<p>^^ so does equality. The average citizen is not wealthy, so it would benefit them to share all means and results of production</p>
<p>We are all “self-interested.” You are simply denying the truth if you don’t agree with that. And how exactly am I greedy? You know absolutely nothing about me, or how much money I make, or how I go about getting that money. That is what we call an ad hominem attack, and it doesn’t work in logical debates.</p>
<p>
You would rather not work for the common good if you could get the same benefits by not working. Also, you claimed that everyone is greedy. By your logic, you are calling yourself greedy. Thus, you must agree with that statement, and you know yourself pretty well, so I figured you had a basis for saying it.</p>
<p>^^ lol not only did nobody call you greedy, but you yourself implied that all humans in fact were.
Most people are content to live as they are, and don’t care about material goods as long as they are happy.</p>
<p>Democratic Socialism. </p>
<p>Democracy and Socialism are NOT mutually exclusive.</p>
<p>
Indeed, for the latter to function, the former is needed.</p>
<p>billy… i think you’re being overly optimistic. Sure, there are plenty of people who would work their hardest and be happy with communism, there are those who would figure “oh, well it’s not like it benefits me directly, so whatevs”. And the latter are far more numerous than the former. Communism couldn’t work on a large scale because of simple human greed and selfishness. people work hard when there would be social or economic consequences not to. In the case of communism, there would have to be social consequences for not working hard [and social rewards for working very hard], consequences which would be a lot harder to come by in a large communist country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I haven’t taken any psychology classes so I’m not sure how valid my opinions are.</p>
<p>Basically, you are assuming that our behavior to act in our self-interest, and not in what is deemed ‘the greater good’ is a result of society and nurture. Granted, most of us are taught a ‘self-survival’ instinct from a young age but I think that self-interest is human nature and not strictly due to a result of society.</p>
<p>My short opinion is this: human nature will never allow communism to exist. At the least, communism can only exist for so long before corruption - internally or externally - breaks in.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s assume your theory is right, which it isn’t, in my opinion. But the thing is, according to you most people are content as they are. That means some aren’t, and that small figure alone corrupts a communist society.</p>
<p>
Even if this was true, and it is not, I would hold it to be of greater value to stand for what is righteous and fail than to stand for what is current, what is oppressive, and succeed.</p>
<p>
You are mistaken. Our instincts are not to be greedy or anything specific like that, but simply, to seek out the conditions most conducive to life. For the majority of the global population, this would be a system of equality where the right to life was prized and ensured. I do suggest you take a psychology course. Not for this particular reason, but because it’s terribly interesting, haha.</p>
<p>
External - not if it is a world system. I mean, unless we make contact with another intelligent civilization, but that’s a whole other set of issues.</p>
<p>Internal - I find it possible that corruption would occur. This is the reason why the theory of continuous revolution is around. Don’t let things get corrupt, and do it again when they do.</p>
<p>
Currently, most people on Earth aren’t content with their sub-par situations. Many are starving. But when all have what they need, and some still want more, oh well. I’m sure some people would like to be King of America. Hasn’t happened yet.</p>
<p>Democracy = Fail
Communism = Fail
Monarchy = Fail
Republic = Pass/Fail</p>
<p>
You are insinuating that Communism is mutually exclusive from “Democracy” or “Republic.” Communism is an economic system, and it entails a democratic economy with a democratic government. Ignorance = Fail</p>
<p>Dude… communism doesn’t work.</p>
<p>^^Geez my mistake, I meant Communist state which equals a failed government.</p>
<p>Well, a Communist state has yet to exist (aside from the few dictatorships who have claimed to be communist), but true Communism must be a world system with a democratic government and economy. Has not been tried, has not failed.</p>
<p>I love how the inclusion of Communism in the thread title has rendered Socialism a noncontroversial issue.</p>
<p>^Communism operates under a one party system… does it not? Leads to dictatorship</p>
<p>
Ideally, there would be no political party. Any state that has claimed to be Communist was not. Therefore, please do not use them as “evidence”.</p>
<p>I said it before. Communism has been tried and will never exist. We humans like to go up in a social and economic ladder. Why should a doctor be payed the same as a store clerk. Humans want power, and having an equal playing field is beyond our nature. Don’t we all want to have money and/or power. In a Communism there’s no class, no one is rewarded for great deeds. The working class is the power. Human nature wants to feel accomplished, wants prosperity, power, to feel elite. And the big reason is, communism wants an almost utopian society, something that will never exist. If we humans aren’t perfect, its impossible to have a perfect society. And that’s why they all failed, all the leaders wanted to much power. Absolute powers corrupts. They then turn the country into a dictatorship. </p>
<p>China had a communistic economy, that failed. Their now mostly capitalist, and look at them now. They have the 2nd largest economy and will take America by 2020 as the most wealthiest nation. And they implemented capitalism in the 80s.</p>
<p>Ideally? Exactly. That’s why communism fails. It’s too idealistic in a realistic world. I’m not going to try hard in school if I just end up like the rest of the country. </p>
<ul>
<li>Even if they weren’t pure, they definitely failed hard. Are you saying that if they were more pure they would have been absolute successes? A foundationless claim. Communism doesn’t have a place in this world…</li>
</ul>
<p>Sigh. No one listens to what I’m saying. I’ll put it in points for you.</p>
<p>(1) Democracy was an “ideal” before it was realized. As were the protections of human rights.</p>
<p>(2) The USSR and People’s Republic of China claimed to be Communist. They also claimed to be republics. Both were falsehoods to win support. They were not “impure” communists, they were just not communists AT ALL.</p>
<p>(3) Communism is a world system. A single state cannot be completely Communist.</p>
<p>(4) Thus, Communism has not been tried. Saying it is against human nature or cannot work or is too idealist are all things that could have been applied to the idea of a Democratic Republic without a monarch before the advent of modern democracy. But it still happened.</p>
<p>
You made a mistake here. It should say, “Communism doesn’t have a place in this world… This is a foundation-less claim.” You see, you put the descriptor before the sentence it was describing.</p>