• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does communism force a portion of the population to live in poverty?

Does communism cause most of the population to live in poverty?

  • Total voters
    22
katiegrrl0 said:
Communisim is truly evolved to. When a nation is forced via revolution it sets military as a very important operative. This allows for the extreme that you saw when Stalin rose to power. It is what has happened no nation after nation. It is believed that Communism can follow revolution and it has never happened. The power base is set in the military and leads to tyrants and dichtators.
Click to expand...

China attempted collectivization via the Great Leap forward, it was an abysmal disaster.

Great Leap Forward - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can not create communism without force.
It will not exist on it's own.
 
b.larset said:
The highest moral achievment of all the individuals in the communist system-To advance the cause of the party leaders who represent the state.
Click to expand...

This is true. Moral hierarchies create a temporary static system .. meaning they will fail if they are based on a moral hierarchy because morals are relative to time and place and more often then not have exceptions to the rule. I prefer an adaptation over static morality and it makes more sense anyhow because morality consequences are un-measurable using science in any absolute way.
 
I would have voted no. I don't particularly support one ideology over the other but I do recognise that leadership and corruption along with exclusion by capitalist countries (which was probably the largest factor to be honest) is largely what is to blame for the nick of communist countries.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
China attempted collectivization via the Great Leap forward, it was an abysmal disaster.

Great Leap Forward - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can not create communism without force.
It will not exist on it's own.
Click to expand...
It seems very obvious that you cannot create Communism by force. A collective will begin and move outward spreading the good that comes from it. You being with the evolution of people out of the dark ages of materialism and consumerism.

Wiki is a very poor source. You may want to try something real.
 
Last edited:
katiegrrl0 said:
It seems very obvious that you cannot create Communism by force. A collective will begin and move outward spreading the good that comes from it. You being with the evolution of people out of the dark ages of materialism and consumerism.

Wiki is a very poor source. You may want to try something real.
Click to expand...

Wiki is the representation of reality.
People want stuff, they have wanted stuff since the dawn of humanity.

Good intentions won't change that.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Thing is, niether Cuba, and especially North Korea, were never truly Communist, in fact North Korea is so far removed from Communism it's scary.
Click to expand...

In fact they are all pretty much failures at meeting the very basic requirements to be Communist.

Cuba and North are neither run by the worker but instead are dictatorships of the few. Have classes and do trade with the west. That's pretty much fail in the book of Marx.
 
obvious Child said:
This poll is faulty. Communism at a state level has never been tried.
Click to expand...

Israel was Marxist Communist in her earlier days and I think it worked wonders for them. I've not read much about it but what I have read has been positive. A Communist country that wasn't constantly in 'battle' with the West (Capitalism).

Personally I think it could work. But like I mentioned in my last post it has never really had the chance to flourish anywhere.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
Communism can be organized under an authoritarian ruler, same for capitalism.
Click to expand...

How? That doesn't make sense. Communism is a dictatorship of the worker, which could be authoritarian, cannot be one ruler. Communism cannot be Communism is the ruling class is not the worker. Totalitarian regimes can have some aspects of Communism, but just because you have some of the economic principles doesn't make you Communism. Even the USSR had economic classes.

An actual Communism country (short of the anarchy of Marx) would have the decisions made by a democracy of the worker where everyone is of the same economic classes. That has never been attempted at a state level. This poll is fail as it effectively utilizes the definition of Communism as anything a self proclaimed Communist has done. Which transitive logic dictates the United States is Communist.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Those things exist in human society regardless of what system of government you choose.

Sure some countries have it less then others.

There's A LOT of poverty in America, a lot of alcoholism.

Less poverty in Canada i'd say, but a decent amount of alcoholism given our population size. Especially in Rural Areas, and unfortunately in Native Reserves.

I'm not pro communist or pro capitalist. I believe a balance in the middle is the only solution. It's been proven free enterprise on its own cannot solve every problem. And government on it's own can be too wasteful. A mixed economy seems to be a better outcome for most people.
Click to expand...

I think if you compared American poverty to Chinese, Cuban, North Korean, or Vietnamese poverty, you'd see quite a difference.
 
obvious Child said:
This poll is faulty. Communism at a state level has never been tried.
Click to expand...

That isn't true, it is an abrupt failure because it fails to take into account the behaviors of the people.

The poor tend to be virulent consumers, no matter the economic structure they live in.
I have seen educationally ignorant poor people conceive elaborate schemes to deprive, other poor people of goods, solely because of their irrational consumptive behavior.

Communism necessitates an authoritarian structure because of this.
It is a fairy tale pipe dream.
 
expandmymind said:
Israel was Marxist Communist in their earlier days and I think it worked wonders for them.
Click to expand...

