The Ideal Government

[ffraxis]

What is your ideal government? Why is it your ideal government? What are the pros and cons to this government? Do you think based on the history of said government type that it will work in present times, or in the future? Does the human condition prevent this type of government?

Please share your ideas, I am eager to hear other peoples perspectives on politics.

[ScylaX]

Politic is something that is at the same time important and problematic. It doesn't matter how many times you'll rethink about it, this will be always covered by agreements and disagrees because it aims at the society that is made from our own intelligence. The only fact this is made by our intelligence is enough to tell the civilisation is against nature and will always harm human beings. From capitalism to anarchy, no Government will satisfy the integrality of human beings. And even if anarchy is probably the most efficient "government", it can ONLY be used on a really narrow community.

Because anarchy could never be adaptable to a national level for the simple reason it goes against the interests of the social being. There will never be an ideal Government because we aren't basically made to live like we're living today : With lots of other people.

The problem begins from the time we created the civilization. Since it's the instinctive fruit of our intelligence (and because we can't live in any other "life system" among the human community because of it), there will always be problems even though this looks perfectly natural to us, it's the reflection of our intelligence. It is a freak of nature, self-awareness is an anomaly that allowed us to get out of the "perfect" circle of wild life.

I think you understood : I don't have an Ideal Government. And there will never be one, because our intelligence isn't enough developped to think about something perfect, our intelligence cannot allow us to apprehend "complete" things and develop reasoning from them to get to a conclusion that is correct (of course, mathematics or science are different, because they are based over one absolute things : numbers, the natural parameters of our universe.) or adaptable for the human society (and if, one day, we manage to have the PERFECT government, I don't think we could live with this, because our intelligence couldn't understand it or because we couldn't simply live with something that isn't made from an human logic) From that point, philosophy is truncated, except if you get from the human point of view.

It's the only objective opinion I can give on that topic, and since I live in France, what I would have said on the government would have sounded strange since our democracy doesn't work with the same logic. I can have an opinion on politic action or opinion, but I cannot tell you what my ideal is, since I know my political opinion is inaccurate (if we all have a different politic opinion, it's because we all have different priorities, personnal taste, etc, even if you try to be the most objective and neutral on politic, you'll always have your own partial opinion on it).

[Reincarnate]

sounds like someone needs help with a homework assignment

[ffraxis]

Originally Posted by ScylaX

Politic is something that is at the same time important and problematic. It doesn't matter how many times you'll rethink about it, this will be always covered by agreements and disagrees because it aims at the society that is made from our own intelligence. The only fact this is made by our intelligence is enough to tell the civilisation is against nature and will always harm human beings. From capitalism to anarchy, no Government will satisfy the integrality of human beings. And even if anarchy is probably the most efficient "government", it can ONLY be used on a really narrow community.

Because anarchy could never be adaptable to a national level for the simple reason it goes against the interests of the social being. There will never be an ideal Government because we aren't basically made to live like we're living today : With lots of other people.

The problem begins from the time we created the civilization. Since it's the instinctive fruit of our intelligence (and because we can't live in any other "life system" among the human community because of it), there will always be problems even though this looks perfectly natural to us, it's the reflection of our intelligence. It is a freak of nature, self-awareness is an anomaly that allowed us to get out of the "perfect" circle of wild life.

I think you understood : I don't have an Ideal Government. And there will never be one, because our intelligence isn't enough developped to think about something perfect, our intelligence cannot allow us to apprehend "complete" things and develop reasoning from them to get to a conclusion that is correct (of course, mathematics or science are different, because they are based over one absolute things : numbers, the natural parameters of our universe.) or adaptable for the human society (and if, one day, we manage to have the PERFECT government, I don't think we could live with this, because our intelligence couldn't understand it or because we couldn't simply live with something that isn't made from an human logic) From that point, philosophy is truncated, except if you get from the human point of view.

