The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Political Thoughts on Communism and Plutocracies
The DIMD
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So, in a previous thread, somehow we got on the topic of politics and what sort of political doctrine the United States Falls under, whether communism works, and the such.
I was disagreed with, which is great, but there was no reasoning nor examples to back it up... so I thought it'd be fun to see what everyone thought about these ideas and the reasoning behind there opinions.
Communism:
It can't and doesn't ever work. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Even if a council of people are elected to represent the people, the chance for an amassing of power by these officials is enormous.
Even if they could stay their path, the people working under them couldn't. People are naturally wired to achieve, strive, and challenge. Without incentives, people would lose motivation and progress on all levels would slow to a crawl, if it didn't outright die.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, in fact I think it's a great idea; much like a tree that grows pizza (which would be awesome). The problem is that when it's actually put out into the real world, the leaders become corrupt, the citizens become dominated, and the entire idea breaks down into a mild form of dictatorship. We've seen this in the past in China, The Soviet Union, Cuba... I can't think of an example that it even came close to working.
In summary: Great idea if it wasn't for that darn human nature thing.
The United States: Capitalism vs. Plutocracy
Capitalism is defined via wikipedia as: an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned. Through capitalism, the land, labor, and capital are owned, operated, and traded, without force or fraud, by private individuals either singly or jointly, and investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are determined by voluntary private decision in a market economy.
A Plutocracy, also via wikipedia, is: rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth.
In a plutocracy, the degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low. This can apply to a multitude of government systems, as the key elements of plutocracy transcend and often occur concurrently with the features of those systems.
Looking at how the country operates and how power is decided, I think we are far more a Plutocracy than a capitalistic society.
I don't mind if people think I'm wrong, I'm certainly open to debate and discuss these points or I wouldn't be posting here, I just think this is a very interesting topic and would like hear how this is inaccurate, or why you agree
.
Thanks
I was disagreed with, which is great, but there was no reasoning nor examples to back it up... so I thought it'd be fun to see what everyone thought about these ideas and the reasoning behind there opinions.
Communism:
It can't and doesn't ever work. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Even if a council of people are elected to represent the people, the chance for an amassing of power by these officials is enormous.
Even if they could stay their path, the people working under them couldn't. People are naturally wired to achieve, strive, and challenge. Without incentives, people would lose motivation and progress on all levels would slow to a crawl, if it didn't outright die.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, in fact I think it's a great idea; much like a tree that grows pizza (which would be awesome). The problem is that when it's actually put out into the real world, the leaders become corrupt, the citizens become dominated, and the entire idea breaks down into a mild form of dictatorship. We've seen this in the past in China, The Soviet Union, Cuba... I can't think of an example that it even came close to working.
In summary: Great idea if it wasn't for that darn human nature thing.
The United States: Capitalism vs. Plutocracy
Capitalism is defined via wikipedia as: an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned. Through capitalism, the land, labor, and capital are owned, operated, and traded, without force or fraud, by private individuals either singly or jointly, and investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are determined by voluntary private decision in a market economy.
A Plutocracy, also via wikipedia, is: rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth.
In a plutocracy, the degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low. This can apply to a multitude of government systems, as the key elements of plutocracy transcend and often occur concurrently with the features of those systems.
Looking at how the country operates and how power is decided, I think we are far more a Plutocracy than a capitalistic society.
I don't mind if people think I'm wrong, I'm certainly open to debate and discuss these points or I wouldn't be posting here, I just think this is a very interesting topic and would like hear how this is inaccurate, or why you agree
.Thanks
<+ACC3SS> 4chan doesn't make me cringe as much as you do, The_DIMD.
The DIMD on
0
Posts
I'd first like to see a citation for the bolded claim. Further, what exactly are you suggesting people are naturally driven to do? Achieve is vague and unless you mean achieve wealth I see no difference between the societies.
A worker in either type of society will face the same day to day challenges and with competent management will have the same opportunities for advancement in terms of responsibility and rank. Material rewards can easily replace monetary rewards as well.
