Marxism/Communism is the WORST form of government.

[Matterhorn]

I always hear a lot that Communism is a great form of government on paper but will fail in real life. This is completely stupid. It's terrible on paper, and should be erased from the government choices. It promises spreading wealth and demanding equality to the masses. This may work if everybody, say, in a small community (note the similarity in the words community and communism) wants it, but in a government can't work. There's a reason why America is the world's only superpower and the USSR collapsed.

Now if you look between the lines of Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto you can see why it would fail. If Communism grows beyond a few people it requires a massive amount of government and a mass amount out of power in the leaders to make it "work". With all the power a leader can, per say, kill 20 million of his own citizens (Stalin). Now Communism can supply you with the needs in life like heath care, a job, food. But it can't give you your wants, and also denies you from getting those wants. In America you can make it big by your own hand. You can say Capitalists are just greedy, but a nation cannot prosper if all of it's citizens are poor. There is also a reason why so many people tried to escape the Soviet Union.

A free market system will beat a Communist system 100% of the time. Look at it this way, the far left has been responsible for way more crimes than the far right.

I agree with Calvin Coolidge that there needs to be as little government as physically possible. It should only be there to help you in times of extreme need, provide diplomacy, and defend its people. Democrats and other people on the left and far left say that the government needs to have a stranglehold on its economy. All the time I read articles of small business owners complaining that the government only gets in the way. It will never help.

That's why Communism just sucks. Do you really want to look back on your life and say, "well...I got everything I needed." Here's a question, would you rather poor in America where you have rights and can do anything in your power to get rich, or poor in the Soviet Union, where you are damned to your life of poverty by the government with no real rights, and you can't do crap to get rich?

[hellheaven1987]

The idea of having a government is horrible - we should constantly seek for freedom for ourselves!! Death of all forms of governments!!

[Tom Crooze]

I always hear a lot that Communism is a great form of government on paper but will fail in real life. This is completely stupid. It's terrible on paper, and should be erased from the government choices. It promises spreading wealth and demanding equality to the masses. This may work if everybody, say, in a small community (note the similarity in the words community and communism) wants it, but in a government can't work. There's a reason why America is the world's only superpower and the USSR collapsed. Now if you look between the lines of Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto you can see why it would fail. If Communism grows beyond a few people it requires a massive amount of government and a mass amount out of power in the leaders to make it "work". With all the power a leader can, per say, kill 20 million of his own citizens (Stalin). Now Communism can supply you with the needs in life like heath care, a job, food. But it can't give you your wants, and also denies you from getting those wants. In America you can make it big by your own hand. You can say Capitalists are just greedy, but a nation cannot prosper if all of it's citizens are poor. There is also a reason why so many people tried to escape the Soviet Union. A free market system will beat a Communist system 100% of the time. Look at it this way, the far left has been responsible for way more crimes than the far right. I agree with Calvin Coolidge that there needs to be as little government as physically possible. It should only be there to help you in times of extreme need, provide diplomacy, and defend its people. Democrats and other people on the left and far left say that the government needs to have a stranglehold on its economy. All the time I read articles of small business owners complaining that the government only gets in the way. It will never help. That's why Communism just sucks. Do you really want to look back on your life and say, "well...I got everything I needed." Here's a question, would you rather poor in America where you have rights and can do anything in your power to get rich, or poor in the Soviet Union, where you are damned to your life of poverty by the government with no real rights, and you can't do crap to get rich?

This=Unreadable mess

[Shneckie]

Well the principle of communism is thought by many including capitalists to be a very good principle. But yes it just does not work.

The only example of a working society which held the principles of communism would be the Native American tribes.

Rather be poor in the Soviet Union. I can at least get healthcare when I need it and not be 30,000 dollars in debt.

In such a case you would probably have starved to death anyway.

[Their Law]

This=Unreadable mess

A mess but not unreadable, now whether you agree on his points or even acknowledge them as valid points is up to you, but at least respond to those points and debunk them rather than a pithy one liner.

[Tom Crooze]

A mess but not unreadable, now whether you agree on his points or even acknowledge them as valid points is up to you, but at least respond to those points and debunk them rather than a pithy one liner.

I'm have really mild dyslexia, so it's hard to read, hence unreadable (for me)

[Central Asian Qaghan]

Here's a question, would you rather poor in America where you have rights and can do anything in your power to get rich, or poor in the Soviet Union, where you are damned to your life of poverty by the government with no real rights, and you can't do crap to get rich?

Rather be poor in the Soviet Union. I can at least get healthcare when I need it and not be 30,000 dollars in debt.

[Iustinianus]

This is going to be bad.

[LSJ]

There's a reason why America is the world's only superpower and the USSR collapsed.

