The final word on communism

  • News
  • Thread starter fourier jr
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Final
In summary: In reality, it ignores the complexities of human nature and the need for incentives to drive productivity. It also relies on the idea that the material conditions of society can completely shape a person's character, disregarding the idea of personal desires and motivations. While egalitarian, communal societies have existed in the past, they were not able to sustain a high level of productivity or advancement. In summary, communism may seem like a solution to poverty, but it fails to consider the complexities of human nature and the need for incentives to drive productivity.
  • #1
fourier jr
765
13
"As a theoretical social and economic system, communism would be a type of egalitarian society with no state, no privately owned means of production and no social classes. In communism, all property is owned by the community as a whole, and all people have equal social and economic status. Theoretically, human need or advancement is not left unsatisfied because of poverty, and is rather solved through distribution of property as needed. This is thus often the system proposed to solve the growing problem of the poverty cycle.

Perhaps the best known maxim of a communist society is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.""

...

& re: "human nature"
"Objectivists, who see self-interested behavior as itself a moral ideal and identical to rationality, claim that communism removes incentives necessary for human productivity. They argue that communism ignores (or is wrong about) "human nature." Communists, however, take the view that self-interest is a function of the material conditions of society and if the material conditions change so that competition and greed is no longer necessary to survive, mass behavior will change accordingly.

Communists have a disdain for the concept of 'human nature' or an invariable 'human condition' which exists throughout all human beings. Communists usually take the view that it is the material conditions which surround a person, such as their environment, which shapes a persons character and the 'nature' of human beings is not determined by an underlying, constant condition which is present in all humans, but instead by the social and economic factors which surround them. And so consequently, this idea that 'human nature' is not invariable, or even that it does not exist, opens up the door to the argument that once capitalism has been destroyed, and socialism has been established, all selfish desires and greed will cease to exist. Once the economic and social conditions which make humans selfish have disappeared to be replaced by an atmosphere of mutual assistance and co-operation, then people can work not for their personal gain, or to accumulate commodities, but for the good of the collective and the community, thus making a better society for all."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

here's a real-life example of such a "commune":
"A kibbutz (Hebrew: קיבוץ; plural: kibbutzim) is an Israeli collective community. Although other countries have had communal enterprises, in no other country have voluntary collective communities played as important a role as kibbutzim have played in Israel.

Kibbutzim have given Israel a wildly disproportionate share of its military leaders, intellectuals, and politicians. The kibbutz movement, though it never accounted for more than 7 percent of the Israeli population, did more to shape the image Israelis have of their country, and the image of foreigners have of Israel than any other Israeli institution.

Combining Socialism and Zionism, kibbutzim are a unique Israeli experiment, and part of the largest secular communal movement in history."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I wonder why the commie loonies on our boards never even mentioned these people in all their arguments. Maybe because they all hate Israel... But this is hardly the "final word on communism". The final word would be an actual large scale completely cut-off community with 3rd world resources. There would be maybe 4 or 5 connected communities all acting as independant entities and allowed only to trade with each other and allow them no means of money or value and see what culminates.

Although that does sound exactly like the absolte earliest civilzations... and cavemen weren't very successfuL :P.
 
  • #3
Egalitarian, communal societies existed for thousands of years. They were called hunter-gatherers. Communists are correct to a very limited extent. Because of the amount of traveling these people did (lack of permanent settlements), their lives were inconvenienced by permanent material property and so they didn't have any. The question of whether or not they desired personal property, however, is an open question that cannot be answered.
 
  • #4
the final word on communism: Communism only looks good on paper.
 

1. What is communism?

Communism is a political and economic ideology that advocates for a classless society where the means of production are owned and controlled by the community as a whole, rather than by individual owners.

2. How does communism differ from other economic systems?

Communism differs from other economic systems, such as capitalism, in that it prioritizes the collective ownership of resources and the distribution of goods and services based on need, rather than profit.

3. Has communism been successfully implemented in any country?

While there have been various attempts at implementing communism in different countries, there is no consensus on whether any of these attempts have been truly successful. Factors such as external pressures, internal corruption, and conflicting ideologies have often hindered the success of communist regimes.

4. What are some criticisms of communism?

Some criticisms of communism include the lack of individual freedoms and innovation, as well as the potential for authoritarianism and human rights abuses within communist regimes. Additionally, some argue that the lack of a profit incentive can lead to inefficiency and economic stagnation.

5. Is communism still relevant in modern times?

There is no clear answer to this question as it is heavily debated among scholars and political thinkers. Some argue that communism is still a relevant alternative to capitalist systems, especially in addressing issues such as income inequality and environmental concerns. Others argue that the failures of past communist regimes make it an outdated and unrealistic ideology.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
992
Replies
19
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
582
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
25
Views
14K
Replies
107
Views
12K
Replies
20
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
1K
Back
Top