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

I'm talking garden variety, theory-into-practice socialism. It's pretty much the only kind that exists on a large scale. I'm not talking utopian or pseudo-socialist beliefs, or things that people wish for but can never happen such as democratic socialism or anarcho-syndicalism. All socialism is authoritarian. All socialism requires an oppressive centralized government to rule through fear and intimidation. The only thing that differs from country to country is the wealth distribution, exact levels of corruption, and levels of minimal control at the popular level.

Nice try on the ad homs though. How unfortunate for you that they're inapplicable here.

The Baron said:

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

No.

It causes all but the ruling elites to live in poverty.

Click to expand...

Methinks that constitutes "most", in most dictionaries.

Unless you’re saying the “ruling elites” are a majority…

Tashah said:

Indeed. Castro recently admitted that Cuban communism doesn't work. North Korea is another shining example.

Click to expand...

It works for every country at first, but then corruption and greed takes over.

The success of smaller versions, like the Amish and other self contained communities here in the US and Canada, prove that it does work, so let's not give up on it entirely.

ricksfolly

ricksfolly said:

It works for every country at first, but then corruption and greed takes over.

Click to expand...

Greed: all other things being equal, people would rather not work than work.

phattonez said:

Greed: all other things being equal, people would rather not work than work.

Click to expand...

>>

That's a lie the people who hate homeless people are pushing, and it makes no sense. Fact is, being irrelevant is the worst fate man or woman can live with, and irrelevance is what you're blindly accusing those people of, especially when you know zero about their circumstances.

ricksfolly

ricksfolly said:

It works for every country at first, but then corruption and greed takes over.

The success of smaller versions, like the Amish and other self contained communities here in the US and Canada, prove that it does work, so let's not give up on it entirely.

ricksfolly

Click to expand...

The Amish are not communist.

Gipper said:

I'm talking garden variety, theory-into-practice socialism. It's pretty much the only kind that exists on a large scale.

Click to expand...

Like China, Vietnam, Cuba, Bangladesh, Egypt, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Sri Lanka, Bolivia, Venezuela... the ones that actually have it written into their constitution?

Or garden variety Norway, Sweden?

I'm not talking utopian or pseudo-socialist beliefs, or things that people wish for but can never happen such as democratic socialism or anarcho-syndicalism.

Click to expand...

What about the ANC? Democratic socialist parties exist all over the world and influence policy.

All socialism is authoritarian.

Click to expand...

Just the opposite, the majority of countries that have some form of socialism aren't authoritarian at all.

All socialism requires an oppressive centralized government to rule through fear and intimidation.

Click to expand...

Again, your limited understanding of the term 'socialism' makes discussion difficult.

Also, when you view other cultures with western eyes, they might seem 'fearful' and 'intimidating', even backwards. But from their POV, all our freedoms come at a price.

The only thing that differs from country to country is the wealth distribution, exact levels of corruption, and levels of minimal control at the popular level.

Click to expand...

Um... that's three things. And, no, those aren't the only differences. Cuba is different than China and both are way different than Sweden. But all three practice some form of socialism.

Nice try on the ad homs though. How unfortunate for you that they're inapplicable here.

Click to expand...

How did I attack your character? Perhaps you don't know what ad hom means either.

American said:

Well, can the anti-capitalists agree that communism causes poverty, dispair and drunkeness? The rest of you can speak up too.

Click to expand...

It causes more poverty among a larger segment of the population than any other system.

Capitalism causes no poverty some simply become or remain impovershed under capitalism, thesystem does not dictate that they remain so.

katiegrrl0 said:

The poverty in the USA is just as poor as anywhere in the world. Poor is Poor and all the defaults on mortgages say that this is so.

Click to expand...

You don't get out much, do you?

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...

I'll tell you why I start with that baseline. In a commune, people who bust ass don't have anything more than people who sit on their ass. Since this complete lack of justice destroys the community, they have to outlaw sitting on ass. So, rather than people working to better their situation (because their situation will never be any better), they work out of fear.

Pretty simplistic, I know, but that's the way I see it.

katiegrrl0 said:

Why do you think the income would be low. It could be low as there would be no house payments and no utilities and the taxes would be taken before you ever saw any money.There would be no medical expenses or school costs. If you took all of that out of the mix how much would you need to make?

Click to expand...

I expect to see this when I die. It's called heaven. Until then, who do you think will build your house for you and expect nothing in return?

katiegrrl0 said:

There would be people as there is in the US to run the business, I didn't say that there would not be a management in the business. Of course there would. They would be employees like everyone else. There are people that are trained in University to run business...

Click to expand...

If the managers are employees just like everyone else and have the same income just like everyone else, who in their right mind would take on the added responsibility of management?

Harry Guerrilla said:

Yes so in order for any communist rule to take place, if would have to put some of the working class to the sword.

Click to expand...

In order for any rule to take place violence or the threat of violence must occur. In a revolutionary period the nascent state must practice violence in order to centralize its rule and to legitimize its position. This applies to the consolidation of a proletarian state apparatus against hostile elements.

.
Breathing underwater ≠ economic pluralism.
That should be apparent as one is currently impossible, while the other has already existed.

Click to expand...

Not to any relevant extent.

But they aren't irrelevant, the many 50 states have varying degrees of regulation.
Some with very little, others with a lot.
So we know at least part of it is true.

Click to expand...

This is an absolutely terrible example. All 50 states operate in a capitalist society. This argument doesn't even make sense.

Communes quite frequently operate outside the laws of the nation they were created in.

Click to expand...

When I said "laws of the system" I was referring to the laws of motion of the socio-economic system (laws of capitalism, for example), not state law. Sorry for the confusion.

The Petrograd Soviet was a democratically elected political group, that essentially captured the Soviet Republic, from the other political parties.

Click to expand...

The Petrograd Soviet wasn't a political party.

American said:

Well, can the anti-capitalists agree that communism causes poverty, despair and drunkenness? The rest of you can speak up too.

Click to expand...

I don't think I’m an "anti-capitalist".

More like I'm reserving judgment, not having enough information to know one way or another.
I do lean towards support for some form of what, in my mind, constitutes capitalism.

That said, I think that what is viewed by most people (at least most of those I’ve been in contact with) as “communism” (read: USSR) does…well, not necessarily force people into poverty (although in some cases, it probably does/has), but seemingly work to prevent them from leaving it, if they start in such a situation or fall into it.

Seeing as, for most people I’ve been in contact with, the USSR is the “shining example” (irony intended) of communism in their minds, not to mention a subtle (in some cases overt) aversion to all things “commie” that is seemingly somehow ingrained into the collective psyche of the USA…

But as I’ve encountered a few people (mainly on this forum) who laid out a good case (too me at least) for not considering the USSR (and like situations) an accurate example of communism, I don’t know if any conclusions drawn from its history are completely accurate. They probably have SOME relevancy, however.

So, in a word… “Dunno” :mrgreen:

Personally, I don’t think the idealistic version of “communism” is possible, given the vast variances in human nature.

At least, assuming the membership in such a society is voluntary.

Even so, forcing people into an artificial framework never works out well.

Gabriel said:

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.

Click to expand...

MAN I wish I woulda said that.

Communism on paper is a phenomenal form of government. However, like so many things it's led by human beings and thus becomes something that will never work. A perfect society requires perfect leaders and, here on earth, that doesn't exist.

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...

The basics of Communism/Marxism/Socialism all have one thing in common.

These systems all kill incentive and it leads to a lower standard of living for all but the very few at the very top of the power structure that takes form the many and keeps the best for themselves.

Our form of Capitalism makes is possible for anyone who applies themselves to better their standard of living unless they are a minority that has fallen into the trap of believing they have been held back so much that they need to take what they can from hand outs because they can never do any better because they won't be allowed to by the system and some people.

This was why Welfare was created in the first place, because those who fought so hard to stop the civil rights movement saw that when President Eisenhower sent in Federal Troops to enforce the law the writing was on the wall, welfare was a way to keep minorities down wile all the time saying we are trying to help you trust me.

Yes there are drunks in every Country in the world where alcohol is available but it's not the systems that necessarily causes alcoholism.

It's personal choice to turn to the bottle to deal with life's problems that drives people to it, that and a poor support structure caused in some cases by the same welfare system that contributes to broken one parent families.

Obama, Pelosi, Reid are the Trifecta of Doom fore our kind of economy and Communism/Marxism/Socialism is the Triad of Disaster for any Nation and that is where the Trifecta is pushing us with their policies.

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...

Good post.
The poll is obviously fixed and controlled.
Balance is the key, and we need more socialism to restore a good balance.

Of course both conservatives and liberals have the right to express themselves as to : why welfare??.

I, for one do not accept the conservative reasoning.
Its man's intolerance, hatred, fear that creates the need for this welfare.
A better people will do away with the need of welfare.

Councilman said:

The basics of Communism/Marxism/Socialism all have one thing in common.

These systems all kill incentive and it leads to a lower standard of living for all but the very few at the very top of the power structure that takes form the many and keeps the best for themselves.

Our form of Capitalism makes is possible for anyone who applies themselves to better their standard of living unless they are a minority that has fallen into the trap of believing they have been held back so much that they need to take what they can from hand outs because they can never do any better because they won't be allowed to by the system and some people.

This was why Welfare was created in the first place, because those who fought so hard to stop the civil rights movement saw that when President Eisenhower sent in Federal Troops to enforce the law the writing was on the wall, welfare was a way to keep minorities down wile all the time saying we are trying to help you trust me.

Yes there are drunks in every Country in the world where alcohol is available but it's not the systems that necessarily causes alcoholism.

It's personal choice to turn to the bottle to deal with life's problems that drives people to it, that and a poor support structure caused in some cases by the same welfare system that contributes to broken one parent families.

Obama, Pelosi, Reid are the Trifecta of Doom fore our kind of economy and Communism/Marxism/Socialism is the Triad of Disaster for any Nation and that is where the Trifecta is pushing us with their policies.

Click to expand...

Its repression that causes alcoholism, among other things.
I do not think that any system can exist, by itself , at least today, without repression.

Councilman said:

The basics of Communism/Marxism/Socialism all have one thing in common.

These systems all kill incentive and it leads to a lower standard of living for all but the very few at the very top of the power structure that takes form the many and keeps the best for themselves.

Our form of Capitalism makes is possible for anyone who applies themselves to better their standard of living unless they are a minority that has fallen into the trap of believing they have been held back so much that they need to take what they can from hand outs because they can never do any better because they won't be allowed to by the system and some people.

This was why Welfare was created in the first place, because those who fought so hard to stop the civil rights movement saw that when President Eisenhower sent in Federal Troops to enforce the law the writing was on the wall, welfare was a way to keep minorities down wile all the time saying we are trying to help you trust me.

Yes there are drunks in every Country in the world where alcohol is available but it's not the systems that necessarily causes alcoholism.

It's personal choice to turn to the bottle to deal with life's problems that drives people to it, that and a poor support structure caused in some cases by the same welfare system that contributes to broken one parent families.

Obama, Pelosi, Reid are the Trifecta of Doom fore our kind of economy and Communism/Marxism/Socialism is the Triad of Disaster for any Nation and that is where the Trifecta is pushing us with their policies.

Click to expand...

I disagree with your premise. There are some people who can rise to the top within our system. But please don't tell me that they can do it without the others below them who are providing the labor, products, etc. If it were left up to many companies there concern would be only the bottom line, profit. Safety regulations, salaries, working conditions, etc. would be geared accordingly. Large corporations have a solid foothold on Washington. The present debate on taxes is one example. While companies are busy outsourcing jobs, and, even in this economy, making record profits--they are complaining about increasing the tax rates.The Heritage Foundation and the Chamber of Commerce reports that the United States has the second largest highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. The problem is that this statistic is disingenuous. The reason is that the rate is an overview that does not include those exemptions that have been disallowed all the loopholes, shelters, and special tax breaks. Once these are considered these rates are among the lowest in the world as a share of GDP.

When you suggest that "Our form of Capitalism makes is possible for anyone who applies themselves to better their standard of living unless they are a minority that has fallen into the trap of believing they have been held back so much that they need to take what they can from hand outs because they can never do any better because they won't be allowed to by the system and some people" are you suggesting that the Blacks were not discriminated against. And please, don't suggest that such hatred is not still raising it's ugly head in our society. What would have been your solution. Sit back and wait for people to have their own revelation that they needed to change their schools, hospitals, workplaces, social and military institutions. We had slavery in the name of capitalism. And Abraham Lincoln said that if slavery would have saved the Union he would have maintained the status quo.

And what about the Native Americans. We stole their lands from them. Even after the Supreme Court had ruled, President Jackson sent the military in to remove them and the Trail of Tears was the result. It was based on economic expansion and hatred of their race. And they still do not have justice.

I believe in this country. With all it's problems it's so much better than all the rest. It provides freedoms that other countries do not have. We have made mistakes and I do not believe that we can rest upon our economic system as is. We have to view it honestly and do better for our people in the future.

snbl11225 said:

I disagree with your premise. There are some people who can rise to the top within our system. But please don't tell me that they can do it without the others below them who are providing the labor, products, etc.

Click to expand...

An act that they volunteer to participate in.

If it were left up to many companies there concern would be only the bottom line, profit. Safety regulations, salaries, working conditions, etc. would be geared accordingly. Large corporations have a solid foothold on Washington. The present debate on taxes is one example. While companies are busy outsourcing jobs, and, even in this economy, making record profits--they are complaining about increasing the tax rates.The Heritage Foundation and the Chamber of Commerce reports that the United States has the second largest highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. The problem is that this statistic is disingenuous. The reason is that the rate is an overview that does not include those exemptions that have been disallowed all the loopholes, shelters, and special tax breaks. Once these are considered these rates are among the lowest in the world as a share of GDP.

Click to expand...

Do you know how competition works? Why would someone work for a company that pays $10 per hour if they can get $15 per hour anywhere? Why would someone work for a place that makes them work 15 hours a day if they could work somewhere else and get only 8 hours of work a day? People look for the greatest absolute advantage when looking for a job. This ensures that BOTH parties benefit by the transaction.

When you suggest that "Our form of Capitalism makes is possible for anyone who applies themselves to better their standard of living unless they are a minority that has fallen into the trap of believing they have been held back so much that they need to take what they can from hand outs because they can never do any better because they won't be allowed to by the system and some people" are you suggesting that the Blacks were not discriminated against. And please, don't suggest that such hatred is not still raising it's ugly head in our society. What would have been your solution. Sit back and wait for people to have their own revelation that they needed to change their schools, hospitals, workplaces, social and military institutions. We had slavery in the name of capitalism. And Abraham Lincoln said that if slavery would have saved the Union he would have maintained the status quo.

Click to expand...

Slavery and racism only existed because of state sponsorship. They would have been extinguished long ago except for Jim Crow and other problems. Martin Luther King Jr. was only needed to change our consciousness. The Civil Rights Act was unnecessary and has created many problems such as companies deliberately hiring minorities over more qualified whites just to avoid a lawsuits by the EEOC.

And what about the Native Americans. We stole their lands from them. Even after the Supreme Court had ruled, President Jackson sent the military in to remove them and the Trail of Tears was the result. It was based on economic expansion and hatred of their race. And they still do not have justice.

Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with capitalism.

I believe in this country. With all it's problems it's so much better than all the rest. It provides freedoms that other countries do not have. We have made mistakes and I do not believe that we can rest upon our economic system as is. We have to view it honestly and do better for our people in the future.

Click to expand...

Before you judge the economic system, know the difference between economics and government action, and then actually understand the economic system that is capitalism because you have no grasp over it.

In reality a communist society is only as poor as the economy is badly managed. Since when could cubans or russians manage an economy properly to the extent of control required by communism?

SE102 said:

In reality a communist society is only as poor as the economy is badly managed. Since when could cubans or russians manage an economy properly to the extent of control required by communism?

Click to expand...

When has any government managed an economy well with such a top-heavy apparatus?