Uh no. The Kibbituz system which did wonders for Israel was just a piece of their economy. There was strong economic social classes in Israel (as there are today). Furthermore, it was hardly a democracy of th worker. I'm not arguing that they didn't practice a kind of communal economic production method, but that alone does not make them Communism when they had other aspects to their economy.

Personally I think it could work. But like I mentioned in my last post it has never really had the chance to flourish anywhere.
Click to expand...

Eh. Humans are too greedy for it to work.
 
obvious Child said:
How? That doesn't make sense. Communism is a dictatorship of the worker, which could be authoritarian, cannot be one ruler. Communism cannot be Communism is the ruling class is not the worker. Totalitarian regimes can have some aspects of Communism, but just because you have some of the economic principles doesn't make you Communism. Even the USSR had economic classes.

An actual Communism country (short of the anarchy of Marx) would have the decisions made by a democracy of the worker where everyone is of the same economic classes. That has never been attempted at a state level. This poll is fail as it effectively utilizes the definition of Communism as anything a self proclaimed Communist has done. Which transitive logic dictates the United States is Communist.
Click to expand...

The communal ownership of communism has to have an authoritarian ruler to enforce the communal structure.
Large groups of people will not respect the communal relationship, absent of force.

Democracies are authoritarian.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That isn't true, it is an abrupt failure because it fails to take into account the behaviors of the people.
Click to expand...

When did it ever even start off properly? Lenin was probably the closest, but he never gave the power to the masses. Basically, Lenin hijacked the ideas of a utopian workers' paradise and retained power himself and kept parts of the class structure alive. That's not Communism. I don't disagree Communism won't work in humans, but it's never been tried in the fashion described by Marx. All too often it reverts to the utterly worthless definition of anything so called Communists have tried.

The communal ownership of communism has to have an authoritarian ruler to enforce the communal structure.
Large groups of people will not respect the communal relationship, absent of force.
Click to expand...

But that alone does not equate to Communism. You cannot have a single or a few rulers in Communism. That is totally against the writings of Marx much less the revolution by the worker. There are a few basic points a country must have to be Communism. And no country has even hit any of them aside from no exports to the West.

Democracies are authoritarian.
Click to expand...

They can be.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
When did it ever even start off properly? Lenin was probably the closest, but he never gave the power to the masses. Basically, Lenin hijacked the ideas of a utopian workers' paradise and retained power himself and kept parts of the class structure alive. That's not Communism. I don't disagree Communism won't work in humans, but it's never been tried in the fashion described by Marx. All too often it reverts to the utterly worthless definition of anything so called Communists have tried.
Click to expand...

Why did he do it?
Because he couldn't trust his own "equals." :lol:
 
obvious Child said:
Uh no. The Kibbituz system which did wonders for Israel was just a piece of their economy. There was strong economic social classes in Israel (as there are today). Furthermore, it was hardly a democracy of th worker. I'm not arguing that they didn't practice a kind of communal economic production method, but that alone does not make them Communism when they had other aspects to their economy.



Eh. Humans are too greedy for it to work.
Click to expand...

Well, like I said, I haven't read much about it. But you seem quite the authority on the subject so I'll take your word for it :)

One thing, for sure, is that I don't think that the form of Capitalism employed today works. All the wealth to a tiny, tiny percentage of the World/country. It's just wrong.
 
obvious Child said:
But that alone does not equate to Communism. You cannot have a single or a few rulers in Communism. That is totally against the writings of Marx much less the revolution by the worker. There are a few basic points a country must have to be Communism. And no country has even hit any of them aside from no exports to the West.
Click to expand...

Communism is a classless structure where the means of production are owned by all people involved.
These things have been attempted to be implemented, resulting in abject failure.
People do not respect the communal ownership.

obvious Child said:
They can be.
Click to expand...

Are, the minority is always under the authority of the majority.
 
expandmymind said:
Well, like I said, I haven't read much about it. But you seem quite the authority on the subject so I'll take your word for it :)
Click to expand...

Eh. I wouldn't quite do that. I know a bit about it, but I'm hardly an authority. As I understand their system, early modern Israel (never mind the contridiction there) was spread out without a strong defense force. So Jewish settlers basically created little forts to protect their "colonies" and became rather self sufficent in the process. I don't think they started off thinking about communal nature, it was just that they were forced to initially do it due to the weakness within Israel's defense.

One thing, for sure, is that I don't think that the form of Capitalism employed today works. All the wealth to a tiny, tiny percentage of the World/country. It's just wrong.
Click to expand...

Perhaps so, but it's a better allocation then Merchantilism.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Communism is a classless structure where the means of production are owned by all people involved.
Click to expand...

Which makes every Communist country not Communist.

These things have been attempted to be implemented, resulting in abject failure.
Click to expand...

Where? All orders for production have come from the top. Mao's Great Leap Forward was a top order. Cuba's government dictates what is made. The Soviet Union dictated to its factory workers what to make. Aside from Israel Kibbituzs, that has never been tried. We haven't seen actual Communism at state level ever. They never even tried to do it right.

This poll fails because it utilizes the worst definition of Communism available.
 
obvious Child said:
Eh. I wouldn't quite do that. I know a bit about it, but I'm hardly an authority. As I understand their system, early modern Israel (never mind the contridiction there) was spread out without a strong defense force. So Jewish settlers basically created little forts to protect their "colonies" and became rather self sufficent in the process. I don't think they started off thinking about communal nature, it was just that they were forced to initially do it due to the weakness within Israel's defense.
Click to expand...

I thought it was due to the large amount of Russian Jews who emmigrated there? Like I say, I know very little about it.
 
obvious Child said:
Which makes every Communist country not Communist.

Where? All orders for production have come from the top. Mao's Great Leap Forward was a top order. Cuba's government dictates what is made. The Soviet Union dictated to its factory workers what to make. Aside from Israel Kibbituzs, that has never been tried. We haven't seen actual Communism at state level ever. They never even tried to do it right.

This poll fails because it utilizes the worst definition of Communism available.
Click to expand...

The people supported the leaders.
The choice was made democratically, otherwise the revolution would not have happened.

On a state level, communism always fails.
In micro localities, it can flourish with limited private ownership.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The people supported the leaders.
Click to expand...

Where? There was always resistance to self proclaimed Communist leaders.

The choice was made democratically, otherwise the revolution would not have happened.
Click to expand...

Actually it was made at gun point. The Russians fought a civil war over it. The Chinese fought a civil war over it. Cuban exiles attempted to overthrow Castro. I can keep going about how the people did not support the revolution, nor was it made democratically.

On a state level, communism always fails.
Click to expand...

Dude. It's never been tried. Lenin was the closest to Marx and he never gave power to the masses. That's automatic failure to be considered Communism. Consolidation of power by the few with no voice to the Masses can never be called Communism.
 
obvious Child said:
Where? There was always resistance to self proclaimed Communist leaders.
Click to expand...

obvious Child said:
Actually it was made at gun point. The Russians fought a civil war over it. The Chinese fought a civil war over it. Cuban exiles attempted to overthrow Castro. I can keep going about how the people did not support the revolution, nor was it made democratically.
Click to expand...

True, that is why democracy is just as authoritarian as any other system.
Another reason why Communism can never work because you will not have universal support.

Democracy ≠ universal support.
Democracy = we have more people, we make the rules.

obvious Child said:
Dude. It's never been tried. Lenin was the closest to Marx and he never gave power to the masses. That's automatic failure to be considered Communism. Consolidation of power by the few with no voice to the Masses can never be called Communism.
Click to expand...

Those who supported it, gave their consent.
There will always be people who do not support it, so by your definition Communism can never exist.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
True, that is why democracy is just as authoritarian as any other system.
Another reason why Communism can never work because you will not have universal support.
Click to expand...

Not really. Democracy shows just how many people don't support you. You're never going to get universal support. That's not a reason why Communism won't work. Communism won't work because it is diametrically opposed to the realities of human behavior. Communism requires altruistic beings who are content with what they have independent of the material riches of others. That ain't humans.

Those who supported it, gave their consent.
Click to expand...

By that definition, democracies are Communism. See what I mean? We are using the absolute worst definition of Communism as it transitively makes every country who has tried something similar Communism. I have a hard time calling Switzerland Communist, but that's what we have to do if we run with this definition.

There will always be people who do not support it, so by your definition Communism can never exist.
Click to expand...

Not in humans at least. Marx's idea while interesting, is not practical here.
 
obvious Child said:
Not really. Democracy shows just how many people don't support you. You're never going to get universal support. That's not a reason why Communism won't work. Communism won't work because it is diametrically opposed to the realities of human behavior. Communism requires altruistic beings who are content with what they have independent of the material riches of others. That ain't humans.
Click to expand...

Agree.

obvious Child said:
By that definition, democracies are Communism. See what I mean? We are using the absolute worst definition of Communism as it transitively makes every country who has tried something similar Communism. I have a hard time calling Switzerland Communist, but that's what we have to do if we run with this definition.
Click to expand...

The means of production still have to be communally owned, which in theory, they were through the democratic process of support.

Democracy is one aspect, the other is communal ownership of the means of production.


obvious Child said:
Not in humans at least. Marx's idea while interesting, is not practical here.
Click to expand...

Agree.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom