Jump to content

Can communism ever work?


braindead

Recommended Posts

Communism, if implemented correctly, could work. Industries can grow exponentially, as seen in the USSR with Stalin's First Five Year Plan. However, the issue with communism is that there is a thin line that can be crossed between communism and fascist dictatorship, which is why socialism tends to be a more common economic system. Both are very feasible systems, but socialism is perhaps more favorable, as communist governments are easily corrupted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Being an IB student, I ponder on these types of questions more often that thinking about what should I do that weekend. (critical thinker, duh !) So I would love to give my opinion on this one: No, it will never work. Here is why.

Did anyone watch Metropolis ? The German movie released in 1927 and disappeared after premiere ? In the beginning of that movie, there is a big explosion in the system, and no one could find out about the problem before it popped up. Because they lacked a superior power to make checkpoints in the system and work on the problems that they see. But in communism, everyone is equal, so there is no superior power to check the problems before they show a disastrous conclusion.

Let's admit it. There is that nerd in our class whom we are extremely jealous of his or her study habits, and usually, he or she is done with EE in the middle of the first year. But we procrastinate, delay it until IBO asks our EE from us, write it in the last day and get a C (at least that end is waiting for me). I am trying to say: in communism, everyone in the community have same chores, same amount of time, same income, but have different capacity of intelligence and working habits. Communism rejects individual's capacity, skills, strengths and weaknesses, desires, IQs and EQs, and treat everyone the same way, just like robots, which is not nice at all.

I have a lot more to write, but I can't think right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The main flaw in communism is that everyone would refuse to be equal. I'd always want to be better in life and I'd always want a little more luxury. It's not fair that the people who work harder end up in the same position as a poor or lazy worker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

 I still think the idea of communism is great. But it will not function well, at least not in this day and age.

 Because it is impossible for a government, or a group of experts, to control all the economic activities in a country (or even the WHOLE WORLD). 

 Back in the 1950s, in Beijing, China, we had a government official to decide what kind of hairpin should be produced, how many of them will be produced, etc. This is  super inefficient, isn't it? There is just too much  work to do. Even 100 officials cannot handle this task. And that's only about the hairpins in Beijing... A free market can do this much better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main flaw in communism is that everyone would refuse to be equal. I'd always want to be better in life and I'd always want a little more luxury. It's not fair that the people who work harder end up in the same position as a poor or lazy worker.

Free-rider problem. Those who do not work enjoys the same amount of social welfare as the hard-working people. Eventually no one would like to work. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but only in small, intertwined communities. Else, in larger societies, it fails. Why? There are a myriad of reasons, most of them relating to human greed and the lack of altruism in humanity. Humans are too greedy to be able to give everything that they had up without any type of discontent. They get no incentive for doing so, and we won't do it out of kindness, because everything we do always has a reason, no matter how small the reason. Perhaps a communist society arises from an overthrow of a corrupt government. The only reason we might agree with it is because of how bad the previous government was in comparison. However, it would soon become clear that this system is not much different than any other previous system (A book that illustrates this well is Animal Farm, by George Orwell). Because of corruption, any political system would fall into disarray, straying from its original ideals and becoming a corrupt oligarchy. The only difference between Communism and Capitalism is freedom and equality. As people often don't care as much for the well-being of others (equality), they would generally much rather prefer Capitalism. In addition, in a capitalistic society, you have the opportunity to rise, and people like choice and opportunity. Furthermore, it is often the most successful people who are the most vocal in capitalism, with the poorest submitting to whatever they say and the richest and smartest joining the ranks of the most successful, and thereby controlling the country. This is pivotal as Communism doesn't have the opportunity to rise or fall, so theoretically contentedness should be at par with a capitalistic system. However, as people are greedy and successful people are more vocal, this skews things so that capitalism seems better, as only the best parts are showcased, and communism doesn't have any parts better than those of a capitalist society; it just doesn't have many worse. Moreover, people love options. They love choice, even if it guises itself with an illusion. Communism doesn't have political choice, but capitalism does, as it is usually comes paired with a democracy. If something goes wrong in a capitalist society, you can just say "Thanks Obama" and elect someone on another party. But with communism, you can only blame the one singular ruling party. These are only some reasons why communism wouldn't work. It would work in a small society as they have personal connections, and the moral incentives of redistribution towards them outweigh the financial incentive of keeping the goods you have to yourself. Also, you could potentially have them help you specifically later. A very small communist place also usually doesn't need a singular power, and can thus pair itself with a democratic system, and have its denizens vote on what they should do other than the fundamentals of their system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

 treat everyone the same way, just like robots, which is not nice at all.

 

 

Just curious on the fact how being robots are not nice at all? 

