Any benefits of communism?

[Spiderman]

Can you think if any? List a number of them

[crunchyfrog]

hypercybermegatron a écrit :

Professor a écrit :

In general the discussion on this thread has been fairly respectful & users have been able to express all sorts of opinions that reflect our thoughts on the topic of Communism. Why stop something that is providing a platform to exchange a vast array of varied opinions?

Other than that it is a good collection of data for training the algorithms of AI

It's possible that OP was only expecting responses that reinforce existing worldview rather than true market place of ideas where all views are rightfully challenged.

Yeah that's often what it boils down to.

There's clearly something esle going on here, because I've already explained clearly that this is how discussions work and if it's something they no longer wish to engage in, they can leave.

When they then come back and moan about something else, there's clearly something else they're not saying.

[ValentB]

Ask tucker carlson. That commie ass***e should know.

[Faster With Feeling]

Benefits

You can be leader for many terms.

No one can oppose you

Profit (at the cost of everyone else)

[hypercybermegatron]

Older then dirt and time. a écrit :

Benefits

You can be leader for many terms.

No one can oppose you

Profit (at the cost of everyone else)

British monarchy has no term limits for head of state. 1200 years past it's used by date. UK pretty capitalist last time I checked.

Term limits were only introduced in USA because Roosevelt was so popular. They're a double edged sword, and doesn't in and if itself prevent bad governance.

[essmann]

Total equality is the supposed goal of communism, however, we would all be equally poor. Our economy would be crushed because there is no competition unlike capitalism.

[crunchyfrog]

essmann a écrit :

Total equality is the supposed goal of communism, however, we would all be equally poor. Our economy would be crushed because there is no competition unlike capitalism.

Well sure, but again that's not quite how it works.

The well advertised examples of communism are China, Russia et al. And they are poor examples as they're corrupt as all hell. China especially isn't even remotely socialist as they have no real social programs.

For example, with the recent floods, earthquakes and problems they've been having in the last couple of weeks, anyone who loses stuff through their homes being destroyed is SOL really.

As I pointed out earlier there was a small community in Northern Italy that successful ran as communist for many years. The problem is communism doesn't take mcuh for it to fall apart so it's not really that viable especially large scale.

Because it all hangs on trust pretty much. You can have it where economy thrives, but it's slower because everyone rises at the same rate. Again it's not really great at all, just pointing out your comparison is off.

[essmann]

crunchyfrog a écrit :

essmann a écrit :

Total equality is the supposed goal of communism, however, we would all be equally poor. Our economy would be crushed because there is no competition unlike capitalism.

Well sure, but again that's not quite how it works.

The well advertised examples of communism are China, Russia et al. And they are poor examples as they're corrupt as all hell. China especially isn't even remotely socialist as they have no real social programs.

For example, with the recent floods, earthquakes and problems they've been having in the last couple of weeks, anyone who loses stuff through their homes being destroyed is SOL really.

As I pointed out earlier there was a small community in Northern Italy that successful ran as communist for many years. The problem is communism doesn't take mcuh for it to fall apart so it's not really that viable especially large scale.

Because it all hangs on trust pretty much. You can have it where economy thrives, but it's slower because everyone rises at the same rate. Again it's not really great at all, just pointing out your comparison is off.

I sincerely doubt that northern Italy ever thrived on communism. What period are you referring to?

[Professor]

essmann a écrit :

Total equality is the supposed goal of communism, however, we would all be equally poor. Our economy would be crushed because there is no competition unlike capitalism.

You make a good point as we certainly already have elements of Socialism & Communism within our Democracies. With Socialism, the majority act to implement Mediocrity, whilst with Communism, the minority act to implement Mediocrity.

It seems that Democratic Governments are somewhere in the middle of both. On the one hand, trying to be fair to the majority, whilst on the other trying to be fair to the minority. With Autocratic Capitalism, it is extremely obvious that this balance, seems to be skewed & tilted more towards the minority rather than the majority.

