Now what do you think about communism? Is it a great and better way than free enterprise? Would it help the economy? Would it encourage production? Would it in turn screw up our nation?

Communism - everybody works, puts their products in a distribution warehouse, gain no profit, and take what they need from the warehouse. (Basic principle) In other words... some peopl have disabilities therefore, they cant produce as much... others are really great at what they do, so they produce alot. This would balance it out no? Make it fair for everyone?

Free Enterprise - Everybody works their earnings. You dont work? Well sucks for you, you dont get anything....
Whatever you earn depends on how much you work. What you make, you sell and gain profit. Those who want that product have to pay to get it. This prevents laziness right? If you work more, you deserve more, yes?

Heres a sample of both ideas put into testing. In the early years of colonization of america, there were two.colonies that tried these ideas. One colony tried communism. Everybody put all tgeir crops and woodworkomgs in a single building and everbody took what they needed. Those who couldnt make much began to get lazy and not make anything seeing as hoe they could still get food and such from those who did ork. Those who could make more starting making less because they saw no need it it. What was their reward for making more when others could get by without making anything? This colony died of starvation in a couple of months.

The next colony tried free enterprise. If you wanted to eat, you had to either make it, or buy it. You made more you gained more profit and your family prospered. If you were lazy and made less, you siffered and yoir family starved. This colony survived a coupke of years. The colony died because of an Indian raid.

Another example of communism was a test in a school. The teacher told the students that communism was bad but the srudents wouldnt believe him so he put it to the test. For every test he put everybodies grades together and gave every student the average. Those who didnt study made a better grade than usual, ao they were happy and continued being lazy. Those who did study did worse on their grade because of those who didnt. They werent happy. They thought, "Why shouls we work hard to get a crappy grade when those below do nothing and get the dame?" Eventually nobody was studying and everyone in the class had failed the semester.

So which do you think is better?

Sorry for all pf the misspellings. I was typing this on my nook...

i've always thought communism would be a good idea, but i think that it would be quite difficult to keep under control, and like you mentioned in your examples, many people probably wouldn't agree with it and would try to rebel against it.
but then again, a world where nobody gets too much and nobody gets too little would be a good one, right?

>>3 It sounds right, I know, but just like in the above tests/examples the people qho work hard get less therefore work less because workimg hard gets them nowhere. Those work less work even less becausse they got more than usuall.
Its like you and your friend build a mansion. He only makes one room but you make everything else... and you have no xchoice but to share. Is this fair? You apent a crap load of time and effort building almost all but only receiving half... next time youll work less right? Seeing as how it was almost a wasted effort. Your friend is physched because he hardly did anything yet he gets half of what YOU worked for. Next time he will figure that he probably wouldnt even have to work seeing as how he will still get half of what you put all your time and effort in..

Now if everybody was perfect and everybodyhad the same enthusiasm, intelligence, and endurance and everybody did the same amount of work theen sure it would be fair.

Again to my other example. Your make 100 on yoir tesr, another person makes 50. Well hell you get a lucky 75. There went all your hard work for a crappy grade. Nobody made "too much or too little". Sounds fair, correct? If you think its fair... somethings wrong.

bump (I'll give my opinion in my next post. Getting shit off Main right now.)

bump (I meant my next post after my next one.)

>>4 If people are not working hard and then recieving the same as a hard worker, then no, that isn't fair. But if everybody did exactly the same and everybody ended up with the same, that would be fair. We would then no longer have classes and people wouldn't be struggling for basic things like food and water.
I suppose that couldn't ever happen though - it would be too hard to keep under control, some people would be unable to work as hard as others, and I doubt everybody would play by the rules.
Well, that's my personal opinion anyway.

>>5 if only there was a way to stop the trolls from spamming the main page...

