When they taught us about Comunism in school...I thought... HEY...not a bad idea...what happens....
It all sounds good until you run out of the working people's money to give to the non working people (people that choose not to work, to take advantage of the system)..
Then before that even happens, working people start figuring out...why should they even work, when they can just collect from the money makers..
It kills creativity...
There's no such thing as a perfect society....Maybe in the movies..
Life isn't fair...work for what you want, don't make up excuses for lazy people..
If people like being trapped under government control then it ain't a bad idea
Plus I don't agree with the everyone is equal BS. If I work my ass off and the other person (takes advantage of the system) doesn't do shit we ain't equal at all.
It's a bad idea because you are ruled instead of governed. I like to be free.
After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives became available, containing official records of the execution of approximately 800,000 prisoners under Stalin for either political or criminal offenses, around 1.7 million deaths in the Gulags and some 390,000 deaths during kulak forced resettlement – for a total of about 3 million officially recorded victims in these categories.
People's Republic of China
There is a general consensus among historians that after Mao Zedong seized power, his policies and political purges caused directly or indirectly the deaths of tens of millions of people. Based on the Soviets' experience, Mao considered violence necessary to achieve an ideal society derived from Marxism and planned and executed violence on a grand scale.
The Killing Fields were a number of sites in Cambodia where large numbers of people were killed and buried by the Khmer Rouge regime, during its rule of the country from 1975 to 1979, immediately after the end of the Vietnam War. At least 200,000 people were executed by the Khmer Rouge, while estimates of the total number of deaths resulting from Khmer Rouge policies, including disease and starvation, range from 1.4 to 2.2 million out of a population of around 7 million.
According to Benjamin Valentino, available evidence suggests that between 50,000 and 100,000 people may have been killed in Bulgaria beginning in 1944 as part of agricultural collectivization and political repression,
According to Valentino, between 80,000 and 100,000 people may have been killed in East Germany beginning in 1945 as part of political repression by the Soviet Union.
According to Valentino, between 60,000 and 300,000 people may have been killed in Romania beginning in 1945 as part of agricultural collectivization and political repression.
According to R.J. Rummel, forced labor, executions, and concentration camps were responsible for over one million deaths in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea from 1948 to 1987; others have estimated 400,000 deaths in concentration camps alone. Pierre Rigoulot estimates 100,000 executions, 1.5 million deaths through concentration camps and slave labor, 500,000 deaths from famine, and 1.3 million killed in the Korean war. Estimates based on the most recent North Korean census suggest that 240,000 to 420,000 people died as a result of the 1990s famine and that there were 600,000 to 850,000 excess deaths in North Korea from 1993 to 2008. The famine, which claimed as many as one million lives, has been described as the result of the economic policies of the North Korean government, and as deliberate "terror-starvation". In 2009, Steven Rosefielde stated that the Red Holocaust "still persists in North Korea" as Kim Jong Il "refuses to abandon mass killing."
In the early 1950s, the Communist government in North Vietnam launched a land reform program, which, according to Steven Rosefielde, was "aimed at exterminating class enemies." Victims were chosen in an arbitrary manner, following a quota of four to five percent. Torture was used on a wide scale, so much so that by 1954 Ho Chi Minh became concerned, and had it banned. It is estimated that some 50,000 to 172,000 people perished in the campaigns against wealthy farmers and landowners. Rosefielde discusses much higher estimates that range from 200,000 to 900,000, which includes summary executions of National People's Party members.
Amnesty International estimates that a total of half a million people were killed during the Red Terror of 1977 and 1978. During the terror groups of people were herded into churches that were then burned down, and women were subjected to systematic rape by soldiers.
During the period of the short lived Hungarian Soviet Republic in 1919 the Lenin Boys committed crimes against the political opponents. After World War II, the communist State Protection Authority maintained concentration camps and committed mass genocides.
See a pattern here?
Good run down.
Don't be so obtuse.
145 million western people's died because the capitalist wanted their land. I can also produce a list of genocides committed in the name of capitalism.
Can you give us a lit of countries where communism has thrived, and the people love it?
Doesn't exist. See note below.
Just because it doesn't work doesn't mean it automatically leads to mass murder.
Nor does a truly libertarian country, but that hasn't stopped people from deeming it unworthy of consideration either.
Fair point. I try not to equate a modern libertarian with the anarchist philosophy and it seems so many equate democratic socialist with communist despotism.
That's more than any libertarian could ask for. I can't count how many times I've had to point out that distinction to others.
I don't equate democratic socialism with despotism, but it I do view it as a system that institutionalizes infringements on rights. I just think there are some things that aren't up for a vote regardless of how many people agree on a certain policy.
I also equate it with authoritative govt. as it is a necessity to institute such policies. There must be someone (even if that someone is the mob) to decide what equality is. For this reason, I think compulsory models invite abuse of power.
Doesn't a total lack of compulsion result in chaos?
Isn't all compulsion somewhat voluntary in that we can always say no and face the consequences.