A key factor was that America was a nation, and was not afflicted with the same problems as the USSR (problems not caused by communist ideas). The USA had the benefit of not being affected by ethnic conflict, not being a society that had been destroyed and remolded after a bloody revolution, had not suffered much through WWI and II, and was populated in the 1900s mostly by immigrants, who expanded into previously undeveloped land.

The USSR, by contrast, was a re-worked Russian Empire, ruled by a cultural elite, torn by ethnic conflict and religious conflict pre-dating communism, the land being built upon was previously owned by populations that had faced genocide or continued to exist as oppressed undesirables, and the country had lost so much of its infrastructure in WWII. The USSR wouldn't be anything like the US, even if it never became communist. The nationalism was just that much worse under a dictatorship that used communist ideology as an excuse to selectively supply or deny people resources.

Now if you look between the lines of Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto you can see why it would fail. If Communism grows beyond a few people it requires a massive amount of government and a mass amount out of power in the leaders to make it "work". With all the power a leader can, per say, kill 20 million of his own citizens (Stalin).

Since when does a communist nation have to be run by a single man? What about a democracy? Yes, you may say that the wealthy people who are prevented from becoming oligarchs will be against the reforms and abolish the system. But democracies are run by the majority; the majority is not wealthy, and the reforms will (at least be seen to) benefit them. A communist government can be constitutional as well, where leaders cannot violate outlined rights and freedoms, and it becomes difficult for the government to act in ways that the populace does not approve of without the basis of their power melting.

Now Communism can supply you with the needs in life like heath care, a job, food. But it can't give you your wants, and also denies you from getting those wants.

This is the area where I agree. A government is not effective at predicting the changing trends in consumption. A market made up of many competing businesses creates a system that measures the demands of the people and attempts to provide innovative services and products to them. Competition is a key part of advancing an economy.

In America you can make it big by your own hand. You can say Capitalists are just greedy, but a nation cannot prosper if all of it's citizens are poor. There is also a reason why so many people tried to escape the Soviet Union. A free market system will beat a Communist system 100% of the time.

Firstly, not necessarily. People who work hard are not sure to succeed.

1. Someone who has little money cannot invest, becasue investment brings no useful returns.
2. People who are poor are less employable. They tend to have less education, less high-level experience (through less opportunities), less ability to network (no friends/employers of parents and such), may not have access to a car (which limits where they can work), and of course, homeless people are undesirables as far as human resources is concerned.
3. Free markets can cause people to fail big. The '08 recession is considered to be caused by regulation failure and high-risk trading. The whole event caused many people in the US to lose their homes, their jobs, their cars... Even if the system does not collapse, it can be very hard on less wealthy individuals. Free market healthcare like what is in the US is expensive. Extremely expensive. Even with insurance people have to dish out cars as payment, and insurance companies like to use every opportunity to deny people when the time comes.

Secondly, why do all of the citizens have to be poor in a communist nation? The idea of wealth redistribution is to eliminate the low and high classes and make them part of a huge middle class. Saying everyone is poor is assuming the system will fail.

Thirdly, you misunderstand if you say a capitalist system will beat a communist system. There is an entirely different philosophy behind each of them. Capitalism makes the goal of the economy to increase one's wealth. Communism is about making the economy simply a byproduct of a nation and the necessary trade within its borders, rather than the focus of its existence. In the eyes of a capitalist, communism always fails because it does not generate as much wealth. In the eyes of a communist, capitalism fails because it generates wealth but always leaves the lower classes behind.

Look at it this way, the far left has been responsible for way more crimes than the far right.

I disagree with the left-right spectrum because it does not explain governments well. Left and right says little about the way in which the government operates. A social democracy is left, but is structured specifically against oppression and corruption, and is one of the least likely governments to go to war. The governments that have committed horrible atrocities have all been authoritarian. It's not about left or right. When a dictator or small social elite comes to power, corruption and abuse is sure to follow. Nazis, Stalin, Khmer Rouge, Imperial Japan, Gaddafi, etc. All committed crimes against humanity. Compare that with any functional democracy, and the reality is clear.

I agree with Calvin Coolidge that there needs to be as little government as physically possible. It should only be there to help you in times of extreme need, provide diplomacy, and defend its people.

Democrats and other people on the left and far left say that the government needs to have a stranglehold on its economy. All the time I read articles of small business owners complaining that the government only gets in the way. It will never help.

a) What happens when there is no government? Every example of a country without government I have seen has been affected by rampant looting and murder. Government forms naturally and cannot be avoided. If there is no national government, unofficial forms will exist; mafias, gangs, tribes... There will always be a government, so the issue is about which type you prefer.

I think a permanent government with authority to maintain legitimacy, that exists with the consent of the people, is the best way. Essentially, a democracy with at least a police force. Either on a national, provincial, or municipal level.

b) What about the small businesses that feel that the government needs to help them? A free market system is biased against small businesses. Big business can outcompete. They have cheaper resources, more connections, existing facilities, more innovation to draw from. A small business will not get off the ground when a big business offers the same thing for a fraction of the price.

Small town stores vs Walmart. Who wins?

What about people who come up with new inventions, you say? Things big business doesn't provide?

Well, big business can steal their ideas and exploit them far better than small business would.

Patents and trademarks, enforced by a government, actually help small businesses by allowing them to develop an idea without the big business simply stealing it. Government intervention tends to be biased against the BIG businesses, not the small ones. Even with taxes, the small ones (such as sole proprietorships) can tack on so many expenses that they can end up paying nothing.

Do you really want to look back on your life and say, "well...I got everything I needed." Here's a question, would you rather poor in America where you have rights and can do anything in your power to get rich, or poor in the Soviet Union, where you are damned to your life of poverty by the government with no real rights, and you can't do crap to get rich?

Again, you aren't just comparing communism with free markets. You are comparing an established democracy with a militant dictatorship. Being poor in a communist country means you could get government support, an apartment, and not be on the streets. Being poor in America means unless you get lucky or someone is charitable, you could be doomed to stay on the streets.

[Dan the Man]

Rather be poor in the Soviet Union. I can at least get healthcare when I need it and not be 30,000 dollars in debt.

And then die waiting in the lines behind every other person in the country who needs healthcare? Or maybe starve. That's also a possibility.

The only example of a working society which held the principles of communism would be the Native American tribes.

wut?
Communism/Marxism =/= tribalism...

A key factor was that America was a nation, and was not afflicted with the same problems as the USSR (problems not caused by communist ideas). The USA had the benefit of not being affected by ethnic conflict, not being a society that had been destroyed and remolded after a bloody revolution, had not suffered much through WWI and II, and was populated in the 1900s mostly by immigrants, who expanded into previously undeveloped land.

No ethnic conflict? Have you never heard of the race riots in the first half of the 20th century?
And by the way, the US certainly did fight a bloody revolution a good two-hundred years or so previously. Was George Washington a dictator? No. Was Stalin? Yes. You can have a successful revolution without somebody rising to be a dictator.

The USSR, by contrast, was a re-worked Russian Empire, ruled by a cultural elite, torn by ethnic conflict and religious conflict pre-dating communism, the land being built upon was previously owned by populations that had faced genocide or continued to exist as oppressed undesirables, and the country had lost so much of its infrastructure in WWII. The USSR wouldn't be anything like the US, even if it never became communist. The nationalism was just that much worse under a dictatorship that used communist ideology as an excuse to selectively supply or deny people resources.

As a (soon to be) convert to Orthodox Christianity, I'd have to say that's quite false. While, yes, there certainly was plenty of ethnic/religious conflict within Imperial Russia, the persecution of Russian Orthodox Christians was something entirely new. So, along with the old-school persecution against ethnic/religious minorities, you now have new state-sanctioned massacres of clergy, destruction of churches, etc. In short, the Soviets not only kept with the old bigotry, but added their own new atrocities to the pile. I also doubt it was World War II that kicked off the start of the Stalinist dictatorship in Russia, considering it had been established for a good decade-and-a-half or so before WWII even began! You can't blame the destruction of infrastructure on that.

Since when does a communist nation have to be run by a single man? What about a democracy? Yes, you may say that the wealthy people who are prevented from becoming oligarchs will be against the reforms and abolish the system. But democracies are run by the majority; the majority is not wealthy, and the reforms will (at least be seen to) benefit them. A communist government can be constitutional as well, where leaders cannot violate outlined rights and freedoms, and it becomes difficult for the government to act in ways that the populace does not approve of without the basis of their power melting.

This basically depends on the lower classes to actually go along with the communist agenda. There is so much else that is completely wrong with communism besides the possible rise of a supreme leader that I highly doubt you could get a majority to side with you, myself included. I'm not from a "bourgeois" background and, yet, here I am debating this with you. Unless, of course, you want to lie to them which basically makes you a dictator anyway.

1. Someone who has little money cannot invest, becasue investment brings no useful returns.

Let's look at a metaphor: You have two apple seeds. You plant said apple seeds in the ground, take care of them, and they grow into two apple trees. These apple trees provide you with all of the seeds you need to plant an entire orchard. In short, a small start can lead to bigger profits. It doesn't matter how little you have to invest, it matters that you do invest in a company you have done research in and are able to, with some accuracy, predict a future profit in.

2. People who are poor are less employable. They tend to have less education, less high-level experience (through less opportunities), less ability to network (no friends/employers of parents and such), may not have access to a car (which limits where they can work), and of course, homeless people are undesirables as far as human resources is concerned.

So...because you're poor you can't at least get a high school diploma (which is easily enough to get you a comfortable job. You won't exactly make six figures, but you'll do well), you will have less opportunities to succeed in life, and you will have no ability to work with others so you can acquire/work at a job? Sorry friend, but that's laughably ridiculous.

