Communism - why does America hate it?

[shortfade2]

Communism Cons

1) Impersonal government will put people in the wrong jobs

2) People will become unsatisfied with their jobs

3.) Possible overlap of jobs

4) Possible lack of manual labor jobs

5) Possible bitterness over people getting a job that other people want with no way for them to get them.

6) Lack of incentive to do work.

7) Who gets picked to work in government? They would probably not be fit for the job...well it cant get much worse.

8) People faking sicknesses and other things to get money.

9) How much money will be taken from the peoples rations when the country goes to war?

10) Who will be chosen as generals/soldiers? Pacifists? People with no killer instincts?

11)Huge Profits by government?

12) What about people being assigned to bigger houses than others?

13) If somebody desires to be an artist/musician then what will they do?

14) skilled doctors?

15) If somebody is sick and has no family or friends to care for them and needs it...we...draw straws and hope to get the average sized one? A government lottery?

16) What if somebody needs a certain $$$ and the government only gives them half of what they need...like auto insurance?

17) national criseses(sp?)....how much would the people have had to suffer if America was communist during 9/11.

Communism Pros


1) Everyone would be equal

2) Old people would be covered

3) We can bail eachother out


We should tackle these one at a time, please....Add to the Pros, because I am pretty dang biased on this matter.

 

[T-Dawg]

... No one will answer him? Guess I'll do it... I was hoping someone more knowledgable than I would show up =/.

1) Impersonal government will put people in the wrong jobs

Who says government has to be impersonal? Who says people can't pick their jobs in communism? Did I miss something?

2) People will become unsatisfied with their jobs

Happens in capitalism too. But in capitalism, people can't leave their jobs without some sort of reprecussion (ie, losing their healthcare, getting a bad reputation, not being able to find a new job...). I don't see why people couldn't leave their jobs in a communist society.

3.) Possible overlap of jobs

Not sure what you mean here. Could you be more specific/clear?

4) Possible lack of manual labor jobs

Why? I thought communism was all about the manual labor jobs, and that people who do manual work should be equal to number-crunchers and administrators (instead of lesser than them, like they are in capitalism).

5) Possible bitterness over people getting a job that other people want with no way for them to get them.

Hopefully, in a communist society, people will be able to do whatever they want with their life. Besides, this happens a lot in capitalism too - don't you think the poverty class who couldn't afford to go to colege is jealous of the bankers and lawyers born with a silver spoon in their mouth?

6) Lack of incentive to do work.

Why? Do you believe that pay is necessary to motivate people, and that people cannot get paid for their work under communism? The former was already discussed, and as far as I know, the ltter is untrue.

7) Who gets picked to work in government? They would probably not be fit for the job...well it cant get much worse.

Who gets picked? You mean who gets voted in? Communism is not inherently undemocratic, in fact, it's more democracy-friendly than capitalism judging by the current situation in America (lobbyists and all, ya know).

8) People faking sicknesses and other things to get money.

Why would this get them money? Don't you think the administrator in charge of managing sickness claims would catch on?

9) How much money will be taken from the peoples rations when the country goes to war?

This one might actually be a legitimate concern... hmm... maybe they'll have a minimum ration amount, that the government isn't allowed to go below, sort of like a minimum wage?

10) Who will be chosen as generals/soldiers? Pacifists? People with no killer instincts?

I'm not understanding what you're saying here. Why would pacifists and people with no killer instincts be soldiers? Seems to me that an efficient communist government would recognize which people would make good soldiers.

11)Huge Profits by government?

Not if the people keep a close enough eye. But then, as America shows, most people won't care enough to get involved... hmm... this one sounds like a legitimate concern, I'll let someone else answer it =/.

12) What about people being assigned to bigger houses than others?

