Poll - Communism: Good or evil?

[Stan]

Society will ALWAYS be better served when the individual can be assured that their hard work, inventiveness, and ability to improve things will be rewarded through the individual's opportunity to reap the financial gain of their efforts.

History is full of examples of people who did extraordinary things for society through invention, creation, and capitalism.

Although it would be nice if a company like a drug company worked feverishly to cure AIDS or cancer because of benevolent reasons, fact is, they do it for profit.

If a person has any doubt, then I would challenge that person to give up on any capitalist ambitions and work as a volunteer for the rest of their lives.

It is a noble thing for sure, but there's a reason why Mother Theresa was revered...because it is virtually impossible for human beings to do everything for benevolent reasons.

For this simple fact, communism, though a seemingly good idea is flawed in the basic foundations of ideology. It can't work without a strong figurehead (ie dictator) and so it stinks.

[Stan]

I agree that the capitalist society as found in America has flaws too. However, human beings are flawed (ie selfish and greedy). This means that a perfect society can't exist on earth.

It would be great if society rewarded hard workers, didn't reward slackers, but had the compassion to take care of those that couldn't take care of themselves. The way for that to happen is for those "hard workers" to PERSONNALY give from their abundance to those that cannot work. When we rely on government to disperse this money we give money to a self serving organization of beureaucrats and polititians.

Unfortunately, because human beings are selfish they don't give from their abundance. So we MUST rely on government to disperse money to those that cannot work. And how can a government distinguish between those that can't and those that won't?

[Jetlag]

However, human beings are flawed (ie selfish and greedy). This means that a perfect society can't exist on earth.

Quite right. That is the inherent flaw in each and every system of politics, culture, control, business, etc. It's all about greed and power. Those in power use their power to protect their power and amass more power. Those without power don't have the power to gain any more power.

In theory, communism includes some fantastic ideals, not least that everyone should be guarranteed work, food on the table, etc. For all it has the same flaws as every other system of government, it at least strives toward the positive ideal of helping those at the bottom of the ladder, rather than letting them rot. In my mind, that makes it "better" than pure capitalism, but somewhere near the left side of middle is my ideal.

[wichita]

I believe in a certain breed of socialism. My friend in sociology classified me as a neo-Marxist if that means anything to anyone. I can't say that I approve of the ideas of pure communism, because I believe that implies that all citizens are equal in the society in terms of the importance of their economic roles, which has to be false. (gravediggers are very important, but shouldn't require as much training or expertise as a doctor, so the doctor is "worth" more to society.) Without economic levels, Stan's point about lack of incentive and reward comes into play.

I do believe that the overwhelming problem with capitalism - at least I can speak for the States - is the incredible amount of materialism that drives it. The pharmaceutical industry's primary motivation for producing drug's is to turn profit - not to provide the means to cure people - but just to make as much money as possible. The whole debate last year about importing drugs from Canada infuriated me from all sides because NONE of our political leaders here seem to realize that the problem starts with the lack of government regulation of health care economics. (Not attacking the FDA here. Our quality control is fine, they just can't control distribution.)

When people start to care more about the stuff they can get from their job than what stuff their job can give to society, then I believe the system starts to suffer. There is nothing wrong with turning a profit, and the system should ideally compensate you appropriately for your effort, but at the end of the day the best members of society will have done their job because the job needed done.

The government is in place to protect its citizens and make sure that they can obtain the necessities of life. The plus side of communism is that it simplifies the issues of providing necessities like security, health care, food, etc. because the government controls the resources. It can become more problematic under capitalism because the resources are more in the hands of individuals. And if those individuals are given to materialism and the "What's in it for me?" mentality, those necesities suffer because it is harder to distribute them efficiently.

And as far as size goes, the bigger the country the bigger the problems in the government. I would be surprised if any system could overcome that. Not to skew the discussion to much to US specifics, but that is why each state has a government. Each state, in the original intent of the founders, was to operate in effect as an individual country with a permanent alliance to the all the other states. The role of the federal government was simply to maintain a uniform system of trade between all of them. This was to effectively maintain a small government that could adjust to and address local needs effectively as needs in the north would differ from needs in the south, etc. The way it is now, everyone looks to the Fed for regulation, and when the logistical nightmare of organizing a country this size makes the system inefficient, they start to claim socialism/communsim can't work.

[Stan]

All good points to be sure. But, there still remains 2 truths that make communism on a large scale impossible.

1. People are greedy and less people will be incented to work hard than in a capitalist society. It would be nice if it weren't true, but it is.

2. Government control of resources doesn't work well. The government by nature is run by polititians and bureaucrats. This means waste and, remember rule number 1, it also means people will do their best to get their unfair share.

If someone wants to debate what the utopian world should be like, that's one thing. But, to debate communism vs capitalism one must consider the 2 basic truths above and realize that the logical conclusion will be a dictatorial figurehead that has control of all the resources because he was given that power.

For anyone reading this post. If you want to make the world a better place regardless of your standing in society, then give abundantly of your money and your time to organizations that meet your ideals...at least you'll know that PART of your money goes to where you want it to.

DO NOT GIVE IT TO GOVERNMENT IN HOPES THAT THEY WILL GIVE IT TO THE PEOPLE THAT NEED IT.

[Jetlag]

For anyone reading this post. If you want to make the world a better place regardless of your standing in society, then give abundantly of your money and your time to organizations that meet your ideals...at least you'll know that PART of your money goes to where you want it to.