3. Free markets can cause people to fail big. The '08 recession is considered to be caused by regulation failure and high-risk trading. The whole event caused many people in the US to lose their homes, their jobs, their cars... Even if the system does not collapse, it can be very hard on less wealthy individuals. Free market healthcare like what is in the US is expensive. Extremely expensive. Even with insurance people have to dish out cars as payment, and insurance companies like to use every opportunity to deny people when the time comes.

And so socialism is the remedy to this because...?
If the recession was caused by high-risk trading, then, hmm, let me think, don't put everything you own into the market! If that's the cause, then I'd say the solution is to allow people to learn from their mistakes, not to coddle them. That only causes the situation to repeat again because they learn nothing.

Secondly, why do all of the citizens have to be poor in a communist nation? The idea of wealth redistribution is to eliminate the low and high classes and make them part of a huge middle class. Saying everyone is poor is assuming the system will fail.

Why restrict them to the middle class? Why not allow them to exceed? Basically, you're holding them in a state of mediocrity. Sure, not poverty, but not high-class either.

Thirdly, you misunderstand if you say a capitalist system will beat a communist system. There is an entirely different philosophy behind each of them. Capitalism makes the goal of the economy to increase one's wealth. Communism is about making the economy simply a byproduct of a nation and the necessary trade within its borders, rather than the focus of its existence. In the eyes of a capitalist, communism always fails because it does not generate as much wealth. In the eyes of a communist, capitalism fails because it generates wealth but always leaves the lower classes behind.

That's a little over-reaching, wouldn't you think? Capitalists (or at least anti-communists) believe that communism fails because it collapses into a dictatorship (and please, don't deny this. Find me one nation in the world that has tried communism and been successful with it.), not because it doesn't turn a profit.

I disagree with the left-right spectrum because it does not explain governments well. Left and right says little about the way in which the government operates. A social democracy is left, but is structured specifically against oppression and corruption, and is one of the least likely governments to go to war. The governments that have committed horrible atrocities have all been authoritarian. It's not about left or right. When a dictator or small social elite comes to power, corruption and abuse is sure to follow. Nazis, Stalin, Khmer Rouge, Imperial Japan, Gaddafi, etc. All committed crimes against humanity. Compare that with any functional democracy, and the reality is clear.

I think we can agree on this.

a) What happens when there is no government? Every example of a country without government I have seen has been affected by rampant looting and murder. Government forms naturally and cannot be avoided. If there is no national government, unofficial forms will exist; mafias, gangs, tribes... There will always be a government, so the issue is about which type you prefer.

Another thing we can, at least as a principle, agree on.

I think a permanent government with authority to maintain legitimacy, that exists with the consent of the people, is the best way. Essentially, a democracy with at least a police force. Either on a national, provincial, or municipal level.

So...a police force but no military? Here's where you lose me. A nation without a military is, essentially, a flashing neon target saying "conquer me!" Unless of course you have allies you can rely on to protect you, but even that isn't a definite.

b) What about the small businesses that feel that the government needs to help them? A free market system is biased against small businesses. Big business can outcompete. They have cheaper resources, more connections, existing facilities, more innovation to draw from. A small business will not get off the ground when a big business offers the same thing for a fraction of the price.

Yes, but you're looking at the here and now. What about the past? Big businesses don't just pop out of nowhere, everything has to start small and work its way to the top! Offer something that the competition can't (low prices, unique goods, etc) and before you know it, you're the big business Marxists love to hate, despite starting out as a small business.

Small town stores vs Walmart. Who wins?

What's the difference? Either way it creates jobs, which is what basically pretty much everybody wants out of this. While I certainly don't advocate monopolies, I appreciate that Walmart offers something to the consumer that the mom & pop businesses don't, that's why they're so successful. Someday somebody else will come along with something better and Walmart will be the one losing.

What about people who come up with new inventions, you say? Things big business doesn't provide?

Well, big business can steal their ideas and exploit them far better than small business would.

Hence, copyrights.

Patents and trademarks, enforced by a government, actually help small businesses by allowing them to develop an idea without the big business simply stealing it. Government intervention tends to be biased against the BIG businesses, not the small ones. Even with taxes, the small ones (such as sole proprietorships) can tack on so many expenses that they can end up paying nothing.

Then that's something that needs to be fixed as well. In a truly free market society the government is biased to neither side.

Again, you aren't just comparing communism with free markets. You are comparing an established democracy with a militant dictatorship. Being poor in a communist country means you could get government support, an apartment, and not be on the streets. Being poor in America means unless you get lucky or someone is charitable, you could be doomed to stay on the streets.

And this is where charity comes into play, not government. If you want to truly make the common citizen learn to be better towards his fellow man, then the solution you're looking for is not the government taking his money and giving it to the less fortunate, however much it may benefit them. If you want true social change, start by teaching people to be willing to give freely of themselves, not by redistributing their cash. It's one thing to look a man in the eye and hand him some money, or to send money to a charity, but it's something completely different to pay a tax to the government so they can hand off the extra money you give them to somebody else.
Even if you choose to go for a welfare-state angle, you're also fully depending on the person receiving welfare checks to put the money to good use. How often do you think that happens, exactly? Even if it's nine times out of ten that the person getting welfare, the whole system is bent by those few people (which, considering all of the people on welfare these days, isn't really that little) who go on and spend the money on luxuries that they really don't need.

[LSJ]

No ethnic conflict? Have you never heard of the race riots in the first half of the 20th century?

Different situation. Culturally, the USSR was made up of large, mostly contiguous blocks, where different ethnicities had their own national identities. There was a Lithuania, almost all populated by Lithuanians, a Crimea, populated by Crimeans, Russians in west Russia, etc. In the US, there was never a conflict between nations. It was more akin to class warfare, as one group of Americans fought to be recognized as equals to other Americans. The acts of violence against Italians and Irish immigrants were more spontaneous, results of intense racism in the growing coastal states. There was not a central government trying to hold together a bunch of formerly independant, culturally unique states.

And by the way, the US certainly did fight a bloody revolution a good two-hundred years or so previously. Was George Washington a dictator? No. Was Stalin? Yes. You can have a successful revolution without somebody rising to be a dictator.

Of course. The Russian revolution did not have to create a dictatorship. It's an unfortunate turn that many revolutions happen to take. The Iranian revolution was like the Russian one, with the many groups of revolutionaries fighting against each other and the government, and the one that claimed the 'crown' happened to be one of the worse options.

I also doubt it was World War II that kicked off the start of the Stalinist dictatorship in Russia, considering it had been established for a good decade-and-a-half or so before WWII even began! You can't blame the destruction of infrastructure on that.

It didn't start the dictatorship, and I didn't say that. What it did was cause massive damage to the economy. Thanks to very poor government planning, reconstruction was not nearly as effective as it was in the west.

This basically depends on the lower classes to actually go along with the communist agenda. There is so much else that is completely wrong with communism besides the possible rise of a supreme leader that I highly doubt you could get a majority to side with you, myself included. I'm not from a "bourgeois" background and, yet, here I am debating this with you. Unless, of course, you want to lie to them which basically makes you a dictator anyway.

I did not say that the majority would go along with it, or that they would actually benefit from it. The majority could see potential benefit in the system. And if the majority happens to like the idea, then the system could operate along democratic lines. This is theory I'm talking about, not reality. I'd talk about reality, but anti-communism is so ingrained in society that such support would not plausibly exist right now.

Let's look at a metaphor: You have two apple seeds. You plant said apple seeds in the ground, take care of them, and they grow into two apple trees. These apple trees provide you with all of the seeds you need to plant an entire orchard. In short, a small start can lead to bigger profits. It doesn't matter how little you have to invest, it matters that you do invest in a company you have done research in and are able to, with some accuracy, predict a future profit in.

If someone has to pour his money into rent, food, utilities, and care for children and relatives, investment will be very small. It is hard to find somewhere to put in a measly investment and get interest that does something significant.

So...because you're poor you can't at least get a high school diploma (which is easily enough to get you a comfortable job. You won't exactly make six figures, but you'll do well), you will have less opportunities to succeed in life, and you will have no ability to work with others so you can acquire/work at a job? Sorry friend, but that's laughably ridiculous.
And so socialism is the remedy to this because...?

I'm not saying that makes them stuck. The point is that poverty places handicaps on people, makes 'success' harder. Some people actually do have to choose between education and work. Success comes easy when you have the resources, and some people don't have them. Socialism doesn't fix it. Government support, like what every developed country has, helps give opportunities to get out of a hole. That is the point. Those things don't make people eternally poor, but working hard isn't always a sure way to succeed, because you may be very limited.

One student talks to her father, her father talks to his friend, and she gets a job. I put out tons of resumes, get selected for a couple interviews, and don't get a job. The more time I would be without a job, the more I would have to do to claw my way out, while the other person flys ahead.

If the recession was caused by high-risk trading, then, hmm, let me think, don't put everything you own into the market! If that's the cause, then I'd say the solution is to allow people to learn from their mistakes, not to coddle them. That only causes the situation to repeat again because they learn nothing.

The point there is that free market is not assured success or stability. It can hit people hard just like poor government planning. In a truly free system, the hit would allow the affected people to fall, whereas government intervention would provide a safety net. In such a situation, the capitalist could fail where the communist would not.

Why restrict them to the middle class? Why not allow them to exceed? Basically, you're holding them in a state of mediocrity. Sure, not poverty, but not high-class either.