I guess we need to be honest & ask ourselves the hard questions, in particular the aims & goals of our entire society. I think most people would agree that 80%+ of society reside in the middle class, with 10% in the upper class & 10% in the lower class. From this we can see the overwhelming majority are the Mediocrity, so why are we convinced to always strive for Elitism, when it is impossible & against the principals of Capitalism for everyone to be Elite?

Socialism would probably aim to reduce the top heavy wealth pyramid by bringing the elite closer to the middle, whilst increasing the wealth at the bottom of the pyramid also bringing them closer to the middle. A society where all citizens reside in the middle, no one with too much & no one with too little.

Surely there is enough wealth in the world to give absolutely everyone the most basic of living standards by closing the gaps in the net with nobody left behind. Eliminate poverty with shelter & food for all, seemingly being a good starting point.

[crunchyfrog]

essmann a écrit :

crunchyfrog a écrit :

Well sure, but again that's not quite how it works.

The well advertised examples of communism are China, Russia et al. And they are poor examples as they're corrupt as all hell. China especially isn't even remotely socialist as they have no real social programs.

For example, with the recent floods, earthquakes and problems they've been having in the last couple of weeks, anyone who loses stuff through their homes being destroyed is SOL really.

As I pointed out earlier there was a small community in Northern Italy that successful ran as communist for many years. The problem is communism doesn't take mcuh for it to fall apart so it's not really that viable especially large scale.

Because it all hangs on trust pretty much. You can have it where economy thrives, but it's slower because everyone rises at the same rate. Again it's not really great at all, just pointing out your comparison is off.

I sincerely doubt that northern Italy ever thrived on communism. What period are you referring to?

I remember it being reported on for quite some time in the late 1980s onwards. It was a smaller community (ie. not the whole country or anything).

The point is that it worked for years and was at least a town or more that ran self sufficiently and pretty damned well by the metrics.

The point here is that it CAN work but it's so hard and really niche to get such success because the ease of it failing and being open to corruption is pretty high.

That's all.

[crunchyfrog]

Professor a écrit :

essmann a écrit :

Total equality is the supposed goal of communism, however, we would all be equally poor. Our economy would be crushed because there is no competition unlike capitalism.

You make a good point as we certainly already have elements of Socialism & Communism within our Democracies. With Socialism, the majority act to implement Mediocrity, whilst with Communism, the minority act to implement Mediocrity.

It seems that Democratic Governments are somewhere in the middle of both. On the one hand, trying to be fair to the majority, whilst on the other trying to be fair to the minority. With Autocratic Capitalism, it is extremely obvious that this balance, seems to be skewed & tilted more towards the minority rather than the majority.

I guess we need to be honest & ask ourselves the hard questions, in particular the aims & goals of our entire society. I think most people would agree that 80%+ of society reside in the middle class, with 10% in the upper class & 10% in the lower class. From this we can see the overwhelming majority are the Mediocrity, so why are we convinced to always strive for Elitism, when it is impossible & against the principals of Capitalism for everyone to be Elite?

Socialism would probably aim to reduce the top heavy wealth pyramid by bringing the elite closer to the middle, whilst increasing the wealth at the bottom of the pyramid also bringing them closer to the middle. A society where all citizens reside in the middle, no one with too much & no one with too little.

Surely there is enough wealth in the world to give absolutely everyone the most basic of living standards by closing the gaps in the net with nobody left behind. Eliminate poverty with shelter & food for all, seemingly being a good starting point.

Except that's demosntrable rubbish.

Again socialism can easily be implemented and work really well for society.

It's why countries like Finaldn regularly top the WORLD in societal health, wealth and other metrics.

It's why here in Britain things like our free healthcare system is fantastic and works well.

So it's easy to cherry pick and say "yeah if you use perfect socialism on industry and business it's going to be trouble" but that's dishonest and not understanding.

Why countries like Finalnd, New Zealand, Japan, most of Europe and other do so well is because they mix it up.

The bits of socialism that work REALLY well are the bits that deal with society. Not so much the business end, which is why they embrace capitalism to varying degrees.

Let me give you the simplest example.

