's not fair to the taxpayer.

 

 

 

thats making it extremly easy for yourself

 

 

 

we got constant unemployment in the west there are more people wanting jobs then there are jobs

 

this also have alot to do with it people who grow up on last step of society who are never getting a real chance to education who are constantly told they will end up a drunk loser then they get unemployed being turned down and often humiliated when searching for jobs

 

that they give up and resort too abuse is not 100% their false if u think like that u have a very scary wiew of people probobly based on not knowing these people

 

 

 

make sure there are jobs for everyone fight unemployment first afterwards can you complain about people being "lazy" and [cabbage] like that

 

 

 

also its a human right to have a place too live.... but maybe human rights doesent matter to you?

 

 

 

What is the west? Technically Ireland is "the west", define next time what constitutes the west. It's not a scary view, it's view that those who work hard will receive results. I do know these people, quite likely more than you do yourself. I spend 8 hours each week going around Dublin giving them soup with my school VDP sector.l talk to them constantly, I'm on first name terms with many, I'd consider that knowing them. I know their stories, they know it's often their fault.

 

 

 

When you're living in poverty turning to substance abuse is your stupidest of choices, you'll never get out once your some form of addict to a financially draining substance.

[munkis]

 

 

 

The majority homeless (For Ireland anyway) became homeless through their own faults, drug addictions and alcohol abuse. Why should the government bail people out who became homeless through their own faults and will most likely relapse again, it's not fair to the taxpayer.

 

 

 

thats making it extremly easy for yourself

 

 

 

we got constant unemployment in the west there are more people wanting jobs then there are jobs

 

this also have alot to do with it people who grow up on last step of society who are never getting a real chance to education who are constantly told they will end up a drunk loser then they get unemployed being turned down and often humiliated when searching for jobs

 

that they give up and resort too abuse is not 100% their false if u think like that u have a very scary wiew of people probobly based on not knowing these people

 

 

 

make sure there are jobs for everyone fight unemployment first afterwards can you complain about people being "lazy" and [cabbage] like that

 

 

 

also its a human right to have a place too live.... but maybe human rights doesent matter to you?

 

 

 

What is the west? Technically Ireland is "the west", define next time what constitutes the west. It's not a scary view, it's view that those who work hard will receive results. I do know these people, quite likely more than you do yourself. I spend 8 hours each week going around Dublin giving them soup with my school VDP sector.l talk to them constantly, I'm on first name terms with many, I'd consider that knowing them. I know their stories, they know it's often their fault.

 

 

 

When you're living in poverty turning to substance abuse is your stupidest of choices, you'll never get out once your some form of addict to a financially draining substance.

 

 

 

 

 

i know them too but not from soup but many close friends have been homeless and ive had problems wich made me nearly one of them too

 

and i know its all societys foult just a big part of it

 

also worth noticing is that in my city the psychological ill are now more then the addicts amongs the homeles.... the ones who dont abuse anything

 

 

 

and well the western world being western europe usa canada i thought it kinda obios...

[Quoi_Tu]

The majority homeless (For Ireland anyway) became homeless through their own faults, drug addictions and alcohol abuse. Why should the government bail people out who became homeless through their own faults and will most likely relapse again, it's not fair to the taxpayer.

 

I call it a principle, you know, human compassion and all. I guess that's really what this whole debate boils down to. You either buy into society helping the needy, through actions or taxation, or you don't.

 

Or the wonderful golden mean.

[RichieMcD]

The majority homeless (For Ireland anyway) became homeless through their own faults, drug addictions and alcohol abuse. Why should the government bail people out who became homeless through their own faults and will most likely relapse again, it's not fair to the taxpayer.

 

I call it a principle, you know, human compassion and all. I guess that's really what this whole debate boils down to. You either buy into society helping the needy, through actions or taxation, or you don't.

 

 

 

I'm all for helping the needy but not in the ways mentioned so far, I'd much rather try to allocate a homeless person a space in rehab and a job prospect where willpower and determination is required to get through than just bail them out with them having nothing to do, no job prospect, no drug replacement as majority of the time they'll relapse.

[BlueLancer]

 

Then I'm sorry but I want absolutely nothing to do with you as a person. I dont *really* mean this as harsh as it sounds, but that sort of thing is completely antithetical to how I want to live my life and the sort of country I want to live in.

