Thread: Your View Om Communism

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I'm just going by things I've read comparing US universities to the free ones in European countries and China

I'm mostly thinking of quality of study books, of study process, of how exams get passed, what is learnt, etc. I read foreign study books of different coutries myself and they lose in comparison to some others. I compared how much time is put into studying per week, how much homework there is and how long holidays are. I heard how exams get passed from examinators, which questions are ok to ask and which people can't answer. Such comparisons seemed bad to me, especially when somebody in a good (not free!) university didn't know what I knew back in the 6th form of my free school.
I'm not saying that "free" is always better as far as it goes for quality, obviosly free European schools aren't best. There are many more things to take into account: starting from how much respect the job of a teacher has in a certain country and ending with the type and details of educational system. Mostly the latter is to blame for quality.

a lot of foreign students want to come to the US to study; there must be a reason for that.

As far as I know, all foreign students hope to stay and have good fees later It is also "cool" to have studied in the US, not because of educational system, but because of the current prestige of the country. Easier to find a job.

I know the grants and subsidized loans are a form of socialism; US is a socialist country.

What you describe is socially-oriented steps of capitalistic government, they have no direct relation to socialism. In socialism there's no private owners who live off all others and thanx to it money get distributed between people by the goverment in a fairer way, that's what it really is. If anything, education and medical care are completely free in pure socialism, no loans or grants, because schools, unis and hospitals belong to the state and are paid by the state.
Of course, the state takes this money from its people (by taxes and so on), so it's just a different system of money redistribution. It takes a fixed sum of money for doctors from everybody and gives this money to doctors, so doctors become free for everybody. As a result, everybody can visit doctors for free, instead of only those who're rich enough. There's actually no rich and poor in pure socialism, because of no private owners and money getting distributed in a way so that everybody could use its fruits.

Half\Dreaming

i fully understand Marx's theory. It means that Labor is the most important thing to a country, so they should be rewarded and cherished.

This shows that you don't understand what the theory is about... It's about how these people are unerpayed, i.e. robbed of a part of money that they do produce.

The people with labor jobs are generally uneducated. Just because we rely on them doesnt mean we should give equal pay to jobs that anybody can do. You dont have to be smart to stack bricks or flip a burger.

You don't get paid for being smart. You get for effectiveness of your work, whatever it is: whether you're working with your head or hands.

It makes capitalism a wealth magnet.

Please reread what made US a wealth magnet, I've written about it already. You in US get paid more per hour than in other countries not because you're smarter, but because you use the work of other countries. So in this case we have the global trade system, i.e. the whole country as a manager, and the whole other country as an underpayed worker (see the link Imran gave, but extrapolate what's written in it to a global trade system). As a result, the whole country gets dishonest money (the whole -- meaning that fees of your workers are included, too), and the whole other country gets underpayed. Got it?

Universal Mind
I told you all you want and you keep ignoring it and asking again. I don't want to repeat myself.
All I can say is: if your goal is to study what socialism is, read about it or at least read my explanations with your eyes open . But if your primary goal is to distort my words and deny your ignorance about socialism, don't read about it and leave it alone. That's all.
Nobody is forcing you to do discuss what you don't care about.

Originally Posted by Intended

What you describe is socially-oriented steps of capitalistic government, they have no direct relation to socialism. In socialism there's no private owners who live off all others and thanx to it money get distributed between people by the goverment in a fairer way, that's what it really is. If anything, education and medical care are completely free in pure socialism, no loans or grants, because schools, unis and hospitals belong to the state and are paid by the state.

But there's no purely socialist state that's not corrupt and oppressive. Is there? (I say purely because I think the US is way too socialist.) There may be some small countries with a homogenous population that can make it work for a while, but in a large country with a diverse population, it just can't happen. Some people at the top are going to work the system to their advantage, and other people are never going to receive what they should.

Originally Posted by Intended

Of course, the state takes this money from its people (by taxes and so on), so it's just a different system of money redistribution. It takes a fixed sum of money for doctors from everybody and gives this money to doctors, so doctors become free for everybody. As a result, everybody can visit doctors for free, instead of only those who're rich enough. There's actually no rich and poor in pure socialism, because of no private owners and money getting distributed in a way so that everybody could use its fruits.

If there's no rich and no poor, there's no reason for anyone to try harder, there's no reason to work hard, there's no competition, and there's no reason for anyone to really care about the quality of their work. I wouldn't want to live in a country where the doctors and engineers didn't expect to be paid more for their years of school and stressful jobs. That would not be good.

Originally Posted by Intended

Social mobility is fully working in socialism.

What does that even mean? What is "social mobility" in a country where there are no rich and no poor?

Originally Posted by Intended

Please reread what made US a wealth magnet, I've written about it already. You in US get paid more per hour than in other countries not because you're smarter, but because you use the work of other countries. So in this case we have the global trade system, i.e. the whole country as a manager, and the whole other country as an underpayed worker (see the link Imran gave, but extrapolate what's written in it to a global trade system). As a result, the whole country gets dishonest money (the whole -- meaning that fees of your workers are included, too), and the whole other country gets underpayed. Got it?

I think this is true.

You are speaking entirely hypothetically for a system that is appealing to your emotions. Everyone can see how nice it be if the animals did take over the farm, but this has been proven not to work again and again by those who ignored human nature and actually attempted it. You cannot artificially seperate the economics system of a country from the way the government works.

Intended, i really dont understand your logic. Who cares who "creates" the wealth. Construction workers by themselves are WORTHLESS. There has to be a college-man to come before him to make the plans for the building. They get screwed when the paycheck comes because they do what anybody else can do, and there is no shortage of employees. Educated people are more valuable. Educated people are the ones who make everything possible.

