[QUOTE=Mlisen14;30275852]Democracy is not that much more workable than communism, it suffers from the same fate. Power will corrupt leaders regardless of the constitutions and checks/balances. In times of war and terror, the constitution can be amended and made to look like it's for the benefit of the society. As well as that, democracy needs a strong base so that it isn't inherently corrupted.
I think it was Aristotle or Plato that said democracy could fall if the balance wasn't perfect. You have the people, the executive and the legislature and if they're not in balance then it will fall into mob rule, bring up an all-powerful leader or demagogue or an oligarchy will form (as in USSR).
With the media and watchdog organisations taking such importance in the 21st century the balance will be fucked soon enough.[/QUOTE]
True, however the large difference is that a communist government can quickly be usurped and turned into a fascist one even when it doesn't have a force or pressure on it (notably war, but could also be famine etc.). Democracies are as a rule of thumb stable unless under pressures like that, from what I've seen, whereas most democracies have been turned into kratocracies where the fastest player takes over and abuses the admittedly very interpretive guidelines of what a communism is supposed to "be" to warp it to his beliefs.
[editline]6th June 2011[/editline]
I think a notable example is the Weimar republic which IMO only failed because of the massive discontentment due to the economy, and the public hatred of the versailles treaty
No.
Sooner or later, someone has to have more power/wealth than another.
[QUOTE=Black Milano;30272709]I suppose you have some statistical or econometric data backing that up.
If not, those are just words in the air.[/QUOTE]
yeah you're right we should ignore the words of every political theorist ever born ever.
erm, no. For one thing there isn't any statistical or econometric data backing it up, because Marx's ideology hasn't ever been really followed. So by your standards we're now committed to using the old, stagnant models of politics because you'll only try things that have data on them.
I'm tired of hearing tired old unsubstantiated posts on communism. The most common one is "it works in theory BUT NOT IN PRACTICE." To that, I say that Capitalism [i]doesn't work in theory[/i] and [i]doesn't work in practice either[/i]. Capitalism is literally a system based on oppression and the underselling of labour. Maybe if you're hugely charitable to Adam Smith's invisible hand argument the theory gets [i]some[/i] credence, but in practice you don't have to look far at all to see it's hugely exploitative and impossible to maintain.
It's a myth that capitalism is the best we have to offer, and you're all eating it up.
[editline]6th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=CheeseMan;30275725]while this is technically correct it's the tip of the iceberg. communism is an abhorrent idealogy because it ALLOWS itself to be ruined by human nature. there is a reason democracy works, because it has separation of powers, checks and balances and is actually impossible to turn into a dictatorship without force because if you try to implement legislature that boosts yourself in power you have to deal with the constitution, and to do that you have to make a referendum which has to be passed by the majority of people in your country, so ultimately it's still the will of the people and you're still a democracy anyway.[/QUOTE]
You're misinterpreting the essence of communism entirely. Communism - in virtue of its definition - is an ideology of classness and statelessness. Any flaws with its practice in the soviet union were just a terrible conception of communism that Russia was in no way ready for. Stalin bastardized the ideology.
[editline]6th June 2011[/editline]
I hate how many posts are pointing to human nature as a counterargument. For one thing, since when has [i]nature[/i] been more than an small obstacle for human progress? And secondly it's a massively presumptive argument. Human nature is so much more malleable than people think, and I blame this HERP DERP DO EVERYTHING FOR YOURSELF AND FUCK EVERYONE ELSE western ideology that people refuse to give up. Capitalism is an argument for the corruption of power if I've ever seen one.
[QUOTE=Sumap;30275381]Have you read "Animal Farm"?[/QUOTE]
Yes, it's a great book and I enjoy all the hints to Stalin (Napoleon) and Lenin/Trotsky (Snowball)
Also, I agree, Capitalism isn't at all the best government we have to offer.
[QUOTE=shatteredwindow;30274116]Communism is good in theory, but is ruined by human nature.[/QUOTE]
why would i want to strive to become something if i know that i'll make just as much as the guy cleaning the street?
Communism has never work and it never will.
If we gave a lobotomy to each and every single person, it could work.
[QUOTE=kevlar jens;30278447]why would i want to strive to become something if i know that i'll make just as much as the guy cleaning the street?[/QUOTE]
you don't understand communism.
zero growth economy doesn't necessarily imply everyone gets exactly the same wages, even the lazy people.
That's not what communism is suggesting at all.
[editline]6th June 2011[/editline]
why am I even bothering. Facepunch is just too conceptually challenged.
Because we have another opinion, we are conceptually challenged?
What.
[QUOTE=Chekko;30279789]Because we have another opinion, we are conceptually challenged?
What.[/QUOTE]
You're conceptually challenged because basically all of you totally misunderstand the entire concept of communism. There's plenty of quite convincing arguments against communism, but facepunch doesn't seem to know any of them. Instead of uses the same tired bullshit they've heard a thousand times before. I think its fair enough to say the forum simply doesn't understand politics enough to have a genuine, justified opinion on the matter.
Under Communism, everybody receives equal pay. This means a heart surgeon is paid the same amount as the guy who holds a stop sign at a construction site. The surgeon has no incentive to do a good job since (in theory) he is not rewarded for it. Maybe that's not the best example, but it's why Communism won't work.
It worked on [url=http://www.alphastudiossoftware.nl/royzolled/]paper[/url], but it just doesn't work in practice.
If a doctor and a trashman receive the same amount of money why would a doctor want to study for 10 years if he can just sit on a truck and throw some thrash in it?
ffff :ninja:
[QUOTE=Recurracy;30280035]It worked on [url=http://www.alphastudiossoftware.nl/royzolled/]paper[/url], but it just doesn't work in practice.
If a doctor and a trashman receive the same amount of money why would a doctor want to study for 10 years if he can just sit on a truck and throw some thrash in it?
ffff :ninja:[/QUOTE]
I can think of an absolute fuckload of reasons why someone would want to be a doctor rather than a trashman
are you serious
That's not even what communism proposes. Communism propogates a zero-growth economy without class distinction: it's about positively closing the disgusting gap in wealth between the richest members of society who actually produce very little and the poor majority who produce everything. It's about people running corporations and the people who work their asses off within those corporations and still don't have enough money to feed their families.
Closing the gap doesn't mean a blanket wage of £X for literally every single member of society. Nobody was ever pretending that was the proposition, except its enemies and people fucking stupid enough to accept it.
I believe..in Communism
I really do
Capitalism isnt the problem. Corporatism is
Oh yeah baby, ask this on a forum filled with 12 year olds and you will success. Guaranteed.
I don't understand why kids think communism is the best thing ever. It's terrible.
[QUOTE=Recurracy;30285246]I don't understand why kids think communism is the best thing ever. It's terrible.[/QUOTE]
I'd honestly say the anti-communist bandwagon is the [i]exact[/i] same animal as the communist bandwagon.
You forgot the 'I don't know option' I bet more than half the people here have never properly studied communism, like me.
Properly regulated free market is much more efficient resource-wise than communism, since the task of coordinating supply and demand is completely delegated to the agents rather than the government, which is sole task should be to control externalities and certain "vices", while promoting innovation and positive side effects of the agents interacting.
Communism is impossible because the amount of resources needed [i]just[/i] to optimize and coordinate every damn transaction, as a central entity, are near infinite, specially taking into account market dynamism. Once you give that task to each participating party, these costs are massively diluted and reduced do to scale, so they're no longer a concern.
Put into layman's terms: it's much easier (and efficient) to let everybody do whatever they want under certain rules than telling each and every one of them what to do.
Even though I am of communist heritage (my great grandfather was grand secretary for the Icelandic Communist party) I totally agree with the fact that Communism will never ever work out.
[QUOTE=Midas22;30288655]You forgot the 'I don't know option' I bet more than half the people here have never properly studied communism, like me.[/QUOTE]
From an economic point of view (and i think, the only one that truly matters), communism is to present-day economics what voodoo magic is to modern medicine: [b]A joke[/b].
[QUOTE=Robbobin;30288233]I'd honestly say the anti-communist bandwagon is the [i]exact[/i] same animal as the communist bandwagon.[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
[QUOTE=Black Milano;30291814]From an economic point of view (and i think, the only one that truly matters), communism is to present-day economics what voodoo magic is to modern medicine: [b]A joke[/b].[/QUOTE]
Present day [i]neoliberal[/i] economics.
And don't make the mistake of thinking communism is about the government owning everything and distributing it to us. In a communist state all property is owned by everyone individually.
I think you're overlooking the huge injustices caused by the "Free Market" (it's not a free market). Personally I think I'd support some kind of free market anarchism if not communism. But the Free Market we have right now couldn't really be much further than a free market.
Any pitfall communism would allegedly have, capitalism has it too. The only difference in the corruption of power in "communist" states of the past and capitalism, was that they were a result of terrible judgement and a bastardized version of communist ideology mixed with a lot of contradictory ideologies (eg. the whole USSR nationalism was in my opinion hugely contradictory to everything communism stands for). Capitalists on the other hand, seem to be happy to admit the corruption of power, and as competition and exploitation are the very tenets of the machine of capitalism, wear it on their sleeves.
