I'm hoping this will stir the pot a bit lol. But in all seriousness if you could get rid of the "need for greed" and "status", and yet not cross to many boundries. Don't you think that this could provide a more reasonable standard of living for everybody? My main thoughts were of people such as Oparah and Bill Gates which easily have enough money to supply everyone in the continental U.S. with over a million dollars each in their bank accounts. This of course would be catosrophic to the market if this were to happen all at once, but honestly 7% or whatever it is of the people control all the money and make all the decisions? Shouldn't the money be spread around better so that everybody can have a chance at a better life? Or maybe it should stay where it is collecting interest in an rediculously large account getting bigger by the moment. Any thoughts?
Recommended Answers
Jump to PostWhat you are describing is socialism, not communism. Communism asserts that the state owns everything, no private person can own anything, and that goods and services distributed among the people according to need. Also communism does not allow free elections, or free anything else either, such as religion. Communist coutries …
Jump to PostCapitalism = 90% productivity + 10% resources.
Communism = 10% productivity + 90% resources.
Jump to Postwell, in order to be a leftist you have to believe in the wildest lies and fantasies possible as that's all that can ever make socialism/communism look like something you want to live under...
Yah, the "failed experiment" theory is a nice and constantly repeating one. Guess what kids, …
Jump to PostI just want to point out, there is one example of completely unfettered capitalism (i.e., a perfect "free-market"), it is called drug trafficking. Government has no effective control over that market, it doesn't regulate the workers, the products nor the economics. What is the result? Exactly what Adams Smith predicted, …
Jump to Postyes, its called freedom.
All 92 Replies
It was in C++! lol
I know was hoping nobody noticed glad moderator caught it quickly lmao. Hey I can repost it as a classes question in c++ right lmao.
What you are describing is socialism, not communism. Communism asserts that the state owns everything, no private person can own anything, and that goods and services distributed among the people according to need. Also communism does not allow free elections, or free anything else either, such as religion. Communist coutries are run by tyrant dictators.
If your country were to suddenly come under communist control, everyone would immediately be tossed into the poor house. People with lots of education most likely would be shot (executed). Is that the kid of life you have in mind???
I doubt such a thing would happen in USA because we are too well-armed and would kill anyone who attempted it.
Obviously that's not the kind of life I'm speaking of. And not taking away any rights from the people but more of putting money back into circulation rather than rotting away in someones personal bank accounts.
Capitalism = 90% productivity + 10% resources.
Communism = 10% productivity + 90% resources.
Communism is good because You don't have to worry about money, standards are same for everyone, high growth rate in your country, and most importantly 0% unemployment
But it is impractical because The one who is in government owns every mean of production, there is no freedom of speech. It is difficult to maintain a common goal or set of rules for shared effort and resources in a large and diverse population. Central planning is much difficult to achieve as compared to individual plannings. Productivity and efficiency is difficult to achieve without profit motive for the workers. Without set price mechanism it is difficult to achieve internal balances between supply and demand.
So my vote is against communism
Communist coutries are run by tyrant dictators.
If your country were to suddenly come under communist control, everyone would immediately be tossed into the poor house. People with lots of education most likely would be shot (executed). Is that the kid of life you have in mind???
I doubt such a thing would happen in USA because we are too well-armed and would kill anyone who attempted it.
I really disagree with you Ancient Dragon. They are not always run by tyrant. You are only talking about Soviet Union and it is a failed experiment. Lenin actually had an idea and he tried too make Utopian communsim but then Stalin came. At the end Lenin was tryed to take out Stalin but it was too late. So the part about "everyone owns everything" will not work but the dictatorship part works just fine (Soviet Union did not actually have communism but Socialism). For example China. You can own property in there but there is still dictatorship.
Communism is Utopia. It would work in a perfect society where everyone would work and not be lazy. But unfortunately human are NOT perfect so communism will not work.
But I think dictatorship DOES work. For example the same dictator in China. The problem is, is how to get a good dictator. This problem is solvable. For example monarchy works fine. It just hides "dictatorship" under the words like Queen and King. People who usually become Kings, want to make there nation better, and they are usually smart because they were trained to become kings/queens so they are also educated. This is not a perfect dictatorship but by far it is the best one. Many countries, like England, Spain, and France had Monarchy and they were growing and thriving, and doing just fine.
There is also new "experiment" with Democracy and for now it works lol. The only problem I see is that politics becomes harder and harder and people don't get any smarter (I think they are getting stupider.)
Capitalism = 90% productivity + 10% resources.
Communism = 10% productivity + 90% resources.
In Soviet Union it was true :(
I raised a similar topic some years ago with a mature(as in age) computer science student near the end of his studies. His reply to people being in similar wages for different jobs was that he had studied hard to get to where he was so when he finished he deserved a better wage. This point may have had some substance were we not (at the time) living in a country where secondary education was funded by the taxpayer. In effect the people who he thought he should earn more than funded the education which gave him that belief.:-O
@Old Lizard
Isn't it difficult to be smug about a society that thinks more of its population are criminals than any other (including dictatorships)?
I really disagree with you Ancient Dragon. They are not always run by tyrant. You are only talking about Soviet Union
Really?? I would classify the dictatorship in China in the same category, although AFAIK China is not really communist anymore either because it has been evolving into a capatilist country for several years now. In the same light, USA is not a democracy (or federalist) country any more either -- its evolving into socialism.
In the same light, USA is not a democracy (or federalist) country any more either -- its evolving into socialism.
Could you please explain how this can be when the gap between the rich and poor continues to expand rapidly in the USA?
It seems more like the USA is evolving into corporate fascism.
I raised a similar topic some years ago with a mature(as in age) computer science student near the end of his studies. His reply to people being in similar wages for different jobs was that he had studied hard to get to where he was so when he finished he deserved a better wage. This point may have had some substance were we not (at the time) living in a country where secondary education was funded by the taxpayer. In effect the people who he thought he should earn more than funded the education which gave him that belief.:-O
Wow very interesting. Btw great replies from all. I was bored and wanting to get some wheels turning it looks like as though it may have worked after all. I was expecting either some really great responces like the ones we've got you guys are great. Or I was expecting people would shutdown right away and start screaming "blasphemy!!!". Yeah the whole idea is just to look at things that are wrong, possible solutions. I mean I think the USA has been the best system thus far don't get me wrong, but it's gaining alot of shortcoming very quickly as well. Don't forget what's goin on currently, it's probably a good time for a change as long as it's a good one.
For example monarchy works fine. It just hides "dictatorship" under the words like Queen and King. People who usually become Kings, want to make there nation better, and they are usually smart because they were trained to become kings/queens so they are also educated. This is not a perfect dictatorship but by far it is the best one.
The big problem with monarchies is they tend to be small, inbred royal families so the rates of genetic disease can be quite high and you risk ending up with a crazy one (there are many examples from the roman empire) or in fighting among royal families to rise to the thrown which favours the ruthless, and power-hungry (not that democracy doesn't). Monarchy combined with democracy I think works the best.
Heck I figure if we get an army of problem solvers which this community is vastly who knows what kind of idea might come about. Many of you do this for a living, and others of us stay up untill the unwaking hours of the night hacking away at problems until the solution presents itself. I think my vote for the next president is the geekyest dude they can find, and by that I surely don't mean Trump. lol :)
Just a check question. How many of you lived in communist country and had to go by the ideology? (No need to answer AD ;) ). My I live under the rule for almost 13 years, been told that Russia is the best and be great full for what we have to Lenin and Stalin.
@abelLazm Communism is good because You don't have to worry about money, standards are same for everyone, high growth rate in your country, and most importantly 0% unemployment
> Far fetched ideology that never worked. 0% unemployment because either you take what ever job they will give you or spent your time in prison doing the worst jobs and getting beaten up. "standards are same for everyone" no chance, even in this type of governance there is a rich group and the poor souls. "standards are same for everyone" same as capitalism. "igh growth rate in your country" is what ever your government tells you and you have to believe in it or you are in trouble
@sergent you have Russian sounding name wonder from which generation you are (no insult intended neither on name or age). Either way you are to young to know how tough time been before 1989. At the time Soviet Union president was Gorbacov that is first of Soviet presidents that was more human being that his predecessors' that came from army cadres
Yeah I'm pretty sure we can all agree that communism failed in the Soviet Union I don't think anyone could dispute that. And yes communism in it's viewed state is a far fetched ideology. Like he said that would only work in a perfect world which is far from the truth. But if there were somehow levels of that idea you could impliment in certain areas, there is a possiblility for a better "BALANCE". It's like the chinese theory of yin and yang, when we have to much of one way the other way will eventually be inevitable. If you go to far from one side cause and effect will apply and forceably shoot you to the other side of the spectrum. If however you learn to live near the center of this balance you don't get a swinging motion from extreme to extreme, you simply wobble slowly back and forth slightly in the middle.
But if there were somehow levels of that idea you could impliment in certain areas, there is a possiblility for a better "BALANCE".
Socialism can be thought off as a middle area, or publicly owned corporations (here we call them crown corporations, but I don't know what they are called in the US). Where in certain areas the government owns either one of many competing companies or the only company (monopoly) in a certain area eg. broadcasting.
Alternatively, there are systems like the Canada Healthcare system where the government pays for a particular service on behalf of all citizens but lets the private sector (to differing degrees) provide the service. Note: this only works because it is illegal for anyone else to pay for it so the private companies cannot rip off the gov't.
So there are lots of variation and room for compromise, the best systems IMO treat things on a case by case basis to determine which set up is best for a particular area, since there are things that gov't is good at which are not the same as what free-markets are good at which aren't the same as what charities/NGOs are good at. Problems happen when we forget the strengths and weaknesses of each and someone over steps their bounds.
My I live under the rule for almost 13 years, been told that Russia is the best and be great full for what we have to Lenin and Stalin.
The best at what? Best communist country? Might be, I don't know. But I hear people in Russia have very limited food in their stores with long lines to buy anything. That's what I hear from here.
>>Could you please explain how this can be when the gap between the rich and poor continues to expand rapidly in the USA
Yes, I can explain it in just one word -- Obamacare. I didn't say USA is becoming a perfect socialist nation, just heading in that direction, and have been since 1965 with President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" program, which is nothing more than redistribution of wealth. And Obamacare will be much the same because it will eventually cost the tax payers trillions of dollars.
AD best at anything, from culture, style of life, development, just mention it and "mother Russia" had always done it better then others ;). That was that time period slogan, if you said otherwise you can imagine rest...
Socialism can be thought off as a middle area, or publicly owned corporations (here we call them crown corporations, but I don't know what they are called in the US). Where in certain areas the government owns either one of many competing companies or the only company (monopoly) in a certain area eg. broadcasting.
Alternatively, there are systems like the Canada Healthcare system where the government pays for a particular service on behalf of all citizens but lets the private sector (to differing degrees) provide the service. Note: this only works because it is illegal for anyone else to pay for it so the private companies cannot rip off the gov't.
So there are lots of variation and room for compromise, the best systems IMO treat things on a case by case basis to determine which set up is best for a particular area, since there are things that gov't is good at which are not the same as what free-markets are good at which aren't the same as what charities/NGOs are good at. Problems happen when we forget the strengths and weaknesses of each and someone over steps their bounds.
Yes totaly in agreement with this. And yeah Canadas health care system is a great example. And yeah the note you posted also takes me back to my thoughts that things like this can work, like you said in a case to case basis and also proper montering.
The best at what? Best communist country? Might be, I don't know. But I hear people in Russia have very limited food in their stores with long lines to buy anything. That's what I hear from here.
>>Could you please explain how this can be when the gap between the rich and poor continues to expand rapidly in the USA
Yes, I can explain it in just one word -- Obamacare. I didn't say USA is becoming a perfect socialist nation, just heading in that direction, and have been since 1965 with President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" program, which is nothing more than redistribution of wealth. And Obamacare will be much the same because it will eventually cost the tax payers trillions of dollars.
My understanding of Obamacare is that it includes no public option so the trillions of taxpayer dollars will pay the big insurance corporations. I don't see this as socialism. It continues the trend of the rich (insurance companies, so-called 'non-profit' hospitals, etc.) getting richer and the majority of the taxpayers getting poorer.
No, I don't want Communism. But I think many single-payer health care systems in Scandinavia and UK have better results than the USA does with less total cost.
AD are you really DA (Dick Armey)?
No, I don't want Communism. But I think many single-payer health care systems in Scandinavia and UK have better results than the USA does with less total cost.
JUST CUT DOCTORS PAY!! In Russia the health care is crappy, but its free. The doctors get almost nothing, and they are one of the lowest-paying jobs in Russia/Ukraine (I lived in both places). And again, the doctors/nurses salary in Soviet Union was determined by government, so thats why its so cheap :p
@sergent you have Russian sounding name wonder from which generation you are (no insult intended neither on name or age). Either way you are to young to know how tough time been before 1989. At the time Soviet Union president was Gorbacov that is first of Soviet presidents that was more human being that his predecessors' that came from army cadres
I was born in 1997, but my dad lived in Soviet Union and he says he liked it there much more but my mom says she likes US much more then Soviet Union. It is a matter of opinion.
Really?? I would classify the dictatorship in China in the same category, although AFAIK China is not really communist anymore either because it has been evolving into a capatilist country for several years now. In the same light, USA is not a democracy (or federalist) country any more either -- its evolving into socialism.
I prefer having a "tyrant" dictator like in China, then a crappy president like George Bush! If you call dictator in China "tyrant" you should have been in Soviet Union during Stalin's time!
Obviously that's not the kind of life I'm speaking of. And not taking away any rights from the people but more of putting money back into circulation rather than rotting away in someones personal bank accounts.
That's how it always starts... "Take from the 'rich' for 'fair redistribution'", and pretty soon
1) those who make anything notice they get nothing in return while the slackers have the good life without having to work for it so they stop working as well
2) you find yourself, with your small income that barely makes ends meet, defined as 'rich' so they can come for your posessions too.
Which of course results in the government owning everything, forced labour camps, 'reeducation' camps for those who don't want to work for no return, complete loss of freedom, and millions upon millions of dead and mutilated people.
Just ask the victims of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh how well communism worked for them. And yes, that was communism, even if it is now called "socialism".
There is NO distinction between the two, they're just different aspects of the same system, and trying to implement one irrevocably leads to the implementation of them both.
It's not known exactly how many lives were lost so far as a result of communism, but a cautious estimate puts it at 200 million and rising. If you count those who died as a result of the conditions communism made them live in (rather than as a direct result of being killed by communists, secret police, armies from communist countries during their eternal wars of conquest, etc.) you're probably closer to a billion.
Communism works great, if you're one of those in control of the community. If you are, it gives you total power, a luxury lifestyle, and just a small need for a trusted bodyguard to prevent assassination attempts.
Yes, I can explain it in just one word -- Obamacare. I didn't say USA is becoming a perfect socialist nation, just heading in that direction, and have been since 1965 with President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" program, which is nothing more than redistribution of wealth. And Obamacare will be much the same because it will eventually cost the tax payers trillions of dollars.
Obamacare was destroyed by the Republicans (who were working on behalf of their corporate donors) by not provided a public option and thus just helping the insurance companies rip-off the American people. Whether or not it would be considered socialism or not is irrelevant because it is incredibly poorly designed (you cannot blame the failure of a program on the fundamental idea of it if you do not even give it a chance by failing to implement it properly).
Clearly the "Great Society" program is insufficient since the gap between the poor and the rich is still growing. Again don't blame a policy for not working if you don't fund it sufficiently or implement it correctly.
It's like the blaming the teachers for a crappy school system when they are over-worked, under-payed and have insufficient learning materials/tools because the system is under-funded, no matter how good the teacher they can't teach if you don't provide them the tools to do it.
Also if socialism inevitably leads to communism are Sweden, Norway, Canada, England, etc... Communists?
eg. here is the list of Crown corporations in Canada many of which have existed for over half a century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_corporations_of_Canada
Yeah I surely don't support Obamacare and believe the implementation was completly wrong in that situation. And although I do think america has had one of the best health care systems around, I do agree with the fact it leaves many out in the cold. Do I have a solution? No.... I wish I did it's very sad to know that there are sick people and babies out there that do not have proper health care. Also jwenting you are correct in the sence that slackers may "mooch" of a system like this and yes would have to be weeded out. Does this have to equal camps and assasiation? I don't think so, it's not like that now. And you would be suprized how many people living on the streets are anyting but "slackers", if you don't believe me on that one maybe you should go donate some time and see for yourself. And when you realize the truth it may make you see if you where in some of the positions they are you might want an angels hand to help pick you up.
Obamacare was destroyed by the Republicans (who were working on behalf of their corporate donors) by not provided a public option and thus just helping the insurance companies rip-off the American people.
The republicans had no say in passage of Obamacare. The Democrats controlled both houses of congress at that time. So I don't know how you can possibly blaim the republicans for anything.
The republicans had no say in passage of Obamacare. The Democrats controlled both houses of congress at that time. So I don't know how you can possibly blaim the republicans for anything.
That's easy: the same way that the original poster can talk (apparently with a straight face) about "people such as Oparah and Bill Gates which easily have enough money to supply everyone in the continental U.S. with over a million dollars each in their bank accounts."
Hmmm. Let's see. A million dollars times 300 million people is 300 TRILLION dollars. Oprah and Bill Gates have that much money? In your dreams.
We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.