The countries that have attempted communism, including Russia, China, and Cuba, have all been impoverished and underdeveloped. This makes sense, as a system that promises equality of wealth appeals to those without any. However, in the three countries you cite, as well as other communist nations, communism was only attempted after bloody civil wars. Civil wars, especially the vicious ideological conflicts of pre-communist nations, don't exactly lend themselves to the creation of multi-party democracies. Nor do the underdeveloped economies and infrastructures of the nations that attempt communism. In effect, the countries that attempt communism are those least suited for it.
I remain unconvinced that communism would be a complete disaster if attempted in a wealthy, developed nation with democratic consent and oversight. However, socialist policy in such nations allows for positive elements of both communism and capitalism.
I'm not saying communism itself corrupts at all. I'm actually saying exactly as you are. Elected officials are corrupted unilaterally, thus any nation attempting communism would be fundamentally flawed from the get go. People are just naturally this way. Thomas Hobbes said this and I tend to agree with him. Granted, there's always going to be exceptions, but by and large people are selfish and easily corrupted by any power given to them.
It wasn't a direct quote, but reading material that would back up my claims are pretty abundant. Thomas Hobbes was probably the first person to state this in The Leviathan, that people naturally wired for conquest. Whether this be through war, competing for mates, or simply trying to get a promotion or job. It's a constant and insatiable striving that people need to constantly have fulfilled. It's the same reason there will never be world peace... in a war of all against all, one will always want what another has. Hobbes argues that this is human nature and I tend to agree.
Wealth was exactly what I meant.
I like your last point and I can honestly say that I hadn't thought about material rewards taking the place of monetary. I suppose if that was allowed, then those with more challenging jobs who put more than normal effort, would get rewarded as such... But I think this is inherently against the intents of Communism as this could create an imbalance of wealth fairly quickly.
You're completely right that rank and responsibility would be the same though. This is a driver of people as well, but I'm not sure that people could live off of this reward alone. This point is certainly debatable though.
I agree. The countries I cited are not good examples, but I don't really think that a good one exists. I'm convinced that any country, even if created somehow with a blank slate, is destined to fail by most means of governing that exist today save maybe the one you mentioned, Socialism. Socialism works very well, when truly practiced, but we have few examples to choose from. Sweden is one that's amazingly unnoticed in the world. It's one of the most successful and happy countries in the world and it practices a form of socialism they call, "Social Democracy." I honestly don't see how their system differs much from pure Socialism though.
Communism may not be a complete disaster, but I truly don't think it would last. Socialism is a happy medium that I think allows for people to feel taken care of and safe, while also allowing for acquisition of wealth. Sure, the wealthy are taxed heavily and the people are taxed higher than most... but somehow they're one of the happiest countries in the world. Socialism doesn't discard any aspect of human nature in my opinion and I think it's probably the best we have at our disposal. I don't think wars would ever be eliminated, nor do I think it's the perfect solution (because one doesn't exist) but for the betterment of a countries citizens, I wholeheartedly agree that it is the way to go.
You haven't established why you think corruption is more of a problem for communism than it is for capitalism.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't mean to undermine your point here, because I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I do disagree with you on China, however, as I think a lot of the policies implemented by the CCP are solely responsible for the nation's economic success. To clarify, their huge xenophobia helped them build a working domestic economy [yes, I understand that it's only about 25% of their population], forced them to develop industry, and kept the rest of the world from deploying economic imperialism on them until their own economy was developed enough to handle it. I'm of the opinion that if the Republic of China had maintained control, China would have ended up splitting into multiple countries, more so than China/Taiwan. Additionally, China's cultural mindset has long revolved around one-party leadership and a multiparty system would have lead to a severely weakened government. Not that I agree with all of the CCP's policies, but better-than-the-other-guy is better than nothing.