It's the only objective opinion I can give on that topic, and since I live in France, what I would have said on the government would have sounded strange since our democracy doesn't work with the same logic. I can have an opinion on politic action or opinion, but I cannot tell you what my ideal is, since I know my political opinion is inaccurate (if we all have a different politic opinion, it's because we all have different priorities, personnal taste, etc, even if you try to be the most objective and neutral on politic, you'll always have your own partial opinion on it).

Well it is better to have a government in place that meets the needs of the people instead of an anarchist society where the needs are met only by the individuals hard self sustaining work which cannot be held for long periods of time.


While the last two bits are true, I will make it clear that here there this ideal government is "make believe in your head" WITH some factors to be held accountable for such as multiple points of view regarding the doctrine, realism, human condition, why it will/will not work.

[RB_Dreamscanner]

☭ Nuff said :]. Marxist-Lenin government all the way.

[Artic_counter]

Everyone's a slave except me and the people I care about. Oh and I rule as tyran too.

[scientific]

Originally Posted by RB_Dreamscanner

☭ Nuff said :]. Marxist-Lenin government all the way.

Lmao Ya cause this works well. upper middle class american teens supporting communist ideals always makes me laugh

[RB_Dreamscanner]

No way am i an upper middle class American, we barely make enough to get by, and i mean BARELY. And i am only an American because i live here. And Marxs' ideals of communism were genius, the only problem is people have flaws. It is theoretically possible for it to work, everything would just have to fall in place. But it is possible to put a considerable amount of power to the middle class. Look at Stalin and Mao.

Stalin and Mao were indeed murderous dictators, but the evolution of their regimes do not negate the possibility of a socioeconomic system placing a reasonable degree of power in the hands of the working class and affording a more equitable distribution of wealth.

[ScylaX]

@ffraxis If you want my advice, I'd tell you I find the capitalist democracy we live in pretty good. It allows us to live with a decent standards of living compared to other systems. It uses the source of the civilization - money - as a base to be a civilization. Even if it's a bad government - because there will be always poor people in a capitalist society or because democarcy can't make an unanimous consensus -, it's the best out of every others. If someone proves me wrong, I'll gladly believe in what he says.
.
@RB_Screamdreamer Communism is cynic. Just like anarchy. It isn't made for the civilization we built Us, Human beings, aren't made to live in a dictatorship, to be forced to live just like an ubiquist Government wants to. It's why democracy is important : It statistically is correct for the whole population.

If you read Marx, that's alright, I read him with Proudhon too so I'm not only influenced by democratic opinions. But please, just to have an objective point of view, go read Churchill, St-Just, , Amartya Sen, Proudhon etc. Books on greek democracy are also interesting, or even read philosophy. But, please, don't be influenced by only one opinion, that's a mistake.

[scientific]

i used to be Rebellious Fuck The System Rage AGainst The Machine (still dig the music) Marxism Communism Working Class Lets Do It but over the years ive grown into a realist.

capitalism coupled with democracy gives ultimate power to the working class. sure some are at an advantage; i wont deny that ive been born into a family with enough money to provide anything i need. this doesnt mean that even the poorest americans have no chance of success. working class americans (my dad when he was young and his dad and his dad) can work hard and succeed within america's current systems.

expecting man to live for other men is not only foolish but the most foul evil one can commit. "everything" will Never simply "fall into place". wealth does not come from nowhere; it is created by those who think. the lowliest worker in a factory receives all the benefits of the mind that created the product(s) the factory creates, but this creator receives nothing in return from these laborers.

does it seem fair that wealth should be taken from these able minds and given to those without ability or will to think and produce? does it seem possible that any rational, thinking, producing person would remain the subject of a government that takes from them the rewards of their never-ending effort and gives it those who have earned and contributed nothing? history has shown that it is not, and they would not.