Happens in capitalism already. But what if one man's house is bigger than another's? From what I understand of Marxism, if a man builds himself a house, it is his property. And I doubt the government will be telling you what to do with the money you receive (or at least I hope they don't), so if I buy a $50,000 house, a $10,000 bed, a $20,000 kitchen set, and allot $30,000 for the living room, and if you buy a $70,000 house and spend $30,000 on all the other stuff, what's un-communist about that? (Ok, I know $50,000 is a lot to spend on a bed, kitchen, and living room, but I couldn't think of anything else XD).

13) If somebody desires to be an artist/musician then what will they do?

They will become an artist/musician. They had them in the soviet union and it wasn't even truly communist.

14) skilled doctors?

What about them? Afraid no one will become a doctor if they don't get paid enough? The doctors in "socialist" Europe are just fine, in fact, many of them laugh when they hear how much doctors get paid in America. Why would a communist system change this?

15) If somebody is sick and has no family or friends to care for them and needs it...we...draw straws and hope to get the average sized one? A government lottery?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you trying to say that socialized healthcare is not good enough for such people? I do not have experience in that area, so if that's your question, I'll leave it for someone else to answer...

16) What if somebody needs a certain $$$ and the government only gives them half of what they need...like auto insurance?

Good question. I don't know, I'll have to leave this one to someone else too =/.

17) national criseses(sp?)....how much would the people have had to suffer if America was communist during 9/11.

Why would being communist during 9/11 have made it any worse? I'm not understanding the question here.


Also, to add to the pros...

4.) No lobbyists and corporations bribing our government.

5.) People would have no (or at least less) motivation to lie and spread propaganda with no corporations funding them for it.

 

[shortfade2]

how would they have less motivation? Basically most of those questions were based off of our current impersonal government and totiltarian (sp?) communism, so many can be said, "Well communism doesnt have to be that" about them

 

[YmirGF]

The trouble with communism is that it looks good on paper; it just doesn't seem to work so well in practice.

 

[Neo-Logic]

Communism Cons (...) We should tackle these one at a time, please....Add to the Pros, because I am pretty dang biased on this matter.

I think your list can be shortened to 2 main arguments that makes it stronger in its brevity:

1) 'Communism' (although technically it's Socialism since Communism is the ideal end stage with no government) will have excess and wastes arising out of the completely planned economy. You cannot avoid this happening. Which is not to say that excess and waste doesn't occur in capitalism. However, in capitalism, the overages and inefficiencies are addressed by the market equilibrium of supply and demand that autonomously and constantly, self corrects. It's the least of all evils, so to speak.

2) 'Communism' does away with self-interest and assumes equality is possible. By taking away the chance to surpass others economically and socially, it both suppresses and strips away the ambitious nature of men. The simple fact is: when the system provides everything, why worry anymore? This is human nature. When you apply the aggregate principle and many people thinks and behaves this way, things fall apart. This is not saying ambition is completely absent in 'Communism' but only that it will not be as prevalent to encourage innovations and ideas that Capitalism promotes through its system of allowing ambition to be rewarded with gains.

Equality is a big problem. I'm not for any idea that promotes absolute EQUALITY in economic wealth. This cannot be. This must not be. Some may claim that in 'Communism' people can choose what they want to do. What if everyone wanted to be certain professions only, and not the lowers, like janitors? Of course you'd have to force certain people to do these 'lower end' jobs that no one wants in a system where they can 'choose what they want to do.' In the free market, people are limited by their skills, and market demand for these skills, as well as what it can return for the pay of these skills.

Capitalism is the worst idea .... but only after the rest.

 

[yossarian22]

I wasn't going to bother but...

Communism Cons

1) Impersonal government will put people in the wrong jobs

You clearly don't understand communism: government is nonexistent under communism. Maybe applicable to an intermediate stage before communism, but that is irrelevant.

2) People will become unsatisfied with their jobs

People will be doing what they enjoy doing.

3.) Possible overlap of jobs

4) Possible lack of manual labor jobs

These aren't really criticisms. Anybody with an engineering degree has an enormous amount of overlap with other fields for instance. And 4 has been happening for all of human history.

