Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
Is Communism good?
This poll is closed.
Yes 375 66.25%
No 191 33.75%
Total: 523 votes
[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

 
  • Locked thread
Hogge Wild
Aug 21, 2012

by FactsAreUseless
Pillbug
I don't think that it is.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Flowers For Algeria
Dec 3, 2005

I humbly offer my services as forum inquisitor. There is absolutely no way I would abuse this power in any way.


Yes it is good.

SpaceDrake
Dec 22, 2006

I can't avoid filling a game with awful memes, even if I want to. It's in my bones...!
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).

Hogge Wild
Aug 21, 2012

by FactsAreUseless
Pillbug

I'm not convinced, could you elaborate?

zxqv8
Oct 21, 2010

Did somebody call about a Ravager problem?
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.

Hogge Wild
Aug 21, 2012

by FactsAreUseless
Pillbug

zxqv8 posted:

If I vote both yes and no, is that like not voting at all?

No, that means that you voted twice.

FuriousxGeorge
Aug 8, 2007

We've been the best team all year.

They're just finding out.
Seems to result in genocides or at least mass murders so I'm gonna go with no.

Ardennes
May 12, 2002
It was the only way Russia could industrialize, so the answer is... it depends.

Kilroy
Oct 1, 2000

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).
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.

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?

Ardennes
May 12, 2002

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.

Retarded Goatee
Feb 6, 2010
I spent :10bux: so that means I can be a cheapskate and post about posting instead of having some wit or spending any more on comedy avs for people. Which I'm also incapable of. Comedy.
no

however neither is unfethered capitalism

imo, there might need to be some kind of democratic socialist middleground which might address all issues??

Hogge Wild
Aug 21, 2012

by FactsAreUseless
Pillbug

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.

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?

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.

Ardennes
May 12, 2002

Retarded Goatee posted:

no

however neither is unfethered capitalism

imo, there might need to be some kind of democratic socialist middleground which might address all issues??

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.

MoaM
Dec 1, 2009

Joyous.
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

Kilroy
Oct 1, 2000

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.
It's not about electing a leftist to the board or whatever, it's about the workers having a say in the direction of the company. Like for example if it's very profitable and makes excellent economic sense to offshore (or automate) half the headcount and lay off the locals, then maybe the company should do that, but under the current corporate regime that means the workers get hung out to dry while the shareholders reap enormous profits. If instead the workers had a voice you might see that same company still do the offshoring, but the laid off workers get a generous severance arrangement or even a pension out of the deal - they reap the rewards of the company making a sound strategic decision, in other words. And on the other hand if the offshoring is basically just an accounting trick which wrecks the long term health of the company but gives a generous dividend to the shareholders for a quarter or two - well then it's probably not going to happen since the people working there want to keep their jobs more than they want a dividend.

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

Cicero
Dec 17, 2003

Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Kilroy posted:

Note that under this regime the company ends up making better long-term decisions. Sounds good to me.
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?

Pinch Me Im Meming
Jun 26, 2005
It's super good OP.

Imagine you're a baby and you have two cows.
Well under communism everyone has all the cows.

pigdog
Apr 23, 2004

by Smythe

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.
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.

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

Lightning Knight
Feb 24, 2012

Pray for Answer

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.

Ardennes
May 12, 2002

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).

ColtMcAsskick
Nov 7, 2010
Communism is bad if Mao-era china is anything to go by.

hakimashou
Jul 15, 2002
Upset Trowel
It's the worst thing people have ever come up with.

HJB
Feb 16, 2011

:swoon: I can't get enough of are Dan :swoon:
Communism is good, because it's an easy punchline to use in a joke.

doverhog
May 31, 2013

Defender of democracy and human rights 🇺🇦
What a trite question. Open up and tell us what you are actually asking. CCCP was not good, if that makes you happy.

Agnosticnixie
Jan 6, 2015
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.

White Rock
Jul 14, 2007
Creativity flows in the bored and the angry!
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.

Flowers For Algeria
Dec 3, 2005

I humbly offer my services as forum inquisitor. There is absolutely no way I would abuse this power in any way.


Communism is great on paper.

Capitalism sucks, even on paper.

rudatron
May 31, 2011

by Fluffdaddy
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?

Flowers For Algeria
Dec 3, 2005

I humbly offer my services as forum inquisitor. There is absolutely no way I would abuse this power in any way.


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.

feedmegin
Jul 30, 2008

Yes, OP.

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

Very good. Capitalism just externalizes all of its negatives so it looks better if you don't count those.

forkboy84
Jun 13, 2012

Corgis love bread. And Puro


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.

Flowers For Algeria
Dec 3, 2005

I humbly offer my services as forum inquisitor. There is absolutely no way I would abuse this power in any way.


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

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

If you wanna be my lover,
You have got to give,
Taking is too easy
And also is the nature of the bourgeoisie.

KomradeX
Oct 29, 2011

Not just good, but cool and good

Orange Devil
Oct 1, 2010

Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

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.

Fog Tripper
Mar 3, 2008

by Smythe

Dinosaurs were unfethered too, and see what happened to them? :smug:

Pinch Me Im Meming
Jun 26, 2005

Fog Tripper posted:

Dinosaurs were unfethered too, and see what happened to them? :smug:

They dominated the planet for 175 millions of years?

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

Some of them had feathers.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Venomous
Nov 7, 2011





when it's reached through libertarian socialist means, then yes

  • Locked thread