i don't see why any of this does not apply in a communist state
1. Communism, as outlined by Marx's Communist Manifesto, as a system of government was only very generally established and therefore difficult to address as the examples of Communistic governing attempted (The Manifesto). The implemented iterations of Communism as a government are regarded as specific subsets of Marx's original document (See Leninism and Stalinism, perhaps at Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy) It is furthermore useful to note that there are examples of successful Communist societies and China has been sited as one of them despite it not being over-popular (CPC - Council of Foreign Relations)
2. There are ways to spend one's scholarly career expanding one's understanding of any given system of governance, more to the point, even just the ancient Greek examples get such attention and rightly so. The concept of a Plutocracy is not really justly dealt with by citing a publicly tended knowledge base. Furthermore, using such a hasty summary of Capitalism to criticize it's merit would hardly impress Adam Smith who authored The Wealth of Nations. The economic theories Smith discusses are often Capitalistic and are very important to many modern concepts of modern economic theory.
3. Your tone regarding the US government is vaguely conspiratorial and cynical at best. Although such a view isn't unheard of, it's hardly validated by such assertions. The economic, social and legal structures of many historical governments show trends of substantial rise and decline. It would certainly not be difficult to find date supporting such a claim. Furthermore, regarding government: socialistic government programs are implemented in many governments around the world and are regularly viewed favorably. Health care, transportation and socialistic welfare are active in many countries and are functioning as well as their counterparts, certainly. Even if such a point has it's debaters, it can't be denied that such notions harbor merit and no evidence suggests that they're legitimately rationally implausible. If your assertion is a claim regarding a total socialist government, you must needs be more clear regarding the details of such a political system as "Socialist" is hardly a suitable explanation.
4. If you wish me to detail the fallacies and illegitimate claims to be had from your post in the other thread, I'll do so gladly. I just finished courses, I'm done with my publications at present and I'm still slightly annoyed that my gaming thread was discourteously turned into a political "bigger dick fight." It really did displease me.
I digress, The relevance of any claim is first clearly seen in the language used to present it, the logical construction of the argument and the usefulness of its position. If your argument is without credible citation, it must therefore follow logically or be disregarded.
I think I've played out my momentum.
ETA.Confidence
EscapeTheAsylum.com
Because strawmen are only built out of the most readily available pieces and piles of fluff one has lying around.
"i agree with a guy who wrote a book" does not make it so.
Anyone who has ever gone to school should know the drive to compete doesn't require money to be at stake. The competition over GPA is vicious and dominates the lives of tons of people. Replace GPA with government-mandated performance evaluations and college applications with career track / promotions and you've got all the competition you'll ever need. People want more prestige, respect, and recognition of skill.
And that's before you toss in little bonuses, like titles, awards, rare food, jewelry, and other non-essential material goods that don't confer any power (thus avoiding the reestablishment of class).
see.
i agree with this.
Or just, you know, an easier job. If a janitor and a manager made the same, which would you choose? Keep in mind even if you say "janitor because it's less stressful" that you only need one manager. People will compete for that one position.
People also want toys, dispensable income and "stuff".
The competition for GPA isn't just about gold stars or pats on the back. It's about education placement at the next level and ultimately a more lucrative job. The better your education, generally speaking, the better your employment opportunities. The better your employment opportunities, the better your pay, or at the very least the better your quality of life.
I've read the communist manifesto, granted it was 4 years ago in my University, but I agree with you. The way Marx outlined it was vague. Marx himself adressed that human nature as we know it goes against his theories. http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/hum_303/nature.html He believed that there was no such thing as set human nature and thus this argument wasn't valid. This has been a topic of intense discussion and one that's still debated regularly. If you agree with his point, then yes, perhaps communism could exist. Otherwise, probably not. I'm more in the latter, it could go either way.
It depends on what your viewpoint of a successful country is. I wouldn't call China anything but an economic success, which one could argue is all that matters... I'm more concerned with the human aspect of it though. You're completely right if all you're referring to is economics though.
I was simply trying to start a conversation and didn't want to bore people with a gigantic post that took up a couple of pages, so I gave definitions and left it at that. I'm still not going to give an essay on each subject, because again I think that a wall of text would turn off people from reading the post.
But, for those like yourself who want proof to see for themselves, here's some reading material to back up my point.
Greed and Good by Sam Pizzigati and an accompanying review:
“The looting of America — from the top — has been rolling along now for nearly a generation. Our nation’s rich have become, far and away, the world’s richest. What price do we pay for this massive inequality? No book exposes the full true cost better than Sam Pizzigati’s Greed and Good. And no book suggests a more thought-provoking strategy for ending the gross inequalities that are rotting the American dream.â€
Inequality Matters: The Growing Economic Divide
in America and Its Poisonous Consequences
Edited by James Lardner and David A. Smith
There are plenty of other books that cite how America is a plutocracy. There is even a book list that I found. The above books are the only two on the list I've read, but there's plenty of material here to backup my point.
Here's the URL for the booklist:
http://www.toomuchonline.org/goodreads.html
You're completely right. I'm very cynical of most governments though. It doesn't take a very educated person to see that something is terribly wrong with the United States. We are the 23rd happiest country in the world http://www.physorg.com/news73321785.html and this is pathetic. It's for a variety of reasons, I think they are largely due to the plutocratic way in which our country distributes its wealth. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
My previous post clearly states that I think Socialism does work better than any other system.
You can do as you wish, I've done as you requested and given reading material from other sources that back up my claims.
I never meant to alter your gaming thread, but I can't understand why this is something you would actually take offense to. I'm actually pretty surprised that this seemed to offend you. It's not as if I continued to spam it or anything of the such. I politely created a new thread upon which to continue the conversation.
You're intelligent and I commend you on your diction and flow. I apologize if the flow of my argument wasn't as concise as yours, but that doesn't disarm my points. Even if you disregard what I'm saying here, the writers in the above list say it far more eloquently than I could ever hope to. Should you think I'm completely full of it, please do read a few of them as they do reiterate many of the points I tried to make.
I seem to have offended you in some way and I apologize. My point in making this thread was to not continue to do so and to have a general discussion about the points I was making. I wasn't trying to make it a college paper, as I find citing things fucking annoying, but I suppose I understand that aspect of your retort. If you disagree, you want to know where I got my information from.
Hopefully the above helps, but if you want any more links please let me know. Again, I do apologize if I offended you, but I honestly never intended anything to get personal. I just wanted a forum to discuss and didn't want to start some silly online quarrel with you. I hope you can understand that and we can just drop it.
Exactly. You and Mr. nash are on the same page with me here.
True, although these aspects of success still exist, wealth and the amounting of material goods is the defining difference. Since this is evenly divided, this aspect of the equation suffers.
My points are not built on fluff, please see the above references.
It's all good. I wanted to discuss the point. I just didn't want to create an argument lol
I'll construct some formal retorts however because, despite my assertions that citations are of importance, Logical defense of any point, cited or no, are critical.
I'll catch up on it later however, Illness and fatigue have got the best of me for the day. I've even attempted to criticize a few points just now and fell on my face while trying to articulate.
Good defense though The DIMD
ETA.Confidence
EscapeTheAsylum.com
Free markets deliver these rewards as a function of market action. In a communist system, each reward must be specified, overseen, and administered by government. The laws will inevitably have loopholes or weird bugs that create perverse incentives and the overseers will inevitably be corrupt. Imagine trying to set up a system for evaluating something as simple as a restaurant and it should be clear how unworkable the effort will soon become.
When you refer to communism, are we talking about orthodox Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism? Or are we in fact talking about anarchism? (The layperson's understandings of communism, I find, actually resemble most Kropotkin's theory of anarcho-communism.)
Not that I can contribute much to this conversation, it being finals week and all. But still, if you're going to criticize Marxism or Communism, at least be clear about which branch you're criticizing.
Yeah, I realize now that what I said came out a lot more dickish than I had realized. I apologies for that.
I think that communism adapts itself very well to certain cultures. The Chinese, for example, made communism work by adapting it to the amount of Confucianism still present in their culture and mores. Their traditional ideas of an important connection between your fellow members of society and the government meshed together really well into communism, for example. Cultures like America, which is incredibly individualistic, probably wouldn't work out to well as is seen by our disdain for even the theory of communism.
I think corruption can do more damage in a communist state, particularly because they're typically one-party with limited checks and balances. I don't find this to be a fault of communism, but rather in one-party rule.
Going back to the ideas of personal advancement, in the places where communism would work, there would need to be enough nationalism to ensure people were willing to make altruistic sacrifices. Assuming the people of a country were willing to go on board, it could eventually pull everyone into a more than adequate standard of living and become a powerful country, though that would take a long amount of time and probably won't happen in real world situations [as we've seen]. The possibility of personal advancement is still there, it's just that it shifts more towards the honor of representing your people and working to make the nation better, which comes with better benefits, rather than the hope of just bettering yourself. Neither of these things should be looked at as intrinsically bad, but should be judged by their execution.
As for whether or not America is becoming a Plutocracy, I believe that we are. I also believe that a lot of people are starting to realize this because of increase in levels of education and the cultural awareness that comes with it. It's possible that the growing contempt for education may be backlash from propaganda from those with power, though that's more conspiracy theoryish than I feel comfortable with believing.
Bullshit. The fact that the Great Leap Forward was even attempted was proof enough in the people's desire for economic solidarity. They used farmers instead of industrial workers because that's what they had. They didn't become authoritarian without a pretty good reason-- they needed to get foreigners the fuck out of their country so that they could develop industry on their own without being indebted to the rest of the world. A lot of people died, but the fact that they stuck on that path is what makes them the world's 3rd largest GDP, soon to surpass Japan for #2.
My understanding of Communism is this: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Having already gone through a period of capitalism and globalization, society and technology will create a surplus that will allow the above statement. Communism is extremely vague--The Communist Manifesto only outlines broad goals. Competition isn't eliminated--the idea is merely that you will be able to pursue what you want to pursue, rather than being a slave to work. If you feel that you were born to play the flute, you could attempt that--but if you weren't any good, no one would go. To say that Communism has no incentive seems naive--the incentive is finding that ancient conception of the good, a natural fit between your station and your capacity. Communism, through a redistribution of wealth, attempts to realize the freedom that capitalism promises. Rather than being confined by work, you could find your job.
If you're a true, old-school Marxist, then you believe in historical progress--just because communism has not existed does not mean it won't--rather, history moves towards an endpoint. What Marx seems to have underestimated was the average man's capacity for clinging to ideals that do him no good--nationalism in particular.
Communism is still incredibly idealistic, vague, and obviously has several controversial statements--the idea that history is not only moving towards but progressing towards an 'end-point,' has certainly been challenged.
I'm just tired of seeing the same old ill-informed 'good on paper, no competition, no incentive' argument thrown around, so I thought I'd give my two cents. I am not a communist. But to say that Communism "Can't ever work" certainly demands a more thorough explanation.
Edit: As for Thomas Hobbes, don't forget that his vicious state of nature only occurs because of a few fiery types, because of the warlords who seek to impose their will upon others. He did not think that we were all this way.
Or because they needed to. You can pick whichever answer is most convenient to your own perspective. Do you know about the opium wars? That's a pretty good reason for hating the world right there and is why foreigners (and foreign ideas) were so hated for so long. What were they going to do, try to emulate the guys who just screwed their country and pissed on their culture?
So, do you believe then that human nature is not inherently selfish? Not in America, or anywhere in particular mind you... but just as a race, do you believe it would be possible for the individual to think of the whole first?
We definitely agree on the last part though and I like your theory on the backlash against education. Those in power historically do tend to stunt education in areas where it feels threatened. The catholic church has done this, for example, repeatedly throughout history against the likes of Aristotle, Galileo Galilei, and Copernicus, so it certainly is nothing new. I find that notion rather intriguing really.