The rest of your criticisms come from a total lack of understanding of what communism.

I think your list can be shortened to 2 main arguments that makes it stronger in its brevity:

1) 'Communism' (although technically it's Socialism since Communism is the ideal end stage with no government) will have excess and wastes arising out of the completely planned economy. You cannot avoid this happening. Which is not to say that excess and waste doesn't occur in capitalism. However, in capitalism, the overages and inefficiencies are addressed by the market equilibrium of supply and demand that autonomously and constantly, self corrects. It's the least of all evils, so to speak.

The state will not strive to reduce waste and inefficiency? Operating under the pretense that markets are far more efficient as a whole than a single agency can be, sure. That's only true is you assume that the agency does not have a vested interest in the overall welfare of its people

2) 'Communism' does away with self-interest and assumes equality is possible. By taking away the chance to surpass others economically and socially, it both suppresses and strips away the ambitious nature of men.

The vast vast majority of people would not be satisfied by sitting on their asses and twiddling their thumbs all day.

Capitalism is the worst idea .... but only after the rest.

This argument was literally given verbatim in uniornic support of slavery.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I don't understand it either. The majority of United States citizens are Christians (~80%). If you are a Christian, presumably you follow the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was all about the redistribution of wealth to the poor. Why aren't the uber-Christian right wing loons giving to the poor like there is no tomorrow?

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I think your list can be shortened to 2 main arguments that makes it stronger in its brevity:

1) 'Communism' (although technically it's Socialism since Communism is the ideal end stage with no government) will have excess and wastes arising out of the completely planned economy. You cannot avoid this happening. Which is not to say that excess and waste doesn't occur in capitalism. However, in capitalism, the overages and inefficiencies are addressed by the market equilibrium of supply and demand that autonomously and constantly, self corrects. It's the least of all evils, so to speak.

2) 'Communism' does away with self-interest and assumes equality is possible. By taking away the chance to surpass others economically and socially, it both suppresses and strips away the ambitious nature of men. The simple fact is: when the system provides everything, why worry anymore? This is human nature. When you apply the aggregate principle and many people thinks and behaves this way, things fall apart. This is not saying ambition is completely absent in 'Communism' but only that it will not be as prevalent to encourage innovations and ideas that Capitalism promotes through its system of allowing ambition to be rewarded with gains.

Equality is a big problem. I'm not for any idea that promotes absolute EQUALITY in economic wealth. This cannot be. This must not be. Some may claim that in 'Communism' people can choose what they want to do. What if everyone wanted to be certain professions only, and not the lowers, like janitors? Of course you'd have to force certain people to do these 'lower end' jobs that no one wants in a system where they can 'choose what they want to do.' In the free market, people are limited by their skills, and market demand for these skills, as well as what it can return for the pay of these skills.

Capitalism is the worst idea .... but only after the rest.

1) Presumes that states are still the mainstream polity. If you presume that we "revert" back to economically independent (or nearly so) city-states of a size no larger than the modern US county (though all one city; super engineering or urban sprawl take your pick), then the notions of planned economy having serious waste can be easily tossed out the window. Economic forces will be moderated by worker productivity models produced on computers and social/community good will govern which number of individuals occupy a given profession. Any additional overages or surplus could be put into storage for upcoming "lean" times (assumes consumption still fluctuates with time) or traded to other communal states which may need to shore up their numbers a little bit in return for whatever it is they cold afford to shore up.

2) "Communalism" assumes that people who now each other (as in they can put a name to a face) and actually care about each other (have a vested interested in helping each other) will be willing to take on jobs according to the needs of the community. "Undesirable" jobs will be filled part time and may need some sort of work cooperative or work rotation schedule to be able to perform, but a combination of micro-loans (community owned pools which loan out for people to use to improve their condition, and then they pay back with some small interest into the pool) and community driven architecture/research (patronage by the community of scientists, architects, painters, etc) will ensure that positive influences in people's lives will be accounted for without allowing people to believe/implement raw greed as a virtue.

Allowing elites to be narcissistic jacktards bent on ruling the world through the "recreation" of a slave class in third world countries by convincing everyone of the "utility" of a "flat world" isn't exactly a positive thing in my estimation. And don't even get me started on the "gambling" that is wall street. No Neo-Logic it is not not gambling. If you can honestly tell me that the Derivatives market (what with its 100% lack of transparency) was anything other than gambling OR somehow is not to blame for a our current economic condition world-wide, then I will believe that wall street amounts to something more than legalized gambling. (food for thought found here)

If capitalism were still functioning the way it was intended, then wall street would simply be the vehicle whereby people invest their profits into corporations in order expand the corporations so that people in general can get better service. But this isn't done. The solution? Shrink up the size of polity and economy to the point where your average citizen can actually conceive of it. Once you can put a face on the economy people will be more likely to invest their money in it. It's not that "faceless corporation" any more; its now "oh hey that's Bob's scientific research place."

MTF

 

[shortfade2]

The main problem with debating about communism is that it can be so many differant things. People always say "Well communism doesnt necessarily have to be this" Or "that" communism can cover all forms of government for some odd reason. From anarchy to a dictatorship

 

[yossarian22]

The main problem with debating about communism is that it can be so many differant things. People always say "Well communism doesnt necessarily have to be this" Or "that" communism can cover all forms of government for some odd reason. From anarchy to a dictatorship

The meaning of communism has been obfuscated almost to the point of the word fascism. This is because both major super powers in the cold war had a vested interest in doing so. The American government feared a socialist uprising and the Soviet Union needed to convince people that they were communists.

That said, we are discussing Marxism, which conveniently provides us a definition.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I don't understand it either. The majority of United States citizens are Christians (~80%). If you are a Christian, presumably you follow the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was all about the redistribution of wealth to the poor. Why aren't the uber-Christian right wing loons giving to the poor like there is no tomorrow?

For your information, I work in a food bank every week. I built a battered women's shelter and contribute quite a bit to keep it open. I would tell you more about my good deeds, but you see, I believe that if you receive credit for the good you do here on earth, you will not receive rewards in heaven.

This is why you do not see more than you do. Your an unbeliever Contentius, that is why you do not understand.

 

[Vile Atheist]

For your information, I work in a food bank every week. I built a battered women's shelter and contribute quite a bit to keep it open. I would tell you more about my good deeds, but you see, I believe that if you receive credit for the good you do here on earth, you will not receive rewards in heaven.

This is why you do not see more than you do. Your an unbeliever Contentius, that is why you do not understand.

I was actually referring more to the Republican politicians and TV and radio talking heads who are all for tax-cuts and not giving to the poor (i.e. Bill O'Reilly). My fault for not making that more explicit. But good on you for doing all that. You are the exception to what appears to be the rule.

But that does not discount the fact I used to be a believer. Just 2-3 years ago, in fact. And many atheists too used to be believers. So I don't understand what your argument is. What am I supposed to understand? That it's perfectly alright for these Christians to be against helping others, despite it being massively hypocritical? If so, then you're right. I don't understand that and I never will and I never hope to see that hypocrisy justified.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Some of us want to pay less taxes so we have more money to give to the poor. What do Liberals have against charity?

 

[yossarian22]

Some of us want to pay less taxes so we have more money to give to the poor. What do Liberals have against charity?

well know I know who the onion gets their quotes from.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Some of us want to pay less taxes so we have more money to give to the poor. What do Liberals have against charity?

Nothing. The opposite, in fact. This is why Liberals support higher taxes, especially for the rich. That money goes to the poor and disadvantaged. People who need it.

 

[Minus Habens]

I do not "hate" communism... I simply think it is far from practical. Capitalism utilizes the human instinct, rather than supress it. That instinct being personal advancement, or greed if you wish to call it that.

Not to even mention the inevitable corruption of the ruling body in any form of government... I would rather the ruling body be more hands-off in reguards to the economy and our lives.

