Communism is bad?

[Cherubi]

In small groups or in entire countries?

[fido123]

In small groups. Keep in mind it's terribly hard to manage communism over a large group of people.

[devonin]

It's actually not that difficult to manage communism over a surprisingly large number of people. The problem (and this is the problem with every purportedly communist state) is that you need only volunteers.

No nation is ever going to be a communist state, because you're going to be -telling- people they are in a communist state, instead of having them come to you because they agree with, and want to follow the tenets of the system.

[Cherubi]

In most cases, the more you work the bigger the reward seems to work better to motivate people to contribute. Volunteering for such a large scaled project is sort of improbable at this point.

[fido123]

I agree with that. Competition and drive is what drives technology and progress in general. Also I'd rather get paid for what I'm putting it, rather than getting paid for doing a lot, and some guy who does far less gets pay the same.

[Cherubi]

I would rather have some of the wealth distributed for services rather than equalizing pay. Our system works fine for that; our salaries depends on personal works and achievements, percentage is taxed for more "social" services if you will. Any working democracy will have elements of capitalism and socialism. They're both needed.

[devonin]

On the subject of money being a motivator:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

[Cherubi]

Omg yes I love that video.

You have to assume though that most of the lower class will be working manual labor.

[fido123]

Originally Posted by devonin

On the subject of money being a motivator:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

I agree with the video, but on a large national scale, if you could be a doctor and work hard all day, or a connivance store clerk and get paid the same, you'd end up with a lot less doctors, however I'd think the doctors that would be there would be of much greater quality than your average doctor in a capitalist society. Communism would also take away competition, which pushes advancements in pretty much everything.

[devonin]

Anybody who says you get paid "the same" has no understanding of communism.

The argument that someone doing hard work and someone doing no work are treated the same is simply incorrect.

"To each according to their needs" is not even remotely the same as "Equal for everybody in all cases."

A brain surgeon working long, incredibly stressful hours in a specialized field requiring a great deal of time and research keeping up with developing techniques may well -need- several weeks of vacation and relaxation time to continue to function to the best of their ability that someone working 30 or 35 hours a week doing a comparatively low-stress, easy job does not.

Someone working as a stevedore or some other very heavy manual labour job that puts great strains on the body may need free and frequent access to chiropractors and massage therapists that an administrator doesn't.

[Cavernio]

About the money video, not that I've done any research than what was said, the results of the study could perhaps be explained by something much simpler, like level of arousal and optimal performance, and how that relates to cognitive tasks in general. Like the amount of reward you get makes you that little bit more stressed in comparison to the group that didn't get as much money, therefore they can't concentrate on the task at hand as well. But for relatively simple tasks, especially physical things, being a little more stressed is probably beneficial; at the very least it increases your reaction time.

Not that that goes against what the video was saying, but its just an idea that, in fact, I learned in first year psychology; the idea that there is an optimal level of arousal for performance which varies depending on the task you're doing.

[fido123]

@Devonin: I agree with what you're saying but I'm talking about rewards/luxuries. If I'm smarter, put a lot of energy into learning a skill-set, and work very hard at my job, personally I'd want some compensation. I'd want to be able to buy a few toys for my own enjoyment. Instead all the extra benefits of my labor will go to helping others, who may just be lazy. I agree everybody's important needs should be met like health and basic food/shelter, that's why I want a balanced system, but I simply don't like the idea of communism. I think corporations do a much better job of advancing technology when there's a profit incentive and competition.

[devonin]

My point however, is that you would absolutely derive benefits from the specialized training, the extra hours, and so on and so forth.

Further people "being lazy" have no part in the system. The other side to "To each according to their needs" is "From each according to their ablities"

[Cavernio]

Originally Posted by fido123

@Devonin: I agree with what you're saying but I'm talking about rewards/luxuries. If I'm smarter, put a lot of energy into learning a skill-set, and work very hard at my job, personally I'd want some compensation. I'd want to be able to buy a few toys for my own enjoyment. Instead all the extra benefits of my labor will go to helping others, who may just be lazy. I agree everybody's important needs should be met like health and basic food/shelter, that's why I want a balanced system, but I simply don't like the idea of communism. I think corporations do a much better job of advancing technology when there's a profit incentive and competition.

There's just so much that's distasteful in this paragraph...your desire to have more things than someone else, the fact that you think some people 'are just lazy', the the fact that you envision not being able to get luxuries under communism. And in terms of advancing technology...wow, have you lived in the past 20 years? Do you have any idea how often capitalism gets in the way of technological advancement? Do you realize the internet wasn't designed by a corporation? I mean, as soon as ANY technology threatens to replace something already existing, there's backlash from corporations.

