Pilot terrifies passengers

I would argue communism is a good and valid ideal, but it just doesn't work. Whether this down to the powers who implement the system or simply because it is flawed in the first place is harder to establish. The Soviet leaders are the ones most people will look at when assessing communism in practice. However the USSR was competing with the US for almost all of its reign and was also crippled after WW2, so to make any kind of economic, political and social progress in those circumstances is admirable and could be hailed as a success. I would argue that the corrupt regimes in the USSR undermined communism from the start... the notoriety of Krushchev, Stalin et al. is not disputed.

However to ask people to work as a collective is flawed from the start, we are individuals and working in a team or as a community is not something every human being can easily do. There is also the "some are more equal than others" argument and this is going to be true... some people will gain more from the system than others therefore hindering the process and voiding its reasoning.

I would be very surprised if any community (nation or otherwise) claiming to be communist actually could keep control of the system... I don't think its possible. In my opinion, its a nice idea but it just doesn't work.

Okay, but if there are small communist "tribes" who compete in a capitalistic manner with respect to intertribe relations, then how is that different from companies who operate an internal command economy competing? It's just another form of capitalism.

If you mean simply more devolved communities all coexisting, fair point, it's not really an area I have delved into much but there are plenty of people who agree with this out there. Whether the people share the same exact paradigm for their society, or have multiple compatible but different paradigms to which they aspire, it still amounts to the same net result, as multiple religions still produce the same feeling of belonging in their followers.

Your point that people need instant gratification with regards "doing the right thing" is valid, too. Possible solutions involving a more practical approach to communism could be seen in the USSR, with Stakhanovism under Stalin. If the society under which it was implemented had been aligned with a paradigm the people beleived, the problems experienced in that particular instance may not have occured.

This is the best thread I've discussed yet on this board ( still a newbie though ), keep it coming Joe

China & Cuba always have people willing to risk their lives to leave these places,why is that?

In the case of China, because it is a shithole, and about as socialist as America. In the case of Cuba, because it is repressed by a much larger nation, reating such a sharp contrast that people's needs outweigh their loyalty to their country. They are not saints, after all.

Note also that for the anniversary celebrations of the Revolution in 99, 50 percent of Cuba's population watched Fidel's 3 hour speech, and 3 million of them came to Havana to see it live.

Those kind of numbers can't be staged.

Because the governments in these countries have used communism for their own means and not for the means of the people. They control the people through a flawed communist system...

Smoggle, your argument may be valid when arguing against pure classical Marxism as expressed in Das Kapital, but when we look at a command state, the picture is much less clear.

It is indeed quite possible for people to work collectively towards an ideal ( note that this does not imply any loss of individuality in style of life etc ); for instance, most capitalist companies manage to motivate people to work towards a goal in a team, rather than individually. Most business theorists agree that this is not due to financial incentives, but to psychological ideas of advancement and purpose.

Also, look at something such as an Israeli Kibbuts before the commercialisation, or the British Coalmining industry after nationalisation.

Okay, I am starting the run home from work now, no replies from me for an hour

Thats the thing with you lefties sooner or later the anti-american in you comes out.

Point taken, however I would not usually apply a political ideal to a business or company... of course politics are involved but not on the same scale as inter-governmental politics. I may be slightly missing your point but I would argue the politics that define and run a nation are far more complex than the micro-political climate of a working business.

Isn't Stakhanovism just another form of instant gratification though? It was a quick fix to boost the soviets production output, it wasn't a practicle sollution (as quality deteriorated).

I do agree if people see obvious results they are more likely to put their faith in a sytem. The problem with placing your faith in a system (however aesthetic pleasing the results masy be) is that the worker may still have doubts... But when placing that trust in a hgiher entity that fear is removed.

This becomes more apparant when you look at places like Cuba, as Spence pointed out people try to escape this country, for whatever reasons doubts arise and they try to escape. Where as if we were to look at religion a religion like Hare Krishna exists in the most affluent of states - I believe this is because the faith is placed in something external to man.

In an ideal world it would be great if we could devote our life to a system that bettered the human race, but in practicle terms I believe it goes against human nature (this isn't the silly greed arguement).

the two are inter-twined... companies are just the means of production in a capitalist sytem

thats like saying the problem with u klansmen is u hate blackmen.

That is the problem with THEM Klansemen

Yes, Stakhanovism is indeed a form of instant gratification: I was trying to answer to your point that without IG, people will not feel they are getting results from a system. It failed mainly because it generated jealousy among a Stakhanovite's comrades, because the title came with capitalist incentives (eg free holidays).

To add to Joe's valid point about companies being the means of production in the capitalist mode of production, take for an example Microsoft: it has a G"D"P larger than 176 of the 189 states internationally recognised at this time ( numbers apporiximate, example still stands ).

The idea that only something external to man can be followed religiously is only true due to the deep seated mistrust of human nature within the psyche. This is a paradigm and can shift. Look at Buddha.

Heh, think you're missing his point there.

Self doubt is a human characteristic that can't be irradicated (without the use of cocaine anyway ). If a human is to place his trust in a fellow man, this person is just as susceptible to human error as he himself is. So it is only logical to assume that doubts will arrise.

This is why i feel man will never be able to place the same amount of faith in a man made econimic system than he will in religion.

With religion there is no doubt (in theory ).

I know what his point was

Probably true Joe, people do look for absolution in religion, but a system can have a similar, if less conclusive effect on the psyche. For an example ( not hof how it shouyld be done, but of the fact that it can ), look at nazi Germany, North Korea at the moment. People beleiving in a clearly errant ideal with religious fervor.

As for putting faith in a system, political or otherwise, surely this is a standard practice? If people don't have faith in a system that governs them, then how is that system to work? I believe a lot of people are oblivious to the decision makers (how many people actually vote in local/national elections anymore?) so instead of having 'faith' they are just 'going with the flow' so to speak.

However, a notable difference between a political system and a religious belief is the fact that a religion is unchangeable. God, or whatever the source of the religion, is infallible and what is written is the rule. Politics is far more open to change (or so we are led to believe) in theory, in practice it is different, thus making religion and politics almost impossible to compare.

Just as you can't compare science and religion, as religion is seperate from the scientific community. Science has little place for faith, although despite what many people will say, it can't prove or disprove the existence of God.

poppycosh my dear boy

You most certainly can compare religion and economic systems: If you look at many of the feudal/imperial states in the middle east religion defines politics.

They are a medium in which we place our faith, they provide us with hope, asspirations and a purpose. In a capitalist state like the UK to survive we must make money, after this basic instinct is fulfilled we are then sucked into a competative and greedy culture in which we feel the need to by consumer goods (We don't need nike shoes)... Now I'm not saying theres anything wrong with this... but this tends to be the motivation in a western climate.

However if you look at states governed by religion although a level of greed exists at the top end, at a lower level where there is no escaping poverty these people place their faith in religion.

Both are systems we put faith in... However with religion the faith is far stronger, the teachings you follow are gospel. With a system like capitalism one is forever questioning ones faith from moral question to the lifespan of the system. Its a man made creation and is susceptible to doubt.

How can these two not be compared?