I'm for free enterprise. If someone is lazy and doesn't work, then it will bite them back. A whole group shouldn't be affected because of someone is lazy. If we had a communist government, majority of the U.S. would be dead by now. That would probably would've included my mom who busted her butt trying to raise me and my sisters for years while looking for a job that wouldn't refuse her bacause of her health problems. So a free enterprise works when you think of it.

well, i ahve always thought that a communist society would be preferable to one with a capitalist/free enterprise society, but only if you would be able to live in a PERFECT communist society. the fact that EVERYONE really owns everything and only gets what they need to survive or every individual thrives instead of just a few in the whole basic concept of communism has sort of appealed to me. the issue with communist countries in history is that the government always is essentially a class all it's own. there is a leader, someone with more power than another person. In my idea of a "perfect" communism, there would have to be no leaders or any single individual who is considered more important than another. perhaps this would entail making ti so that all children would be raised collectively and shit like that. sort of like The Giver ( i think that's the book) in a sense. however, humans are imperfect creatures and will always strive for power or claim something as their own. In this sense, a "perfect" communism is almost impossible and just leads to problems, so i suppose i support a capitalist/free enterprise society.

TL;DR in theory, i agree with communism, in application, i have to go with capitalism.

bump

>>9 What if instead of a Government (and people that would work within) there would be a computer program, where everyone inputs their local data, and that said program would then send the needed resources and such? Sorry it's just that the Venus Project came to mind when you explained what your version of a Perfect communist society would be. Ohh and also, allow universities and such to input new data and algorithms (w/e) so that the system itself is never stagnant, and allow for development as it happens.

Likewise OP, you've presented both option, however you've only said the cons for only one of the them. Did you already forget the violent ups and downs within a Free Enterprise market, one of which has made how many hardworking people go homeless? It's not about you get what you work for, it's about how shrewd you are in making as much profit as you possibly can, and that's generally achieved on the backs of many underpaid and overworked .

I'm honestly not sure what a perfect Free Market enterprise would be, since blood thirsty and power hungry comes to mind when I look at their "stewards" (Lawyers, Bankers, Investment Brokers). But, that's why the US has a Mix Economy.

I would prefer a society where people all chipped in for some sort of greater good, in all honesty, but in today's current situation, I find such a perfect vision a mere fool's dream. It's for this reason that I would rather go for a capitalist ideology where I have more control over what I do and what I receive.

By definition, communism would be an "extreme form of socialism where a classless society is achieved, private property does not exist and all things are held within common ownership". While this does sound fantastic, communism isn't just a political system but an economic system which tries to enforce some sort of social equality by giving out an amount of capital to each person, depending on what they need, or, what the government thinks that they need. I can't really give my whole trust to a bunch of politicians who constantly bicker among each other and try to find new ways to get their people's support.

Like >>9 said, humans will eventually find themselves in a desire for more power and will corrupt. But this is practically like all government ideologies. They all, at some point in time, become corrupt, so what sets communism apart from capitalism? From what I've learnt in history, from the Russian revolution, especially, communist countries will find themselves to be a one-party state which is the one of the main reasons as to why I prefer capitalism, overall. Capitalism is mainly an economic ideology, but in practice, it usually involves a democratic system in which we are able to vote for which person we would like to lead our country. So if a politician, for some reason becomes unpopular with the masses, parties would have an incentive to give them the boot in order to gain more votes. I admit that capitalism isn't a perfect system, but for now, I believe that it works well enough in a lot of countries.

Although I think my opinion here is pretty lengthy, I'll end my two cents with a joke I learnt at school:
"Capitalism is when you have two cows and you are free to keep the milk for yourself. Socialism is when you have two cows and you give one to your neighbour. Communism is when there are two cows, the government takes them, and gives you some of the milk. Fascism is where the government steals your cows and shoots you."

>>11 well, a computer running shit and keeping order would be...interesting. but there would be some major issues with it. what you have proposed is more of a VI with set instructions of things to do when x happens, and so as you said, there would be need to update the system every once in a while. the problem is this: could we trust the people updating the algorithms and new data? there would certainly be a higher probability of people being overall more equal, but there is still that chance that people could abuse their power.to eliminate the "human factor" you'd have to create an AI, so that it could learn and adapt on its own without interaction with humans, but we are a long ways from having a AI that advanced and even if we did, how would we know it wouldn't just be "robo-stalin"?

>>13 Sorry, I completely forgot about listing the cons to free enterprise/capitalism. Ill list them here and hope that people at least read this comment before posting.... but I dont believe that capitalizm is the reason for all the crime and crap here in America... for instance look at Japan, capitalism ftw there with the lowest crime rate in the world. I however do belive that capitLism is an indirect source. When that person makes that dumb decision, he makes another one and does random crap that will screw up his life just so he can get a little more money. The main source i think, is the general mindset of Americans and of the poorer classes. (Sue mcdonalds for making them fat... realy? Sueing gamestop for $5000 for not letting you bring a horse in the stor... seriously? Random shootings for retarded things... failed grades. Got dumped, depression, feel like it, grounded, fired, need i go on?)

With free enterprise comes wealth if you have enough skill, determination, savy, and in some cases... contacts. However, whenever the rich get richer, it makes it all the more difficult for the lower and middle class people to reach the same monetary status.
In free enterprise you choices can change your life. Working at the wrong business at the wrong time. Buying unecessary things when you dont exactly have the money. Using a credit card can screw your life for years.

bumping over saged... that and I want this topic to live longer lol

>>4
actually it could work if people had enough loyalty to the stuff. I mean we don't have to be perfect all just for it to work. That's why we have a specific job to do. the best thing a communistic society should do is asses and determine where an individual should be placed so that he becomes an efficient part of the community.
I don't agree to your example because a grade is a measure, and you can't get the same measure you know.

>>7
Dude, try reading huxley's A Brave New World. You might be surprised how easily people can be TRAINED to do the bidding of the government.

>>8
You guys are fortunate coz you're in a developed country but when you go to a place where only the rich can access education, you might change your mind. In that kind of society, only the rich get richer by taking advantage of the ignorance of the poor. Because of the power the rich with their money can yield and the greed of some people who never think of others, the ones who have not are kept down.

but really, it just depends on the people who are at the top of the economic ladder.

>>17 Being forced to a specific field just because your good at it wouldnt not work at all... people would rebel nonstop. That would take away individuality. That would also prevent people from aiming to be in a certain field. Like say a person who is good at English but wants to excel in Mechanics... well his life sucks now that he is stuck at teaching
English. I can understand to a point where your coming from though on the poor not able to learn. But I wouldnt blame the rich just becaise their rich. I would blame them according to how they obtained those riches. But some rich people are only rich because of their hard work, luck, and wise dealings. Other because of scandals, cheating, heritage,
and oyher crap. I wouldnt label all rich as the source...just some of them. (Not saying that you did label all of them...)

>>15 Thank you for the information, although I can't really find myself having a clear understanding on the "American mindset", since I'm not an American myself.

Like I've stated in >>13, although communism is a wonderful idea in theory (I mean, who wouldn't want equality for all?), it doesn't work well in practice. Especially in countries where there are a lot of people, who are what many would consider to be somewhat conservative. Unless communism happens as gradually and as naturally as possible, such a change in system would turn into a train wreck, leaving political leaders to step back a bit and return to capitalism.

Of course, if people do end up making shitty decisions about their lives, then it's really up to them to deal with the consequences, and it's not necessarily justified to blame a political system for one's woes. It's not like it doesn't happen in communist situations as well, although it may seem less likely to happen. And consider that there are even some cases in which capitalist countries do try to assist individuals who have made bad decisions. Like in Australia, for example, for although it is a capitalist country, it does have a system that gives money to its citizens when they find themselves in a tough spot, that is, if they don't have any sources to get money from in the first place.

i hate getting into politics, but basically, you should be paid by how hard you work and your money and property that you earn is yours to share, use, give, spend, etc. Government control over the free market actually is UNFAIR because now the big businesses and men/women on top decide where the money goes. And no one wants their life controlled.... Thats just a simple aspect of it, like i said i hate getting too deep into politics...

i feel that marxism is better than both communism and free enterprise. communism can be very beneficial for a society if implemented by the correct type of government and a agreeable leader under the right economic conditions. the same thing can be said about free enterprise or any other kind of social theory.

communism is better then capitalism only if there are no people involved

From what I read in this thread, most people have an accurate, yet a little naive, understanding of both capitalist and communist society. I suppose I'll throw in my POV.

Some fellow members and I have discussed what would happen in a more totalitarian or "Communist" society (it's debatable whether Stalin's rule was true Marxist Communism), using the Stalin regime as an example. Following WWII, the USSR's industrial economy boomed through Stalin's leadership. The reason? People wanted to work, as people in this thread have stated is necessary for Communism to work.

Some of you may have learned (or may soon learn) in World History that the USSR used copious amounts of propaganda. City streets were lined with media glorifying the Soviet Union and their amazing leader. And the people loved it. Therefore, nobody wanted to rock the boat, and life went on as normal.

...Until the country's food supply ran out due to poor farming habits, which led to mass famine and the eventual revolt. But here are two things to consider. The first is that the Soviet Union lasted for seventy years, give or take a few. The first Democratic Government only lasted for fifty. That means a good communist government or even a good totalitarian government is not exactly doomed to fail in all cases.

The second thing is this: Signapore has a modern day dictator and everything is controlled by the government. Their government is still thriving, the people love it, and nobody plans to rock the boat anytime soon. Will it last? Time will tell. But it is fascinating, without a doubt.

>>23 Valid point.

I guess what I'm mainly thinking about is... would it work in America? Here, people will DEFINATELY not tolerate it. Government controlling everything. That's like SOPA and CISPA for every corner of our lives... and those two are getting shot down by the public really fast.

>>24 No, it will not work in the United States, for the reasons you mentioned. Now, if the United States declares dissolution, it could split up into any number of governments. You could have great migrations, as people move from one territory to another in order to live in the sphere of government that they want to live in. There would be American territories that are entirely free market. There would be territories that are entirely controlled by government. And there would be territories that fall somewhere along the spectrum.

Tyler: i would already have picked the second one ...
noah: i'm not particularly certain which side is "better" but both sides have certain benifits and downfalls.

so apparently with the whole colony thing i wouldn't want that to happen anytime soon. If its going to happen in the future let it happen later rather than soooner.

>>25 >>24 it could work, actually. the definition of our government would change if the U.S. became communist. communism isn't dependent on a totalitarian style government. i think many people are often confused about what communism truly is. most basically, it's when the majority need rules government policy. the purpose of communism is to make how much money a person or small group has, a non-issue for how much say in society or government you have.

>>25 makes me think of something. Stalin was more of a dictator than a communist IMO, and he was able to retain his rule for decades, and even after he died the "communist" government of the USSR(which was admittedly a lot more communist than Stalinist Russia) stayed in power for another 30-40 years, but then collapsed. I think China may be the only superpower with a huge country and large population that has retained a communist government, all the other big countries had their communist governments fall apart. My point is this: Communism more often than not seems to sort of fall apart when it comes to big countries with a large population, even though Marxism required the country to be industrialized, with lots of resources and therefore people. IMO, the USSR lasted so long due to the borderline fascism that was in place, either you agreed with it and smiled or you ended up dead. China Has had a communism since the late 40's and still continues to be to this day, which sort of throws my theory off, but i feel like it is relevant to note that although they lead the world in industry today, they had absolutely no sort of big industry when they started out, even less so than Russia did before their revolution, and they really focused on Agriculture and then began trying to industrialize when the communist government came into power.

I would say that now that China has a monster industry and a huge population that their communism would collapse, but i feel like there is another important factor to take into account, Culture. The culture of Europe and Asia are so vastly different, the values and beliefs of the two continents are totally different and will pretty much always be different. Asia focuses more on the group rather than the individual (not to say that EVERYONE places their individuality and personal gain after the advancement of the whole) as well as the fact that they have a different set of immediately available resourced and a different set of needs and necessities, and as a result communism seems to be more widely embraced in Asian countries, so if another large communist power in Asia were to spring up, i would not be too terribly surprised, whereas a large European or American (the continents, both North and South) being able to retain a communism would be highly unlikely.

Because of this vast difference in the wants, needs, and views of the people that are based on where they live, i think that there is no one obvious choice that can be considered to be "better" than the other. you're not going to try to use a screwdriver to remove screws AND hammer in nails, you need a tool for every job. It's pretty much the same with governments, every country has to have their own way of solving their problems.