The US' healthcare sytems is bloody awful. Anyone can suffer an accident of any moderate injury and end up being heavily affected economically or even bankrupted. That's unacceptable.

Here in Britain, I admit we have a system where our current tory government is depserately trying to dismantle our NHS, but it still works infiintely better than the US.

And it works like this - in pretty socialist fashion, we pay a premium at source (ie out of our earnings) for a thing called National Insurance. It's very little and sliding scale according to your earnings. I'm retired and disabled and my outlay is about £15 a month (it might be more as I haven't checked in a while).

Now, if I have an accident or emergency, like I had a couple of years ago, I ring up for an ambulance, and they'll either come out or get your a taxi. Last time I really needed them I rang up on a weekend (busy time), and had to wait half an hour. around 3am they see to me and take me to hospital - I chosse one of the two nearest.

I sit in A&E for about 45 minutes until I'm seen and given medication and made confomrtable. I wait for a scan. By around 6:30 am I get a scan and an hour later the doctor sees it notices I have kidney stones and inflammation and get sent up to a ward.

When I get up there, I get thrust a menu and asked if I want anything from there. I decline but this happens regularly and I order a couple of times through the day.

After over two days in there, several scans, two xrays, and various medications and so on, the kidney stones have passed and the inflammation's down. I get prescribed meds and get a taxi and am sent on my way.

Total cost including the taxi, food, scans, medication and care? ZERO.

That sort of socialism CANNOT be a bad thing simply because by removing all this stress and offering reasonable fair insurance it keeps society safe.

[Professor]

crunchyfrog a écrit :

Except that's demosntrable rubbish.

Again socialism can easily be implemented and work really well for society.

It's why countries like Finaldn regularly top the WORLD in societal health, wealth and other metrics.

It's why here in Britain things like our free healthcare system is fantastic and works well.

So it's easy to cherry pick and say "yeah if you use perfect socialism on industry and business it's going to be trouble" but that's dishonest and not understanding.

Why countries like Finalnd, New Zealand, Japan, most of Europe and other do so well is because they mix it up.

The bits of socialism that work REALLY well are the bits that deal with society. Not so much the business end, which is why they embrace capitalism to varying degrees.

Let me give you the simplest example.

The US' healthcare sytems is bloody awful. Anyone can suffer an accident of any moderate injury and end up being heavily affected economically or even bankrupted. That's unacceptable.

Here in Britain, I admit we have a system where our current tory government is depserately trying to dismantle our NHS, but it still works infiintely better than the US.

And it works like this - in pretty socialist fashion, we pay a premium at source (ie out of our earnings) for a thing called National Insurance. It's very little and sliding scale according to your earnings. I'm retired and disabled and my outlay is about £15 a month (it might be more as I haven't checked in a while).

Now, if I have an accident or emergency, like I had a couple of years ago, I ring up for an ambulance, and they'll either come out or get your a taxi. Last time I really needed them I rang up on a weekend (busy time), and had to wait half an hour. around 3am they see to me and take me to hospital - I chosse one of the two nearest.

I sit in A&E for about 45 minutes until I'm seen and given medication and made confomrtable. I wait for a scan. By around 6:30 am I get a scan and an hour later the doctor sees it notices I have kidney stones and inflammation and get sent up to a ward.

When I get up there, I get thrust a menu and asked if I want anything from there. I decline but this happens regularly and I order a couple of times through the day.

After over two days in there, several scans, two xrays, and various medications and so on, the kidney stones have passed and the inflammation's down. I get prescribed meds and get a taxi and am sent on my way.

Total cost including the taxi, food, scans, medication and care? ZERO.

That sort of socialism CANNOT be a bad thing simply because by removing all this stress and offering reasonable fair insurance it keeps society safe.

You might disagree but it is certainly not rubbish as your opinion is only one of many views. It is exactly what I said in previous post, that politics is a combination of many ideologies as Democracies certainly have aspects of Socialism & Communism within them.