[dore]

One of the main problems with Communism is its reliance on the idea of conflict and class struggle creating the best form of government. That idea in itself does not fail until you consider the fact that the conflict is unsustainable; there's only so long you can have class struggle, especially if everyone works towards equality. Eventually, the society will sink into complacency of sorts (at least comparatively), and then the leader will have to find a way to create conflict (see: China's Cultural Revolution and how well that worked out).

Personally, I think that there is no single ideal form of government, because any type of government is going to create its own problems and inefficiencies simply by employing people who have a stake in the system to run the system. People will always be flawed, biased, and only competent up to a point, and no government can ensure the most competent leaders in all positions. Personally, I think the most effective government (assuming a society that completely bought into the premise of the government) would be a true social democratic republic, but that requires an immensely educated and involved electorate, the scope of which is simply inconceivable, at least in the current times. Another problem arises when you consider the fact that in a global economy, socialism has to deal with capitalism enough to where capitalism can still effectively exploit socialist markets (because who's really going to stand up to America?) which takes away from the whole premise of socialism and has the potential to weaken a socialist economy (which affects socialist governments particularly because of their reliance on tax dollars etc. and the people's reliance on the government).

Basically, if the world was full of nice, competent, humble people everything would be ok, regardless of if you have anarchy or monarchy or democracy, because regardless of the organizational structure of the government, people would still be able to work well enough with each other and not exploit each other and make the world run smoothly. But someone always has to get greedy and fuck things up for everyone.

[Reincarnate]

Any system is going to have problems. A given government is just a mass of sliding scales. No matter where you place your markers or how you turn the knobs, people are going to be pissed somewhere.

Education is not equal. Opportunities are not equal. Initial state of wealth is not equal. Judgment calls are not equal. Information is oftentimes asymmetric. Problematic shocks affect different groups of people. Resources are scarce. Managing power is difficult. Defining "fair" is impossible.

It's always easier to consider a system's merits by starting simple and then expanding it. Consider a given government with like 4 people, then consider it with 100, 1000, 10,000, etc. Think about all sorts of various problems that might occur at each step in hypothetical scenarios.

[justaguy]

Originally Posted by RB_Dreamscanner

No way am i an upper middle class American, we barely make enough to get by, and i mean BARELY. And i am only an American because i live here. And Marxs' ideals of communism were genius, the only problem is people have flaws. It is theoretically possible for it to work, everything would just have to fall in place. But it is possible to put a considerable amount of power to the middle class. Look at Stalin and Mao.

Stalin and Mao were indeed murderous dictators, but the evolution of their regimes do not negate the possibility of a socioeconomic system placing a reasonable degree of power in the hands of the working class and affording a more equitable distribution of wealth.

the only problem is people have flaws

this your justification for why communism doesn't work? are you serious?

it should read:

the only problem is people have preferences

which isn't a problem, so again, it should read:

people have preferences

do you know what preferences are?

the implication of all this is that silly ideas like fairness and equality do not exist, so do not impose them. annnnnd rubix already said that, gr8.

edit: it bothers me that people put certain historical figures on a pedestal because they circulated an idea that appealed to a bunch of people with a narrow understanding of humanity. marx wasn't intelligent in the sense that he understood how people worked, he just articulated an idea that appeared sound because most people have no real perception of time. i also detest the use of the "utopian" within the context of socialism because it's flat-out wrong. people begin inferring things about socialism by way of the word utopian and become fixated with the idea that equality is somehow legitimate.

[RB_Dreamscanner]

Human Nature (1)

Argument: Communism cannot work, because Humans are inherently evil.

Counter-Argument: Communism does not and can not function on the idea that humans are perfectible, otherwise there would be no need for Communism.

Human Nature (2)

Argument: Capitalism is a better system than Communism, since Capitalism is based off of human (fallen) nature.

Counter-Argument: If we set up a socio-economic system based on humanity’s inherent greed, then why don’t we set up a legal system based on humanity’s murderous, thieving, and destructive disposition. If human nature is basically flawed, then how can we not expect an economic system based on human nature to be flawed as well?

Historic Precedent

Argument: Communism has proven time and time against to result in oppression and failure- just look at the Soviet Union and North Korea.

Counter-Argument: These are not Communist countries but Socialist dictatorships which claim to be Communist, in much the same way that Batista (a dictator) masqueraded as a democratically elected leader. Communism is no more responsible for the atrocities committed by Stalin than Jesus is for the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition.

Religious Issues (1)

Argument: Communism cannot work because it is godless- it denies any role of religion within the government.

Counter-Argument: Depending on your religion, one might also be able to call the Greek, Roman, and Mongolian Empires “godless”. Even the US has no state religion, yet it- like the empires of Greece and Rome- is generally productive, prosperous, and free.

Religious Issues (2)

Argument: Communism cannot work because it is godless- there are no moral restrictions placed upon the public and/or government.

Counter-Argument: The lack of a “religion” does not mean the lack of ethic or moral values. The Russian Revolution was generally atheistic, yet the revolutionaries were driven by a sense of social justice. Besides, countries which do have religion (either in the sense that religion is present or that religion plays a role in the government) have not been stopped from committing atrocities such as the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII or the Crusades and witch hunts…

Size Problems

Argument: Communism can only work in small communities and cannot be applied to nations and states.

Counter-Argument: Firstly, the world is a smaller place than it was fifty years ago. With advances in technology, communication and transportation are incredibly easy, making it easier to manage massive areas with ease. Secondly, humans don’t need massive states to live- indeed, most countries are, if you look at a map, small compared to the four “super-states” of the US, Russia, India, and China. Communism would probably result in smaller countries.

Governmental Issues (1)

Argument: Communism requires a massive and intrusive government to function. Citizens would lose all freedom.

Counter-Argument: Communism calls the general abolition of the state. Like the Jeffersonians, Communism calls for a basic level of centralized government, but puts most of the power on local government. Control rests in the hands of the public, not the politicians. It is the public and the public only who decide how intrusive to let their government be.

Governmental Issue (2)

Argument: Communism lets the people be lazy- they can sit back have the government take care of them.

Counter-Argument: Communism requires people to work even more than Capitalism does. The “to each according to his needs” requires a “from each according to his abilities”. People must work for their daily bread, people must vote and take an active role in their own governance.

Governmental Issue (3)

Argument: Communism has been attempted and it failed- even if we accept everything about Communism, we can see that it doesn’t work since Leon Trotsky, the populist leader, was ousted, exiled, and assassinated by Stalin. Communism doesn’t work.

Counter-Argument: Neither does Democracy. Corruption entered into the Greek political system and brought the democratic city-states crashing down. Do we claim that Democracy is impossible? Do we give up on it? Not at all- we simply figure out what went wrong, fix it, and try it again. It’s what the founding fathers of the US did, it’s what the French and English did, and so on.

Lifestyle Dilemma

Argument: Communism brings about a lower standard of living. Capitalism is better than Communism since Capitalism can provide a higher quality of life.

Counter-Argument: In this Capitalist world, it is only a slim minority who benefit from the free market. Yes, some standards of living will decrease but across the globe, billions of people will have a massive increase in their standard of living. Besides, even if the world could live as the average American does, we would need at least three more planet earths just to sustain our decadent lifestyle.

[ScylaX]

You should phrase your opinions instead of listing like you did.

Counter-Argument: If we set up a socio-economic system based on humanity’s inherent greed, then why don’t we set up a legal system based on humanity’s murderous, thieving, and destructive disposition. If human nature is basically flawed, then how can we not expect an economic system based on human nature to be flawed as well?

Money is an absolute matter. Human is not.
Moreover, it doesn't work like that, doing such a thing will inevitably end in a high imbalance, like one of my friend said, Marx wrote an utopist fiction, sure it was intelligent, but it could never be adapted in the reality. Don't try to fight fire by using a blowtorch, the fact the flame is different doesn't mean it isn't fire. It's why e based our system on a stable and "total" idea : money.

