• 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
Harry Guerrilla said:
Wiki is the representation of reality.
People want stuff, they have wanted stuff since the dawn of humanity.

Good intentions won't change that.
Click to expand...

They want stuff so they can keep up with the neighbors. they over extend to get that stuff. Good thinking. LOL
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is very true that no nation as such in modern history has been Communist. They are not authoritarian. They are a worker state based on equality. No stockholders sucking the life from the labourer.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...
They supported no one. Stalin owned the state and they all marched to his orders. He was the power. Perhaps had Lenin and Trotsky been around it may have been tried. There was a strong politboro. It had a tight fist. This is not even Communisim. There are Communistic communes throughout the world. There is nothing large scale. It has never worked because there has always been a strong military power base at the top.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
They want stuff so they can keep up with the neighbors. they over extend to get that stuff. Good thinking. LOL
Click to expand...

They want stuff because people like having stuff.
Humans are tool users, that's why we like stuff.

katiegrrl0 said:
They supported no one. Stalin owned the state and they all marched to his orders. He was the power. Perhaps had Lenin and Trotsky been around it may have been tried. There was a strong politboro. It had a tight fist. This is not even Communisim. There are Communistic communes throughout the world. There is nothing large scale. It has never worked because there has always been a strong military power base at the top.
Click to expand...

The communists came to power through popular revolution.
The people consented to the militaristic action through popular support.

The fact that it stayed a heavy handed authoritarian system only shows that nations can not be communal in nature because the communal ownership will collapse.

katiegrrl0 said:
It is very true that no nation as such in modern history has been Communist. They are not authoritarian. They are a worker state based on equality. No stockholders sucking the life from the labourer.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.
These communist governments had popular support, they had popular support for the military actions they undertook.
The fact that the people of the nation supported the authoritarian taking of power, shows that it is authoritarian in nature.
It can not be sustained without an authoritarian hand.

Communal owners are just a slightly different form of stockholder.
 
The fact that it stayed a heavy handed authoritarian system only shows that nations can not be communal in nature because the communal ownership will collapse.
Click to expand...

One does not lead from the other.

These communist governments had popular support, they had popular support for the military actions they undertook.
The fact that the people of the nation supported the authoritarian taking of power, shows that it is authoritarian in nature.
It can not be sustained without an authoritarian hand.
Click to expand...

All states are authoritarian.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
Cuba and North Korea are not Communist. So what exactly are you talking about?
Click to expand...

You're right, but like the Soviet Union they are indicative of what happens when a country sets out to be communist.
 
You know - I feel I can't comment on communism because I've never lived it. I've never deeply examined it. And our culture shuns it fully with an almost brainwashed 'it's bad' baseline.
 
No, there is nothing in the communist ideology that would enforce poverty like in capitalism, though the application of communism has obviously caused poverty, it was not the ideology but the application thereof.
 
Well, if we look at the ‘communists’ states of the past and present, the ‘yes, pretty much’ option is correct.
Most of the population lives in poverty while the leaders vacuum the wealth of the nation.
 
No nation could accomplish a government based on pure Marxist principles for very long. These principles completely ignore human nature. Survival of the fittest is part of who we are as a species and, to be completely honest, capitalism more honestly embraces that than does communism.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
You know - I feel I can't comment on communism because I've never lived it. I've never deeply examined it. And our culture shuns it fully with an almost brainwashed 'it's bad' baseline.
Click to expand...

People only reject communism, when they are told it's communism.
When it comes to unnamed ideas, people will embrace a lot of the communist egalitarianism.
 
Communism has never truly existed on a large scale. It can't. Its ultimate principles, along with simple humanistic tendencies, prevent "true communism" existing on anything larger than a very local scale.

The Soviet-style totalitarianism people referred to as "communism" with a McCarthyist twinge to it requires all people to live in equal poverty. Those command economies are paradigms of stagnation and anti-growth practicality that prevents progressivism of any type.

While it's the most efficient type of rule, you don't exactly need to be into rocket science to figure out the maximum efficiency of incredibly scarce resources.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
They want stuff because people like having stuff.
Humans are tool users, that's why we like stuff.



The communists came to power through popular revolution.
The people consented to the militaristic action through popular support.

The fact that it stayed a heavy handed authoritarian system only shows that nations can not be communal in nature because the communal ownership will collapse.



No it isn't.
These communist governments had popular support, they had popular support for the military actions they undertook.
The fact that the people of the nation supported the authoritarian taking of power, shows that it is authoritarian in nature.
It can not be sustained without an authoritarian hand.

Communal owners are just a slightly different form of stockholder.
Click to expand...
The bolded statement: That is not true. They do not collect without being a working part of the company. Theiir pay is no higher than anyone elses. They do not get free perks as they are workers in the company. You seem to have not the slightest clue of what you are talking about.

In the US stockholders reap income off the backs of others. They toss in a few dollars and get massive returns which they did nothing to earn. How is this the same? Explain?
 
mac said:
You're right, but like the Soviet Union they are indicative of what happens when a country sets out to be communist.
Click to expand...
When you attempt to alter a nation by revolution the problem is already ceated that will be the instrument of the fall. It needs not be revolution. A nation can be changed by laws and education. The US teaches that Capitalism is a god. If that is changed children will grow up knowing and believing in whatever system is in place is the best. The difficulty with Americans is that they have no clue how they are being raped by the system at least half of them defend. All republicans and conservatives and right wing religious nuts are not CEO's. The only thing they have in common is that they are stupid and like to be taken advatage of by lies from the top.
 
peepnklown said:
Well, if we look at the ‘communists’ states of the past and present, the ‘yes, pretty much’ option is correct.
Most of the population lives in poverty while the leaders vacuum the wealth of the nation.
Click to expand...

Name the country you intend to look at. I can't find one to use an example.
 
mac said:
No nation could accomplish a government based on pure Marxist principles for very long. These principles completely ignore human nature. Survival of the fittest is part of who we are as a species and, to be completely honest, capitalism more honestly embraces that than does communism.
Click to expand...
How do you know that? Perhaps human nature has been preverted by the systems that people live in. Genorsity is a way of life. Most people are very giving and free about it. I find humanity to be very caring and sharing. When you live or grow up in a hoarding material society how else will you act. People learn by years of experience to take what they can get for themselves and piss on the rest. Is it the systems that have altered human nature? Are people driven by greed as the US system would have them?
 
katiegrrl0 said:
The bolded statement: That is not true. They do not collect without being a working part of the company. Theiir pay is no higher than anyone elses. They do not get free perks as they are workers in the company. You seem to have not the slightest clue of what you are talking about.

In the US stockholders reap income off the backs of others. They toss in a few dollars and get massive returns which they did nothing to earn. How is this the same? Explain?
Click to expand...

Their income is not free off the backs of others.

They must work to earn the money to invest in the company and the return on a single share of stock is negligible, so they must work more, to have the resources to invest in the company to earn more money.

My companies share price is usually around 25$, their annual dividend rate is $.63, how can you call that a "massive" return?
I must put up $25 to get the return of $.63.

Shareholders provide a benefit to the company, loaning money for the prospect of a return, not a guaranteed return but a risk appropriate return.
A worker only gives his labor, largely risk free and is paid in near immediate terms.
A worker does not give his additional resources to finance the buying of materials, machinery, land, structures, advertising or anything else.

It is, though, an example of mutual aid.
Not very far away from communal ownership, which is what a shareholder is, a communal owner.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
Their income is not free off the backs of others.

They must work to earn the money to invest in the company and the return on a single share of stock is negligible, so they must work more, to have the resources to invest in the company to earn more money.

My companies share price is usually around 25$, their annual dividend rate is $.63, how can you call that a "massive" return?
I must put up $25 to get the return of $.63.

Shareholders provide a benefit to the company, loaning money for the prospect of a return, not a guaranteed return but a risk appropriate return.
A worker only gives his labor, largely risk free and is paid in near immediate terms.
A worker does not give his additional resources to finance the buying of materials, machinery, land, structures, advertising or anything else.

It is, though, an example of mutual aid.
Not very far away from communal ownership, which is what a shareholder is, a communal owner.
Click to expand...

In a Communist society the company does not need the money of the blood sucking leach called a stockholder. The coampanies grow as the money that is profit is put toward expansion. There is no bloodsucker to take even .63 away for the worker that earned that money. You want to justify this because it is only .63. If you multiply that by all the shareholders and also take the saleries paid to CEO's and higher level employees it comes down to stealing from the worker.

Consider this I will use baseball which you may better understand than I .The worker (the player) earns more than the manager. The combined incomes of the players and the coaches and the manager in most cases is higher than the income of the owner. How come there is still baseball?
 
katiegrrl0 said:
In a Communist society the company does not need the money of the blood sucking leach called a stockholder. The coampanies grow as the money that is profit is put toward expansion. There is no bloodsucker to take even .63 away for the worker that earned that money. You want to justify this because it is only .63. If you multiply that by all the shareholders and also take the saleries paid to CEO's and higher level employees it comes down to stealing from the worker.
Click to expand...

You can steal something you were never entitled to, a worker who agreed to work for a specific price, is not being exploited.

