Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, communism is inherently authoritarian -- it has to be, to keep everyone on a similar page.
In a monastery, for example, everyone has the same beliefs and is under the same authority.
In a primitive tribe, everyone shares the same beliefs and mythology. There might not be a human authority, but the mythology and taboos keep everyone strictly in line.
There have been many communes, but hardly any were successful. For a commune to survive, there usually has to be a charismatic leader.
So yes, the concept of communal living depends on authority, whether human or conceptual. There CANNOT be personal freedom.
When people are relatively free, they come into conflict and they compete with each other. That is inevitable.
But the point is it isn't inherent to Communism. It's inherent to human nature. I can agree that a non-authoritarian Communist society is somewhat pie-in-the-sky due to human nature. Even the best of us who try to keep our worst impulses in check as much as possible are still proud, selfish, greedy, egotistical beings. But if we're truly honest there, that's a flaw in human nature. That's not necessarily the flaw of theoretical Communism.
But the point is it isn't inherent to Communism. It's inherent to human nature. I can agree that a non-authoritarian Communist society is somewhat pie-in-the-sky due to human nature. Even the best of us who try to keep our worst impulses in check as much as possible are still proud, selfish, greedy, egotistical beings. But if we're truly honest there, that's a flaw in human nature. That's not necessarily the flaw of theoretical Communism.
Oh no. There is nothing wrong with human nature. Who are we to judge nature or human nature?
Human nature and communism are not compatible. But that is NOT the only problem with communism. As I keep saying, central planning simply does not work. It can't work. It never has worked. It never will work.
And here we are in the 21st century trying central planning yet again. Trusting the angelic geniuses at the central bank to steer us away from disaster.
Oh no. There is nothing wrong with human nature. Who are we to judge nature or human nature?
Human nature and communism are not compatible. But that is NOT the only problem with communism. As I keep saying, central planning simply does not work. It can't work. It never has worked. It never will work.
And here we are in the 21st century trying central planning yet again. Trusting the angelic geniuses at the central bank to steer us away from disaster.
See, this bolded statement shows no self-reflection whatsoever and shows some of the worst inability to distance oneself from complete adherence to tribalism and worldview.
No, communism never existed anywhere at any time. Primitive tribes were relatively communal within each tribe, but they competed with other tribes for resources.
Empires had absolute rulers, but they did not try to plan local economies.
There is a big difference between having an absolute central ruler and central planning of the economy. In communism, the central government (the "people") tries to oversee and control the whole economic system. It is not possible, and it has never worked.
With monarchies, empires, feudalism, there is NO central planning of the economy.
Central planning of agriculture was tried in the Soviet Union and it failed. Central planning of industry failed also. The Communist party was able to create an illusion of success for a while, having acquired great wealth from the former rulers. But it ran out and the illusion died.
I am pretty sure there was central planning. Think about it. Peasants kicked up to the lord, the lord kicked up to overlord, overlords to King. To ensure proper amounts in timely manner, there must be some controls in place. The King wanted specific amount. The overlord too, as well the lords. So yes, there is micro-managing.
I am pretty sure there was central planning. Think about it. Peasants kicked up to the lord, the lord kicked up to overlord, overlords to King. To ensure proper amounts in timely manner, there must be some controls in place. The King wanted specific amount. The overlord too, as well the lords. So yes, there is micro-managing.
Having some controls, having laws and regulations, is NOT the same as central planning.
In central planning, the central authorities determine the prices of everything. They determine what will be produced and how much of everything.
Feudal systems did not require central planning of the economy, or micro-managing. Things were managed locally.
It seems like you're saying central planning would have worked better than free supply and demand. It might have in that case, but it doesn't work in most cases.
We pay a huge amount of taxes in some ways like insurance for the government to step in, in the case of a disaster or emergency. The fact is we paid out all that money are the government was not ready with masks. Or with any cohesive plan. Perhaps its better to pay private insurance to plan for pandemics, earthquakes, hurricanes etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
But we have plenty of central planning going on now, as I said. The Fed's interventions and bailouts. And the tax-payer funded vaccine development.
The pandemic has been an excuse for the rulers to increase their power.
Very true. We are becoming more like China in that regard. Unfortunately once you give them this power they are not giving it back.
We pay a huge amount of taxes in some ways like insurance for the government to step in, in the case of a disaster or emergency. The fact is we paid out all that money are the government was not ready with masks. Or with any cohesive plan. Perhaps its better to pay private insurance to plan for pandemics, earthquakes, hurricanes etc.
Very true. We are becoming more like China in that regard. Unfortunately once you give them this power they are not giving it back.
Most people don't think of the USA as a communist country. We fought against communism in Korea and Vietnam, and all through the Cold War. Our politicians talked about how free we are.
The Soviet Union failed. China allows free enterprise. North Korea and Cuba will either give up on communism or fail.
Communism does not work. Politicians and government agencies are not able to successfully create and manage an economic system. Why should they be able to do that? The economy is extremely complex and depends on vast amounts of realtime information.
Private individuals and their businesses respond to the needs and desires of consumers, and that keeps the economic machinery running. Supply and demand determine prices. There is no genius capable of programming a computer that can do this. And certainly no politician who can do it.
But unfortunately we are quickly losing our free market economy in the US. Central planners who think they are geniuses have taken control. The Fed decides who gets bailed out. The Fed buys corporate bonds, and indirectly buys equities. Central banks are buying up businesses. How is that free enterprise?
Communism is when the central government (the "people") is in charge of the economic system. Hold on, we are getting there.
Communism includes central ownership of the means of production. That's not happening.
You don't understand that we need a central bank. Before the Federal Reserve was created, we regularly had panics and depressions. The Great Depression was largely caused by a lack of liquidity, there was no cash anywhere. Central banks prevent that from happening.
Communism includes central ownership of the means of production. That's not happening.
You don't understand that we need a central bank. Before the Federal Reserve was created, we regularly had panics and depressions. The Great Depression was largely caused by a lack of liquidity, there was no cash anywhere. Central banks prevent that from happening.
They haven't been buying those assets to gain control of them, they have been buying them to provide a market and to provide liquidity.
Better than not having a Central bank at all. And, the Fed doesn't have unlimited power. What's your alternative? Panics and depressions again?
When central banks invest in private businesses they are acquiring the "means of production."
I know why the Federal Reserve was created. That doesn't mean it is staying within its intended function.
No organization should be allowed to create as much money as it wants and do with it whatever it wants.
Better than not having a Central bank at all. And, the Fed doesn't have unlimited power. What's your alternative? Panics and depressions again?
What limits the Feds power? They have dramatically expanded their power and no one tried to impose any limits. The current crisis was probably created by the Fed's interventions in the previous crisis. The current crisis started BEFORE the pandemic.
No one wants panics and depressions, but these interventions create a temporary illusion of things being fixed. But things have NOT been fixed. The next crisis will be worse, and eventually the system will collapse.
If irresponsible banks and corporations had been allowed to fail, others would have taken their place. If giant investment banks were not allowed to gamble with depositors' money, they could have died and life would go on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
