To be annoyed when people think communism is bad?

[waitingimpatiently]

Not 'communism' in places like Cuba and Korea which has some sort of dictator, which a lot of people appear to think is real communism.

Why does there seem to be this ignorance?! Do people not research the things they believe in?! Karl Marx would be turning in his grave if he saw the state of some of these 'communist' countries. Surely, the images of heaven (that I see in jehovahs witness leaflets, where everyone is happy and eating breakfast with lions etc) is a communist idea! Everyone is equal, no money, no state, no class system.

I get that the sort of communism we see can be awful, but real true communism isn't bad at all!

Most child care and health care isn't privatised, in the UK or anywhere in the world. It is mostly done within the home for free.

I don't understand what you are advocating, which is perhaps my fault. You seem to be saying that the fishers would create wealth by selling people fish, the pastoralists would create wealth by selling people sheep, and the people looking after you if you were in bed at home with an illness for two months would create wealth by selling?

If there's no central organisation, what happens to the fishers if the pastoralists keep animals in such a way (to create wealth and be more productive) that it destroys a lake ecosystem and all the fish die?

If people are creating wealth by selling stuff, that sounds like capitalism.

The NHS has been opened up to competition, we now have Richard Branson's Virgin Health running some A&E depts. All under the NHS branding and logo!

Childcare, that doesn't happen within the home is largely privatised.

Unpaid labour of women supports capitalists. Women work within the home for free. Domestic labour is seen to have no value and is accorded no value. Childhood is getting longer.

In pre-capitalist societies women work within the home, they make things either for there use value or for exchange. They care for livestock either for subsistence or exchange and they care for the children and the sick. Where capitalism is touching upon developing (?????) nations people are turfed off the land, the land is now owned and farmed by foreign agri businesses. Where small holders exist they are compelled to sell in competition to larger companies or they enter into agreements that set the price of the commodity. (always to their disadvantage). Their children have short childhoods, children are exploited for their cheap labour.

The problem with capitalism is that work loses it's social value, it is replaced with exchange values, which obscures it's human/social value. Caring of any sort if paid is paid very poorly.

We don't have a free market (monopoly and imperialism) our children are surplus to labour requirements and have extended childhoods, followed by stiff competition for diminishing jobs, whilst in developing nations children are exploited for cheap labour. Those creating the food and the wealth are going hungry as are we if the safety net of the welfare is removed.

Even if you believe we have a free market, ask why is it so bad at allocating the resources to meet human need?

Claig, nice to see you about

Always good to see you too, Mini.

Mini is right that there are problems with our so-called capitalist system too. There are too many crooks and special interest lobbyists who can buy "cabs for hire". We need proper regulation of some of the sharks in order to protect ordinary hard-working people and in order to represent their interests.

My fundamental issues with communism is its demand for 'fair and equal'. The two terms contradict each other, in many ways, and ignore the obvious in others.

Take 'Equal'. Everyone equal in every way to everyone else. That's a fundamental impossibility in the long term,which fails to acknowledge that we aren't, as a species, all equal.

There are wildly different capabilities between individuals in all manner of ways. I, for example, cannot build a house - I do not have the physical strength or the co-ordination to do a good job.

But I can tell you the reasons why one will fall down. That doesn't make me any less valuable to a community, or any more.... until there are 10 people who can build the house and only one me. And then, for those ten people to have work, I have to do 10 lots of mine.

And as long as my ten only takes as much input as their one, we're good for the same reward. When it takes less or more input, we're not equal anymore.

That's insanely simplistic, but defines the truth of the matter. Sooner or later, that imbalance breaks the system, either through resentment by individuals or by the praise of others for the individuals who contribute more.

Then there's the contradiction of 'fair' and 'equal'.

To be equal, everyone must give and get the same, no matter what, or the system fails. Once an 'exception' is made, there will be others, and for all end of reasons.

To be fair, everyone must be afforded the basics of food, shelter, education, healthcare and safety.

For some people, that, fundamentally, means getting more than they can give, either short term - the woman on Mat leave - or permanently - the severely disabled child.

Fair doesn't mean 'equal' it means ''acceptable, according to need". What we call 'equal' rights, should actually be 'fair' rights. Treating everyone fairly and with dignity, acknowledging where allowances must be made to accomplish that.

But for that to happen, for some to be allowed to take the more they need for fairness, unless there is a mythical 'surplus' somewhere, someone else must take less. Bang goes 'Equal'.

And so fails communism.

That doesn't answer my question.