My point was that Socialism may be able to re-distribute a nations resources, much fairer than Autocratic Capitalism, as in a true sense Socialism is still Democratic. The misinterpretation of Socialism is a real problem for many people, just like all forms of politics that have been tried & tested, but still remain unfair & unbalanced for the majority. Socialism requires election by majority & governments are meant to distribute the nations resources in a way that is unbiased as to benefit the largest portion possible of society fairly.

crunchyfrog a écrit :

The bits of socialism that work REALLY well are the bits that deal with society. Not so much the business end, which is why they embrace capitalism to varying degrees.

So do you think providing healthcare, education, transport etc, is just business? Well yes it is but when skewed towards private business, we can all see that an unfair balance is created. Governments are public business, not private ones & the division between private & public business is also very obvious. One is solely for profit, whilst the other is or should be solely for majority.

In no way am I saying not to embrace Autocratic Capitalism, I am simply stating that it must evolve into something much fairer. The biggest failure of Capitalism is that it is incapable of ever resolving poverty on the planet, but I guess that is where governments must also evolve

crunchyfrog a écrit :

Except that's demosntrable rubbish.

Anyway I dont know what part of my original post you found so demonstrable as we seem to be saying very similar things just from different perspectives. As there are views in your post that are very much the same as mine, such as Socialism being societal business & that some forms of Socialism may work well in society.

[Raoul]

Professor: *peacefully typing on keyboard in his study*
FBI: https://youtu.be/DtUtbtuA_60

[Professor]

Raoul a écrit :

Professor: *peacefully typing on keyboard in his study*
FBI: https://youtu.be/DtUtbtuA_60

LOL I love it, gave me a good laugh LOL. Talk about sledge hammer effect, like using a nuke to take out a mosquito LOL

[crunchyfrog]

Professor a écrit :

crunchyfrog a écrit :

Except that's demosntrable rubbish.

Again socialism can easily be implemented and work really well for society.

It's why countries like Finaldn regularly top the WORLD in societal health, wealth and other metrics.

It's why here in Britain things like our free healthcare system is fantastic and works well.

So it's easy to cherry pick and say "yeah if you use perfect socialism on industry and business it's going to be trouble" but that's dishonest and not understanding.

Why countries like Finalnd, New Zealand, Japan, most of Europe and other do so well is because they mix it up.

The bits of socialism that work REALLY well are the bits that deal with society. Not so much the business end, which is why they embrace capitalism to varying degrees.

Let me give you the simplest example.

The US' healthcare sytems is bloody awful. Anyone can suffer an accident of any moderate injury and end up being heavily affected economically or even bankrupted. That's unacceptable.

Here in Britain, I admit we have a system where our current tory government is depserately trying to dismantle our NHS, but it still works infiintely better than the US.

And it works like this - in pretty socialist fashion, we pay a premium at source (ie out of our earnings) for a thing called National Insurance. It's very little and sliding scale according to your earnings. I'm retired and disabled and my outlay is about £15 a month (it might be more as I haven't checked in a while).

Now, if I have an accident or emergency, like I had a couple of years ago, I ring up for an ambulance, and they'll either come out or get your a taxi. Last time I really needed them I rang up on a weekend (busy time), and had to wait half an hour. around 3am they see to me and take me to hospital - I chosse one of the two nearest.

I sit in A&E for about 45 minutes until I'm seen and given medication and made confomrtable. I wait for a scan. By around 6:30 am I get a scan and an hour later the doctor sees it notices I have kidney stones and inflammation and get sent up to a ward.

When I get up there, I get thrust a menu and asked if I want anything from there. I decline but this happens regularly and I order a couple of times through the day.

After over two days in there, several scans, two xrays, and various medications and so on, the kidney stones have passed and the inflammation's down. I get prescribed meds and get a taxi and am sent on my way.

Total cost including the taxi, food, scans, medication and care? ZERO.

That sort of socialism CANNOT be a bad thing simply because by removing all this stress and offering reasonable fair insurance it keeps society safe.

You might disagree but it is certainly not rubbish as your opinion is only one of many views. It is exactly what I said in previous post, that politics is a combination of many ideologies as Democracies certainly have aspects of Socialism & Communism within them.