 

[lamplighter]

Some of us want to pay less taxes so we have more money to give to the poor. What do Liberals have against charity?

Hmmm this reminds me of one time when a waitress had a table of 20 people, and the people said: "Don't put the gratuity on the bill! We'll be sure to tip you well!". Well when it came time to pay up they only left her a 10% tip. If she had the gratuity put on there which was well within her right in accordance with restaurant policy, she would have had a 18% tip. So in short, let's say I'm highly skeptical of people who say they want to be charged less, but make promises of paying more in return. Because if they are going to pay more anyway then why does it matter?

 

[Vile Atheist]

Hmmm this reminds me of one time when a waitress had a table of 20 people, and the people said: "Don't put the gratuity on the bill! We'll be sure to tip you well!". Well when it came time to pay up they only left her a 10% tip. If she had the gratuity put on there which was well within her right in accordance with restaurant policy, she would have had a 18% tip. So in short, let's say I'm highly skeptical of people who say they want to be charged less, but make promises of paying more in return. Because if they are going to pay more anyway then why does it matter?

Amen.

 

[Minus Habens]

Hmmm this reminds me of one time when a waitress had a table of 20 people, and the people said: "Don't put the gratuity on the bill! We'll be sure to tip you well!". Well when it came time to pay up they only left her a 10% tip. If she had the gratuity put on there which was well within her right in accordance with restaurant policy, she would have had a 18% tip. So in short, let's say I'm highly skeptical of people who say they want to be charged less, but make promises of paying more in return. Because if they are going to pay more anyway then why does it matter?

What if the waitress did a poor job, or 10% was all the 20 people could afford?

Charity should not be forced. The government is too corrupt and irresponsable. Look how they waste the money they get from us now. Why would anyone willingly give the irresponsable more money? There is no incentive for them not to pocket the money or care if the charity is abused. Besides, would you not want to have the choice as to where your money goes?

 

[lamplighter]

What if the waitress did a poor job, or 10% was all the 20 people could afford?

Charity should not be forced. The government is too corrupt and irresponsable. Look how they waste the money they get from us now. Why would anyone willingly give the irresponsable more money? There is no incentive for them not to pocket the money or care if the charity is abused. Besides, would you not want to have the choice as to where your money goes?

First of all, if you're going to drag 20 people to a restaurant, and you can't afford to give the waitstaff a decent tip then you shouldn't bother going. Being a "server" as it's called in the industry is just short of temporary serfdom. You're only paid $2.13 an hour in most places (as was the wage at the restaurant in the example), all this wage does is cover your taxes, most servers never receive an actual pay check from the restaurant itself. As for the gratuity, since the server has to take care of 20 people they have no other customers, and a table of 20 can be there for as long as three hours, there's also the clean up afterward. I don't know about the rest of the world, but in American restaurants people are filthy, I've seen dogs leave a cleaner place setting after they're done with their meal. But if someone felt that the service really was horrible a manager would take it off, a manager will do everything within their power to keep customers happy including all the way up to the restaurant paying for the bill plus free desert. So no, they aren't absolutely being forced to pay for the tip, but if the food came out in a timely manner, and drinks were kept full then a group that large should expect to pay a gratuity of at least 15% in almost any restaurant where the staff is paid primarily from tips. Because it can be an extremely stressful task to accomplish such a feat, I've seen some people break down and cry because the people were so demanding on them.

I would like a choice as to where my money goes, but seeing as how I live in society I have no choice as to where my taxes go. Do you think I like the taxes my family pays going to the production nuclear weapons? Weapons that could very well be the annihilation of the human race in a glorious nuclear holocaust? No, can't say I do. As for charities they are not required to report how much they take in, or spend on whatever cause it is. A government would be required to keep track of what comes in, and goes where to at least some degree. So with the government action could be taken to resolve issues of misuse, whereas charities not so much since they aren't even required to keep up with the money to begin with.