 

People who make blanket judgements about what 'reality' is are almost always mistaken as there is no 'consensus reality' other than that which we make ourselves, and if thats the sort of world you wish to live in then i'm quite happy living elsewhere.

 

 

 

I didn't say I believe in any of the things mentioned. I know what it's like to live in poverty. Besides paying taxes, I send a part of the money I earn back to my relatives in eastern europe. I've worked for UN peacekeeping in Kosovo.

 

 

 

I simply think you're being delusional when it comes to understanding reality and the ultimate dependence on force & threat of violence for any society to work. There will never be a society where the stronger, brutal & more cunning people wont have more power and wealth than the average farmer, you're free to search for it; It doesn't exist on this planet. Even the basic concept of paying taxes is an application of force; If you don't do so, your property will be confiscated or you are forced to go to jail.

 

 

 

the great barrier reef is an ideal example of millions upon billions of organisms operating under communistic principles (each to its need, each to its ability) for generation after generation, estimates of its age seem to be about 500,000 years, not bad operating on a system which supposedly "doesnt work"

 

 

 

Coral polyps are beautiful, but they don't have any capacity for intelligent thinking or significant resource consumption for survival. It doesn't compare to human or animal societies in any way.

 

 

 

I don't want to discredit your dream about people sharing wealth or resources equally. It's just very unrealistic. It almost seems you aren't familiar with the concept of predation which happens amongst almost all mammal (and some fish) species, including humans.

 

 

 

Inequal wealth distribution is not artificial or unnatural (but it's grossly unfair for the people living in poverty). It exists even in primitive tribal societies that have no technology or extensive knowledge about the world.

 

 

 

If you thought I'm some sort of monster who hates poor people, you couldn't be more wrong...

[ThurinEthir]

The majority homeless (For Ireland anyway) became homeless through their own faults, drug addictions and alcohol abuse. Why should the government bail people out who became homeless through their own faults and will most likely relapse again, it's not fair to the taxpayer.

 

I call it a principle, you know, human compassion and all. I guess that's really what this whole debate boils down to. You either buy into society helping the needy, through actions or taxation, or you don't.

 

 

 

I'm all for helping the needy but not in the ways mentioned so far, I'd much rather try to allocate a homeless person a space in rehab and a job prospect where willpower and determination is required to get through than just bail them out with them having nothing to do, no job prospect, no drug replacement as majority of the time they'll relapse.

 

In another thread about communism/socialism, someone brought up the famous proverb - "Give a man a fish, you'll feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you'll feed him for a lifetime."

 

That's basically what should be applied here - Instead of simply handing out money and giving welfare to the poor and lower classes, teach and help them out of their situation. Now, some money to get them started would probably be helpful, but if you simply throw money at poor people you're not going to get anything done.

[munkis]

The majority homeless (For Ireland anyway) became homeless through their own faults, drug addictions and alcohol abuse. Why should the government bail people out who became homeless through their own faults and will most likely relapse again, it's not fair to the taxpayer.

 

I call it a principle, you know, human compassion and all. I guess that's really what this whole debate boils down to. You either buy into society helping the needy, through actions or taxation, or you don't.

 

 

 

I'm all for helping the needy but not in the ways mentioned so far, I'd much rather try to allocate a homeless person a space in rehab and a job prospect where willpower and determination is required to get through than just bail them out with them having nothing to do, no job prospect, no drug replacement as majority of the time they'll relapse.

 

In another thread about communism/socialism, someone brought up the famous proverb - "Give a man a fish, you'll feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you'll feed him for a lifetime."

 

That's basically what should be applied here - Instead of simply handing out money and giving welfare to the poor and lower classes, teach and help them out of their situation. Now, some money to get them started would probably be helpful, but if you simply throw money at poor people you're not going to get anything done.

 

 

 

yes i think marx or engels used that example once too as one of the better parts of socialism/communism

 

since if u teach the man how to fish u lost a costumer while in socialsm u would want to teach the people all how to fish (metaphoricaly of course)

[RichieMcD]

The majority homeless (For Ireland anyway) became homeless through their own faults, drug addictions and alcohol abuse. Why should the government bail people out who became homeless through their own faults and will most likely relapse again, it's not fair to the taxpayer.

 

I call it a principle, you know, human compassion and all. I guess that's really what this whole debate boils down to. You either buy into society helping the needy, through actions or taxation, or you don't.