My point was that Socialism may be able to re-distribute a nations resources, much fairer than Autocratic Capitalism, as in a true sense Socialism is still Democratic. The misinterpretation of Socialism is a real problem for many people, just like all forms of politics that have been tried & tested, but still remain unfair & unbalanced for the majority. Socialism requires election by majority & governments are meant to distribute the nations resources in a way that is unbiased as to benefit the largest portion possible of society fairly.

crunchyfrog a écrit :

The bits of socialism that work REALLY well are the bits that deal with society. Not so much the business end, which is why they embrace capitalism to varying degrees.

So do you think providing healthcare, education, transport etc, is just business? Well yes it is but when skewed towards private business, we can all see that an unfair balance is created. Governments are public business, not private ones & the division between private & public business is also very obvious. One is solely for profit, whilst the other is or should be solely for majority.

In no way am I saying not to embrace Autocratic Capitalism, I am simply stating that it must evolve into something much fairer. The biggest failure of Capitalism is that it is incapable of ever resolving poverty on the planet, but I guess that is where governments must also evolve

crunchyfrog a écrit :

Except that's demosntrable rubbish.

Anyway I dont know what part of my original post you found so demonstrable as we seem to be saying very similar things just from different perspectives. As there are views in your post that are very much the same as mine, such as Socialism being societal business & that some forms of Socialism may work well in society.

Except I wasn't takling about opinion. I was talking about demonstrable fact.

The part of socialism I'mtalking about - the actual social services - is what makes countries like Finland EMPIRICALLY top the charts continually for things like societal health and wealth.

Actual evidence, not opinion.

[will]

Professor a écrit :

essmann a écrit :

Total equality is the supposed goal of communism, however, we would all be equally poor. Our economy would be crushed because there is no competition unlike capitalism.

You make a good point as we certainly already have elements of Socialism & Communism within our Democracies. With Socialism, the majority act to implement Mediocrity, whilst with Communism, the minority act to implement Mediocrity.

It seems that Democratic Governments are somewhere in the middle of both. On the one hand, trying to be fair to the majority, whilst on the other trying to be fair to the minority. With Autocratic Capitalism, it is extremely obvious that this balance, seems to be skewed & tilted more towards the minority rather than the majority.

I guess we need to be honest & ask ourselves the hard questions, in particular the aims & goals of our entire society. I think most people would agree that 80%+ of society reside in the middle class, with 10% in the upper class & 10% in the lower class. From this we can see the overwhelming majority are the Mediocrity, so why are we convinced to always strive for Elitism, when it is impossible & against the principals of Capitalism for everyone to be Elite?

Socialism would probably aim to reduce the top heavy wealth pyramid by bringing the elite closer to the middle, whilst increasing the wealth at the bottom of the pyramid also bringing them closer to the middle. A society where all citizens reside in the middle, no one with too much & no one with too little.

Surely there is enough wealth in the world to give absolutely everyone the most basic of living standards by closing the gaps in the net with nobody left behind. Eliminate poverty with shelter & food for all, seemingly being a good starting point.

so you've laid out this "groundbreaking" realization that democracies have elements of both socialism and communism? wow, someone give this normie a cookie. here's a newsflash: most modern political systems aren't purely one ideology, they're mixtures. even in the stone age of the internet, this was common knowledge. your post comes off as an attempt at being profound.

you imply that the vast majority are, by nature, mediocre. that's quite a bleak perspective, isn't it? then again, maybe that's just a reflection of your own life experiences. projecting much? and about elitism? well, if it's so impossible and against capitalism, then why are there so many success stories of people rising to the top? oh, right, they're just outliers, not the "norm".

and then there's your adorable take on socialism. you think it's all about taking from the top and giving to the bottom until everyone is chilling in the middle? that's a sweet kindergarten version of it. real world applications are much messier, but then again, that's probably beyond the scope of this "enlightened" post.

and the cherry on top: "eliminate poverty with shelter & food for all". so original. maybe instead of these shallow takes, you should dive a bit deeper and understand the underlying mechanics. but who am i to expect more from a normie?