>>27 Convince the people of America to do so. Bear in mind that the majority of America still believes in the spirit of a free market despite how socialist it appears to be on the surface, and you'll realize that a communist society will not be backed by the United States as a whole.

>>28 I would say a lot of what you stated holds true. There is some speculation that the Chinese government is opening up to capitalism which will eventually lead to dissolution of the Communist Party. The DPRK is a more bizarre case, as it's succumbing to a more extreme backlash of Stalinist policy (as in the government is channeling insane amounts of funding to the military-industrial complex and screwing over the food needs of its people in a way that violates the resolutions of the UN).

>>28 Exactly... which is why I brought on the "general mindset" of Americans... (I can't speak for much of Europe as I don't know their way of thinking)

I'm just going to go ahead and say that "communism" in its most functional form is impossible due to the variable that is human behavior. it doesn't matter what country it's in.

>>30 along similar lines as America, with a bit less emphasis on killing for what they want, i would assume. i only bring up Europe because it's been one of the epicenters for Marxist revolution attempts in the past.

They're both doomed to fail.

In communism, everyone would have the easiest job because it's not worth the extra effort to work harder than someone and still only get the same amount of money. Why would someone take a job where they never got to go home and see their kids if they could take an easy job like McDonalds and get the same amount of money? Plus they get to go home, get a decent amount of sleep, and see their family.

Free enterprise would ail because what about the people who can't work? The people with physical and mental disabilities would not be able to get the money they need. We have that problem in the US. People can't afford to take care of themselves because they are unable to work or get a job for one reason or another. It could be a physical or mental condition, or it could just be due to lack of jobs.

You need a middle ground. A free-enterprise system that puts forth the effort to make jobs for the people who have a physical or mental handicap, and the people without these disabilities can't take these jobs. It should also be a society where they make sure enough jobs are available. Not too many and not too few. That way the people get the money they deserve and the only people not getting anything are the people who don't try

I know there are A LOT of holes in my plan, but it isn't as bad as straight communism or straight free-enterprise. It's the beginnings of a compromise that needs to be tweaked with trial and error until it's smoothed out.

>>33I believe That's why they added it where you can file for disability... and get like $10 an hour.

>>18
Ever tried being praised because you were so good at that stuff? And then you wanted to be better because they praised you so much?
Like, "Hey you're so good at this. why don't you do this for life. you can help a lot of people," effect. I didn't mean forced. Just sorta convinced.
And no offence taken. (-U-)

>>35 I have been praised... Im good at violin and piano therefore i was forced to play them for several years. Beloeve me, my teacher and parents praised me beyond belief. This praise didn't change crap, I still hated playing them. I couldn't express my feelings and the kind of music I liked because the kind f music I like is very limited on those two instruments. I resented them, refused to practice, and flat out told them that I would refuse to play anymore. Finaly after a couple of months, they let me drop them. I then got a guitar with my own money and now, I enjoy myself. Being praised works for some... but for the other half of society, it doesn't change crap.

>>36
maybe too much praise. because some people who are actually not that appreciated try to get better at it.

or maybe that's just me.

>>29 i don't actively support communism. i just wanted to give a better understanding of communism. i know fascism, totalitarianism, and communism are often confused as the same thing or the definitions of each are blurred. i would also like to point out that many people have seemed to misunderstand common ownership, which is what communism is based on, with the contrasting ideas of public ownership and/or collective ownership. also, common ownership applies specifically to the means of production, not the products themselves in communism.

>>34 That works too. I just believe there are tasks that should be done that anyone can do. Even a disabled person. Boring tasks, but they're easy. That way that they are not a waste of air and are actually making a difference. I just think that it would be a waste of man-power if they didn't get a job. Then there is a possiblility that there is a surplus of jobs. I like the idea that they get what they earn. They should have a minimum wage that would be more than the average person though so that they are not used due to their disability.

Sorry, I have not read all of the replies. I intend to because I want to here other opinions. I have just been to busy.

I choose Free Enterprise. Why work hard if everyone else does all the work sound hard to control

>>39 And I was pointing out that if someone were to try and propose conversion to communism here in the states, the majority would still oppose it. Sorry if there was a miscommunication. Your definition of communism is correct, though.