[fido123]

Originally Posted by devonin

My point however, is that you would absolutely derive benefits from the specialized training, the extra hours, and so on and so forth.

I agree with this. Sorry if I misunderstood you. Communism does have it's appealing aspects and sometimes I wonder if I would in fact enjoy belonging to a communistic society because of points like this.

Originally Posted by devonin

Further people "being lazy" have no part in the system. The other side to "To each according to their needs" is "From each according to their ablities"

Lazy people still have needs don't they? From my understanding everybody would live in a very similar dwelling regardless if you're unemployed or a surgeon so wouldn't somebody who contributes nothing (I'm not saying everybody who doesn't contribute anything is lazy) live a similar life to somebody who contributes a lot?

Originally Posted by Cavernio

your desire to have more things than someone else

Where did I say that? I don't have a desire to have more things than somebody else I just think people who "put more in" to society should be the ones who are able to reap more benefits from that society. If you work a job that takes more effort (knowledge, intelligence, physical demands), you should be compensated which the vast majority of the time is done with money. This doesn't work perfectly in any system, but capitalism seems to be based around this.

Also personally I'm not materialistic at all. Personally I just want a job I want and have enough to support a basic life. Food, shelter, and a bit of fun here and there but if I get more out of my job it's by no means a bad thing lol. I'll probably end up travelling different places and experiencing all sorts of things because of it.

Originally Posted by Cavernio

the fact that you think some people 'are just lazy'

Some people are just lazy. I know a guy who was so busy playing Maplestory that he wasn't able to go to the welfare office to pay his mom his rent. No effort to look for a job and ruins his body with drugs. He's a leech on our society since we have to pay for his welfare and habits (healthcare which I think is a good thing) while he puts absolutely nothing into society. I'm not saying everybody who's poor is lazy at all, but there are lazy people out there.

Originally Posted by Cavernio

the the fact that you envision not being able to get luxuries under communism.

Originally Posted by Karl Marx

To each according to their needs

Originally Posted by Google Define: Need

Require (something) because it is essential or very important: "I need help now".

Originally Posted by Google Define: Luxury

An inessential, desirable item that is expensive or difficult to obtain

Originally Posted by Cavernio

And in terms of advancing technology...wow, have you lived in the past 20 years? Do you have any idea how often capitalism gets in the way of technological advancement? Do you realize the internet wasn't designed by a corporation? I mean, as soon as ANY technology threatens to replace something already existing, there's backlash from corporations.

I understand what you're saying but I think corporations advance technology far more than they hinder it. The competition between Android, iPhones, and Blackberry forces all of the competitors to produce better and better smart-phones. Yeah, the oil companies perhaps killed the electric car but I doubt capitalism would hinder technology anywhere near to the extent communism would.

[devonin]

Lazy people still have needs don't they? From my understanding everybody would live in a very similar dwelling regardless if you're unemployed or a surgeon so wouldn't somebody who contributes nothing (I'm not saying everybody who doesn't contribute anything is lazy) live a similar life to somebody who contributes a lot?

If you are contributing nothing, you are not contributing according to your abilities unless you are actually unable to contribute anything (Are a vegetable).

If you don't contribute, you aren't a part of the system and don't get anything. Why is this always the completely wrong thing -everybody- latches onto about communism?

If you don't take part, you aren't part of the system, we kick you out of town, and you go find somewhere else to live.

[fido123]

Guess I really misunderstood that. Wasn't quite sure how both those lines should have been read together. Thanks for the clarification. Sits a lot better than me.

[Cavernio]

Capitalism specifically rewards making money, not about creating and doing valuable things. (Obviously these things sometimes interact, but why not just have a system in place that rewards doing valuable things? Why is one's conscience not good enough for this task? Surely people are smart enough to recognize when the work they're doing is valuable.) As to your different types of smartphone, I'm not sure why having multiple items and companies that do essentially the same thing, is useful. I'm not sure why smartphones wouldn't be as advanced now if capitalism wasn't being practiced. People still want to communicate, right? (Well yes, I suppose if businesses didn't exist, there wouldn't be as much pressure to have good communications devices, but why do we want that pressure in the first place? If we're only doing something for the money, then does it need to be done?) But alas, we have a glut of cellphones being created, and advertising so that people will want the newest and hottest thing just because it's new and hot, even though there's only small differences in what the device does.