There's a misconception that communism is very much about the majority being led as one conglomeration by the state, when its basically the exact opposite: a population of individuals leading themselves in a classless, stateless society. There's various ways of understanding a communist society and I think it's hugely unimaginative to think of it as purely something [i]like Soviet Russia[/i]. The power [i]should[/i] be held by everyone; you're wrong to think it's in any way expedient for all of it to flow to a tiny majority (HINT: in a capitalist society that is what will [b]always[/b] happen - in theory and in practice).
Just saying: If you're going to appose or agree with this argument, please read (or at least know the gist of) Marx's Communist Manifesto and Communist Governments [i]OTHER THAN[/i] Soviet Russia!
Yeah. I wish there was a way of knowing whether or not someone has read genuine communist literature or not when they post. That way I can just dismiss the posts right off the bat. It's so damaging to society, that so many people are so misguided in politics to the point where they'll have such a front against something without trying to understand it.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;30294212]I think you're overlooking the huge injustices caused by the "Free Market" (it's not a free market).
You're wrong to think it's in any way expedient for all of it to flow to a tiny majority (HINT: in a capitalist society that is what will [b]always[/b] happen - in theory and in practice).[/QUOTE]
First four words of my previous post: [i]Properly Regulated Free Market[/i], rules are essential to keep the market free and efficient. You just don't let people do whatever they want, you put certain constraints under which you get a true free market. Using proper antimonopolical policies, subsidies and taxes, you can keep everything competitive and well distributed.
I know jack shit about political stuff, mostly because I've found that it's useless. What really shapes the playing field and makes things work is, you guessed it, economics.
Politics account for nothing when you have a flawed economic system, and everything that has been taught to me, everything that I've read and studied, points in the same direction: communism, economically speaking, is ridiculous. So please, if someone can explain to me the general theory behind the communist economic system, i'd be thankful.
Marx lists the elementary factors of production as:
labour, "the personal activity of man." (Capital, I, VII, 1.)
the subject of labour: the thing worked on.
the instruments of labour: tools, labouring domestic animals like horses, chemicals used in modifying the subject, etc.
Some subjects of labour are available directly from Nature: uncaught fish, unmined coal, etc. Others are results of a previous stage of production; these are known as raw materials, such as flour or yarn. Workshops, canals, and roads are considered instruments of labour. (Capital, I, VII, 1.) Coal for boilers, oil for wheels, and hay for draft horses is considered raw material, not instruments of labour. The subjects of labour and instruments of labour together are called the means of production. Relations of production are the relations human beings adopt toward each other as part of the production process. In capitalism, wage labour and private property are part of the relations of production.
Calculation of value of a product:
If labour is performed directly on Nature and with instruments of negligible value, the value of the product is simply the labour time. If labour is performed on something that is itself the product of previous labour (that is, on a raw material), using instruments that have some value, the value of the product is the value of the raw material, plus depreciation on the instruments, plus the labour time. Depreciation may be figured simply by dividing the value of the instruments by their working life; eg. if a lathe worth £1,000 lasts in use 10 years it imparts value to the product at a rate of £100 per year.
value = mp + lt
Where: value is the value of the product;
mp is the value of the means of production;
lt is the labour time.
[editline]6th June 2011[/editline]
The ratio between the wages [the value of the labour(-power)] and the surplus value—or, alternatively speaking, the ratio between the necessary and surplus labour time—Marx called the rate of surplus value.
s′ = s / V = st / lt Where: s′ is the rate of surplus value
s is the surplus value;
V is the variable capital (the wages);
st is the surplus labour time;
nt is the necessary labour time;
[editline]6th June 2011[/editline]
Expenditure:
= mp + lv where lv is the value of the labour(-power).
Income:
= value of product
= mp + lt
Difference:
= lt - lv
= surplus value
[editline]6th June 2011[/editline]
Income:
= value of product
= mp + lt (other workers) + lt (capitalist while he works)
[editline]6th June 2011[/editline]
Labour(-power) is unique among commodities in that it is the only commodity that both has value and creates value: all commodities have value, only labour(-power) creates value. The value created by labour(-power) is simply the time during which it was exerted. This follows from the labour theory of value's definition of value as embodied labour time.
Example:
Suppose I[who?] spend three hours creating some product; and suppose also that in the process I consume means of production that sometime in the past required two hours to produce – i.e., they have a value of two hours. The value of my product will be:
mp + lt = 2 + 3 = 5 (in units of hours.)
[editline]6th June 2011[/editline]
Decided to post his (Marx) basic equations and descriptions.
*Note Found on Wikipedia, didn't want to type descriptions and equations myself*
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