- I'll just ignore the religious counter arguments because religion is a philosophy I reject -

Counter-Argument: Firstly, the world is a smaller place than it was fifty years ago. With advances in technology, communication and transportation are incredibly easy, making it easier to manage massive areas with ease. Secondly, humans don’t need massive states to live- indeed, most countries are, if you look at a map, small compared to the four “super-states” of the US, Russia, India, and China. Communism would probably result in smaller countries.

But the problem isn't about the world being "smaller" because the distance between each human being have been rigorously reducted. All is about quantity of the population. Communism can only work between people that believe in the same thing, it's why it needs censor and propaganda to keep being "working" with a such quantity of humans.

As long as a system needs to "maintain" the thoughts of its citizens, the system is reprehensible.

Counter-Argument: Communism calls the general abolition of the state. Like the Jeffersonians, Communism calls for a basic level of centralized government, but puts most of the power on local government. Control rests in the hands of the public, not the politicians. It is the public and the public only who decide how intrusive to let their government be.

Wrong. In a communist system, the only source of power is in the government hands. Just go visit North Korea, and tell me if you think the people out there have a power on their government. They're handled like machines by the state, it's perfectly immoral. Anarchy hasn't any state (well, from there, you can say the state is in each person), but Communism has one. Otherwise, they wouldn't have any leader.

Counter-Argument: Communism requires people to work even more than Capitalism does. The “to each according to his needs” requires a “from each according to his abilities”. People must work for their daily bread, people must vote and take an active role in their own governance.

Uh.. Sounds like democracy to me. Except in democracy, the maximum of people can live according to his needs and lead their life like they want to, they are free.

Neither does Democracy. Corruption entered into the Greek political system and brought the democratic city-states crashing down. Do we claim that Democracy is impossible? Do we give up on it? Not at all- we simply figure out what went wrong, fix it, and try it again. It’s what the founding fathers of the US did, it’s what the French and English did, and so on.

I don't use the end of communism as an argument because I'm aware any system can sink. However, that confirms what I say : There's no perfect government. And trying to correct its errors are futile, since the more you correct things, the more you're likely to create other faults that are inherent from your correction. Just because - like you said before - the human being is flawed.

Counter-Argument: In this Capitalist world, it is only a slim minority who benefit from the free market. Yes, some standards of living will decrease but across the globe, billions of people will have a massive increase in their standard of living.

Just think about something : This is utopist. You could never introduce the absolute of equality in a human system that isn't made to carry it. The human being needs poorer people than him so he can live.
Look at ants, they can perfectly live with a mechanic system like that, ants are communist. But why are they living in this system without any problem ? Because they aren't aware of themselves. They can't put anything in question. They aren't irregular in themselves. They just do what they have to do because they can't do anything else.

Besides, even if the world could live as the average American does, we would need at least three more planet earths just to sustain our decadent lifestyle.

You know why human population counts about 7 billion beings on earth ? Right ? Because they developed their intelligence. Thanks to that, they could attack most of the major things that caused them to die : diseases, food lack, etc. And since the intelligence is abnormal, this development is abnormal.

But what do you do when you face a situation that isn't made to be perfect, a situation that is truncated in its standards ? All you can do is living with it. Because trying to make it perfect will always end in a worst status than if you tried to keep it just like it was.

[ffraxis]

Money is an absolute matter. Human is not.
Moreover, it doesn't work like that, doing such a thing will inevitably end in a high imbalance, like one of my friend said, Marx wrote an utopist fiction, sure it was intelligent, but it could never be adapted in the reality. Don't try to fight fire by using a blowtorch, the fact the flame is different doesn't mean it isn't fire. It's why e based our system on a stable and "total" idea : money.



