The debate "There has never been one communist country" was started by
June 12, 2019, 1:11 am.
By the way, Potatochiper is disagreeing with this statement.
25 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 32 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Nemiroff posted 3 arguments, historybuff posted 2 arguments, Allirix posted 2 arguments, DrWho posted 1 argument, Potatochiper posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
MightyJackalope posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
historybuff, kuku, Potato, Damn, Allirix, DrWho, Nemiroff, Agrumentman, StarianaMusicINFP, Grant65, Facundo4261Arg and 14 visitors agree.
Potatochiper, bernie, boispendaddy, MightyJackalope, JDAWG9693, CastLight, balckqueen_27, chelseat99, DebatorOfFacts, YEET, Debatelegend and 21 visitors disagree.
not true. there have been many small socialist communities that have succeeded. like the kibbutz in israel. this is analogous to the city democracies of ancient greece. it is the shift from city to nation where many ideologies collapse.
aside from small scale socialist nations succeeded. no large scale socialist nation ever failed. in all the common examples, the revolutionary leader who promised socialism became the first dictator of a dictatorship of their design. they never inplemented socialism which then failed, it was never socialism from the start!
There's no such thing as post-scarcity. Of course there is a time when everyone's basic needs can be met through minimal effort (we're actually living in that time) but the next great scarcity will be energy which human civilization requires to explore and expand.
I disagree. Of course the state-capitalist experiments of the 20th century don't count but there have been numerous attempts from Epicurean Greece, to Jamestown. Almost all fell from outside factors, but this is an example of how communism can't seem to produce a secure society, even if it is a momentarily free and happy one.
I agree that historically socialism stagnates growth more than a capitalism, but most industries in post-scarcity capitalism will also stagnate. You need resources to be a strong incentive for capitalism to motivate innovation, and post-scarcity resources will only be symbols of power and status. True motivation will come from justice and the well-being of others. I believe our financial profit-maximising approach will be outclassed by a financial, social, environmental triple-bottom-line that is legally required to balance all three pillars.
Modern Benefit Corporations or registered Social enterprises are the current entities that have a legal fiduciary duty to the triple-bottom-line. Post-scarcity, when resources are lessor motivators since the majority of the population will be further along on the happy-income curve, I believe these corporations will dominate the market. We are biologically wired to connect and physiologically rewarded by giving. Once the desire to vy for status is lowered more people will succumb to our need to connect
I agree communism is currently a fantasy, but I disagree with all your reasons :p
people in power can be restrained by proper laws and a willingness to enforce them. we've done it for hundreds of years. you are also wrong that money makes the world go round. money is just a tool created by the ingenuity of people without money or capitalism. it isnt the driving force of creativity. living on a couch might sound good to a working person, but do it for a year straight and see if you want to continue doing nothing. it gets boring.
communism will happen when full automation destroys jobs which destroys capitalism, while also eliminating scarcity. it will be the only option that will work without work and paychecks (cant have a market without paychecks). until scarcity is (mostly) eliminated, greed will destroy community. it's all about automation. exploding GDP, decreasing labor need. tons of money and no one to spend it. (guaranteed income anyone?)
The first problem is the transition to communism. You do that by making your country socialist first. The people in power will never let go of it. Let's say they did and the country has become completely communist. I don't think the country will grow, I think innovation will die out and everyone is just going to do whatever they need to do to get by. That's just giving the country the benefit of the doubt that it will actually work out for them
Why would you wish for that not to happen? Communism is a "perfect" system. Since the vast majority of human conflict is due to the scarcity of resources, it would be a much better world to live in without that conflict.
I don't think that would ever happen and I hope it doesn't
not at all, they say they're communist but goverment acts like capitalism.
Communism is an ideal that can only be realised when there's surplus and no external capitalist pressure. It needs to be global or nothing. That's never happened, but once we reach post-scarcity our world will progress to be more socialist and eventually communist
Lots of countries have called themselves communist, but that doesn't make it true. I mean, North Korea calls itself a democratic republic. Countries can call themselves whatever they want.
No country has ever actually had a communist system put in place.
oh yes. communism is an idealistic economy with barely any details on governance. it is a utopian fantasy that will not function in the current environment.