 

 

 

I'm all for helping the needy but not in the ways mentioned so far, I'd much rather try to allocate a homeless person a space in rehab and a job prospect where willpower and determination is required to get through than just bail them out with them having nothing to do, no job prospect, no drug replacement as majority of the time they'll relapse.

 

In another thread about communism/socialism, someone brought up the famous proverb - "Give a man a fish, you'll feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you'll feed him for a lifetime."

 

That's basically what should be applied here - Instead of simply handing out money and giving welfare to the poor and lower classes, teach and help them out of their situation. Now, some money to get them started would probably be helpful, but if you simply throw money at poor people you're not going to get anything done.

 

 

 

yes i think marx or engels used that example once too as one of the better parts of socialism/communism

 

since if u teach the man how to fish u lost a costumer while in socialsm u would want to teach the people all how to fish (metaphoricaly of course)

 

 

 

That's the complete opposite though in terms of housing the homeless and providing the impoverished with welfare. Housing the homeless you will want to teach them "how to fish" as just giving them "fish" they will in turn only be a liability on society, same can be said for other groups who require welfare. Government's have nothing to gain by constantly throwing welfare to people, they'd gain much more getting them a job through taxation incomes.

[munkis]

The majority homeless (For Ireland anyway) became homeless through their own faults, drug addictions and alcohol abuse. Why should the government bail people out who became homeless through their own faults and will most likely relapse again, it's not fair to the taxpayer.

 

I call it a principle, you know, human compassion and all. I guess that's really what this whole debate boils down to. You either buy into society helping the needy, through actions or taxation, or you don't.

 

 

 

I'm all for helping the needy but not in the ways mentioned so far, I'd much rather try to allocate a homeless person a space in rehab and a job prospect where willpower and determination is required to get through than just bail them out with them having nothing to do, no job prospect, no drug replacement as majority of the time they'll relapse.

 

In another thread about communism/socialism, someone brought up the famous proverb - "Give a man a fish, you'll feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you'll feed him for a lifetime."

 

That's basically what should be applied here - Instead of simply handing out money and giving welfare to the poor and lower classes, teach and help them out of their situation. Now, some money to get them started would probably be helpful, but if you simply throw money at poor people you're not going to get anything done.

 

 

 

yes i think marx or engels used that example once too as one of the better parts of socialism/communism

 

since if u teach the man how to fish u lost a costumer while in socialsm u would want to teach the people all how to fish (metaphoricaly of course)

 

 

 

That's the complete opposite though in terms of housing the homeless and providing the impoverished with welfare. Housing the homeless you will want to teach them "how to fish" as just giving them "fish" they will in turn only be a liability on society, same can be said for other groups who require welfare. Government's have nothing to gain by constantly throwing welfare to people, they'd gain much more getting them a job through taxation incomes.

 

 

 

that is not oposite of what i said if so u missunderstood me english aint my native language im not the best at it

 

 

 

but i agree with that 100% fighting unemployment is the most important of all and these people need a REAL job most of all

[Shinjula]

I simply think you're being delusional when it comes to understanding reality and the ultimate dependence on force & threat of violence for any society to work. There will never be a society where the stronger, brutal & more cunning people wont have more power and wealth than the average farmer, you're free to search for it; It doesn't exist on this planet. Even the basic concept of paying taxes is an application of force; If you don't do so, your property will be confiscated or you are forced to go to jail.

 

No I dont think I'm delusional, I'm aware there will be a great many problems to solve to get it working, but that doesnt mean its not something thats worth the time and effort. We already have managed to create a society where a lot of our impulses have been curbed, we no longer bash each other over the head and nick each others stuff, and it isnt entirely (or even for the most part) because of fear of reprisal. We are educated to a mind set where for most people that sort of thing is barely thinkable. It's enlightened self interest we know we can do far more in a stable society than we can without out it. If what you suggest were the only factor even a capitalist society wouldnt work. Its just a matter of pushing ourselves further, starting to do consciously what weve been doing unconsiously.

 

 

 

Coral polyps are beautiful, but they don't have any capacity for intelligent thinking or significant resource consumption for survival. It doesn't compare to human or animal societies in any way.

 

I don't want to discredit your dream about people sharing wealth or resources equally. It's just very unrealistic. It almost seems you aren't familiar with the concept of predation which happens amongst almost all mammal (and some fish) species, including humans.

