Is Communism good? This poll is closed. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
Yes | 375 | 66.25% | |
No | 191 | 33.75% | |
Total: | 523 votes |
|
I don't think that it is.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 09:49 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 09:32 |
|
Yes it is good.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 09:58 |
|
Quick realtalk: Soviet/Stalinist-style Communism is awful because it's ultimately just oligarchy wearing red clothing. Democratic Socialism, meanwhile, is pretty much the only sensible way to run a high-technology, well-developed civilization in a stable manner (which is why so much of Europe has developed in that direction).
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 09:59 |
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Yes it is good. I'm not convinced, could you elaborate?
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 10:00 |
|
If I vote both yes and no, is that like not voting at all? I mean, I think it could be good, but we've seen it be so bad, I don't really know.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 10:12 |
|
zxqv8 posted:If I vote both yes and no, is that like not voting at all? No, that means that you voted twice.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 10:13 |
|
Seems to result in genocides or at least mass murders so I'm gonna go with no.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 10:21 |
|
It was the only way Russia could industrialize, so the answer is... it depends.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 10:22 |
|
SpaceDrake posted:Quick realtalk: Soviet/Stalinist-style Communism is awful because it's ultimately just oligarchy wearing red clothing. Democratic Socialism, meanwhile, is pretty much the only sensible way to run a high-technology, well-developed civilization in a stable manner (which is why so much of Europe has developed in that direction). The people making the stuff owning the stuff they use to make the stuff, is cool and good though. Hogge Wild I'm interested what you would think of the employees of a company splitting the vote with the shareholders over who sits on the board of directors?
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 10:23 |
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah central planning falls down mostly due to corruption and because the state can and inevitably will gently caress up the targets so you end up with the all shoelaces you could ever want, and no bread. Markets are usually good about not letting that happen. In the case of the Soviets, some of it was poor central planning, but most of it was price controls. The Soviets wanted everyone to have as much as they wanted (food/consumer good etc) at well below market prices. This cause an enormous black market as people simply bought as much as they could, then resold the products once stores quickly ran out of them. The Soviets would push the factories to have quotas to meet these goals but often this was humanly impossible so instead they cut corners or produced too much of an item they actually could make. The system didn't collapse immediately but over decades the rot very clearly set in. Yeah, this is a troll thread and everything but actual Soviet history is interesting.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 10:33 |
|
no however neither is unfethered capitalism imo, there might need to be some kind of democratic socialist middleground which might address all issues??
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 10:41 |
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah central planning falls down mostly due to corruption and because the state can and inevitably will gently caress up the targets so you end up with the all shoelaces you could ever want, and no bread. Markets are usually good about not letting that happen. I think that would depend on size of the company. Some small businesses could work fine, but I don't think that large multinationals would be any less corrupt. Eg. leftist mps aren't any more honest than conservative ones.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 10:44 |
|
Retarded Goatee posted:no That middleground can only exist with a counterbalance, so humanity is probably going to be stuck with unfethered capitalism and the chaos that comes with it.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 10:45 |
|
I've always understood "communism" to be an ideal you ultimately strive for, not the policy you implement. I'm probably wrong (read: Marxist analysis is more important than literally interpreting and then implementing Das Kapital into policy).
MoaM fucked around with this message at 10:54 on Jan 21, 2017 |
# ? Jan 21, 2017 10:51 |
|
Hogge Wild posted:I think that would depend on size of the company. Some small businesses could work fine, but I don't think that large multinationals would be any less corrupt. Eg. leftist mps aren't any more honest than conservative ones. Note that under this regime the company ends up making better long-term decisions. Sounds good to me. Kilroy fucked around with this message at 11:07 on Jan 21, 2017 |
# ? Jan 21, 2017 11:05 |
|
Kilroy posted:Note that under this regime the company ends up making better long-term decisions. Sounds good to me.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 11:19 |
|
It's super good OP. Imagine you're a baby and you have two cows. Well under communism everyone has all the cows.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 11:44 |
|
Ardennes posted:In the case of the Soviets, some of it was poor central planning, but most of it was price controls. The Soviets wanted everyone to have as much as they wanted (food/consumer good etc) at well below market prices. This cause an enormous black market as people simply bought as much as they could, then resold the products once stores quickly ran out of them. ps: For anyone who wishes to experience life under Communism today: get placed in a minimum security prison. "Orange is the New Black" is uncannily similar to how Soviet society worked. Not having rights, smuggling, favors, some of the most menial positions being most desirable, etc. pigdog fucked around with this message at 11:53 on Jan 21, 2017 |
# ? Jan 21, 2017 11:47 |
|
Cicero posted:Got nothing against worker co-ops, but it seems like if it was a more effective means of running a company long-term then there'd be more of them, no? Not necessarily. Our economic system, in general, incentivizes profit seeking behavior and emphasizes structures that benefit the top end the most. These things aren't necessarily the most efficient way to do things, just the way that grants the most profit to the fewest people who happen to run things. To put it another way, why would you start a co-op and share profits with a bunch of people given the option to instead own a business yourself or with a partner and only share profits with one other person, if at all? It might not be more efficient, but you'll make more money yourself.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 11:56 |
|
pigdog posted:Everything in the Soviet system from a box of matches up to something like motorcycles had the price printed or stamped on it, and selling it for any more than that would've been "speculation", which was punishable. There was a black market for imported goods, but domestic products that were in short supply were mostly exchanged for other products, or favors. The result was the same from a supply standpoint, anything valuable was snapped up since its "official price" was far below market value. If this was exchanged for currency or favors wasn't that important from an economic perspective (especially since the Soviet Union had near complete currency controls).
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 11:56 |
|
Communism is bad if Mao-era china is anything to go by.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 12:06 |
|
It's the worst thing people have ever come up with.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 12:18 |
|
Communism is good, because it's an easy punchline to use in a joke.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 12:26 |
|
What a trite question. Open up and tell us what you are actually asking. CCCP was not good, if that makes you happy.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 12:51 |
|
Communism caused every famine in the world, including the ones that happened in parts of the british empire almost every year in the 19th century. Have you also heard about Chairman Leopold in Congo? So of course I vote no.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 13:09 |
|
Communism, as in worker control over production, is good. But communism the word is intrinsically linked to the failures of USSR and PRC, which is why you can't say that. It's a bit like "whenever you say capitalism i think Nazi germany". The metaphor has actually nothing to do with capitalism, nor is the logic that "nazi germany = bad, nazi germany = capitalist, capitalism = bad" in any way shape or for reasonable, even though it was a capitalist country.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 13:22 |
|
Communism is great on paper. Capitalism sucks, even on paper.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 13:29 |
|
Oh communism? Yeah, it's good, great potential, all the kids are into it these days. You're gonna love it. It's just...wow...just 'good', you know?
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 13:30 |
|
Hogge Wild posted:I'm not convinced, could you elaborate? Worker ownership of the means of production is democratic, whereas capitalist ownership of the means of production is dictatorial. I'd rather live in a democracy than a dictatorship. HTH Also if Hakimashou is against it, it's probably real good.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 13:32 |
|
Yes, OP.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 13:36 |
|
Very good. Capitalism just externalizes all of its negatives so it looks better if you don't count those.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 13:50 |
|
hakimashou posted:It's the worst thing people have ever come up with. I'm not sure OP, your posts run it pretty close. Yes, of course Communism is good. Or has the potential to be good. Depends on the flavour you go for. Leninism can be dismissed as a failure but we've got so many other takes on the idea of "each according to their need" which haven't had many opportunities.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 13:52 |
|
I'll tell you what I want, what I really really want So tell me what you want, what you really really want I'll tell you what I want, what i really really want I wanna, I wanna, I wanna, really really wanna full worldwide communism now
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 14:33 |
|
If you wanna be my lover, You have got to give, Taking is too easy And also is the nature of the bourgeoisie.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 14:36 |
|
Not just good, but cool and good
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 15:14 |
|
KomradeX posted:Not just good, but cool and good Not just cool and good, but great. The greatest economic system bar none, I tell you. You won't believe how great it is. It's just the greatest.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 16:14 |
|
Retarded Goatee posted:unfethered Dinosaurs were unfethered too, and see what happened to them?
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 17:01 |
|
Fog Tripper posted:Dinosaurs were unfethered too, and see what happened to them? They dominated the planet for 175 millions of years?
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 17:32 |
|
Some of them had feathers.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 17:32 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 09:32 |
|
when it's reached through libertarian socialist means, then yes
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 17:33 |