Is Communism misunderstood?

I heard, once, that communism brought more development and modernization than Peter the Great.

 

http://shareholderlawsuitscenter.com/

So you're saying they aren't really capitalists? How does that prove your point?

I think you got that reversed. Successful enterprises want a reasonable "value to the customer" that provides them with as much profit as they think they can generate within that constraint. Are you seriously saying that many companies exist to reduce their likely profits in order to make their customers as happy as possible? Just which companies are these?

 

That problem is greatly reduced in a socialist system compared to a capitalist system. Uncontrolled capitalism will make it worse.

 

I suppose they could. On the other hand, a deterioration of work ethic could result in a loss of productivity and shrinking economy, and unless much of the world were to become communist at about the same time it would be difficult for people to satisfy all their most reasonable wants and needs without interacting and doing business with foreign capitalists - something which I reckon would require currency and make it hard for ones own country to fully implement their communist system, ya? Provided enough automation there could come a point where nobody has to work except for self-driven desire to voluntarily produce things or render services. In the meanwhile I'm not sure that a sharp drop in the number of hours people work could be made a practical course of action - especially given the rampant consumerism of many highly-developed capitalist countries that may take decades to fade even if society were to soon undergo tumultuous social changes.

Are you sure? If someone offered me a flat screen TV today for free I would kindly decline because I already have a television that works just fine. If someone offered me a mansion I would ask if I could instead have the opportunity to rent a modest apartment in town nearer to my place of business. People are perfectly capable of having ambition without wanton lust for hoarding material goods. I agree that some folk focus too much on equality. Likewise with justice, freedom, religion, countries, property rights, and so on. These things are all socially constructed, man-made concepts that would not otherwise exist in nature.

Perhaps we merely have different perspectives here on the influences of genes and culture?

Or may it is just a matter of most people not being of my sort of character? I've been told in past debates that socialism would thrive if I were a fair representative for the average Joe. Maybe something similar would apply to communism? I honestly don't know. Either way, perhaps my idealism often stems from a shaky assumption that in a better world most people would tend to develop in a manner leading them to be, for better or worse, more like me.

That certainly seems like one possible way to go about it to make sure workers are properly motivated, though it lacks sufficient compassion for me to find it appealing.

If someone does not want to work and make meaningful contributions to society I reckon there is something wrong with 'em that warrants investigation. I think normal folk would eventually go mad from boredom and get mired in depression for lack of self-actualization if they did not work for a very long period of time. It is not far off from a sentiment expressed by Eugene Debs almost a century ago. If some bloke does not want to work, what is it about our culture that helped drive them to be that way? It is a problem for society to grapple with regardless of its economic system.

As for my motivation to work, it is chiefly for survival followed by a desire to have access to a handful of luxury tools that help enhance my quality of life.

 

Mass Murders under Communist regimes


Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million.[1] Scholarship focuses on the causes of mass killings in single societies, though some claims of common causes for mass killings have been made. Some higher estimates of mass killings include not only mass murders or executions that took place during the elimination of political opponents, civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, but also lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps. There are scholars who believe that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities, and, based on that conclusion combine all these deaths under the categories "mass killings", democide, politicide, "classicide", or loosely defined genocide. According to these scholars, the total death toll of the mass killings defined in this way amounts to many tens of millions; however, the validity of this approach is questioned by other scholars. As of 2011, academic consensus has not been achieved on causes of large scale killings by states, including by states governed by communists. In particular, the number of comparative studies suggesting causes is limited. The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million.[2][dubious – discuss] There have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

Hmm. Mass murders? Mass shooting, Gulags, Re-education camps? And you would like to follow this ideology?

 

No one in their right mind proposes uncontrolled capitalism and "free market capitalism" does not refer to an economic system without regulation. Free markert capitalism is best reflected by laizze-faire economic philosophy where the purpose of government is not to manipulate the outcome.

With laizze-faire capitalism the purpose of government is to ensure the economy based upon the voluntary exchange of commodities for commodities and labor for commodities without coercion, where the Rights of the Person are protected, and where equality of opportunity exists equally for all individuals. There are many misconceptions about what the result would be and I would point out some.

Misconception: There would be no environmental regulations under laizze-faire capitalism.
Truth: Pollution is a violation of the Rights of the Person as no Person has a Right to Pollute. While some pollution in society is a pragmatic necessity any such pollution should be to the least extent possible and laizze-faire capitalism would probably impose more pollution restrictions by regulation than we have today. Today environmental regulation requires compelling argument before it is imposed but under laizze-faire capitalism the pollution requires compelling argument before it's allowed. In short the pollution would have to be justified as opposed the regulation that prohibits it which is 180 degrees from what we're currently doing.

Misconception: The wealthy would be taxed less under laizze-faire capitalism.
Truth: While taxation is necessary to support government laizze-faire capitalism would impose fair taxation where the tax burden relative to gross income would be equal for all persons in society. Today under crony capitalism the wealthy investors have a much lower tax burden relative to gross income than the workers of America at both the federal and state levels of government and that is unacceptable.

Since this thread is on communism I won't continue but the point is made that when comparing socialism with capitalism people make false assumptions and have gross misconceptions when they refer to "free-market / laizze-faire" capitalism. They are referring to "crony capitalism" which isn't really any different than "communism/socialism" where the unspoken purpose of both is to funnel the wealth of the nation created by the workers to an elite economic class comprised of a very small minority.

 

Assuming you're being honest here (which I will because you have a good track record for being a rather honest guy which I respect), you have to recognize that you are a miniscule minority here. 99% of people are going to want bigger and nicer things. Including the ones that say they don't. They only have the luxury of making this claim because they are not faced with the choice. When it's right in front of them, very few of them are going to turn it down.

Capable? Yes. Is it likely? No. And that's why I say your perspective here is ideological rather than realistic. You're looking too much at what "could be" rather than what simply is. I think left wing politics in general is very guilty about this most of the time. Dealing too much in the "ought" and never being able to accept the "is." So a lot of their views are very idealogical and not very pragmatic.

I suppose that's one way to look at it. Personally, I find nothing wrong at all with the way things are. I prefer competition over equality. I like a system that challenges me everyday to be my sharpest. I don't ever want to live in a society where everything is so soft that people are stagnant rather than growing. I think the reason nature has determined communism not to be workable is because, were it to succeed, it would ultimately result in the species atrophying - thus ending evolution and beginning extinction.

 

How you can make contributions without working? in capital? sorry but there is no private capital .
Creating a pool of unemployed to keep wages down is a social problem not created by capitalism? i don't think so.
I doubt that you want luxury to enchance your life , you need luxury to enchance your ego and feel superior over the other guys in the hood, this is not a personal accusation, capitalism itself is a form of sociopathy.