And your example of someone who's 'just lazy' is, well, the exact type of person I think about who's lazy. Someone who clearly has psychological problems, from drugs and likely from something else as well. Put yourself in his shoes. What would you have to be feeling and thinking to not get your welfare check? Ignore for the moment the specifics, but focus on what you would have to be feeling or thinking, in order to not hop on a bus to get your free money. Maybe you just forgot, maybe you're too scared to go outside, maybe you just don't see the value of having money, maybe you don't want to take handouts...any number of things.
Sure, this guy's lazy, but he's not 'just lazy'. He's got to have some serious mental health issues. And what if he's lazy because, oh, he's malnourished, say he didn't eat right as a kid growing up, and he's deficient in a bunch of vitamins, and so he's going crazy. Or maybe he turned to drugs after being sexually assaulted or something. Would you hold that against him? Because his life is/was hard, its right to make it harder for him by disdaining him?
To make lazy people unlazy, you must help them, not shun them. And that doesn't mean give them a job they hate and then say you tried when they quit because they couldn't handle the job. You have to solve whatever issue they have that makes them lazy.

Anyone who does make extra money and gets luxuries, gets them from someone else. What you've said means that because you work hard at something you think is valuable, you deserve to make other people work for you. Which, of course, makes your statement about you working harder than other people, contradictory.

[RubiedCross]

@Cavernio

I'm sort of having trouble understanding what you've written. It is 3:44AM and I've been doing a lot of work today, so perhaps it's the lack of sleep, but I'd like to try and contribute to what the idea of Communism is, and how, if it were possible to physically apply it, it would work in situations such as those you described.

"Why not just have a system in place that rewards doing valuable things? Why is one's conscience not good enough for this task?"
You're stating that capitalism is based on money making. You are correct, in a way. Capitalism rewards those who, by whatever means, does something that can make them money. They get to keep a majority of what they make, even if it is absurd amounts for absurd, invaluable things (*cough* crocs *cough*). So you ask why we don't have a system that rewards doing valuable things? Well, it does to an extent. While crocs are useless, it stimulates the economy. It creates jobs. Etc. If you want something that creates thing that you consider valuable, you'd have something like the video Devonin posted (something kinda like Communism). So, why don't we have that? Too many reasons to discuss. Also, why aren't our consciences good enough for this? Because we are raised to make money, not to be innovative. I know too many engineers who purely want to make money and nothing else.

"Why do we want that pressure in the first place? If we're only doing something for the money, then does it need to be done?"
Pressure, according to Capitalism, is what keeps competition going. It is the variable that magically keeps the economy stable (sometimes) because being "better" than something else will attract more customers. However, you could be right; we could have just as good of smartphones in a Communistic society where technologists who specialize in mobile communication work together to create smartphones. However, would we NEED them? Our entire viewpoints on life and culture and what we need would be so different under pure Communism that you can't even try to compare.

"Lazy"
Here's where "to each according to their needs" comes into play. You have some valid examples of people who can't work because of their needs; if they truly needed psychology/physiological aid, they would receive it from psychologists and physiologist. They would then proceed to produce whatever services that they are capable of. However, if they are lazy for reasons that are unjustifiable, then it is as Devonin said. A Communistic society would not have them. I would bring up the idea of those who are handicapped to an extent that they cannot physically or mentally do anything particularly worthwhile - would they be condemned for this? If they cannot, under any circumstances, even through help, provide anything to the society, would they be kept? This is a moral issue, I understand, but I believe that there must be some explanation for this in Communism (I would assume most would defer this question to a quote from Karl Marx, which is kind of what I'm looking for. At the same time, he is not the only person to try to define Communism; he's just the most-famous contemporary one).

I suggest each one of you thoroughly read Devonin's posts, though. He really does make a lot of sense when talking about something he is educated in (which is a lot).

To personally answer the topic question, I'd say that Communism is not "bad" when you look at the reasoning behind the idea and find that it is, in objectionable viewing, sensible. I'm no pro, though, and haven't read every post. So don't take just my word.

[Cavernio]

"While crocs are useless, it stimulates the economy. It creates jobs. Etc."

...which is only 'useful' because we are capitalist. Or if you objectably like crocs.

"if they truly needed psychology/physiological aid, they would receive it from psychologists and physiologist. They would then proceed to produce whatever services that they are capable of. However, if they are lazy for reasons that are unjustifiable, then it is as Devonin said."

Tell that to the millions of people who have mental illness for whom 'cures' don't exist. The whole lazy thing relies on the crux of what someone deems 'justifiable', to which I can only answer, the individual in question is the only person who knows their own limits, and I'm not arguing against devonin here, just voicing my views on what 'lazy' is.
Lazy people remove themselves from society all the time now as they would in communism; they commit suicide, they become homeless, they become addicts, etc.