It is impossible to "create" wealth when there is no product. Who gives a rats ass who put your computer together? It is worthless, and probably wouldnt even exist without software, created by Bill Gates. Whoever creates the product or knows the science behind it is valuable. Those who put it together, even though they are necessary as a whole, are individually trivial. There is no bee's nest or worker bee population without the queen. Do you deny this? It sounds to me like you're using the "its just not fair!!" excuse.

Life isnt fair, and those who dont get college degrees are not as valuable as those who do. Using your logic, a private should have the same rank and ability to give orders as a captain on the battlefield. I mean, grunts are the one's who win the battles, right? There's a reason why educated people are in charge.

Originally Posted by Intended

Universal Mind
I told you all you want and you keep ignoring it and asking again. I don't want to repeat myself.
All I can say is: if your goal is to study what socialism is, read about it or at least read my explanations with your eyes open . But if your primary goal is to distort my words and deny your ignorance about socialism, don't read about it and leave it alone. That's all.
Nobody is forcing you to do discuss what you don't care about.

That is so weak. You never did answer the two questions I keep asking over and over. You don't have good answers to those questions, so you keep dodging them. If you didn't, prove it by quoting what you said. In case you have forgotten, the two questions are...

1. What do you think would be the driving forces in communism and socialism? (In capitalism it is greed. What would you say it would be in communism and socialism?)

2. What are some examples of really successful socialist countries (You said communism has never existed, to the disagreement of many governments and historians, so let's concentrate on socialism here. You can start by telling me about some very specific examples of socialist nations that have a poverty class that is better off than ours.)

You know you kept dodging those two questions, but you deny it, so go ahead and set the record straight with two short answers. You can make them long if you want to, however. If you don't feel like answering them, just quote where you supposedly already did. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is so weak. You never did answer the two questions I keep asking over and over. You don't have good answers to those questions, so you keep dodging them. If you didn't, prove it by quoting what you said. In case you have forgotten, the two questions are...

1. What do you think would be the driving forces in communism and socialism? (In capitalism it is greed. What would you say it would be in communism and socialism?)

2. What are some examples of really successful socialist countries (You said communism has never existed, to the disagreement of many governments and historians, so let's concentrate on socialism here. You can start by telling me about some very specific examples of socialist nations that have a poverty class that is better off than ours.)

You know you kept dodging those two questions, but you deny it, so go ahead and set the record straight with two short answers. You can make them long if you want to, however. If you don't feel like answering them, just quote where you supposedly already did. Thanks.

I know, its ridiculous, right? I may have to answer for them.

The only possible driving force for socialism would be knowing that your hard work is for the better of society. If EVERYBODY trusted in that, and if EVERYBODY busted their ass, a socialist society could potentially become great.

But, the inevitable weak links (probably the majority of people) would never allow this to happen, as people are, in fact, greedy. A socialist society would collapse to quickly to become great because of this "majority of people".

Awesome, i summed up everything i have been trying to say.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

If EVERYBODY trusted in that, and if EVERYBODY busted their ass, a socialist society could potentially become great.

Unfortunately there are always pigs at a farm.

I think that Communism in Marxists views works in some ways but theres just too much that doesn't work with Communism, you've got to consider freedom of speech. After seeing the way Communism is going in China i am glad the UK is not under a Communist leader. Though i like the idea of equality i do believe that the current society is the best we've had so far, however there are many things i disagree with such as poverty and those lower down in the social hierarchy. You can easily say that those in lower classes have life chances but alot of them don't, nowadays its incredibly difficult to achieve social mobility to move up this current social hierarchy. I think we have yet to experience a good way of ordering society, there are so many bad points of the current societys.

Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker

I think that Communism in Marxists views works in some ways but theres just too much that doesn't work with Communism, you've got to consider freedom of speech. After seeing the way Communism is going in China i am glad the UK is not under a Communist leader. Though i like the idea of equality i do believe that the current society is the best we've had so far, however there are many things i disagree with such as poverty and those lower down in the social hierarchy. You can easily say that those in lower classes have life chances but alot of them don't, nowadays its incredibly difficult to achieve social mobility to move up this current social hierarchy. I think we have yet to experience a good way of ordering society, there are so many bad points of the current societys.

Good point! Lets talk for a minute about civil liberties involved with a socialist or communist society. We have been too focused on economics.

Most of the freedoms we enjoy would have to be scraped. As you said, freedom of speech. If a group of people were not content with the system, they would have to be silenced.

That's what I figured their answer to the first question would be if they ever dared to answer. The answer is probably something to the effect of, "The driving force would be the will to give money to everybody else, no matter how hard they work." That doesn't cut it, never has cut it, and never possibly could cut it. What people go to work and say, "I'm going to work really hard today because I want to spread my wealth to all of the lazy asses who don't feel like working too hard."? Very few. This is illustrated by the fact that socialism has never produced a wealthy nation. It is impossible. Greed is the great generator of wealth.

Intended and Imran, you are still welcome to give your own answers, if you have answers you are proud enough of to give.

What we really need is a social structure in which there is equality but with freedom of speech and everyone has equal opportunities, the only problem is that when you put that equality into action you get disagreements and arguements over it being unfair, people have gotten too used to the stratification we are currently in. Those in lower classes i am sure would be in favour of an equal society but those in a higher class would probably not like the idea because they have put in effort to earn their status and for all that effort to be flushed away would show many disagreements in those of higher class. No matter what way we have of ordering society its always going to have problems as long as people have freedom of speech because after all we are all entitled to our opinions are we not.

and question #2 is unanswerable.

Only if, lucid seeker, only if. Mixing freedom with socialism is impossible by nature. Even if that were possible, i still think it would suck.