I agree that I was a bit overzealous in my initial statement. Communism does allow for incentives, just not the degree of monetary and material incentives that we, "enjoy" in our culture. I think there is a direct correlation between material reward and effort put forth by an individual. Our history does seem to be littered with examples of this point. From wars, to thefts, to competition... it seems people do inherently subscribe to the, "those who die with the most toys, wins" mentality.
You're right, Hobbes didn't think every individual was this way, but that those who rule are. I would argue that by and large people are this way however. I think it is largely embedded in us to be selfish. Whether this be due nature or nurture, it's really impossible to tell at this point. I'd like to think that it's our society and media that influences us to act this way, but I wonder if, separated from all social dogmas, people could actually learn to care for one another before themselves?
I really wonder whether or not finding the ancient conception of the good would be enough for people... If you're happy in your work, but you have a far more difficult job than the next person and do not obtain anything different than him... does your feeling of self worth provide enough incentive to remain productive?
However, perhaps the freedom allowed by giving people choices instead of mandates in regards to occupation would outweigh this? The argument seems to come down largely to, can people be happy with themselves and what they accomplish for the good of their society, or do they need more? It makes the human race sound rather vile, I know, but I'm just curious what you think.
Also, Do you agree with Marx that religion was a symptom of the real problem in society, or do you believe it to be something more? I know you said you're not a communist, I'm just curious. This was one of the more odd points Marx stated. I understand his reasoning behind stating that it's but a symptom... but I'd say in today's society it goes far deeper. What do you think?
Just so you know, I'm coming from the standpoint of an almost contradictory set of belief systems. I subscribe largely to libertarian belief systems, but with social programs to accent them. Kind of a... protect the people but leave the individual the hell alone, kind of thing.
That's... exactly what Marx wanted. His idea was that class-based society was but a "phase" in human history, and that it would eventually give way to a "classless" society that valued the individual and his labor. It was a very "libertarian" vision of society, if you want to call it that (no political states or bureaucracy, only as much government as absolutely necessary, the individual's rights valued above all else).
This is what I mean when I say that people need to be careful with their terms. Most people seem to be thinking that they're discussing Marxism in this thread, when in reality they're discussing Stalinism or Kropotkinism.
Case in point: Marx believed that people should be rewarded in proportion to their labor. There is nothing in Marxism, to my knowledge, that says, "Everyone in a post-capitalist society shall be rewarded equally for his labor, regardless of how much or little that they work, and everyone shall work toward the common good." That's Kropotkin. Marx scoffed at Kropotkin.
Marx believed that capitalist society creates an unfair system where some people who work less earn more simply because they own the means of production (i.e., CEOs — I can tell you with some certainty how Marx would feel about the CEOs of financial institutions right now), and the majority of the working class work their asses off for jack squat. Workers, he says, are forced to alienate their labor (i.e. imagine their labor converted into money) in order to live in this capitalist society which doesn't recognize their labor for its inherent worth.
In other words, Marx wanted to level the playing field: if you worked hard, you'd get rewarded. If you didn't work at all, you wouldn't. No one would "own" the means of production, and thus no one would be able to make money for doing essentially nothing. I'm simplifying the argument to the point of bastardization, but still.
As for religion, Marx stated that religion was a device employed to ease the suffering of an unfair social system. If you see yourself oppressed and a member of the lower-class, you'll imagine an afterlife where everyone is equal and things like avarice, violence, oppressiveness, etc. are punished. Again, I don't necessarily think that Marx ever said that capitalism creates religion — only that religion helps people to "turn the other cheek" when really they should be rebelling against the powers that be.
I'd agree with you with saying that religion is "something more" than a symptom of an oppressive society. Personally, my favorite theory on the socio-cultural "origins" of religion is Clifford Geertz's.
I think that part of human nature is inherently selfish. The part that says "If I'm not getting my needs met, I will find a way to meet them," which is more of a matter of survival and could be something instinctual. The importance of that type of behavior is stressed in individually competitive societies today, particularly in the amount of false needs we have. I think that it is possible for us to begin to think of humanity as whole before ourselves, but it would require a major change in perspective for lots of people that will only come through time or major advancements ["curing" aging, for example, would be the type of discovery that could collapse the foundations of society as we know them].
You brought up a good point about the persecution of scientists throughout the ages. Science exposes the world for what it really is. Removing mystery removes fear, and removing fear makes control a lot more difficult. It really wouldn't be that surprising to see people with lots of money working to convince people with very little money to shun education. The most obvious place we see this is in the teaching of evolution in schools. It is a fact that evolution occurs in nature. In the year 2009, we have something that is 100% factual and extremely important in the understanding of biology and natural sciences, yet there's controversy over teaching it in schools. Are people really that dense? Swine flu wasn't created by God 6,000 years ago, lying dormant only to punish our society if we let women too far out of the kitchen, it evolved-- that's what the news anchors mean when they say "mutated".
I think the point of the thread is to discuss whether or not communism is possible anywhere, particularly in a place like the United States which is becoming plutocratic and aristocratic as capitalism degrades. There has been some discussion of the social requirements needed for communism to be successful, such as altruism, and whether or not cultures which stress the importance of the individual [ie USA] could ever truly become communist. If you don't like the thread, why not just click the 'back' button instead of meta-modding?
Meta-modding. That's new. The part about the US becoming aristocratic did make me laugh, though. You may wanna take a minute and first think if ideal communism is even possible. Because seriously, with a title like that people's mind immediately goes to you thinking that the US right now is like the USSR in 1975.
PS: I was asking an innocent question. Here's another one: why would you ever want America to be (idyllically) communist? Would you actually enjoy being just like everyone else? Receiving the exact same treatment as someone whose IQ is a good 30-50 points below yours?
you asked 'why does this thread exist?' this thread exists because people want to discuss this topic.
How is that vague?
"Communism (from Latin communis = "common") is either a hypothetical egalitarian society based on common ownership and control of the means of production or a political ideology that promotes the establishment of such a society."
"Egalitarianism (derived from the French word égal, meaning equal) or Equalism is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights.[1] Generally it applies to being held equal under the law and society at large. In actual practice, one may be considered an egalitarian in most areas listed below, even if not subscribing to equality in every possible area of individual difference."
So, even though you're a genius, you would receive the exact same treatment as farmer Bill, who has two bloodhounds in his family photo.
Fixed. Care to answer my question now? Or are you going to dodge it again and go off on a tangent that was in no way the highlight/focal point of my post?
You apparently have no idea what the Great Leap Forward was. It had nothing to do with the hatred of foreigners you seem intent on celebrating and certainly nothing to do with the opium wars. It wasn't the people throwing off the yoke of their imperialist oppressors. It was Mao Zedong's personal batshit insane scheme to try to force industrialization forward.
The Great Leap Forward killed 20-40 million people, or about 2-4 times the numbers of the Holocaust. It is unequaled as a man-made disaster in history. Your defense of it on any grounds displays how bankrupt defenses of communism usually are.
You also don't seem to have much grasp of US social history. I suggest you look into the 19th century if you want actual examples of what plutocracy (the North) and aristocracy (the South) would look like in an American context.
Edit: And yeah, for all the benefit it might have had, The Great Leap Forward was a disaster.
Yeah. Except you'd be teaching advanced quantum physics every day, while Bill here just goes on his tractor, plows the field, comes home, watches some government-sanctioned porn, and goes to sleep.
Meanwhile, you're too tired to even get it up when you get home after 12 hours of classes.
Yet you get the same pay.
And while you're fine with getting the same pay as that guy, are you absolutely positive that all of the guys in your unit/squad/what have ye are, as well, and think it's fair that, even though you're supposed to put your life on the line if a war randomly erupts, you get the same pay as a guy who carries around boxes of Twix? Because if that's the case, your unit is composed entirely of truly spectacular and awe-inspiring human beings.
If they didn't like that idea they probably shouldn't have volunteered to join. To say nothing of the fact that I have pretty much equal chance of risking my life as the guy stocking vending machines.
Communism isn't a good idea right now as it stands, I don't think it should be implemented, but your attacks on it are terrible.