Factually, most health care is not carried out in this country by the NHS. It is carried out in the home of the person who is ill, disabled etc by other people who are usually not paid.

Are you advocating that all health and child care is carried out by people who are paid to do it? If so, who pays those people, and where do those that pay get the money from to pay the people who are providing the care?

It isn't a case of capitalism does X bad thing, so any other system coming about doesn't have to explain itself.

Sorry, my post was to mini.

I think most political ideals are great...so long as you don't factor humans into the equation.

This zombie thread is interesting, but I'm not sure why it seems to be popular to believe that communism is a nice idea. It isn't. And I am thinking about real communism when I say that.

I take the point that everyone being equal and receiving equal reward, having equal living standards etc should be a nice idea, but it just isn't.

What nice about two people doing different jobs, one easy and one hard, the being rewarded the same? That's just going to lead to resentment, and to a lack of resources that would benefit everyone. Why would people bother to train to be doctors and put in all the effort and stress that is required if their lives are no better for it than if they had decided to be a waitress? Why would you bother putting in extra hours at work when the person next to you does significantly less and ends up healthier, with more free time and exactly the same amount of disposable income.

True communism can't work not because we are selfish and greedy, but because we have a sense of justice, we have hope and aspiration, we have a desire for knowledge, and for enjoyment. They are good qualities, and I don't agree with people saying that communism wouldn't work because of some of the negative qualities of humans. It wouldn't work because of our good qualities.

Freya, I am not advocating anything. There is no more agreement on the left than between left and right.

Are we ready for a no money economy? No one can "will" communism into being and it can not and should not be forced upon the majority by a minority. We have class struggle now, we will do after any great change, what comes out of that would determine how society was organised.

Communism is the end point of a long process, one which we haven't even started on.

The peasants hadn't even the freedom to "sell" their labour. Capitalism isn't an end in itself but a step in the right direction. We have greater freedoms but we are still exploited. The peasants didn't know what would happen when they walked off the land and demanded change, they certainly weren't thinking about communism. The changes in the material base will dictate changes of ideas, through the slow recognition that we are being exploited and that this system fails to meet human needs we will realise that change must happen.

ginnybag, everyone is born equal, they die equal too.

Marxists do not believe that anything about human nature is innate and fixed.

Human nature has been shaped by historical process. Will continue to change because of new technologies, changes to living standards, educational attainment, new skills, new knowledge and our relation to others.

Tribal people have very different "natures" to us. The Roman's liked to see people ripped to bits for fun, not something I like to watch for jollies. The ancient Greeks liked to share the bride around before handing her over to the groom, not something many men would tolerate now, The jews sacrificed lambs to God (why not just bloody roast it) the catholic church thought it was doing gods work when it burned witches at the stake and many salivated over that, we hung people at the tower and crowds turned out to watch, I'd rather watch something nice on TV. It's not in my nature to want to watch other's suffering? is it in yours? Probably not.

I choose to stay at home with my children rather than put them into daycare. In a communist state I would not have this choice, because all adults must work.

I know a lady from then Czechoslovakia who hated going to daycare. Her main memory of it was being forced to nap at silly times of the day which did not suit her. It was boring and dull, and she was out of the home for 10 hours a day. Some children who had grandparents did not have to go to daycare, but it was frowned upon. Her parents had a good position in the communist party, so she went to daycare. Over here, she was a SAHM and loved the freedom.

The main problem I have with Communism is that people have little incentive to work harder. Your rewards are the same regardless of whether you are industrious or lazy. Everyone in a work situation knows how frustrating it can be to have a lazy colleague who you are always picking up for. Imagine all your colleagues being like that and no-one caring! Yes, I know some workplaces are like this in capitalism, but if they are in the private sector, they will not be as profitable as they could be.

It doesn't work anywhere and never will. Nice idea, but total fantasy because of human nature - some will always want to lead the majority.

Haven't you read Animal Farm???

I have inside information as some of my DH's cousins were East Germans. After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 the initial euphoria turned to discontent. They said in many ways it was better in the communist society. They were called The Whinging Ossies < easties>.

Where there are pros there are always cons, and sometimes you don't know what good things you had until you lose them.

The material base hasn't changed for a lot of people. Three quarters of the world's poor are subsistence farmers, often pushed into poverty because the wider economic system reduces their resource base. Most people did not walk off the land demanding change. They had their land taken from them, and still are doing in various parts of the world.