Large middle class with different levels. Doctors do not receive the same things as janitors. They are given equal social status, but for doing such difficult work, the doctor has more 'funds'. There remains selfish incentive to go for harder work. The elmination of the upper class means that instead of people raking in billions of dollars, they rake in more than they need to get what they want, but are limited, in that they do not become an isolated social class that rules the economy. There are ways for that to work, in theory.

That's a little over-reaching, wouldn't you think? Capitalists (or at least anti-communists) believe that communism fails because it collapses into a dictatorship (and please, don't deny this. Find me one nation in the world that has tried communism and been successful with it.), not because it doesn't turn a profit.

No, I will not give you that. No country has implemented a communist government. Every country that has called itself communist did not earn the title of communist. The historical examples were essentially militant collectivist dictatorships.

What defines a capitalist is personal ownership and wealth generation. Even if a communist country were to have happy, healthy people, it would be a failure for a capitalist, because he would not truly own his business, and would be limited. He would not consider it success so long as he is prevented from expanding into infinity.

So...a police force but no military? Here's where you lose me. A nation without a military is, essentially, a flashing neon target saying "conquer me!" Unless of course you have allies you can rely on to protect you, but even that isn't a definite.

Yes, but that was my definition of minimal government. What Matterhorn said was that he agreed with the idea of having essentially no government except in times of need. Such a government would be far worse off than my state with a simple police force.

Yes, but you're looking at the here and now. What about the past? Big businesses don't just pop out of nowhere, everything has to start small and work its way to the top! Offer something that the competition can't (low prices, unique goods, etc) and before you know it, you're the big business Marxists love to hate, despite starting out as a small business.

In the past, offering new services and products was easier because a small business had the means to do it. To compete today with something new generally means you have to have access to ways to create complex eletronic components that small businesses cannot easily obtain. If you want to start a business building a new line of advanced wrist-mounted computers, good luck finding a way to do cheaper than a major corporation, with less than 20 people on staff.

What's the difference? Either way it creates jobs, which is what basically pretty much everybody wants out of this. While I certainly don't advocate monopolies, I appreciate that Walmart offers something to the consumer that the mom & pop businesses don't, that's why they're so successful. Someday somebody else will come along with something better and Walmart will be the one losing.

I'm not opposed to having Walmarts instead of small businesses. I was just using an example of how free markets allow the creation of large businesses that can easily crush the competition. Just a point on how not all small business owners hate government interference.

Hence, copyrights.

Which are a wonderful benefit of government interference.

And this is where charity comes into play, not government. If you want to truly make the common citizen learn to be better towards his fellow man, then the solution you're looking for is not the government taking his money and giving it to the less fortunate, however much it may benefit them. If you want true social change, start by teaching people to be willing to give freely of themselves, not by redistributing their cash. It's one thing to look a man in the eye and hand him some money, or to send money to a charity, but it's something completely different to pay a tax to the government so they can hand off the extra money you give them to somebody else.

Of course, and I agree. Charity is the ideal means of helping the unfortunates. There is a debate about what is more effective in reality, for which I have no answer. Should the government help the poor, or should we rely on charity? Neither one is assurred success.

Even if you choose to go for a welfare-state angle, you're also fully depending on the person receiving welfare checks to put the money to good use. How often do you think that happens, exactly? Even if it's nine times out of ten that the person getting welfare, the whole system is bent by those few people (which, considering all of the people on welfare these days, isn't really that little) who go on and spend the money on luxuries that they really don't need.

That is a problem that bothers me with people who are in bad situations. When opportunities arise, some people waste it, or abuse it.

Finally, I am opposed to communism and would never support a communist government. I just like to heckle.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Even if you choose to go for a welfare-state angle, you're also fully depending on the person receiving welfare checks to put the money to good use. How often do you think that happens, exactly? Even if it's nine times out of ten that the person getting welfare, the whole system is bent by those few people (which, considering all of the people on welfare these days, isn't really that little) who go on and spend the money on luxuries that they really don't need.

Who cares what they spend it on so long as they are spending it?

"The system" isn't being bent at all. In fact if some people spend it on luxury goods that's great. They're putting money into the economy, and into a sector that would usually be recieving less money when welfare recipients increase.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Let's look at a metaphor: You have two apple seeds. You plant said apple seeds in the ground, take care of them, and they grow into two apple trees. These apple trees provide you with all of the seeds you need to plant an entire orchard. In short, a small start can lead to bigger profits. It doesn't matter how little you have to invest, it matters that you do invest in a company you have done research in and are able to, with some accuracy, predict a future profit in.

Thats a horrible metaphor. Two seeds dont grow into two trees. And crops can fail. Two seeds just maximize the chances of a failed crop.

If you have little money you cant invest unless your willing to not pay the bills or eat till your next check. How do you expect someone on min wage with a rent and several bills to invest? How much do stocks, bonds, IRAs cost?

And welfare is a stimulus in both good times and bad. The money is injected into the economy and keeping stores operating until the economy turns around.

Cut welfare programs then you have to immediately cut taxes as well otherwise people will be taxed the same amount for benefits they will no longer receive and when the hits the fan and the economy fails and millions go homeless due to no job and paper stacks of bills.... Cut the taxes too people will still go homeless if you abandon social welfare programs.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

A key factor was that America was a nation, and was not afflicted with the same problems as the USSR (problems not caused by communist ideas). The USA had the benefit of not being affected by ethnic conflict, not being a society that had been destroyed and remolded after a bloody revolution, had not suffered much through WWI and II, and was populated in the 1900s mostly by immigrants, who expanded into previously undeveloped land.

The USSR, by contrast, was a re-worked Russian Empire, ruled by a cultural elite, torn by ethnic conflict and religious conflict pre-dating communism, the land being built upon was previously owned by populations that had faced genocide or continued to exist as oppressed undesirables, and the country had lost so much of its infrastructure in WWII. The USSR wouldn't be anything like the US, even if it never became communist. The nationalism was just that much worse under a dictatorship that used communist ideology as an excuse to selectively supply or deny people resources.



Since when does a communist nation have to be run by a single man? What about a democracy? Yes, you may say that the wealthy people who are prevented from becoming oligarchs will be against the reforms and abolish the system. But democracies are run by the majority; the majority is not wealthy, and the reforms will (at least be seen to) benefit them. A communist government can be constitutional as well, where leaders cannot violate outlined rights and freedoms, and it becomes difficult for the government to act in ways that the populace does not approve of without the basis of their power melting.



This is the area where I agree. A government is not effective at predicting the changing trends in consumption. A market made up of many competing businesses creates a system that measures the demands of the people and attempts to provide innovative services and products to them. Competition is a key part of advancing an economy.



Firstly, not necessarily. People who work hard are not sure to succeed.

1. Someone who has little money cannot invest, becasue investment brings no useful returns.
2. People who are poor are less employable. They tend to have less education, less high-level experience (through less opportunities), less ability to network (no friends/employers of parents and such), may not have access to a car (which limits where they can work), and of course, homeless people are undesirables as far as human resources is concerned.
3. Free markets can cause people to fail big. The '08 recession is considered to be caused by regulation failure and high-risk trading. The whole event caused many people in the US to lose their homes, their jobs, their cars... Even if the system does not collapse, it can be very hard on less wealthy individuals. Free market healthcare like what is in the US is expensive. Extremely expensive. Even with insurance people have to dish out cars as payment, and insurance companies like to use every opportunity to deny people when the time comes.

Secondly, why do all of the citizens have to be poor in a communist nation? The idea of wealth redistribution is to eliminate the low and high classes and make them part of a huge middle class. Saying everyone is poor is assuming the system will fail.

Thirdly, you misunderstand if you say a capitalist system will beat a communist system. There is an entirely different philosophy behind each of them. Capitalism makes the goal of the economy to increase one's wealth. Communism is about making the economy simply a byproduct of a nation and the necessary trade within its borders, rather than the focus of its existence. In the eyes of a capitalist, communism always fails because it does not generate as much wealth. In the eyes of a communist, capitalism fails because it generates wealth but always leaves the lower classes behind.



I disagree with the left-right spectrum because it does not explain governments well. Left and right says little about the way in which the government operates. A social democracy is left, but is structured specifically against oppression and corruption, and is one of the least likely governments to go to war. The governments that have committed horrible atrocities have all been authoritarian. It's not about left or right. When a dictator or small social elite comes to power, corruption and abuse is sure to follow. Nazis, Stalin, Khmer Rouge, Imperial Japan, Gaddafi, etc. All committed crimes against humanity. Compare that with any functional democracy, and the reality is clear.



a) What happens when there is no government? Every example of a country without government I have seen has been affected by rampant looting and murder. Government forms naturally and cannot be avoided. If there is no national government, unofficial forms will exist; mafias, gangs, tribes... There will always be a government, so the issue is about which type you prefer.

I think a permanent government with authority to maintain legitimacy, that exists with the consent of the people, is the best way. Essentially, a democracy with at least a police force. Either on a national, provincial, or municipal level.

b) What about the small businesses that feel that the government needs to help them? A free market system is biased against small businesses. Big business can outcompete. They have cheaper resources, more connections, existing facilities, more innovation to draw from. A small business will not get off the ground when a big business offers the same thing for a fraction of the price.

Small town stores vs Walmart. Who wins?

What about people who come up with new inventions, you say? Things big business doesn't provide?

Well, big business can steal their ideas and exploit them far better than small business would.

Patents and trademarks, enforced by a government, actually help small businesses by allowing them to develop an idea without the big business simply stealing it. Government intervention tends to be biased against the BIG businesses, not the small ones. Even with taxes, the small ones (such as sole proprietorships) can tack on so many expenses that they can end up paying nothing.



Again, you aren't just comparing communism with free markets. You are comparing an established democracy with a militant dictatorship. Being poor in a communist country means you could get government support, an apartment, and not be on the streets. Being poor in America means unless you get lucky or someone is charitable, you could be doomed to stay on the streets.

I answered most of the answers to these points of view here already: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...33#post9071333

[Sir Pignans]

It's the worse form of goverment in the fact that the ideology is so amazing in every way in gets rid of the need to even need a goverment.

The country runs itself.

Although in practice, things get to stuck on the whole dictatorship of the proletariat part of the philosiphy.

[Brain_in_a_vat]

I always hear a lot that Communism is a great form of government on paper but will fail in real life. This is completely stupid. It's terrible on paper, and should be erased from the government choices. It promises spreading wealth and demanding equality to the masses. This may work if everybody, say, in a small community (note the similarity in the words community and communism) wants it, but in a government can't work. There's a reason why America is the world's only superpower and the USSR collapsed. Now if you look between the lines of Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto you can see why it would fail. If Communism grows beyond a few people it requires a massive amount of government and a mass amount out of power in the leaders to make it "work". With all the power a leader can, per say, kill 20 million of his own citizens (Stalin). Now Communism can supply you with the needs in life like heath care, a job, food. But it can't give you your wants, and also denies you from getting those wants. In America you can make it big by your own hand. You can say Capitalists are just greedy, but a nation cannot prosper if all of it's citizens are poor. There is also a reason why so many people tried to escape the Soviet Union. A free market system will beat a Communist system 100% of the time. Look at it this way, the far left has been responsible for way more crimes than the far right. I agree with Calvin Coolidge that there needs to be as little government as physically possible. It should only be there to help you in times of extreme need, provide diplomacy, and defend its people. Democrats and other people on the left and far left say that the government needs to have a stranglehold on its economy. All the time I read articles of small business owners complaining that the government only gets in the way. It will never help. That's why Communism just sucks. Do you really want to look back on your life and say, "well...I got everything I needed." Here's a question, would you rather poor in America where you have rights and can do anything in your power to get rich, or poor in the Soviet Union, where you are damned to your life of poverty by the government with no real rights, and you can't do crap to get rich?

Please paragraph

[Mig el Pig]

I always hear a lot that Communism is a great form of government on paper but will fail in real life. This is completely stupid. It's terrible on paper, and should be erased from the government choices. It promises spreading wealth and demanding equality to the masses.
This may work if everybody, say, in a small community (note the similarity in the words community and communism) wants it, but in a government can't work. There's a reason why America is the world's only superpower and the USSR collapsed. Now if you look between the lines of Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto you can see why it would fail.

To be honest, Karl Marx Manifesto was talking about industrialized nations in his manifesto, so in his era that was Germany, Belgium, UK and USA. Some would also consider France and Italy but that is beside the question.

If you look at which important countries became communist: Russia (1917) and China(1949) it immediatly becomes clear that neither of those were industrialized at the time. (failing marx first requirement for a socialist state) Both of them had to catch up in one generation what Western society had achieved in 4-5 while reforming their society drasticly, recuperating from a devestating war and civil unrest


If Communism grows beyond a few people it requires a massive amount of government and a mass amount out of power in the leaders to make it "work". With all the power a leader can, per say, kill 20 million of his own citizens (Stalin). Now Communism can supply you with the needs in life like heath care, a job, food. But it can't give you your wants, and also denies you from getting those wants. In America you can make it big by your own hand. You can say Capitalists are just greedy, but a nation cannot prosper if all of it's citizens are poor. There is also a reason why so many people tried to escape the Soviet Union. A free market system will beat a Communist system 100% of the time. Look at it this way,

the far left has been responsible for way more crimes than the far right

Depends on how you count (but discussions like these are bit ludicrous)

It also depends on what is far left and far right. The Khmer rouge (very extreme dictatorial left) was supported by the USA(moderate/right) In addition USA supported lots of other right wing dictators in South America, Africa and Asia. Many of those ruthesly repressed their own people. Their is no way to construct a kill/death ratio for political terms as Kapitalism, Communism, Far Left and Far Right.

[SinerAthin]

Wouldn't call it the worst form of government, but I'd certainly call it some of the worst practised governments!

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Communism advocates no state.

You're talking about socialism. Seek to understand first please before commenting on something.

[hellheaven1987]

Communism advocates no state.

You're talking about socialism. Seek to understand first please before commenting on something.

Well, Communism did want to impose a community council to rule the rest - so yes it does want to create a form of government, and as an anarchist I said big no to that.

Death of all forms of government!!!