The current "capitalist" society runs on debt, not money. Eventually it will crash.
Also utopist is not a real word.


"But the problem isn't about the world being "smaller" because the distance between each human being have been rigorously reducted. All is about quantity of the population. Communism can only work between people that believe in the same thing, it's why it needs censor and propaganda to keep being "working" with a such quantity of humans.

As long as a system needs to "maintain" the thoughts of its citizens, the system is reprehensible."


The same thing applies to all forms of government policies and ideas. Although you tend to believe you may have the right to "freedom of speech", that is a gross illusion.




"Wrong. In a communist system, the only source of power is in the government hands. Just go visit North Korea, and tell me if you think the people out there have a power on their government. They're handled like machines by the state, it's perfectly immoral. Anarchy hasn't any state (well, from there, you can say the state is in each person), but Communism has one. Otherwise, they wouldn't have any leader."



No in an actual Marx based utopian communist society it would revolve around public demand, not politicians placing their own rules and laws, as well as ruling with "power". It would be considered living truly at peace with little to no conflicts, and the conflicts are often minor.

North Korea is a dictatorship. A dictatorship/totalitarian society is not communism. If it were, then the so-called head of state would only be allowed to the same privileges as everyone else, the same pay, house, food, access to resources.



"Uh.. Sounds like democracy to me. Except in democracy, the maximum of people can live according to his needs and lead their life like they want to, they are free."


Nobody is ever free. That is another illusion. You are expected to endure responsibilities. In communism this is more enforced and hence, rejected since people wish to do whatever they want, in any form of government except in a state of anarchy. There you work by yourself and perhaps the help of others (if they want to) to live. Eventually the state of anarchy will actually become conservative and start changing and becoming more organized, or the state of anarchy will crash.




"Just think about something : This is utopist. You could never introduce the absolute of equality in a human system that isn't made to carry it. The human being needs poorer people than him so he can live.
Look at ants, they can perfectly live with a mechanic system like that, ants are communist. But why are they living in this system without any problem ? Because they aren't aware of themselves. They can't put anything in question. They aren't irregular in themselves. They just do what they have to do because they can't do anything else."




Not true at all. If the concept of a regulated currency was abolished then there would be no "poor" people. There would just be the people who work and those who don't work. There does not need to be someone who is lacking funds in order to sustain their life in order to support the upper classes. This is one big problem that has occurred in capitalism due to the fact that the opportunity to gain was exploited by individuals so suddenly the masses are now stuck where they are. The class system was changed from "royalty" to "wealthy" with only a handful of individuals controlling most of the populace, and also trying to change the opinions of the populace.

Ants are not communist. They are aware of themselves, all organisms to some degree are aware of their own existence, otherwise they would have no will and would die off quickly.
Ants work to live like all creatures, and because ants do not have to worry about doing anything else other than to live and sustain their species like all organisms (all organisms came from bacteria or single-celled organisms that multiplied in order to live, this would suggest that we, as humans, are the last evolved forms of bacteria, explaining the need to take over and live as the individual wants to). As a side note, ant colonies, along with bee colonies work under the direction of a queen.

[RB_Dreamscanner]

Originally Posted by ScylaX

Wrong. In a communist system, the only source of power is in the government hands. Just go visit North Korea, and tell me if you think the people out there have a power on their government. They're handled like machines by the state, it's perfectly immoral. Anarchy hasn't any state (well, from there, you can say the state is in each person), but Communism has one. Otherwise, they wouldn't have any leader.

Argument: Communism has proven time and time against to result in oppression and failure- just look at the Soviet Union and North Korea.

Counter-Argument: These are not Communist countries but Socialist dictatorships which claim to be Communist, in much the same way that Batista (a dictator) masqueraded as a democratically elected leader. Communism is no more responsible for the atrocities committed by Stalin than Jesus is for the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition.


North Korea is a pathetic excuse for Marx-Lenin communism [The one i stated i support, i do NOT support Stalinism, Totalitarianism, or Maoism.] I just support certain aspects of A Stalinist government because it still did hold on to certain aspects of Marx's ideas. I'll reply more when i'm not on itouch

[Without A Contraceptive]

i guess youll never understand how evil "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" really is

i guess my post got deleted for some reason but

if everyone is working for others "needs", those with the "ability" will eventually disappear. everyone will eventually "need" more and you will have a run down society of incompetents demanding the help of those that are competent.

[justaguy]

ok sorry i couldn't help myself this is depressing

Originally Posted by RB_Dreamscanner

Human Nature (1)

Argument: Communism cannot work, because Humans are inherently evil.

Counter-Argument: Communism does not and can not function on the idea that humans are perfectible, otherwise there would be no need for Communism.

thanks for not really replying to what anyone said but just setting up straw man arguments to attack that no one made. but still, ill humor you by pointing out how bad your counter-arguments are:

Whoa, irrelevant as hell. No one is saying Communism functions on the idea that humans are perfectible. They are saying one specific human imperfection is a fundamental problem to your system. this is a VERY evasive answer and doesn't really say any significant. We are not saying we want Communism to perfect humanity in all aspects, we are saying that humans imperfect in goodness will cause Communism to fail.

Human Nature (2)

Argument: Capitalism is a better system than Communism, since Capitalism is based off of human (fallen) nature.

Counter-Argument: If we set up a socio-economic system based on humanity’s inherent greed, then why don’t we set up a legal system based on humanity’s murderous, thieving, and destructive disposition. If human nature is basically flawed, then how can we not expect an economic system based on human nature to be flawed as well?

because it is not human nature to be murderous and destructive - at least, what you're implying through the use of that expression.

Murder and destruction do occur - no one will deny that. But they are not the result of our nature, which evolved many behaviors that are relatively peaceful, although egoistically motivated; reciprocal altruism, etc.

Of course the context in which we are, one of scarcity and global limitations, will cause many wars and violence to occur - but you really can't attribute these to our programming as much as our environment. I submit that if you placed humanity in an environment where scarcity was not an issue, things would be comparatively much more peaceful.

And that is what at least semi free market/centrist try to resolve; the basic environmental issues that result in murder and destruction. Capitalism, to an extent, understands that we will never be able to attain the utopia that Communism attempts to achieve, because the environment inherently restricts that attempt.[/quote]

Historic Precedent

Argument: Communism has proven time and time against to result in oppression and failure- just look at the Soviet Union and North Korea.

Counter-Argument: These are not Communist countries but Socialist dictatorships which claim to be Communist, in much the same way that Batista (a dictator) masqueraded as a democratically elected leader. Communism is no more responsible for the atrocities committed by Stalin than Jesus is for the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition.

One could just as easily (and probably more accurately) assert that These are not Communist countries but the inevitable (or at least probable) range of results that arise from attempting Communism. Which one do we believe? On the one hand, we have plenty of empirical evidence that Capitalism is at least a semi-stable economy, in the long run, whereas we have none for Communism, and, if we discount your argument in the first place, evidence to assert the contrary for Communism.

Religious Issues (1)

Argument: Communism cannot work because it is godless- it denies any role of religion within the government.

Counter-Argument: Depending on your religion, one might also be able to call the Greek, Roman, and Mongolian Empires “godless”. Even the US has no state religion, yet it- like the empires of Greece and Rome- is generally productive, prosperous, and free.

No one argued this and I promise you almost no one here would. This is just makes your strawman painfully obvious...

Religious Issues (2)

Argument: Communism cannot work because it is godless- there are no moral restrictions placed upon the public and/or government.