DO NOT GIVE IT TO GOVERNMENT IN HOPES THAT THEY WILL GIVE IT TO THE PEOPLE THAT NEED IT.

I agree with the first part of that, but can I just ask what you actually mean by the second part? Are you saying we should boycott taxes? My government does a lot of things I approve of, so why is it a bad thing if I support them financially?

[wichita]

For anyone reading this post. If you want to make the world a better place regardless of your standing in society, then give abundantly of your money and your time to organizations that meet your ideals...at least you'll know that PART of your money goes to where you want it to.

DO NOT GIVE IT TO GOVERNMENT IN HOPES THAT THEY WILL GIVE IT TO THE PEOPLE THAT NEED IT.

Ah, the Libertarian party's national anthem. I understand where it comes from and even have to admit that there is some truth to it. But as all generalizations are false, completely removing control from the hands of the government also doesn't work. Look at health care in the US. Sure you can get treatment, so long as you have the money to pay for it. You have to find the happy medium, which differs from place to place.

[Stan]

I agree with you Wichita. I am not libertarian. I think we should pay our taxes to support roads, schools, defense, lawmaking and enforcing, fire, parks, etc. I also think for the most part the taxes we pay in the US are sufficient to cover those expenses.

I don't agree with government paying for medical costs for working age people, however, unless they are disable or otherwise unable to provide for themselves. I may support paying for some children of school age and do support paying for retirees (age to be negotiated).

As far as government having the full responsibility for providing healthcare, though...I don't think so.

First, I believe the administrative costs will increase. Secondly, the number of providers that will try to cheat the system will increase. And third, I believe competition will wane, making the quality decrease and reduce the incentive for improvements and developments.

There are good arguments by those who disagree with me. So, I'm not saying I have the answers on that, but I do believe I'm right with the information I currently have.

[Appleide]

Onto the second part. The problem is that the Palestinians are attacking innocent civilians. I could sympathize with them if they were attacking military targets but they aren't.

Very funny... And are you sure the US didn't kill Iraqis?

And I remember from some where that Bush was breaking international law?

Too bad no one could stop the US because it is the biggest power in the world...

The United Nations has just become another League of Nations. Don't believe me, prove where I am wrong. Show me an incident that has been resolved by the UN in the past decade.

An incident in the past decade, alright, Heard of East Timor?


Answer to the topic question: The idea of Communism is GOOD, except the people within it can't keep it that way.

[Appleide]

For anyone reading this post. If you want to make the world a better place regardless of your standing in society, then give abundantly of your money and your time to organizations that meet your ideals...at least you'll know that PART of your money goes to where you want it to.

DO NOT GIVE IT TO GOVERNMENT IN HOPES THAT THEY WILL GIVE IT TO THE PEOPLE THAT NEED IT.

Ah, the Libertarian party's national anthem. I understand where it comes from and even have to admit that there is some truth to it. But as all generalizations are false, completely removing control from the hands of the government also doesn't work. Look at health care in the US. Sure you can get treatment, so long as you have the money to pay for it. You have to find the happy medium, which differs from place to place.

Just a question, does the government give out ANY help at all in Health care in the US?

[Solfius]

Coming from the UK where the NHS will subsidise health costs and pay in full for some people (children/OAPs), I find the idea of not having some form of government social welfare absolutely terrible

[Jetlag]

[quote="Solfius"]Coming from the UK where the NHS will subsidise health costs and pay in full for some people (children/OAPs), I find the idea of not having some form of government social welfare absolutely terrible[/quote]

So do I. I like the comfort of knowing that whatever happens, I'll be looked after. by the NHS, state benefits, etc. They may have their problems, but it's a much needed cushion when something goes wrong. I hate the thought that I could suddenly be struck down by, say, cancer and on top of the worry of the disease itself, I'd have the worry of whether my insurance is all up to date, whether it'll cover everything I need, whether I'll have enough money coming in to put food on the table.

This is the bit some conservatives and capitalists seem to miss - having some kind of welfare state isn't just about looking after others, it's about knowing you'll be looked after when you need it.

[Stan]

Just a question, does the government give out ANY help at all in Health care in the US?

Of course. There's government provided healthcare for Veterans. There's government provided healthcare for those on welfare assistance. There's government provided healthcare for the disabled. There are also churches and secular organizations dedicated to providing healthcare. In fact, the formerly mentioned groups also provide medical care to people outside the US.

[wichita]

Just a question, does the government give out ANY help at all in Health care in the US?

Yes, the US has medicare / medicaid but that mostly benefits senior citizens, veterans, etc. The vast majority of citizens have to deal with private insurance companies. Many people are lucky if they can actually get insurance to pay their part without a year's worth of phone calls and paperwork, if they can find a company to provide descent affordable coverage at all. Several of my friends in med school are starting to winess the insurance headache.

A "funny" story about a woman who had to have brain surgery. The insurance company wouldn't cover the followup operation to replace her skullcap afterwards, or continued hospital stay until the paperwork snafu could be resolved. Their temporary solution to the problem was to release her to go home with a plastic hockey helmet to substitute for her skull.

[Stan]

I'd love to hear some stories about the virtues of communism from someone who actually lived in a communist society. I want to hear how great it is from them.

Also, as far as a good idea that gets ruined by the people living it out...that makes absolutely no sense. How can any idea be good if it can't be carried out? That's my whole point on why it stinks.

I have a great idea. Let's give everyone a Porsche with their annual medical exam. Great idea, the problem is that it isn't feasible, so it doesn't work, which means it isn't a good idea afterall.