Most share holders are institutional, like mutual funds, charities etc.
They are mostly invested in by the little guys, aka workers.

katiegrrl0 said:
Consider this I will use baseball which you may better understand than I .The worker (the player) earns more than the manager. The combined incomes of the players and the coaches and the manager in most cases is higher than the income of the owner. How come there is still baseball?
Click to expand...

Because that is what they all agreed to, it doesn't make it right or wrong.
Just because they do this in baseball doesn't mean they should do it everywhere else.

Workers have very little risk, while owners and shareholders have high amounts of risk.
They get paid accordingly.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
How do you know that? Perhaps human nature has been preverted by the systems that people live in. Genorsity is a way of life. Most people are very giving and free about it. I find humanity to be very caring and sharing. When you live or grow up in a hoarding material society how else will you act. People learn by years of experience to take what they can get for themselves and piss on the rest. Is it the systems that have altered human nature? Are people driven by greed as the US system would have them?
Click to expand...

It's not necessarily greed that drives those in a capitalist society. It's human nature to survive and then succeed. Being ambitious, working hard for what you want and getting it is not greed. All that being said, it is in our nature as humans to strive for status, for lack of a better word. A couple of hundred thousand years of evolution has done that to us. Further, we're a social species and need leadership, which means someone has to be a leader. They don't have to have ultimate authority, but there needs to be someone people recognize as their leader. The competition to rise up is not as well appreciated or rewarded in a communist country as it is in a capitalist democracy.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
In a Communist society the company does not need the money of the blood sucking leach called a stockholder. The coampanies grow as the money that is profit is put toward expansion. There is no bloodsucker to take even .63 away for the worker that earned that money. You want to justify this because it is only .63. If you multiply that by all the shareholders and also take the saleries paid to CEO's and higher level employees it comes down to stealing from the worker.

Consider this I will use baseball which you may better understand than I .The worker (the player) earns more than the manager. The combined incomes of the players and the coaches and the manager in most cases is higher than the income of the owner. How come there is still baseball?
Click to expand...

Then why do all countries that have tried state controlled industry end up going back to capitalism? Even China, originally the purist of the Communist countries ideologically is going that route now. Why is that?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You can steal something you were never entitled to, a worker who agreed to work for a specific price, is not being exploited.

Most share holders are institutional, like mutual funds, charities etc.
They are mostly invested in by the little guys, aka workers.



Because that is what they all agreed to, it doesn't make it right or wrong.
Just because they do this in baseball doesn't mean they should do it everywhere else.

Workers have very little risk, while owners and shareholders have high amounts of risk.
They get paid accordingly.
Click to expand...

If the business is owned by the employees and the state there is no need for shareholders and that money goes to the employees and the business. It is not a drain on the resources having to pay the stok holder. Am I supposed to feel differently that most shareholders are little guys? That doesn't really matter. They would not be needed.

In a capitalist society you have to take the wages offered to have a job. That is the way that works. Yes even if you agree to the wage you are still being raped because more money than you make goes into the paychecks of those that own shares. Just because something is doesn't make it right or desired.
 
mac said:
It's not necessarily greed that drives those in a capitalist society. It's human nature to survive and then succeed. Being ambitious, working hard for what you want and getting it is not greed. All that being said, it is in our nature as humans to strive for status, for lack of a better word. A couple of hundred thousand years of evolution has done that to us. Further, we're a social species and need leadership, which means someone has to be a leader. They don't have to have ultimate authority, but there needs to be someone people recognize as their leader. The competition to rise up is not as well appreciated or rewarded in a communist country as it is in a capitalist democracy.
Click to expand...
In a company that is owned by the workers there is a leader. That is his job and he or she is paid for doing that. They are not given bonuses that no one else receives. If a comapny does well all the people do better not just the one. Striving to better is a great thing. Greed comes in when you make more money in one year than you can spend in a lifteime and still want more. It is when you start trading jobs for profit to line your pockets. It has nothing to do with making a living. That is one thing. Greed is what is killing your economy right now.
 
mac said:
Then why do all countries that have tried state controlled industry end up going back to capitalism? Even China, originally the purist of the Communist countries ideologically is going that route now. Why is that?
Click to expand...
The state still own any companies. These countries were never set up to work in a purely Communist economy. There was always an upper class. That is why these nations were never fuctional as so called Communist nations. They have never actually been Communist. They are a perversion of that. Stalinism and Maoism are different from true Communism. They were control by iron fisted leaders who were dictators. That is why the problems occured. The capitalim that they participate in is limited and many businesses are owned by the state and the workers. Fewer by the workers themselves. In a purely Communist situation the workers own the lions share.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom