<p>@BillyMC there actually has been a communist country: Democratic Kampuchea.</p>
<p>And that’s complete rubbish that anyone who wants to work hard can’t pull themselves out of poverty. Take a look at Scott Duncan, George Joseph, Alan Gerry, Carl Berg, and David Murdock(just to name a few). There’s an ample amount of opprotunity in America to eschew poverty; In fact, a significant amount of the capitalist class came from economic instability.</p>
<p>
And I assume you believe their propaganda that they were democratic, too?</p>
<p>
Because if several people can do it, the whole class as a whole can? Sorry, capitalism requires a lower class larger than the upper class.</p>
<p>^What’s wrong with that? Many proletariats that I know have great lives. Money can’t buy happiness: “The relationship between money and happiness is pretty darned small,” - Peter Ubel</p>
<p>
Many, but many do not. Think of the starving, homeless, toiling, oppressed, dying. Money can’t buy happiness, but involuntary poverty is pretty damn hard.</p>
<p>involuntary poverty only seems too hard to you because of how you live; but if that was all you knew - if you and the people around you only knew of the state in which you lived (in poverty), then I don’t think it would be so bad.</p>
<p>^I agree, but couldn’t progressive income taxes,with the procedes going to the poor, and the nulification of regressive taxes help a majority of our nations impecunious individuals?</p>
<p>I’ve never explored this topic before.
But I have lived and attended public schools in China for 7 years (where they brain-wash you about communism, but only about the pros).
Ideally, there is nothing wrong with communism, the problem is that it will always be just a Utopia as long as we’re still humans.And when it doesn’t work perfectly, it either drifts away from the original idea (like China now) or cause poverty, hardships and political turbulent (China during the cultural revolution and the great leap forward)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it’s more effective to fit a people to a government than to fit a government to a people. Taking this to true, the most important consideration, then, is the nature of the people (not the merits of the proposed government).</p>
<p>What do people think?</p>
<p>What don’t people think?</p>
<p>
It’s hard because the poor are exploited by the rich. If everyone lived in a sustainable manner that we would call poverty today, it wouldn’t truly be poverty, since they could survive and it was everyone (social class is relative).</p>
<p>
That could help most of the poor in the US if done properly. But unless you level the field for everyone, there will be millions/billions in poverty around the world.</p>
<p>
China is not now and never was communist/socialist. Practicing state capitalism, repression of the poor, and dictatorship, it is/was as communist as it is/was a People’s Republic. Both were merely propaganda points.</p>
<p>
Anything that allows for great class divides is unjust, however much you wish to defend it with relativism.</p>
<p>what do you mean by class, billy?. I just want clarification. I would say divides in general are natural - just look at how kids divide themselves, and so on. I mean, sheep are different, maybe communism would work for them, but we are not sheep.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I like this view. I agree. I find that what really makes poverty hard is the exploitation. More specifically, the recognition of the divide (which is the result of the exploitation).</p>
<p>
The most basic divide is between the haves and the have nots, the powerful and the powerless, the rich and the poor.</p>
<p>Sheep are not sentient, and thus could not run a communistic or capitalistic system; however, I appreciate you trying to dehumanize those who have struggled for equality. It shows the mentality that is the reason that their sacrifice was necessary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was not trying to do that, obviously. The analogy was weak, admittedly, but all I was trying to show was that certain forms of government may not be compatible with humans, because it may not be in our nature (at least not right now).</p>
<p>
But I’m scarred of having to sweet that much!</p>
<p>
Communism isn’t universal conformity; indeed, it frees mankind from the constant struggle to get “enough” money, providing for personal survival, allowing for self-fulfillment, and having the pride in yourself for honest work for an honest wage in an honest cause for all mankind.</p>
<p>Billy, I’m not trying to make a point. I just want to know how you think communism could work out. My view is that, we’re humans, we’ll always be selfish and lazy in general. Once we get the same whether we work hard or are lazy,few would choose the former.
Communism or not (I agree with you that China has never practiced real communism,they call themselves “socialism with chinese characteristics” which is bs if you ask me) , China is an example where equal distribution did not work.</p>
<p>So you think communism is sound theoretically and also applicably, then. Or at least you think the potential exists for its application. </p>
<p>I think the distinction is important because there are a lot of interesting theories that have no practical utility.</p>
<p>julianly: so you would be of the opinion, then, that communism is not compatible with the nature of humans.</p>
<p>
People have worked, lived, fought, and died for things far greater than money in the past, often because of the values their society instilled in them. A new society would instill new values, and many people already work to take pride in honest work.</p>
<p>
Equal distribution was never even attempted in China. Neither was being a people’s republic.</p>
<p>
Yes, I feel that if properly executed, it would function in a more desirable manner than capitalism.</p>
<p>In brief, yes I do hold the belief (for now) that communism is not compatible with the nature of humans.
But again, I am not and do not pretend to be an expert in this area. If anything, I am quite ignorant about communism, i have never finished any of Marxist works. Therefore I do not believe myself to have the right to judge. I am merely speaking from what my parents and grandparents have underwent and of my personal experiences living for a long period of time in a country where communism is an everyday topic.</p>
<p>Communism in China is propaganda. They claim to be communist to win the people; they claim to be a people’s republic, too, yet you don’t see people demonizing republics. Every action of China’s government screams the truth that it is an oppressive dictatorship that practices state capitalism (the state acts in a capitalistic manner, but the people are only allowed to work as the state pleases).</p>