Sorry for the late reply.

Every human being have different brains than eachother, just like fingerprints. This can be proven by different points of view people have, such as it is on gay rights (just an example). By saying "being treated by robots" I meant that rejecting the different points of view people have and expecting solid similarity from everyone. How can everyone hold the same fingerprint ?

Let me give an example from the justice system. Would it be just to give the same penalty to a child molester who raped his neighbors daughter just to feel good and a man who stole food from 7-eleven to feed his kids ? This case is of two men with completely different morals getting the same award or punishment.

Communism works similarly by forcing a man who wants to go to college and become an engineer and a man who wants to become a traveler and taste finer things in life to do the same jobs. People's thoughts and emotions cannot be ignored, and unfortunately, that is communism's biggest flaw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^...I'm sorry, but where did you get the idea that Communist governments force everyone to take the same jobs and punish all types of crimes in the same manner?  I don't recall seeing anything of the sort mentioned in the Manifesto, nor do I see that in any historically communist nation; the Soviet Union had its factory workers, its athletes and its theoretical particle physicists.  Not even Stalin was insane enough to think you'd only need one type of job to run a country.  You need a half dozen different kinds of professions just to maintain a family business. 

 

That aside, I'm not a communist, and I think history has proven Marx wrong on most of his predictions (ie, he thought that the wages of the proletariat would decrease with increased industrialization, yet it evidently did not).  I don't think communism is necessary even if you honestly believe it could work, because the past century's amazing social and fiscal advances have proven that you can reach for your utopia through peace, democratic processes, instead of the process by which tens of millions are murdered to get to the same ends (since Marx openly advocated violent revolution).

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is pretty obvious that we live in a world which is not totally "renewable". Especially with the development and massive production of vehicles that work with gas our resources are getting lower each day. World population is increasing with no serious family planning policies and no awareness raised in saving energy. 

 

Also, we live in a world where inequalities are getting bigger. Where rich is very rich and poor is extremely poor. Not all the countries are able to provide free healthcare and education to their citizens.

 

So it is inevidable to ask: Is it fair to buy an iPhone for hundereds of dollars when African children are working in mines for a dollar a day ?

 

Bearing this in mind, communism looks like a great system that can provide equality and peace but I disagree. In my opinion communism is very extreme likewise capitalism. When one supports explotation of labor, other one supports sameness. Communist rhetoric is not natural. It is an animal instinct to own something but communism eliminates that.

 

So you would think, what would I work so hard when I can't make anything in life ? This is why people would never give up their luxury and freedom to gain something by working. This is also why communism has fell and been falling in the world.

 

So rather than extremist commuism, a social-democratic system should be taken as a goal for the world. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I don't think communism is necessary even if you honestly believe it could work, because the past century's amazing social and fiscal advances have proven that you can reach for your utopia through peace, democratic processes, instead of the process by which tens of millions are murdered to get to the same ends (since Marx openly advocated violent revolution).

Although your reasoning is reasonably sound, I can't help but disagree with the underlined statement. The reason? The past century's amazing social and fiscal advances have proven that you can reach for your utopia through peace, democratic processes, and the process by which millions are murdered to achieve the ends.

 

And since I've blatantly shown my disregard for one of the most common forms of governance, I guess it's only fair I offer my own opinion on the matter. And my vote goes for... *Drumroll please* 

Democratic-Socialism!

Link to post
Share on other sites

John9:

 

Are inequalities really growing bigger?  The absolute income gap in western nations may have increased over the past decade thanks to the recession, but from a more global (ha!  bet you've heard that rammed down your throat before!)  perspective, third world countries are catching up to us at a respectable pace, and global poverty and mortality rates are at an all time low. 

 

Excalibre:

 

I'm not following the point you're trying to imply here.  The significant achievements of western civilization in the time since Marx's manifesto came through means that, in perspective, were generally peaceful.  That there were wars and atrocities in that period is a correlation, but not a causation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excalibre:

 

I'm not following the point you're trying to imply here.  The significant achievements of western civilization in the time since Marx's manifesto came through means that, in perspective, were generally peaceful.  That there were wars and atrocities in that period is a correlation, but not a causation.

 

^That's exactly what I'm trying to imply. I know correlation simply implies that there is a connection between the wars/atrocities committed during the time of democratic reform, rather than the democratic reform causing the said wars and atrocities. But why is correlation not enough to show that our democratic policies aren't the best solution(s) to current world problems either? 

e.g. Imposing sanctions to prevent countries from breaking international law doesn't exactly stop them. Take Russia's 'equivalent retaliation' strategy on the currently imposed sanctions regarding the Ukraine Crisis.

Edited by Excalibre
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...