Without having read the rest of this thread, I choose free enterprise. If I go to a doctor, if It's free enterprise, that means he's good enough to keep his job. If he wasn't good at it, he's lose it. If it's a communist system, then he doesn't have to be a good doctor to keep his job.

bamp.

bump

>>43 I'm sorry, but your argument is horrendously flawed. Go to any Trauma Level III, IV, or V level hospital in the United States; any one of them. You'll find excessive wait times and medical personnel who more often than not don't give a flying fuck. Here's a story for you. Valentines Day 2011: I split my head open and go to the ER. I am put in a room with my head bleeding and left there for FIVE HOURS. My mother had to clean the dried blood off my face and neck because none of the nurses would. Eventually the head physician did come in, stapled my skull shut and sent me home with a massive bill.

My family and I have had several experiences like this, and have had to "just deal with it" each time because medical officials are protected by waivers, which is a requirement for every facility you enter in the US (including Level I and II facilities). And the examples I just gave were only non-profit hospitals.

For-profit hospitals can be even worse, charging far more for essentially the same services, with no noticeable increase in the quality of care between hospitals of the same Trauma Level.

So no, you argument that a bad doctor will not keep his job does not hold up at all.

>>46 That's more like a flaw in the system than the doctor himself.

>>46 You know when it comes down to it all Hospitals are like that. They have a lot of pateints and not enough people to help them. Also just b/c you had a few problems with the staff possibly not doing anything to help people doesnt mean they werent helping people for all you you just saw them standing around doing papaer work trying to get the next pateint out and trying to get the next patient in. Also i agree with you that >>43 does have a lot of flaws in his argument.

>>48 Then point them out and we can discuss them

>>49 First of all youc should have read all the thread. You oblviously dont know what your talking about. Second of all no matter where you go if its communism or free enterprise or socialism. There are going to be good doctors and there are going to be bad doctors it all depends on If the doctor learned anything in school or while in the feild. and third even in free enterprise we have doctors who are idiots and shouldnt be there but they keep under the radar. Also it doesnt matter what the government is like All medical training is the same and everyone is held at the same levl as everyone else.

>>47 So...essentially the point of doctors being protected by waivers went over your head? The less regulated American system allows doctors to be unaccountable. Therefore doctors are unaccountable. Now I am aware that this is not true in all cases or even half of the cases in the US. I've been to a Tier II hospital and received excellent services (granted the bill was an eighth of a million dollars; thank God for insurance). But my point stands regardless, which should also answer Miku's (>>48) point.

>>51 Thank you for helping me out further.

>>50 My point was that if communism guarantees a doctor a job, he doesn't have to give two shits about his work. Free enterprise doesn't guarantee anyone anything, so to become a doctor, he has to at least work for it.

And as far as everyone being held at the same level, I sure as hell better not be held at the same level as someone else when I worked my ass off to get where I am, and they didn't do shit for it. You sure as hell better expect more of me.

>>53 Communism doesnt guarantee anything except that everyone is the same and that all people are the same. Also I hope you know that i never said that you were held at the same standard as anyone. I told you that all doctors are held at the same level b/c they all have to train under the same way. All doctors are the same b/c they all have the same training. and dont you get all defensive just b/c you got offended. Ive never been offended by people talking about my job.

Yeah... you can suck and still have a job because there arent enough people to fill in your crappy shoes. Communism and free enterpise dont necisarily lower service quality. Product quality... well look at all that crap you got that was made in China... notice how it broke in a couple of months? (Not saying everything made in china is like that)

>>42 i agree with you. sadly, i think it's because communism is misunderstood in this country. i'm sure if a thorough explanation were given, many would want it. many problems that the US is experiencing is the result of capitalism. anyone who supports the occupy movement would probably love communism because it would redistribute the wealth more evenly.

>>55 poor product quality is more the result of poor business practice, regulation, and resources than government system. cheap labor usually means poor products no matter what other factors may be involved. the US produces many inferior products and superior products like any other country.

in my opinion, the true downside to communism is the creation of a exclusive tendency in business, less incentive for new businesses, and pricing complications.

>>54 I wasn't being defensive, nor was I offended, so I'm sorry if it came off that way.

Bump (: