• Laissez-faire Vs Communism
    168 replies, posted
The problem with communism, is that human nature always leads to it's demise.. The problem with a Laissez-faire is that when Britain had it, unemployment was really bad. Basically communism plugs the main Lassiez Faire holes, but in the end it's human nature that fucks it all up. I really find it almost impossible to choose one out of the two. There is no good or lesser of the two evils. They will either succeed or fail, and there is no way to tell what will happen until it actually happens.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;32379469]Well all communist countries that I can think of appear to have fallen into a dictatorship.[/QUOTE] But precedent /=/ what's possible. There's nothing that says that a perfectly educated, moral group of people would fail to establish a true democratic communist society.
I think building a society on one idea or another is an enormous oversimplification and oversight. There are extremely diverse challenges posed by establishing a government in any location in the world, and what works for one population might not work for another. I don't think it's fair to say that one is "better" than the other. That being said, I've seen quite a few more human rights abuses in the name of communism and greater state control than for laissez-faire capitalism; although that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't as many done in the name of the "west". We just don't know about them.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;32379469]Well all communist countries that I can think of appear to have fallen into a dictatorship.[/QUOTE] I thought Cuba has been reforming as of late away from this?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32379591]I thought Cuba has been reforming as of late away from this?[/QUOTE] Somewhat, yes.
[QUOTE=Hellborg 65;32379551]The problem with communism, is that human nature always leads to it's demise.. The problem with a Laissez-faire is that when Britain had it, unemployment was really bad. Basically communism plugs the main Lassiez Faire holes, but in the end it's human nature that fucks it all up. I really find it almost impossible to choose one out of the two. There is no good or lesser of the two evils. They will either succeed or fail, and there is no way to tell what will happen until it actually happens.[/QUOTE] I would attribute communism's short-comings not to human nature but to the manner in which humans are raised. We are typically raised to fend for ourselves rather than the commune. If all people were raised to value the lives of others over their own communism could work. I'm not saying we're born tabula rasa, but I feel there is a tendency to over attribute problems to human nature.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;32379637]I would attribute communism's short-comings not to human nature but to the manner in which humans are raised. We are typically raised to fend for ourselves rather than the commune. If all people were raised to value the lives of others over their own communism could work. I'm not saying we're born tabula rasa, but I feel there is a tendency to over attribute problems to human nature.[/QUOTE] It's mainly the fact that in my opinion, the nature of us exploits communisms fatal flaw; that if one person screws it up, it can become bad. But I know what you mean, I agree with you mainly.
[QUOTE=Hellborg 65;32379700]It's mainly the fact that in my opinion, the nature of us exploits communisms fatal flaw; that if one person screws it up, it can become bad. But I know what you mean, I agree with you mainly.[/QUOTE] If there is a singular leader with massive power, it isn't Communism.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32379789]If there is a singular leader with massive power, it isn't Communism.[/QUOTE] Sorry, I might have worded that wrong, since everyone is supposed to be equal, when things start to get unequal when people manage to wangle more stuff, things have a tendancy of screwing up.
[QUOTE=Hellborg 65;32379867]Sorry, I might have worded that wrong, since everyone is supposed to be equal, when things start to get unequal when people manage to wangle more stuff, things have a tendancy of screwing up.[/QUOTE] Are you taking your point of reference from the USSR?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32379909]Are you taking your point of reference from the USSR?[/QUOTE] I wasn't being that specific, sorry. My thoughts were flowing this way; [url]http://www.123helpme.com/assets/17296.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Hellborg 65;32379966]I wasn't being that specific, sorry. My thoughts were flowing this way; [url]http://www.123helpme.com/assets/17296.html[/url][/QUOTE] His argument is that someone will take over a society before it has a chance to truly become Communist, and that isn't a problem with the ideology itself.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;32379432]I'd rather have a shitty government trying to help everyone than evil people only trying to help themselves.[/QUOTE] It's evil to help yourself? Why? Are you claiming that people have a responsibility to help eachother? I will argue against that forever. The whole reason being a social animal helps humans is because there is power in numbers and in community. It's so that each individual organism has a better chance of surviving or developing the species. There is no logical reason for one person to help another at their expense.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32380113]His argument is that someone will take over a society before it has a chance to truly become Communist, and that isn't a problem with the ideology itself.[/QUOTE] Are you in favour of communism in general or just because it's better than a Laissez-faire? Either way you know more than me, I was just being vague and putting a common generalisation to boost my thought a bit.
How about both, you live in your society and I'll live in mine. As the description of this forum reads: [quote]Become further entrenched in your own views by defending them against people entrenched in their own[/quote] Unless there's people here who desire to have world-wide communism/socialism, those people can fuck themselves.
[QUOTE=Hellborg 65;32380521]Are you in favour of communism in general or just because it's better than a Laissez-faire? Either way you know more than me, I was just being vague and putting a common generalisation to boost my thought a bit.[/QUOTE] I am a Socialist, but I respect Communism and Marxist ideology very much.
[QUOTE=s0beit;32380823]How about both, you live in your society and I'll live in mine. As the description of this forum reads: Unless there's people here who desire to have world-wide communism/socialism, those people can fuck themselves.[/QUOTE] The point of the forum's description is to exemplify the tendency for people to care more about something after having discussed it. We aren't discussing them as if we want to live in them, we're weighing the positives against the negatives for both. Coming into this thread and saying that all Communists/Socialists 'can fuck themselves' is completely unwarranted. If either system were to be effective, there would be nothing wrong with the desire for the world to be unified under a single economic system.
I'm more of a regulated communist, laying between Socialism and Marxism.
There are other options. There is socialism with a pretty much free market where people can become what they want but at the same time the poor get what they need. Oh and I'm happy that theres finally a debating section. I mean I spend most of my time on facepunch explaining how i'm so much better and smarter then anyone anyway. Theres also hypothetical technocracy which has the supply and demand of the free market but using the soulless slaves robots to do most of the work.
[QUOTE=s0beit;32380823]How about both, you live in your society and I'll live in mine. As the description of this forum reads: Unless there's people here who desire to have world-wide communism/socialism, those people can fuck themselves.[/QUOTE] You realize this is a debate, right?
While both have their ups and downs, pure and true Communism and Laissez-faire cannot exist for the same reasons. Mainly being that people will always be the same selfish bastards as always. I lay more on the "right" myself. Libertarianism and all that.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;32381294]There are other options. There is socialism with a pretty much free market where people can become what they want but at the same time the poor get what they need. Oh and I'm happy that theres finally a debating section. I mean I spend most of my time on facepunch explaining how i'm so much better and smarter then anyone anyway. Theres also hypothetical technocracy which has the supply and demand of the free market but using the soulless slaves robots to do most of the work.[/QUOTE] Was the last part of the first paragraph a joke or are you actually that conceited?
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;32381394]I lay more on the "right" myself. Libertarianism and all that.[/QUOTE] [I]"Minimum wage, protections for the unfortunate? Who needs 'em!"[/I]
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32381469][I]"Minimum wage, protections for the unfortunate? Who needs 'em!"[/I][/QUOTE]Don't remember mentioning that, but the US would be a shitty place to remove minimum wage. Countries where the primary jobs are agriculture or manufacturing? Sure. But the US is in a bad position for that, we're focusing on quality instead of quantity.
The only place a command economic has a chance at working is in the mind. To be less cynical, command economies would work on very small scale.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;32381614]Don't remember mentioning that, but the US would be a shitty place to remove minimum wage. Countries where the primary jobs are agriculture or manufacturing? Sure. But the US is in a bad position for that, we're focusing on quality instead of quantity.[/QUOTE] If you're a libertarian, you probably think welfare/social security/medicare/medicaid/unemployment insurance, and any of the municipal water/health services are bad. An argument I've heard quite often is that "it is not just to pick up the slack for the lazy".
Oh yes, communism was based off of "tribal" economies. For a very small village or town, they work very well, but only because everyone knows one another and really know what they're working for. Once you start expanding beyond this tiny little space of a town, you start thinking of people less as "neighbors" and more as "strangers". [editline]19th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;32381727]If you're a libertarian, you probably think welfare/social security/medicare/medicaid/unemployment insurance, and any of the municipal water/health services are bad. An argument I've heard quite often is that "it is not just to pick up the slack for the lazy".[/QUOTE]I can be a moderate Libertarian if I want.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;32381744]I can be a moderate Libertarian if I want.[/QUOTE] Really, so how can you believe that some government programs are good and others are bad (assuming you make this judgement on the basis that government does not have the right to intervene in any aspect of the economy), and still call yourself a Libertarian?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32381822]Really, so how can you believe that some government programs are good and others are bad (assuming you make this judgement on the basis that government does not have the right to intervene in any aspect of the economy), and still call yourself a Libertarian?[/QUOTE]I call myself a Libertarian because that's the closest I am to anything. The economy is the only thing I am slightly more "left" on.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;32381917]I call myself a Libertarian because that's the closest I am to anything. The economy is the only thing I am slightly more "left" on.[/QUOTE] That's not a Libertarian, that's a Progressive. They're "Left" on the economy and "Left" on social policy. Left in terms of social policy meaning liberal, mind you.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.