I agree. but sometimes less is more. no competition isnt the goal, here.

Not sure if you've ever read any of Marx's bullcrap writings (I personally haven't), or even done the slightest little bit of research on communism; But yes, that is the effect, if not the entire goal.

Btw the competition exceeded the goal of survival by far. For which reason do some people need millions and billions of dollars? what few have way too much, many have too less. At this point more equality could be useful!

If people can have a better life by working harder, it provides an incentive to work harder and improve life for everyone by innovating, donating to charity, selling stuff that people actually want, etc. Communism expects everyone to do this without any motive.

This might be an extreme idea of communism. Although, I doubt that communism instantly leads to poor quality, less production and nothng getting done.

Yes, it does. If there is no reason to produce high quality goods over low quality ones, people will always produce low quality ones because it's easier to produce them.

In capitalism, there actually is a motive, since people will not buy low quality goods, but will instead look to another company that produces high quality goods. This essentially means that the company making shitty stuff can either make better stuff, or go out of business.

For example: Nowadays products have a very short lifetime due to poor quality - poor quality is rather a capitalistic device to increase production and profits.

Poor quality goods are only produced because people keep buying them. This obviously means that people think they are better off having these poor quality goods than having no goods at all.

Finally, altruism is an attitude everyone should be capable to learn. At least community feeling and compassion are good things to achieve.

Sure, it would be cool if everyone just worked for the benefit of everyone else, but it doesn't happen without a motive. Capitalism provides this in the form of you being able to advance socially by working harder, but communism does not.

Trying to make this simple.

You must realize this, or everything I say will be worthless: People are assholes.
They will never work when they can sit around. Capitalism seems cruel. But because helping people gets you money, people are willing to help out. Not for others, but for themselves. But it helps others anyway.

I suggest Animal Farm as a good read. Short too.

@Paugers

Out of curiosity, do ya'll think a state of true communism or maybe a utopia could be achieved through the use of AI and robotics? No one will have to work if they do it for us thus complete equality?

This is a good point. I think it is possible, but we need to make sure the robots don't start thinking like humans. Somehow, we would have to give them a work ethic and someway to prevent them from rising. Furthermore, even if robots do everything for us, we would still need some people to watch the robots, which means not everyone would just be sitting around. And those watchers would probably become like a gov't, and take a lot for themselves. Plus, resources might be slim.
TL;DR: possible if we get lucky, but likely to get fucked up and end with a robot revolution.

And remember, kids, it was that evil capitalism that made those robots so communism can work!

First of all there has never been a communist nation, by definition, so historical comparisons are pointless. Obviously Communism is a concept you can only try to achieve - like counting to infinity. In my opinion it is a way of developing a certain idea of society, that balances things out, in the favour of social justice.

Out of curiosity, do ya'll think a state of true communism or maybe a utopia could be achieved through the use of AI and robotics? No one will have to work if they do it for us thus complete equality?

This is a nice idea that also came into my mind. I doubt there will ever be an utopia or a perfect society. My point is the direction of evolution. In your scenario boredom and egoism would still be a big problem. People need an employment and purpose in their lifes. and finally they need recognition for their efforts. which will be difficult to maintain.

Not sure if you've ever read any of Marx's bullcrap writings (I personally haven't), or even done the slightest little bit of research on communism

whats your point, here? pointing out that you have no idea what you are talking about and it is a waste of time to read your text walls?

In capitalism, there actually is a motive, since people will not buy low quality goods, but will instead look to another company that produces high quality goods. This essentially means that the company making shitty stuff can either make better stuff, or go out of business.

In general this is true. Unfortunately, you didnt understood what I was referring to. It is common fact that companies sell low quality products on purpose! maybe quality was a misleading term here. Most products are designed to come apart after the warranty claim is exceeded.
The effort, which is made to invent techniques to manipulate a product is counter productive in many ways. If you could implement a bit more social (communistic) attitude, you might decrease profits but you would increase contentment and confidence in society.

Doctor's pay per year = 100,000

Garbage Collector's pay per year = 100,000

Why would i work my ass off when i could be a garbage collector and get the same pay

Doctor's pay per year = 100,000

CEO of Volkswagen pay per year = 15,000,000 possibly improving through economical crisis ..

Compare East and West Germany. East Germans are on average very xenophobic, racist, anti-Semitic, pro-nazi compared to West Germans. And with racist, I don't mean the typical progressive claptrap about not being a leftist multiculturalist, but actual racism.

This comparison is flawed, because it is an exaggerated representation of the presents. East and west Germany are part of the same country/government. Bad infrastructure and education standards in east Germany have massively been caused right after the reunion by the new government to eliminate economic competitors!

Also, wow, one of the old forumers is here. Time for nationalism versus Communism

This comparison is flawed, because it is an exaggerated representation of the presents. East and west Germany are part of the same country/government. Bad infrastructure and education standards in east Germany have massively been caused right after the reunion by the new government to eliminate economic competitors!

Ah, I see you're a true believer. So Soviet communism was better than capitalism. East Germany was better than West Germany. Only after the reunification East Germany's problems began.

But the same that can be said about East Germany can be said about Russia. And it's a different country from Germany, no?

You're an idiot if you hate socialism. If you do please mail me about it.

The fundamental flaw with communism is that its hypocritical in practice. In every attempt at a Communist Revolution, its required an ultra-elitist vanguard to propagate the change. The problem is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. No vanguard can be trusted to act in the self-interest of the populace, and will in almost all circumstances use the newly formed political apparatus of the state to increase their own power and wealth at the expense of the "common-man" whom they were originally fighting for. In effect the Communist philosophy that inspired the likes of Lenin and Mao and Castro inevitably have the effect of being auto-digested.

Simply, communism is the replacement of one group of oligarchs or authoritarian elitist rulers with another set of oligarchs or authoritarian elitist rulers.

Also @Ox: We're talking about Communism, not socialism. The two philosophies should be separated at all times when possible. Socialism is in historical reality a compromise 3rd way economic doctrine meant to reconcile the conflicting theories of communism and capitalism.

Edited 3/28/2016 16:34:49

I hate socialism!

Ah, I see you're a true believer. So Soviet communism was better than capitalism. East Germany was better than West Germany. Only after the reunification East Germany's problems began.

Im sure I made perfectly clear, that I didnt refer to soviet communism, which wasnt communism at all except by its name. Furthermore I referred to the problems you mentioned, not problems in general.

But the same that can be said about East Germany can be said about Russia. And it's a different country from Germany, no?

whats your point?

You're an idiot if you hate socialism.

thanks, for the brief summary. I entirely agree!

EDIT:

JaiBarat, I agree. Lets better use the terms of communism and capitalism as rather opposite directions (or vectors) in social evolution, both representing an extreme.

The problem is that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

This applies to both systems. Anyways I believe that a society should have more social (communistic) than capitalistic aspects. In fact a society shall represent the majority instead of favouring an elitist minority.

Edited 3/28/2016 17:08:07

In general this is true. Unfortunately, you didnt understood what I was referring to. It is common fact that companies sell low quality products on purpose! maybe quality was a misleading term here. Most products are designed to come apart after the warranty claim is exceeded.

Yes, that is true.

It's not really relevant to the theoretical comparison of Capitalism and Communism, since in theory, a company that doesn't manufacture goods to break will generate more profit since they're providing better service.

What we are doing here is a theoretical comparison by the way; You said as much:

First of all there has never been a communist nation, by definition

The effort, which is made to invent techniques to manipulate a product is counter productive in many ways. If you could implement a bit more social (communistic) attitude, you might decrease profits but you would increase contentment and confidence in society.

I'm not sure why you're assuming that communism inherently produces better products than capitalism. Care to explain?

You're an idiot if you hate socialism. If you do please mail me about it.

I could argue the same about proponents of socialism, who seem to want to ignore the hundreds of millions of people who have been killed under socialist governments.

Edited 3/28/2016 17:05:34

I'm not sure why you're assuming that communism inherently produces better products than capitalism. Care to explain?

I can explain why communism doesn't, if that helps. Here goes. Capitalism makes shit products because it makes money. Communism makes even shittier products because there is no reason to make good ones.

I'm not sure why you're assuming that communism inherently produces better products than capitalism. Care to explain?

I dont assume that. I just try to weaken the former argument that low quality is a device of communism/socialism. My example shall only prove, that in specific cases a more social attitude would even increase products quality.

Communism makes even shittier products because there is no reason to make good ones.

Thats wrong. As communism is a hypothesis with the premise of altruism, there would be the perfect reason already been included in the premise, to increase products quality.

Edited 3/28/2016 17:15:11

Im sure I made perfectly clear, that I didnt refer to soviet communism, which wasnt communism at all except by its name. Furthermore I referred to the problems you mentioned, not problems in general.

whats your point?

I was talking about the real-world example of East Germany, not some utopian communist state that has never existed and never will. East Germany was a vassal state of the Soviet Union, so it's an example of Soviet-style communism.

My point is that if you don't want to compare East Germany and West Germany, then compare West Germany and Russia, which has the same problems as East Germany.

still dont get your point.
Of course you can compare east and west germany. But it is simply flawed to compare present east and west germany. furthermore you need to include historical prerequisites. anyways this whole idea of comparison is meaningless, as it has nothing to do with communism!

Edited 3/28/2016 17:21:23

Anyways I believe that a society should have more social (communistic) than capitalistic aspects. In fact a society shall represent the majority instead of favouring an elitist minority.

Yet capitalism is inherently "free". It better reflects the ideals of a democracy by promoting the unmitigated accumulation of capital regardless of gender, ethnicity, race, or sexual orientation. A managed society has much more rigid standards of class and caste. Capitalism favors and rewards those who take risks and display entrepreneurship, while socialism promotes the status quo and tends to be neutral in rewarding advances and business adventurism.

No. Capitalism is better and if you need that explained to you, pick up a history book and read about genocide under Stalin.

STALISNISM ISN'T COMMUNISM YOU HALFWIT PAUGERS

you're the dumbest person I know

get a brain

still dont get your point.

Countries under communism didn't make people more altruistic, it made them more egoistic as a backlash to their unrealistic expectations.

get a brain

Get a frontal lobe.

@Ox = Stalinism is not communism, but its pretty damn close.

"Stalinism is the means of governing and related policies implemented by Joseph Stalin. Stalinist policies in the Soviet Union included state terror, rapid industrialization, the theory of socialism in one country, a centralized state, collectivization of agriculture, cult of personality in leadership, and subordination of interests of foreign communist parties to those of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union—deemed by Stalinism to be the most forefront vanguard party of communist revolution at the time."

Edited 3/28/2016 17:21:38

Thats wrong. As communism is a hypothesis with the premise of altruism, there would be the perfect reason already been included in the premise, to increase products quality.

It's unreasonable to assume that our hypothetical communist society is happening in a perfect world, because that is impossible. It is obviously being discussed as a replacement for capitalism, and thus has to be discussed in a real-world context, just as you're doing for capitalism.

Edited 3/28/2016 17:24:59

JaiBarat your definition of capitalism is pretty naive. Im pretty sure you know better.
Imperator: Your suggestion is kind of dumb. you already said that it is practically impossible. It cant replace any political system under current circumstances.

Edited 3/28/2016 17:28:16