The debate "Communism has the potential to be an effective way of governing" was started by
May 27, 2015, 6:55 pm.
42 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 33 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
I_Voyager posted 3 arguments, amanofprogress posted 3 arguments, bearunter posted 2 arguments, vumtucks posted 1 argument, Upbeatethan posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
amanofprogress, soullesschicken, Damn3d, I_Voyager, jj_jaim, jedty, Maxx_Royy, sdiop, KimUri, bearunter, DanielleR123, drama, vumtucks, Hanif_abdat, thatjonathanguy, WesleySr, Sashn, The_lamp, Upbeatethan, Bxat9, keyboardwarrior, kay_joey1101, MEATMISSILE01, alexithymia and 18 visitors agree.
WordSpeller, PsychDave, toughgamerjerry, Eagle528, Bodaciouslady16, JMP9940, wmd, eka_zulaikha, ombatra1997, invincible_01, R3dD0g, AstroSpace and 21 visitors disagree.
I believe that communism is the best possible form of government. If it could be executed correctly. Unfortunately we don't live in a world in which every thing is handed to us. This is survival of the fittest, and you can't mutually own everything. Some greedy Bastard will always come along to take the prosperity.
Some say it us hard devoloping such an advaned ai to do these things, bt hats thinkig hat only a few models intellegent enought to do verything would be used, more practically though, they would use specific unintelligent automated robots with almost no AI
The main problem here is designing an AI sophisticated enough to do all this advanced work, which doesn't undergo a process of runaway intelligent self-design. How do you stop a sophisticated machine intelligence from becoming more interested in itself than in the fleshy things dancing around it? Read Accelerando by Charles Stross. The rapture of the nerds won't just carry us away to a better automated place, rejoined to our mammel brothers and sisters and all watched over by machines of loving grace.
Not just 'has the potential'. Communism has always been the most effective way of governing. Just that there happened to be lapses in the character of the persons manning the apex level of exercising power which at times renders it to be bad
That is an interesting thought, and possibly accurate. If no one had to work, the only reason to is because you enjoy it. I don't know if it would work, but it is reasonable to assume that, if the robot workforce was sustainable, it could.
this is why a 100% robotic working force would sort that all out because any thing you want desire can be given to you by a robot no human labour so no one being less equal everyone equal and who would want to ruin a world where they aren't forced into work where they aren't brought up being told you have to get a job you have to do this to be successful people could do what they want for the right reasons.
I completely agree due to the massive equality it would bring and if AI was used for all the work then no one would have to work different jobs but the only problem with communism is that it would need a 100% restart in every government for it too work because it will not work for as long as their is a capitalist government around
On a small scale I have no doubt that communism would be effective. With a group of like minded people, everyone helps, everyone does what needs to be done, and everyone girls what they need. The problem I see is that no large group would be able to sustain a communist economy because not all people are honest, hardworking members of society. Some would always want to do as little as possible, and some would always look for ways to get more than their due. This is why there has never been a truly communist nation. Someone always has to be in charge or nothing gets done, and as soon as someone is in charge the door is open to corruption and abuse of power.
well, the things that ere needed obviously must be made, and this is why communism hasn't existed yet, it must be a natural transition from socialism. socialism is a flawed sytem said by marx to come after capitalism in which the governmebt controls evey aspect of everything, ESPECIALLY RESOURCES. Everyone works to provide for the country as a whole. This work is supposed to make everyone even, but becauee of corruption, many resources, like everywhere, are often hoarded by manipulative politicians (stalin, mao, etc...). however socialism is a precursor as when everyone is working towards a common goal, scientific achievements happen easily. In communism, one theoritically can choose whatever job he wanta as scientific progress has made the country self sustaining, amd because of this, society is elevated to a point where any problems presented can quickly be solved by scientific inventions. say that the automated factories that refine steel aren't working fast enough to provide for the bexpansion of the new farming equipment being implemented. The now enlightened society can band together to make a new type of steel refining process that is more efficient. The problem with communism is that it needs to go through socialism before becoming itself. All countries that have tried have faced several problems, russia being to big to feed, and Stalin being jerk, mao being an idiot and forcing the great leap forward and the red threat on everyone. Vietnam having to deal with MURICA, cuba having sanctions on trade and HEAVY racism. However Marx actually believed that a communist revolt would start first in a devoloped country that have no problem sustaining itself. This NEVER happened and china is the only socialist devoloped country around, amd wouldya look at that they're rivaling, soon to surpass, or already ahead of us on most everything!
I'd like more information. In each preceding case the economic systems had an object for distribution, and a system of distribution. Bet it trade, force or government control. In the final instance of Communism you just say "everyone has what they need". But no explanation of who makes it, who distributes it, who decides who gets what. I understand you'd like a person to do research, but broad research on a single topic is an exhaustive process for a single debate. You should bring up specific points within communism, summarize them, and if the participants want they can research those points more thoroughly.
I for one don't think of communism as the future form of economics (as it is an economic system and not a system of governance iirc). Instead I see an input-output economy developing out of the internet and focused around crypto-currencies being earned by participation in projects which are regulated by programs rather than men. Given certain perimeters, inputting labor outputs calculated value. Profiles compile worker history to determine the general value of the person. You still work for your food, but you don't have to appeal to the managerial or investor class per-say.
although facing common ridicule, the communist system shows potential for being the new world-wide system of government, even though no countries currently use it. You may ask yourself, what does he mean? China uses it! Well you would be wrong. All countries considered 'communist' are actually socialist, alhough they believe in communism, and yes this includes Soviet Russia. The truth is, no country has ever used communism, beacuse of corruption. Communism was invented by Carl Marx, a philosopher. Inbhis book Capital, he describes the 5 evolutions of economic government and their flaws. Slavery, where one owns another person, feudalism where one owns land, capitalism, where one owns currency which can be exchanged for goods on an open market, socialism, where owns nothing and the government distributes resources how they please, and communism, where one owns everything they need. In communism, if you need a certain amount of one type of good, you are provided as much as said good as needed or, if there is enough said good extra, as much as desired. Now that you have a very basic understanding of communism, I encourage you to research more, read more, and join the debate!
I'm not on the bandwagon but if the statement is "Communism could work" then yes, I agree.
Most criticism cites recent history and backs it up with theory. There are strong arguments from history and logic against communism. But I for one think recent history isn't a good metric for whether or not a system can thrive given the permission to do so. Communism never really had a chance... And as for logic, reality is counter-intuitive and I don't believe modern economics or capitalism has it all straight either. With regards to communism it was immediately competing with an emergent global capitalism, against which it clearly was not able to out-manufacture. The lack of effective communications technology and being blinded by ideology also allowed for dictatorship to rise and that led to all sorts of political atrocities in the name of communism. Blackened by a bunch of events which didn't directly relate to communism, communism failed and fell. I'm not convinced that communism in a less entropic system, an "allowed communism" where it isn't ground into the dirt and where the political climate is stable would definitely fail to produce a healthy world. Therefore I agree with the motion: communism may have the potential to work.
It also may not. But the motion isn't "communism is the better system for sure". Only "communism could work." In so far as that is the claim, I agree. But I think there are many better answers to our economics and politics still.