We recently had this really interesting debate in our class. What do you think of communism? I don't mean communism as in how it was in the Sovjet Union, but really perfect communism. As in everyone gets what they need, and does what they can. That way no one should be poor and all are equal. So yeah, what do you think?
I haven't really studied the topic much or anything, but I always feel that debates over Communism are pretty since I feel that humans feel the pervasive need to compete with each other and be better than other humans. This, invariably, creates a heirarchy. To me, it is unthinkable that the human race would be happy in a communist society. That point aside, I think it is a far more efficient and ideal system than the current one employed by Capitalist society. Unfortunately, I just do not think Humans can deal with it.
I totally agree with you, Ice Nine. But on the other hand, we used to be pretty much a communist society. Back when we were still hunters, everyone was equal. So it might just be possible in the human mind, as long as it goes gradually.. That's what I think.
You don't think that the hunters were all trying to out hunt each other and the gatherers were all trying to out gather? You don't think that there were hunters who were obviously better at hunting than others? You don't think those hunters felt they should get more food than others because they were more valuable to the community? The problem with having a society in which everyone is treated equally is that it is so easy to see that everyone is not equal at all.
Yes, I do think the hunters felt like that. But it did work, because the human race expanded and expanded. But how about this. How can you justify that for instance a teacher in the classic languages ( Greek, latin ), gets paid more than 6 times more than for example a garbage man? If all the garbage men stopped working, the waste would pile up, and diseases would spread. So why is it fair that those teachers get paid that much more? The garbage men are most probably doing the best work they can, and so are the teachers. So shouldn't they be treated equally?
In theory, a perfect communist society would be amazing. In practice, it would be impossible. In a communist society, a person loses the incentive to excel. Why should they work harder when there is no benefit to it? Why should they spend more years in school only to reap the same benefits as someone who doesn't have a higher level of education? Unless human nature changes completely (lolright), it would not be feasible (see failed communist "utopias").
Aiore, I told my teacher the same thing you did. But he kept going on about well it WILL change if it has to and everyone will work hard because they don't have to .. Which simply doesn't make sense. If you ask me, our whole society is built on willing to excel. Hence, it's part of evolution. The richest, smartest, and prettiest people are most probable to have kids that are again very smart, rich, pretty and all that stuff. Our genes "improve". If you take away the element of excelling, I think that'd stop the | evolution | . Oh and by the way, the other argument my teacher brought up was that one would still want to excel, it'd just not be for the money. It'd be for yourself, to make yourself smarter. You'd feel good about that.
Haha right. Like people would work hard just to feel good about themselves. I know that if I got payed the same no matter how poorly I performed, I would slack off and get out of as much work as possible. And I know a lot of other people would too. A communist society would be ideal, but it will never work unless human nature changes.
Due to the fact that there is such a large human population, and the fact that human beings are pretty much the epitome of a generalized species (in that humans are designed such that they can perform an extremely wide variety of tasks...especially physical) that anybody can perform the duties of a garbage man without more than a short period of training. Plus, there are lots of people that are willing to do such a job because it is easy (meaning that the work is fairly brainless and only requires patience and physical skills). Teachers, on the other hand, need to spend a LONG time studying and becoming proficient in their craft before they can pass their accumulated knowledge down. In addition, humans place a higher emphasis on the furthering of knowledge and the spreading of ideas because we have an implicit desire to know all things.
Sorry for the double post (if nobody else responds ebfore I'm done typing this) I tend to agree with your teacher, that it is totally feasible for humans to change in this manner. You talk about losing the drive to "excel" and "evolve" but really all this concerns is the rewards system that is in place. People think of being successful and excelling and doing a good job if they are given a monetary reward, or verbal praise, or some other tangible good that the worker feels will improve their life. It is not difficult to imagine circumstances where such a reward system would lose power and would need to be replaced by a more "ideal" system, such as humans being driven to do a good job for the good of mankind, for the good of society, for the survival of the species. I see this as inevitable, you may not, but the world will eventually face destruction, or the human race will face extinction, and there will be more powerful forces driving people's actions than money and greed and profit and social status. There will be a strong enough event that people will unite and their will to survive and grow and spread their seed will motivate them.
...Communism would really be an Utopia, but the humans are just too egoistic and lazy to achive this... If you know you'll get what your neighbour gets no matter how hard you work, would you work hard?
Anyone who wants some clarification of their decisions of capitalism or socialism should check out the books "Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. Both themes are heavily set within the conflict of socialism v capitalism. Personally, I believe there is enough resources on the Earth so everyone could be fed, clothed, and sheltered. Capitalism, is ultimatly, the exploitation of labor power for private profit. Someone who already has the capital can use it for the machinery or supplies or facility in which to make more capital (money). We are given the idea that we live in a "free-market" society, but how is it that only those born into money can really make the investments necassary to really succeed? Yes, a small few can get lucky, but factors like household enviornment (someone living in poverty is much more likely to be arrested or abuse alcohol or narcotics) and household income (the ability to send a child to school, or supply them with the right materials to successfully manage early eduacation) affect our abilities to reach these idealised levels of success. I believe we need a combination of socialism and capitalism. The idea that the free-market is fail-safe is immature and irresponsible (as we can see with escalading unemployement and homelessness). We need strict social regulation to ensure the well-being and raise the standard of living for most americans. Also, I believe people have the right to distinguish themselves from one another by ambition and dedication. a truly socialist society takes away the individualist in all of us, and I believe that is a right we all deserve as humans. Wether to fuck off and fail or bust ass and succeed. There is no black and white answer for this topic, instead the solution lies somewhere in the gray.
Total equality, I think, would be a perfect step for the world. It would end starvation, create world peace, and ensure equal rights. However, with tyrants, selfishness, greed, violence, corruption and all of the negative traits the people of now promote, that will never be the case. I doubt many of the rich and powerful would want total equality. BUT, imagine if a small society (such as that in The Village .. was it? I don't know .. that film with the Amish people living in the present in the middle of a forest in the present .. what was that called? ANYWAY.. enough of my rambling - back to it) lived like that, in a forest, like the aforementioned one existed and observed total equality. Such as a bunch of professors and intelligentsia who knew the plan would work. They established this society, had children, and conducted this epic social experiment to see how it would work - I think THAT, above all else, would earn not only a novel peace prize, but a place in history as helping the Earth actually move forwards. The whole bloody reason for war is that no one wants equality, everyone wants land, money, power. It pisses me off, really. I'm done. LOL
To be honest, I don't believe in a "perfect Communist society" It's a fact that we all have a bit of greed within us (at least some of us do.) Therefore it would be impossible for a group of workers to be in charge of the factory as those single individuals would be more powerful and strive to dominate over the rest of the workers Just my opinion though :/ Also, I think history has shown us that the leaders of the communist countries contradict their own ideologies as they are the key individuals - therefore their power over the country sets them apart from the working class.
Not a fan of communism, marxism, or any form of socialism (as I've made clear in my previous post), but as for the leaders go, their idealogies, if properly instituted, would strip even the power from themselves and place it in the hands of worker unions. But historically it never makes it to that point. Communism has historically produced radical leaders, but so has capitalism. Hitler rose to power because socialism was sweeping Germany and the capitalist class gave him power so as to protect their interests. Same with Mousalini's Italty. If we all just followed 'Objectivism' we would have no problems!