Even when not looking just at subsistence work, most of the work people do isn't 'sold.' Most work is now, and always has been, unpaid.

You seem to be saying that it is possible to set up a system in which every form of work can be something we can 'sell' and make wealth from by setting up co-operatives, but only using examples of certain co-operatives control of finite resources (i.e. land to grow crops) without explaining how all the currently unpaid work is going to be suddenly marketable if everything is to be bought and sold. It sounds like the most predatory, unregulated consumer capitalism but with people who work on finite resource bases controlling it equally among themselves (rather than unequally as at present) and holding everyone else to ransom over the 'wealth' they have created.

OP, are you me aged 16? :D

Having lived in Russia for a long time, and having a Russian DH who was around at the time and felt the affects of before and after the 1991 things, and having lived there from the few years after communism etc; until five years ago...many people support communism there. Or at least look back at the times and think it was better. It was bad....but what came after was sometimes worse.

I think the ideal of Communism is perfect. But humans don't work like that. No one who can get INTO power will do that. Also, for most people t ne happy, you need a sense of achievement and pride in yourself. Thats a good thing as it means people aspire and will work hard to gt to that place. Communism prevents that. My husband and his family says the worst thing was that you couldn't aspire to be anything but a better, stronger communist. Our good qualities are wanting to do better. Communism is an ideal which will never be possible. The best society we can try to have is one which works with human nature to get the best of it and create a fairer society from that. Communism works against human nature, hence not being able to.

Communism only works in theory. Communism always makes me think of George Orwell Animal Farm, what was that quote? Something like "all are equal but some are more equal than others".

I think the problem with communism is it's assumption that what you GIVE is equal. However, if you are bad or slow at work, you give LESS than a quick worker. Earning the same wage for less work and input is wrong as it means there is no need to aspire, to want to do better and it's unfair on the person who could do better. For the person who is slow....that's good, for the person who could ultimately do more, it drags them down.

Communism is a wonderful theory.

Bloody awful in reality as we all well know.

YABU.

Missed this thread!

Time after time after time after time during the 20th century, we saw some "socialist revolutionary" quoting from Das Kapital depose some capitalist kleptocrat , and promise to run the country " for the people".
Time after time after time, we saw said country immediately degenerate into a impoverished autocratic shithole. When, at last, it collapsed (leaving behind economic ruination, a destroyed environment and a traumatised - and often much reduced - population), the left immediately rush out and claim that, of course, the shithole wasn't true communism/socialism, and next time, honest guv, given the chance , socialists will build heaven on earth...
As far as I am concerned you don't get another go. Its been tried on a variety of continents, in a variety of forms across a variety of historical epochs and failed every time. Enough people have suffered and died for this folly. It does not work.

FreyaSnow, sorry I was referring to the peasants revolt.

I agree with much of what you are saying. A lot of work is & has always been unpaid.

The peasants are being pushed off the land now to make way for capitalism. Those that move to the city to find work are pushed out of the slums to make way for capital surplus absorption into building luxury flats that they will never be able to afford to live in.

I'm not saying that co-operatives can be set up in every sector and that all labour creates a commodity/service that can be sold on the open market.

If we had more small businesses or better still co-ops and the wealth created was evenly distributed combined with progressive taxation then more tax could be raised. This could be used to fund welfare, education and health. Although there would be less welfare dependency if money circulated in the real economy. If you read capital it explains that wealth (at the level of society) is created NOT by how much money there is in the system but in how many exchanges take place. Money needs to act as means of exchange rather than accumulating in fewer hands. Instead we now have huge amounts of money in the system but huge amounts of poverty and debt. Everytime money is created (97% of all money is created by banks) a corresponding amount of debt is created. The pool of money gets ever larger because banks lend to individuals to make up for stagnating wages and to businesses. The businesses can pay back their borrowing from the surplus value (profit) the wage labourer on the other hand usually struggled to pay back his debts and as he pays down debt, he has less to spend on commodities that every other capitalist/worker relies on him to buy.

But small businesses are doomed to failure all to often because larger businesses have the upper hand with the banks, they can raise capital, they can innovate and buy machinery, cut their labour costs and temporarily drive down prices. The banks help to create monopolisation because it is less risky for them.

Lots of things could be done to create a fairer division of the worlds resources. I think most people know something is very wrong but having been subject to the nexus of state and corporate media propaganda they believe that nothing can be done. That inequality is natural and that some eat and some starve because of human nature.

Most people work very, very hard under capitalism for very, very little reward. What is 'aspirational' about that?