I mean we are compelled to drive on the right, arrive at work on schedule. Put our refuse at the curb on trash day.
I don't think so. I don't consider the legalization of freedom to be a form of compulsion, do you?
There are some forms of compulsion that we voluntarily enter into though, yes I agree there. But they are usually entered into with the exchange of some benefit in mind, not because we were held a gunpoint... there's that kind too. lol
I can't decide if I'd rather argue
if we have to legislate a right then it is not a right. What we legislate is protection of right we already have.
If I should discuss the differences between compulsion and coercion. Because clearly Marx and others saw the benefit of social ownership not for personal gain but for societal gain - for the greater good of the many.
I would generally agree that if something must be legislated it isn't a right. I would take that further, if the individual lacks either the ability or the determination to defend X then it follows that X isn't a right.
We see rights trampled all the time, not by the state but by the individual refusal to defend said right.
Compulsion and coercion aren't that far removed in the face of a tyrant with a gun, I assure you.
Whoa whoa whoa, hold up...
Please tell me what about the imperialist inquisitions was at all Capitalistic? The British Monarchy was scarcely a shining example of the Capitalist model, nor was the Catholic led inquisition... matter of fact, the Roman Catholic Church openly condemned Capitalism as a sin.
I call shenanigans, you're assigning an economic philosophy to dead folks. Let's see the meat of that accusation, please.
At least acknowledge that imperialism is about gathering money and not about spread wealth to the common man.
Of course it isn't about spreading the wealth of the common man, but imperialism and capitalism are not synonymous. One thing it is synonymous with is government intervention into markets. Were we to follow that reasoning to its logical end, these deaths would fall on shoulders of interventionists, no?
Laissez Faire is the antithesis to imperialism.
The British empire's economy was loaded with government interference.
But you don't see the antithesis between a Marxist ideal and the despots that's used it to gain power?
Of course I do, I thought I'd already said that. I recognize that any economic philosophy can be espoused to assume and then usurp power. Hell, our system is the perfect example of that.
I get it...
Communism is worse than terrible. Ask the people of Cuba - better yet, ask the literally starving people of Venezuela - a once unbelievably rich country.
The problem is people confuse the philosophy of communism with the people who try to implement it.
That is because communism can only work when everyone is committed to it. It has worked on a small scale, like Twin Oaks Virginia.
However when you try it on a national scale too many people are not willing to participate. That tends to lead to the establishment of tough laws and stiff penalty for those that don't follow the party line.
It is a noble idea but impractical given the human desire for independence and propensity to desire material goods.
Another problem is people don't differentiate between communism and totalitarianism. And then they lump socialism into mix label it all 'bad' and close their minds.
You are not going to get everyone to commit to communism. We like our individualism, our personal accomplishments and the rewards for what we earn. Why should I work for the state to take from me and give to those who's career is collecting for no work?
"Twin Oaks - a commune in rural Virginia with a population of only 105, founded in 1967."
That is small enough to be considered a family.
Yes. Only examples of success are small scale and voluntary.
I wish that same right was extended to those who'd like to voluntarily institute a society absent the rule of the sitting state.
Don't we all.
When that many lives have been stolen, it is impossible to not mention those who've implemented it. It isn't as if that is a fabrication, it's a demonstrable reality that the economic models have led to mass-murder. No one needs to inject a slippery slope, it happened. To ignore that would be illogical.
Agreed but not to the exclusion of what europeans did to natives in the new world, or British in India and China or the capitalism driven slave trade in Africa.
You paint a one sided picture when you cherry pick the massacres
I'm not suggesting the crimes against the natives be excluded, only that the insinuation this was somehow motivated by capitalism be rejected.
The Atlantic slave trade, from which the Americas purchased slaves, was controlled almost exclusively by the British which we've already established was not an example of the capitalist modeled economy.
The fact that our framers even questioned the institution was a minor miracle in itself given they were a product of a society that viewed those practices as 'normal.' Ours was the first government to even consider viewing slaves as partly human, while tragic and deplorable, it is worth pointing out our government was the first to hold slaves as being human rather than property. If capitalism was responsible for that, which I don't believe, I don't exactly find that bad. They fought like hell for the 3/5ths clause, it quite nearly upended the entire convention. The clause is abhorrent to us, rightly so, but back then, that was a leap forward.
No, I didn't frame the question, I answered it. Although, until you can produce an example of capitalism perpetuating such policies, it will be mostly one-sided. Not by my choice, but for lack of evidence to the contrary.
There can be no evidence if you continue to claim that imperialism is not 'really' capitalism.
It isn't. Imperialism is predicated on the acquisition of territory by the ruling state and usually through brute military force.
That is the diametric opposite of an economic model wherein capital and profit are held by private interests.
If you want to make that argument, go for it, but don't base it solely on a simple desire to obtain wealth or profit.
Give it a look?
Let's back this up a step. Can you provide even one society that meets your definition of capitalism?
I already conceded to your assertion that our founders created and capitalist economy. I even conceded that it, sadly, upheld the institution of slavery.
Where I disagreed was with the suggestion that capitalism motivated the institution of slavery, which existed before the capitalist system here (talk about a cart before the horse) or that it led the Brits to these shores to begin with.
Most of the countries of the world uphold some form of capitalism in the acquisition and use of capital and / or profits the world over. The bulk of intervention comes on the back end. Would you disagree?
No. I just find Maze's laundry list of atrocities to be very one side. It is the same argument used to instruct our children how horrible communism (the theory) is by linking it to the governmental leaders who claimed to be communists - while ignoring the atrocities committed by governmental leaders who claimed to be capitalist.
Which I think is where we started? Right.
I don't know about Maze's list, but I do know there's a well-documented historical association between authoritative government and widespread abuse of power, regardless of the economic model of said govt., and often to the great detriment of society. This is why people struggle to separate those implementing it from the model itself.
You're right, the Nazis weren't at all comparable to the Communist Mao Zedong. The number of lives he took dwarfs the Nazis.
Communism in practice is an economic model, not a system of governance, that bears noting.
The primary problem with Communism is that government is a piss-poor steward of other peoples wealth.
Especially when those running the government live lavish lives of corruption while the people can't even get TP. The week just ran an article saying that the people of Venezuela lost an average of 19 lbs over the the last year. Their leader thinks it is funny and calls it The Maduro Diet.
Why wouldn't they, there's no accountability to the people at that point.
Cart before the horse.
The problem with communism is people want wealth and government are piss poor at providing it.
That's because the only wealth govt. can procure is that which belongs to the people. Much of that wealth is chewed up in the provision of govt. itself.
It is the common people, not the wealthy, that benefit most small, limited govt. Much of the established dynasty wealth in America was the product of govt. intervention into the marketplace, not the reverse.
Truth be told, ours is not a capitalist economy thus it can scarcely be used as proof of the alleged failures of capitalism anymore than it could be held up as the failures of communism.
The Germans were better. Communism is terrible.
Definition of communism
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
So by definition communism is identical to robbery. I don't mean to get personal, just a scientific analysis: you have to be really really stupid to think that will work on any scale larger than a family. And even in a family you have let the kids think they own their toys.
First, your point is well taken that people want to own things.
Second, if there is no private ownership than there is no robbery. So that part of your logic begs the question.
Wrong. The first part of the definition is elimination of private property. That is called robbery.
All your second point establishes is that Authoritative govt. is a requisite to the implementation of socialist or communist economic models.
We are looking at the same thing from opposit sides.
I see the need for private ownership as a human flaw. You see it as a virtue.
No, please, don't misunderstand. I'm not a Randian. lol
I don't see it as a flaw or a virtue, rather a right and at some point, a necessary policy in any society where people must coexist peacefully.
OK. I'll agree to half of that...
The necessary policy part. I think the desire to own things is a bass human trait akin to the 'need' cats have to bury their poop or seemingly uncontrolled urge that Satin Bowerbirds have to gather anything blue.
They have a 'right' to collect them?
We have a right to own because we 'need' to own, if we did not have that need then I suspect we would not demand the right.
It is at that point, the needs point, when we hit the brick wall that was my statement above; government even in its best most efficient form is not equipped for the provision of needs and because all it offers is a cycle of taking and then redistributing what is already held by the people after syphoning off a portion for the maintenance of itself.
That's wicked be math, would you disagree?
I don't disagree with the math. I disagree that it is ethical for 1% of the population to control 50% of the wealth and I doubt capitalism, even in it's purists form can prevent that ratio from occurring.
As a capitalist I don't believe it is ethical either.
I simply as realize that this amount of wealth is in the hands of the 1% as a direct result of government intervention on their behalves, not the lack thereof.
That consolidation of wealth was not an organic byproduct of an under-regulated economy or free enterprise, quite the opposite.
It is the culmination of the the violation of free market principles, not once or twice, but repeatedly over the course of more than a century and it's facilitated through a centralized monetary monopoly that undermines the entire concept of voluntary / free exchange.
There is a huge difference between "private markets / private enterprise" and "free markets / free enterprise."
I don't like the bastardization of free enterprise any more than you do, but it is totally unfair to blame the philosophy for the end result of its violation.
I will accept that.
Love the bird illustration, sweet.
The only people who want no private ownership, are those who don't own anything. They are also generally, the ones who think they should have part of what others worked for.
I don't know if that is true. I was speaking hypothetically because I think private ownership is baked into the human psychy and cannot be extracted without coercion.
This is like a human version of heaven
After reading all the comments, I have to wonder how the discussion would go if the word earned was substituted for needs. People want to keep what they have worked for, not to have the government take it away and split it three way. One third for the government, one third for nonworkers and the hapless worker gets what is left. Hmmmm, not much different than what the American government does to the workers now. However, we the people may be able to work to change some of that - we'll see.
You have to look at some of the things that goes on in the USA. Some of it no differs from communism.