 

I'm not sure your argument on a lack of intelligence works, the polyps still have the same basic needs which are causing power stuggles in humanity, the causes of the problem are still there. One could also say that our intelligence should give us more ability not less to co-operate. Its certainly debatable and definately not as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

 

 

 

Inequal wealth distribution is not artificial or unnatural (but it's grossly unfair for the people living in poverty). It exists even in primitive tribal societies that have no technology or extensive knowledge about the world.

 

I definately agree that its not unnatural or artificial, in fact what I am suggesting is the unnatural and artifical idea, but unnatural and artifical idea have penetrated society - racism was perfectly natural, a response drawn from the dislike of the unknown and we have to a large extend overcome it (in areas such as work), admittedly the the fear of reprisals, but now that we have its also started to be the norm where fear of reprisal is no longer the driving force.

 

 

 

If you thought I'm some sort of monster who hates poor people, you couldn't be more wrong...

 

No I dont, I put in the "I dont *really* mean this as harsh as it sounds" because it allows me to distance myself from the emotional stuff which my statements kinda imply incorrectly. Frankly you seem the only debater whos actually engaging with others on this thread (I've kinda decided to ignore most of the rest of this thread, its just people shouting at each other without really listening)

 

 

 

Mind you, re my comment on homeless, that was a kind of pointer, maybe I should have been a bit more precise - improving the wealth overall of a captialist country doesnt seem to have raised the bottom rung of the wealth ladder, there are still people who are working who have severe problems in getting food on their plate. Neither has it reduced significantly the number of people who are on that lower rung. If a country as rich as America or the UK still haven't enough wealth such that the needs of working people arent met then the trickle down effect isnt working.

 

 

 

My main point is that this is going to be a very tough and difficult thing to do, it will involve everyone to make sacrifice and sure I dont really think we are at all ready for it. But that doesnt mean its not worth doing, nor does it make it impossible. It is something to strive for, the rewards for doing it at too great not to consider it as a possibility.

[yanksrule]

"Communism is a nice theory, but..."

 

 

 

But what? Have you noticed how many people keep saying this? They believe it's nice, but they think others will make it fail. It is this attitude that makes it fail. If people were less realistic, we would have a lot better reality!

 

 

 

But someone does always make it fail. You can't tell me that there won't be atleast one corrupt person in the government that steals money from citizens. It's also not fair that a doctor has to have the same pay as a cashier.

 

 

 

 

 

so... there's no corription even within a capitalistic society? how about that blahhhgoyuhvich guy? or that guy that stole like 50 billion dollars through some scam on wallstreet. corruption is unavoidable in any society. in communism it's a little harder to get rid of, to detect, for it to spread, and for it to be stopped.

 

 

 

what i'd like to say that if a society had the right leaders and civillians a communist society would work perfectly. but upon realizing human nature this wouldn't happen.

 

 

 

oh yeah- our capitalist society just bailed out 3 auto makers because they didn't make enough money. it's pretty much a corrupted economy usa has atm. ford isn't making enough money so everyone in the united states who payed their taxes is now paying the auto industry money to stay afloat. buuut... what about those tax payers? lots of businesses have gone into bankruptcy and have pulled themselves up and above what they previously were at. look at delta airlines! they declared bankruptcy (in i believe 2003) and then reformed themselves. then they bought another competitor airliner after they restructured. they made A LOT of money from doing that.

 

 

 

if the government just put 1000 dollars back in the pockets of people who honestly pay their taxes and don't have outstanding debt i bet that the economy would be a tad better. it's a radical assumption- yes but so is bailing out our automakers.

[mmmcannibalism]

One flaw I have noticed with Communism is something that I dont think has been pointed out, specilization of work. If everyone makes decisions on how everything is run they have to take a lot of time to study a plethora of topics to make informed decisions. Where as in a society with established senators or representatives or whatever get to spend all their "work"<--couldnt resist joke: time doing what they should be by studying what should be done to best help the people

 

 

 

quick summary--with a pure communist system every civilian would have to also work as a senator which presents a time management problem.

[oegly41]

EVeryone being a senator wouldn't be that much of a problem, as we would equally distribute labour and remove all the unnecessary jobs, so people would be down to about 20 hour weeks.

[AdamMonkey0]

Some aspects are perhaps good, but until we have a Star Trekish type of technological society, then we can't impletment them :lol:

 

 

 

The overall aspect of communism is hard to say yes to. If there was no major companies, then there would be no competition. With no competition, there would be no advancement in the industry. The government would probably control what goes into certain products, which allows the transfer of dangerious materials to the consumer. I don't really find any of those to be good :?