Counter-Argument: The lack of a “religion” does not mean the lack of ethic or moral values. The Russian Revolution was generally atheistic, yet the revolutionaries were driven by a sense of social justice. Besides, countries which do have religion (either in the sense that religion is present or that religion plays a role in the government) have not been stopped from committing atrocities such as the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII or the Crusades and witch hunts…

Repeat DON'T CARE

Size Problems

Argument: Communism can only work in small communities and cannot be applied to nations and states.

Counter-Argument: Firstly, the world is a smaller place than it was fifty years ago. With advances in technology, communication and transportation are incredibly easy, making it easier to manage massive areas with ease. Secondly, humans don’t need massive states to live- indeed, most countries are, if you look at a map, small compared to the four “super-states” of the US, Russia, India, and China. Communism would probably result in smaller countries.

Wrong, you misunderstood the argument. It's not about travel or communication issues - it's homing on the fact that the scarcity of Communism on a macro-level causes it to fail, while the lack of that scarcity in a smaller community (thus, a microcosm of Communism within a macrocosm of Capitalism) allows it to succeed on some level. You may find it to tempting to argue that then at least ONE country be communist, but you have to realize that the same scarcity that would cripple a global Communism would cripple one country's Communism as well; scarcity forces them to globalize, and in a globe that is not Communist, one Communist country could not very well thrive.

[Governmental Issues (1)

Argument: Communism requires a massive and intrusive government to function. Citizens would lose all freedom.

Counter-Argument: Communism calls the general abolition of the state. Like the Jeffersonians, Communism calls for a basic level of centralized government, but puts most of the power on local government. Control rests in the hands of the public, not the politicians. It is the public and the public only who decide how intrusive to let their government be.

Again, strawman. No one is arguing about the inherent results of a culminated Communism, we're arguing against the ability for Communism to culminate to its envisioned stage. We're attacking the plausibility - not the results.

Governmental Issue (2)

Argument: Communism lets the people be lazy- they can sit back have the government take care of them.

Counter-Argument: Communism requires people to work even more than Capitalism does. The “to each according to his needs” requires a “from each according to his abilities”. People must work for their daily bread, people must vote and take an active role in their own governance.

No one is arguing this. "Lazy" does not equate to "non-innovative" - I'm sure the Communist people would be very hard working in their factory jobs and as criminals. We are saying, however, that there would be no progress without incentive to make it. I, myself, think that this is a bit of a wash as far as the arguments go against Communism, but I don't think it matters because there are too many other crippling flaws for Communism to work.

Governmental Issue (3)

Argument: Communism has been attempted and it failed- even if we accept everything about Communism, we can see that it doesn’t work since Leon Trotsky, the populist leader, was ousted, exiled, and assassinated by Stalin. Communism doesn’t work.

Counter-Argument: Neither does Democracy. Corruption entered into the Greek political system and brought the democratic city-states crashing down. Do we claim that Democracy is impossible? Do we give up on it? Not at all- we simply figure out what went wrong, fix it, and try it again. It’s what the founding fathers of the US did, it’s what the French and English did, and so on.

Neither does Democracy? Sure it does. The biggest superpowers in the world are Democratic. Don't get me wrong, no one is claiming that Democracy is infallible - what we're saying is the empirical evidence available to us suggests that Democracy is a far more sustainable form of government than Communism, in the short and long term. We're arguing comparative relative values - not absolutes of perfect and perfectly flawed.

Lifestyle Dilemma

Argument: Communism brings about a lower standard of living. Capitalism is better than Communism since Capitalism can provide a higher quality of life.

Counter-Argument: In this Capitalist world, it is only a slim minority who benefit from the free market. Yes, some standards of living will decrease but across the globe, billions of people will have a massive increase in their standard of living. Besides, even if the world could live as the average American does, we would need at least three more planet earths just to sustain our decadent lifestyle.

again, not arguing the result of a culminated Communism, arguing the invalidity of it ever happening.

[dore]

lol, why'd you bother with that? It's not like he actually thought up any of those ideas.

http://trotskyite.wordpress.com/tag/pro-communist/

yay google