Communism. Good or bad. What do you really know about Communism?

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Communism is clear.
Lazy guys have to do what they have to do or eat mushrooms in the forest.

"I take the lawn mower of the community.
The community has decided that after the job, I've to clean it. I clean it.

If I don't want to clean it. I don't have to use it.

End of the story."


That's not like in Capitalism, when a rich asshole doesn't want to clean the lawn mower, he can pay with money that he didn't really earn thanks to his devotion to the community.

That is just... what if somebody takes the lawn mower and decides not to clean it, even if the community thinks they should?

People can come up with a thousand excuses not to do something they don't want to do.

So now what? A lecture? Forbidden forever to use the communal lawn mowers to mow the lawn? (the neighbors will love that one. )

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Why not.
What happens in USA when you can't pay your fine? Jail?

I just knew there had to be goons with AK-47s in your fantasy somewhere. Since it won't work without them.

What if after the sewer work they still won't clean the lawn mowers? A year in the gulag? By then they'll be really pissed, and you'll have a "dissident" on your hands. Then what, executed for sloppy lawn mower maintenance?

Monetary incentives work better. They just do. Because people don't like getting behind in the money race. It's human nature.

And if a rich person fails to wash the mower, or return the rental car with a full tank of gas, because they decided it was inconvenient, they PAY for it, and somebody benefits from the extra money. Maybe Pedro the lawn boy gets overtime because he has to clean the mower. The car company makes an extra profit over and above replacing the gas. It's a win-win for everybody.

[Enrico32]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

Monetary incentives work better.

That's why USSR and other dictatorships still used Money. Nothing's wrong with Money per se.

Capitalism is above all a system of values. Now I cannot call it good - but neither call it bad. I just don't understand it. Communist system, on the other hand, I understand perfectly. It's core is simplicity. I can explain it all but only after you explain me Capitalism.


For example, why Websites can earn money? Why Facebook is valued billions? Aren't most websites completely free to use?

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by Enrico32

That's why USSR and other dictatorships still used Money. Nothing's wrong with Money per se.

Capitalism is above all a system of values. Now I cannot call it good - but neither call it bad. I just don't understand it. Communist system, on the other hand, I understand perfectly. It's core is simplicity. I can explain it all but only after you explain me Capitalism.


For example, why Websites can earn money? Why Facebook is valued billions? Aren't most websites completely free to use?

But xyz wants to get rid of money entirely. In the real world, like you say, Communists use money, and use it to control behavior.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by Enrico32

For example, why Websites can earn money? Why Facebook is valued billions? Aren't most websites completely free to use?

We are now discovering that those wonderful free websites specialize in learning our preferences and tastes, as well as those of our friends and families. Facebook is worth billions because it has information about billions of people which corporations, governments, and political parties are willing to pay large sums to obtain in the continuing quest of these organizations to control and influence us.

Your question reminds me of the time I read a memo generated by the marketing department of my employer that referred to us employees as "marketing units." Up until then I believed that we were human beings valued for our skills and partnership in the enterprise. I feel fortunate that I was able to escape my cubicle before it was converted to a holding pen used to confine me as I was fattened up prior to being auctioned off.

[Enrico32]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

But xyz wants to get rid of money entirely. In the real world, like you say, Communists use money, and use it to control behavior.

What can be achieved by spreading money mass more evenly and ending the dominance of banks?

Surely there shouldn't be a pooling of all money into a few corporations? Which then can ruin or enrich whole countries (ruined Yugoslavia, enriched Arabia)?

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

That is just... what if somebody takes the lawn mower and decides not to clean it, even if the community thinks they should?

People can come up with a thousand excuses not to do something they don't want to do.

So now what? A lecture? Forbidden forever to use the communal lawn mowers to mow the lawn? (the neighbors will love that one. )

I just knew there had to be goons with AK-47s in your fantasy somewhere. Since it won't work without them.

What if after the sewer work they still won't clean the lawn mowers? A year in the gulag? By then they'll be really pissed, and you'll have a "dissident" on your hands. Then what, executed for sloppy lawn mower maintenance?

Why being so caricatural?

That's to the collectivity to juge if it agrees to let the communal lawn mowers to an asshole who never cleans it.
Tolerant communities will let this asshole abusing for the collectivity, less tolerant ones will explain to him how to be less an asshole.
What's wrong with that?

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

Monetary incentives work better. They just do. Because people don't like getting behind in the money race. It's human nature.

And if a rich person fails to wash the mower, or return the rental car with a full tank of gas, because they decided it was inconvenient, they PAY for it, and somebody benefits from the extra money.

No. It doesn't work better if you are not endoctrinated by a "Capitalist lobotomy."

The only thing that you defend here is, that there are people who have the rights to get unjustified privileges. That's all.

But I'll not spend too much time in this topic to answer to particular cases that the community would solve by itself.

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

Maybe Pedro the lawn boy gets overtime because he has to clean the mower. The car company makes an extra profit over and above replacing the gas. It's a win-win for everybody.

It's time to me to be caricatural.

Maybe Pedro doesn't want overtime and will be late to meet his girlfriend who will be rapped by the guy who didn't clean the lawn mower, when Pedro wasted his time to clean the lawn mower for 5$ more cash.
In that case it's a total loss for Pedro.

Thanks this argument, I demonstrate that all the Capitalist arguments are fallacious.

We don't have to agree that artificial value of money can dictate our life.

Originally Posted by Enrico32

That's why USSR and other dictatorships still used Money. Nothing's wrong with Money per se.

That's why USSR NEVER was Communist, but still a fascist Capitalism.

Originally Posted by Enrico32

Capitalism is above all a system of values. Now I cannot call it good - but neither call it bad. I just don't understand it.

Capital is dangerous, because it's generally in human behaviour, when lobotomised by Capitalist education, to always want more Capital.
Capital means extremely quick and brutal destruction of ecosystems.

Originally Posted by Enrico32

Communist system, on the other hand, I understand perfectly. It's core is simplicity. I can explain it all but only after you explain me Capitalism.

Communism is natural.
Marx thought that "primitive Communism" failed, because it was not worldwide.
XXth century Socialist countries failed to reach the Communist state, because they were weaker than Capitalist alliance (Capitalist masters and their stooges).

If all American soldiers would have behaved like Mohamed Ali (who didn't want to fight against people who wanted to be free), I suppose that today Capitalism would be weaker.

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Why being so caricatural?

That's to the collectivity to juge if it agrees to let the communal lawn mowers to an asshole who never cleans it.
Tolerant communities will let this asshole abusing for the collectivity, less tolerant ones will explain to him how to be less an asshole.
What's wrong with that?

A "tolerant" community will fall apart, because eventually the rest of the community won't be able or willing to do all of the work left undone by the lazy necessary to keep the community running.

A less tolerant community will have to resort to force against the lazy, because "explaining" wont be enough. They'll laugh at you when you try to explain how it is unfair for them not to clean the lawn mowers, and then you'll have to get out the whips and beat their lazy asses until they are screaming for mercy and promise to clean the lawn mowers to avoid further pain.

"Successful" Communist societies use force and threats to maintain modes of social behavior, just like capitalist societies do, only the methods are different.

You need to understand that only a few percent of the population would ever make "good" communists due to their fundamental nature, the rest of the population either doesn't care about society at large, or are too lazy to do their fair share, or want to take advantage of the system and rule over everyone else if the opportunity arises. That is human nature.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

"Successful" Communist societies use force and threats to maintain modes of social behavior, just like capitalist societies do, only the methods are different.

I agree with you. Very tolerant communities would slowly be put under slavery by unfair and brutal members and become... capitalist communities.

Logically in Communism, only assholes go to the gulag, when in Capitalism that's more difficult to define.
In Capitalism, a poor guy, who steals rich people who don't want to share their wealth, will spend days to years in jail.

BTW, did you watch this documentary? https://youtu.be/hUxkzMaqYQ8
It seems that people can live without money and be happy.
That's what means REAL Communism to me.


(I must say that I do not really like the end of this documentary. )

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Communism is natural.
Marx thought that "primitive Communism" failed, because it was not worldwide.
XXth century Socialist countries failed to reach the Communist state, because they were weaker than Capitalist alliance (Capitalist masters and their stooges).

If this is so, then why does Communism always have to be imposed and enforced?

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Logically in Communism, only assholes go to the gulag, when in Capitalism that's more difficult to define.
In Capitalism, a poor guy, who steals rich people who don't want to share their wealth, will spend days to years in jail.

Under Communism, a lot of people went to the gulag for saying "why doesn't Comrade Stalin give us more bread?"

I guess being hungry makes you an asshole under Communism.