[l0l0lpur32]

I think the most ironic thing about socialism/communism is they preach equality yet want to ban individuals from making decisions for themselves, and have some bureaucrats make decisions for them... some more equal than others right?

[Ginger_Warrior]

I think the most ironic thing about socialism/communism is they preach equality yet want to ban individuals from making decisions for themselves, and have some bureaucrats make decisions for them... some more equal than others right?

 

I think the most ironic thing about capitalism is that it preaches about how it's so financially prosperous, even when we're in the midst of a recession.

 

 

 

How's that for irony?

 

 

 

I don't really regard banning individualism synonymous with socialism either. Baring in mind the buzz word around the NHS these days is "choice".

[assassin_696]

I think the most ironic thing about socialism/communism is they preach equality yet want to ban individuals from making decisions for themselves, and have some bureaucrats make decisions for them... some more equal than others right?

 

I think the most ironic thing about capitalism is that it preaches about how it's so financially prosperous, even when we're in the midst of a recession.

 

 

 

How's that for irony?

 

 

 

Capitalism isn't supposed to guarantee constant economic growth, that's unsustainable for a number of reasons. Recessions are a natural part of the trade cycle. The long term trend though is for economic growth to occur.

[Rebdragon]

I think the most ironic thing about capitalism is that it preaches about how it's so financially prosperous, even when we're in the midst of a recession.

 

 

 

How's that for irony?

 

I love how socialists* consistently berate capitalism about not being perfect economically, and yet they prefer a system that historically does much worse than capitalism in that field.

 

 

 

How's that for being a douche?

 

 

 

 

 

*not pure socialists

[1_man_army]

Calling somebody a douche because they disagree with your point of view. How very mature.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I think the most ironic thing about socialism/communism is they preach equality yet want to ban individuals from making decisions for themselves, and have some bureaucrats make decisions for them... some more equal than others right?

 

I think the most ironic thing about capitalism is that it preaches about how it's so financially prosperous, even when we're in the midst of a recession.

 

 

 

How's that for irony?

 

 

 

Capitalism isn't supposed to guarantee constant economic growth, that's unsustainable for a number of reasons. Recessions are a natural part of the trade cycle. The long term trend though is for economic growth to occur.

 

I think I remember saying the same thing myself about half a dozen times on other threads, but thanks for showing the consideration to lecture me anyway, just in case I'd forgotten how capitalism works. :roll:

 

 

 

I was merely displaying there are faults with all systems, thus l0l's "Socialism/Communism sux because Capitalism's an absolute God-send of a system!" stance just comes across as a tiny bit baseless and unexplained.

[BlueLancer]

I think the most ironic thing about capitalism is that it preaches about how it's so financially prosperous, even when we're in the midst of a recession.

 

 

 

Capitalism is really just an economic model in which people are allowed to own private property & produce is regulated by supply and demand, it doesn't preach anything.

 

 

 

If anything, it's people like politicians who preach about the advantages of capitalism and free market philosophy (which is not the best model for all countries). As a concept though, it makes no assumptions or boast of prosperity. It's a system that directly promotes inequality and income disparity.

 

 

 

Capitalism is all about taking advantage... Workers don't really have any choice in poorer countries. They can either work for $1 an hour making expensive Nike shoes, or die of starvation, or go to jail because they steal food & water instead.

 

 

 

I'm not against it, but it is a pretty ugly system. Cheap labor is what keeps western countries in business.

[Rebdragon]

Calling somebody a douche because they disagree with your point of view. How very mature.

 

If you read my post you'll see I was calling myself a douche. Not that mister roll-eyes up there doesn't deserve it when assassin kindly explained things to him.

 

 

 

But hey, thanks for the condescending attitude mate. Keep it up, we all really like it.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Calling somebody a douche because they disagree with your point of view. How very mature.

 

If you read my post you'll see I was calling myself a douche.

 

I've read over your post. I can't see how you were possibly calling yourself a douche. Either you're bad with English, or you were flaming. I'll presume the former.

 

 

 

Not that mister roll-eyes up there doesn't deserve it when assassin kindly explained things to him.

 

Oh please, it's nothing I don't get given to me. How about I lecture you on all my various ideals as if you were incapable of understanding them for yourself, or as if you didn't already know about them?

 

 

 

Make an obvious comment to someone you know already knows better, and they will likely get patronised by it.