Will Communism Ever Work?

[scaramanga]

A meritocracy? My alma mater advertised scholarships as a way of getting people to apply for admission (replete with 300 dollar admission fees), but then only gave scholarships to international students because they paid more in fees, thus recouping the financial loss to the university fairly quickly.

Domestic students with far better grades were overlooked because the university needed to turn a profit. Funny how that works.

I think if you concentrate on individual cases you'll find flaws in any method.

Look at what you described in the bigger picture though. If your uni continues to give places to those who are less able and less hard working, their results will suffer - no matter what those students are paying. The best students will no longer want to study there as their chances of getting better grades will be greater elsewhere. The uni will make less money and eventually fail unless they attract better students.

 

[Spursalot]

Surely the communism uni analogy is anything but the bigger picture, simply because if the bigger picture was communism than the best students would have known they have to share their grades from the very beginning, and what would actually happen is that the best students try to help the other students more to secure a higher grade for themselves.



In communism the best and brightest strive to help others, capitalism they strive to help themselves.


Communism would be inherently unfair upon the best and brightest as they would put in far more than the others, and they would still only get the same amount out.

 

[Craig_J]

Firstly, forgive me if I don't take the professor's experiment as a grand example of socialist failings. It has so many fundamental flaws (not least when referring to what should ostensibly be a communist system as 'socialist') in its basic understanding of what communism is actually about that bothering to use it to illustrate anything is a waste of time.

Though, to be honest, that nebulous analogy could be easily reversed to explain classical free-market capitalism as well.

A professor teaching a two-term course hires a large lecture hall. He randomly selects four or five students and puts them at the front of the class. He then sits everyone else increasing distances away from him, with the vast majority of the class seated at the very end of the hall. He forbids people to move from their seats.

He then whispers the answers to the first test in a voice just loud enough for the front few students to hear, before handing everyone the test and walking away.

He comes back and finds, somewhat inevitably, that the randomly selected ones in the front who heard what he said did much better than the ones at the back. He then laughs and fails everyone sitting behind the first few students, explaining that if only they worked harder to hear what he had to say they'd have done better.

He then hands the answers for the rest of the term's exams to the front row of students, explaining that they were 'strivers' and 'knowledge seekers', and thus deserved to be rewarded for their efforts, while castigating the ones further back as 'shirkers' and lazy, idle failures too uninterested to dig themselves out of the academic hole they are in. Finally, he implements an examination system that gives the people in the front (excluding the randomly selected 'strivers', who already have the exam answers) easy exams, the people behind them moderately tough exams, and the ones at the very back (Again, the majority) brutally hard exams.

He then lectures for the rest of the term in a whisper just loud enough to be heard by the front few rows.

At the end of the term, he checks the grades of everyone in class after they've gone through his implemented exam system. The ones with high grades are allowed to move to the front for the second term, and the ones with low grades are moved further back. He finds that most of the people with high grades are the people who were in front anyway, and most of the people in the back were the people who were in the back all along. He then explains that capitalism works by concentrating all the wealth and power in the hands of a very small segment of the population while forcing the vast majority of people to work long, hard hours for relatively tiny amounts of money and with little to no prospect of ever moving up because of the manifold inherent disadvantages stacked against them. Those that are in front, stay in front, and those at the back, stay in the back producing profits for the front.

There, capitalism in a nutshell.

And if you think there are inaccuracies in that analogy, then I can only reply that they are no greater than the massive inaccuracies contained within the Texas university analogy.

=D>=D>=D>

fudging brilliant my friend! Hats off to you!!!!!!

 

[Craig_J]

Now I understand why you don't like capitalism - what you've described is nepotism.

True capitalism is a meritocracy - there are some flaws that in rare circumstances can cause the situation you've described, but on the whole hard work and intelligence can shine through.

That's not true at all. The first 8 years, give or take a few, of your life almost completely shape your outlook on life and whether or not your likely to suceed. Those with little work ethic in the family are likely to become lazy because of the way they're conditoned, therefore they can't rise at all and they've more or less been born into that.

Those who in unfortunate circumstances grow up in abusive familys are likely to grow up on self destruct mode and never rise at all because of everything they've been through.

Those who are born into very low income familys, like m will struggle as well. I work very hard in my exams and am getting good results. But I'm sure it would eb much better if I could actually eat more than two meals on a Wednesday. Or if I could afford the bus fare to college every day. Or If the government actually bothered to give me back my EMA which helped me so much. Or if I didn't live in a council flat where I can hardly concentrate sometimes. These are just some of the factors I've faced.

Sure, maybe I'll get a decent job. Maybe I'll earn a bit. But that's nothing compared to what people who don't face any of these obstacles will earn. There's a lad at my college who's due to inherit £3.5 million of his grandfather on the event of either his mother or uncles death. He doesn't study or do anything at all or bother in exams and he himself says there's no point because he doesn't need too. I can not and will not support a system that has me struggling wasting hours and hours a day just to get grades whilst some people are born not needing to lift a finger.

Mind you though, I'm off the opinion that I couldn't give a crap how much I earn in future. All I need is food, water, shelter and a small about of cash every weekend to have a few drinks etc. I don't need fancy cars, a expensive house or any of that stuff. Either way we can still have our hearts broken, we're still going to see family die, we're still going to die ourselves and we're still going to have to put up with everything that life throws at us.

And all this talk on human nature doesn't seem right to me. If human nature is selfish and greedy why aren't I? If there's a fundamental human nature out there then why are some not greedy? This human nature that's being spoken off doesn't exist. It's very flexible. The way we're conditoned and socalised into our norms and values is what makes the complete difference. And when your living under a system that tries to convince you that you need an I-pad or you need this car or you need David Beckham's brand new after shave you can't be suprised that people are greedy but it isn't there nature it's in the world they live in.

After all, 90% of our mind is unconcious behaviour which we observe and take in without realising so it can't be that far fetched to think th system we live under makes us think we're all greedy and selfish.

 

[Baleforce]

DubaiSpur, I don't think your capitalism lecture analogy works, under capitalism the people at the back of the room could get up and walk to the front to hear, or buy the answers off someone else

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

No, it will never work as it is too extreme. It is the most unforgiving and brutal of modern ideologies because for it to work successfully everyone has to be able to contribute in a meaningful way to the society. If someone is incapable of contributing to society or is holding society back then under an efficient communist regime that person is simply removed from society on a permanent basis. If someone requires an unusually high amount of society resources then that person is removed from society on a permanent basis. If someone strives to be more than they are under communism to the point where it goes against society then the only way the person can get more is by being ruthless (which goes against communist principals) or they will be permanently removed from society. The state controls everything, the peasants control nothing but are "gifted" what they need from the state.

Of course communism is steeped in double standards because, as with any system, those in power have a far more luxurious lifestyle than those underneath them but a true communist would forsake extra luxury. But it never happens, because almost any successful leader of any kind will always be power hungry, live in comparative luxury and regardless of what left wing mantra they preach they'll never follow it themselves.

Like most left wing ideologies, while the human race relies on currency to purchase goods and services, and while certain members of the human race strive for more, left wing ideologies tend to be more wishful thinking than working in reality. A world without money is a nice fantasy, where people could explore their artistic side at their leisure and everyone could live in luxury but let us be honest, it will never happen. It will never happen because the very notion goes against basic human nature. When the chips are down, it is survival of the fittest. That is nature's law, and nature's law is more overwhelming and will always win out eventually over any man made ideology.

Human advancement has mainly been achieved by two unpleasant methods. Greed and Envy. Evolution may eventually breed that out, but we're talking tens of thousands of years not a few generations. Everyone thinks they're a scholar nowadays, but in reality our basic principals haven't changed since the birth of modern civilization and I urge anyone who disagrees to study the classics and really read the bible before dismissing this out of hand.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

Also could the competitiveness jimmyb claims is innate actually be the result of our upbringing? We have to overcome many bestial emotions such as anger and lust to function in a harmonious society, why not competitiveness too to some degree? Does a less individualistic society necessarily dictate the expression of less individuality?

And I would say that people using the internet like we are, are the ones capable of that. Many people in the human race are not capable of doing that, but those people won't be wasting their time on an internet forum having discussions!

But as with many animal species that live in groups, at the very basic level we can split ourselves into two categories. Most of us are followers, and whether we like it or not truly can't think for ourselves. We require input to stimulate us or we really just preach to others what has been preached to us via friends, family or the media. Or we get narrow minded preconceived ideas and even when logic is staring us in the face to the contrary, we can't shake them. If left to our own devices, if given the freedom of thought or the freedom of making our own decisions then we fudge it up. This can be seen more and more in the western world now.

We almost have too much freedom and therefore we make too many bad choices as an individual, but then blame those choices on whoever we can. It's our parent's fault, it's the government's fault, it's the bank's fault for allowing me to have all this credit, it's Marlboro's fault that I smoke 30 a day :lol:

Then you have the other type of person, the leader. The problem is in a democratic society where uneducated people can make their own decisions too many of our elected leaders aren't really leaders. And that is the true reason I think as to why western society has got itself into a bit of a mess.

 

[thfcsteff]

No, it will never work as it is too extreme. It is the most unforgiving and brutal of modern ideologies because for it to work successfully everyone has to be able to contribute in a meaningful way to the society. If someone is incapable of contributing to society or is holding society back then under an efficient communist regime that person is simply removed from society on a permanent basis. If someone requires an unusually high amount of society resources then that person is removed from society on a permanent basis. If someone strives to be more than they are under communism to the point where it goes against society then the only way the person can get more is by being ruthless (which goes against communist principals) or they will be permanently removed from society. The state controls everything, the peasants control nothing but are "gifted" what they need from the state.

Of course communism is steeped in double standards because, as with any system, those in power have a far more luxurious lifestyle than those underneath them but a true communist would forsake extra luxury. But it never happens, because almost any successful leader of any kind will always be power hungry, live in comparative luxury and regardless of what left wing mantra they preach they'll never follow it themselves.

Like most left wing ideologies, while the human race relies on currency to purchase goods and services, and while certain members of the human race strive for more, left wing ideologies tend to be more wishful thinking than working in reality. A world without money is a nice fantasy, where people could explore their artistic side at their leisure and everyone could live in luxury but let us be honest, it will never happen. It will never happen because the very notion goes against basic human nature. When the chips are down, it is survival of the fittest. That is nature's law, and nature's law is more overwhelming and will always win out eventually over any man made ideology.

Human advancement has mainly been achieved by two unpleasant methods. Greed and Envy. Evolution may eventually breed that out, but we're talking tens of thousands of years not a few generations. Everyone thinks they're a scholar nowadays, but in reality our basic principals haven't changed since the birth of modern civilization and I urge anyone who disagrees to study the classics and really read the bible before dismissing this out of hand.

:ross:

how do you define 'advancement'?

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

:ross:

how do you define 'advancement'?

That's easy to answer. We are a species, that is all. What makes a successful species? One that not only survives, but one that flourishes. The greatest human achievement is being able to live in the numbers that we do on this planet. No other species that we know of has managed to thrive as well as we have, especially a species of our size. Our intelligence has allowed us to become adaptable and we take what we want, not necessarily what we need. But it is our desire to want things coupled with the desire of others to exploit the needs of the people who want that has driven us forward on an unparalleled materialistic advancement.

Of course to be able to thrive other species have had to suffer, but that is the way of life in nature. Our avarice and greed don't seem to have any bounds at the moment and although I am no environmentalist I do believe that we'll eventually hit the tipping point because that also happens in nature. A successful species will wipe out the competition and then devour all the resources and then become extinct itself as the land can no longer sustain it. Perhaps our greatest achievement may be yet to come, which is to artificially sustain ourselves completely. When that does happen it will be a sad day for most other species on the planet though as they will no longer be useful to us and therefore eventually be eliminated.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

No, it will never work as it is too extreme. It is the most unforgiving and brutal of modern ideologies because for it to work successfully everyone has to be able to contribute in a meaningful way to the society. If someone is incapable of contributing to society or is holding society back then under an efficient communist regime that person is simply removed from society on a permanent basis. If someone requires an unusually high amount of society resources then that person is removed from society on a permanent basis. If someone strives to be more than they are under communism to the point where it goes against society then the only way the person can get more is by being ruthless (which goes against communist principals) or they will be permanently removed from society. The state controls everything, the peasants control nothing but are "gifted" what they need from the state.

Of course communism is steeped in double standards because, as with any system, those in power have a far more luxurious lifestyle than those underneath them but a true communist would forsake extra luxury. But it never happens, because almost any successful leader of any kind will always be power hungry, live in comparative luxury and regardless of what left wing mantra they preach they'll never follow it themselves.

Like most left wing ideologies, while the human race relies on currency to purchase goods and services, and while certain members of the human race strive for more, left wing ideologies tend to be more wishful thinking than working in reality. A world without money is a nice fantasy, where people could explore their artistic side at their leisure and everyone could live in luxury but let us be honest, it will never happen. It will never happen because the very notion goes against basic human nature. When the chips are down, it is survival of the fittest. That is nature's law, and nature's law is more overwhelming and will always win out eventually over any man made ideology.

Human advancement has mainly been achieved by two unpleasant methods. Greed and Envy. Evolution may eventually breed that out, but we're talking tens of thousands of years not a few generations. Everyone thinks they're a scholar nowadays, but in reality our basic principals haven't changed since the birth of modern civilization and I urge anyone who disagrees to study the classics and really read the bible before dismissing this out of hand.

There are some may inaccuracies and blantant distortions in this post, I really do not know where to begin and frankly i cannot be bothered because I know it will not make a blind bit of difference. Just writing enough to register my oppostion.

 

[DubaiSpur]

DubaiSpur, I don't think your capitalism lecture analogy works, under capitalism the people at the back of the room could get up and walk to the front to hear, or buy the answers off someone else

Nah. Firstly, walking to the front is essentially analogous to advancing to the top. Just walking to the front is the equivalent of going from dirt poor to enormously wealthy in a day, which is impossible. The 'social mobility' part you envisioned comes at the end of the term, when good grades get moved forward and bad grades moved back.

As to your second suggestion, introducing money into the equation is pointless, since 'grades' are the accepted form of currency in this analogy. Actual money would e a completely foreign element, and by extension, would work equally well in the Texas University case, where the students could just pay the smart, hard-working ones to produce 5 minute answer guides before the tests. After all, everyone benefits: the smart kids get money and a high grade (because everyone gets high grades due to their answer sheets), and the lazy kids get a high grade without the effort.

 

[thfcsteff]

That's easy to answer. We are a species, that is all. What makes a successful species? One that not only survives, but one that flourishes. The greatest human achievement is being able to live in the numbers that we do on this planet. No other species that we know of has managed to thrive as well as we have, especially a species of our size. Our intelligence has allowed us to become adaptable and we take what we want, not necessarily what we need. But it is our desire to want things coupled with the desire of others to exploit the needs of the people who want that has driven us forward on an unparalleled materialistic advancement.

Of course to be able to thrive other species have had to suffer, but that is the way of life in nature. Our avarice and greed don't seem to have any bounds at the moment and although I am no environmentalist I do believe that we'll eventually hit the tipping point because that also happens in nature. A successful species will wipe out the competition and then devour all the resources and then become extinct itself as the land can no longer sustain it. Perhaps our greatest achievement may be yet to come, which is to artificially sustain ourselves completely. When that does happen it will be a sad day for most other species on the planet though as they will no longer be useful to us and therefore eventually be eliminated.

I understand your points in terms of technical, but philosophically i still don't see what you're saying. 'Flourishes'? Our 'intelligence' is increasingly compromised by our greed. And 'successful'?

We are on course to be resoundingly unsuccessful by my parameters...of course, we can but wonder if all living creatures would've taken the same course with opposable thumbs/hands and a sense of vanity...

 

[Craig_J]

If someone is incapable of contributing to society or is holding society back then under an efficient communist regime that person is simply removed from society on a permanent basis. If someone requires an unusually high amount of society resources then that person is removed from society on a permanent basis. If someone strives to be more than they are under communism to the point where it goes against society then the only way the person can get more is by being ruthless (which goes against communist principals) or they will be permanently removed from society.

Sounds more to me like a description of Capitalism if I'm being honest.

 

[braineclipse]

To those saying that communism could (or will) work:

How do you imagine the government being put in place, and more importantly staying in place?

Would there be elections where the electorate consistently chose the communist option among many various ideas?

Or would there be some one party state without national elections?

Or is there some third option here that I haven't though of?

Dubai mentioned direct democracy earlier, but seemingly more referring to what goes on within a smaller commune of workers, not on a national/governmental level.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

Sounds more to me like a description of Capitalism if I'm being honest.

Not at all. Although extreme left wing and right wing ideologies are a lot closer than people think, as it is almost like a circle that comes around and meets again.

Communism is about the collective, not the individual. During the brief moment in history where communism was successful the regimes were brutal. And for communism to work, the regimes have to be brutal because if an individual is no good for society or has no potential to be good for society, they are removed. Disabled children, people too sick or old to work. They are a burden on society so therefore the regime exterminates them. Remember under Communism there is no freedom of choice, and no freedom of voice. Democracy and Communism can't go hand in hand either, it just wouldn't work because again you are giving people the vote which fundamentally doesn't work with communism. Communism actually started to fail when people started wanting more, when people realised they could get more. Then the regimes started to be questioned by their own people and communism failed. Unfortunately communism will never work unless people are really simple and don't desire anything above what they're given. Your Father is sick and the regime decide to kill him rather than support him, then you have to stand by and watch it. You have no choice in caring for him yourself because that then makes you a weakness in society who isn't contributing as much to the national machine as your neighbour.

Capitalism in an extreme form wouldn't make the decision to exterminate those who didn't contribute. They'd simply be abandoned to fend for themselves with the most likely outcome being the same. However, more likely is that someone like a family member will step in and care for those unable to care for themselves and under capitalism someone will come along to exploit that opportunity and obtain profit from someone else's misfortune.

I am not a capitalist but I do believe in free markets and I am not naïve enough to believe that basic human nature is good or bad. Basic human nature is about survival first and enjoyment second, which is the same throughout the animal kingdom. For me communism will never work because we do care about those people we care about. A true communist would be willing to sacrifice those he cares about for the greater good of the society he lives in, but I could not do that.

The example I often give to my students on the subject is if there was a motorway crash and my wife was in a car burning and another car with four children who were strangers to me was also on fire and I only had the time to save one of them, then I am saving my wife because I love her and that makes me selfish and irrational. Pure logical thought under communism is easy. You don't save your wife. You save the children because there are more of them and they have potential. Of course this a very basic example and during my lectures I start adding more shades of grey to make it more and more complex such as what if they were both strangers but the kids were just peasants and the wife the best surgeon in the land. It can be very enlightening with the responses, and usually I tend to find that many people associate themselves with being left wing or right wing but their actual thoughts and actions are the complete opposite!