What is wrong or right about Communism?

Question

Neutral and objective answer anyone?

Thanks everyone.

Answer 1

That's a very good question.

Personally, I think the problem lies, in part, in the heirarchy of needs (Maslow). I'm sure there are many better economic reasons for its shortcomings, but this is what I can offer.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs makes the simple point that human beings need to fulfill certain needs before they can move on to pursue other needs, and until those needs are meant they cannot continue to move onto more advanced needs. So, for example, food and shelter is a fundamental need, and until those are met human beings cannot seek things like romantic relationships, careers, hobbies, etc (egoic needs). (And until egoic needs are met, human beings cannot pursue self-actualizing needs, and later spiritual needs.) (Fundamentally these are psychological needs. One can be struggling to survive and still be motivated out of egoic needs, assuming at some point in their development they transcended survival needs, but that isn't important here.)

Communism is meant to address survival needs. But in a modern society, a huge portion of the population is actually pursuing egoic needs, which communism not only doesn't address, it actually stifles. Capitalism is really the system designed to address egoic needs, because the ego, by definition, is a self-sense that derives its reality through comparison with others. Your ego feels strong when you are doing better than others in whatever area it is that you hold important, its needs are not being met when you feel inferior or inconsequential. So capitalism provides a context in which egos can compete, which provides the opportunity for the ego to become satisfied.

But communism essentially favors the society over the individual, and favoring the society means favoring what all members of the society hold in common, which are survival needs, so the drive for human beings to transcend mere survival gets stifled because individuals are forced into work and careers that are meant to provide survival needs, and they have no opportunity to pursue their "dreams", as it were. They are given a job so that they can survive, but they are not given the opportunity to make of their lives what their ego wants or dreams. The individual is essentially snuffed out in favor of a worker. In otherwords, it gaurantees everyone can put food on the table, but it also means that people can't actually go beyond merely putting food on the table. The system betrays human natue, because as soon as survival needs are met, the human being will naturally begin to seek egoic needs, but communism represses these. (Furthermore, because human beings are by nature what they are, the system inevitably results in a power imbalance, with those in power essentially pursuing ego needs, while the rest are stuck with survival pursuits, which is typical of most societies.)

Capitalism is really an attempt to provide more ubiquitous support for egoic needs to the population, rather than just a minority in power, thus maximizing the number of individuals who can do this. The difference in philsophy is radical but essentially relates to which level of the heirarchy of needs is being addressed. Communism is solely concerned with the survival level, whereas capitalism is primarily concerned with the egoic level. (Which is why people in capitalist societies tend to have less sympothy for the poor, because they see the poor as those who are failing egoically, when the reality may actually be that the reason they are failing egoically is because their survial needs haven't been met so they aren't even worried about egoic needs.) As a result, capitalism results in a more powerful society, because egoic needs provide more impetus and willpower for greater production and innovation. If you are merely trying to put food on the table you are less driven to go the extra yard than if you are trying to make something of yourself.

Of course, capitalism eventually begins to collapse, it would seem, into a system that isn't really all that different from communism, it just takes time. The problem being the consolidation of power in the hands of a few. Historically, this happened fairly quickly in communist countries, but in capitalist one's it apparently happens over time. If individuals in the capitalist society begin to feel like no matter what they do, they cannot get ahead, then their egoic needs are not being met. Furthermore, even when the majority of society is finding satisfaction in egoic needs, because that is the focus of the society, it provides no real way to assure individuals from poor communities actually can get to the point where their survival needs are met sufficiently for them to begin to worry about egoic needs. (You can't expect people to work out of egoic needs if they don't have any! And the only reason a human being wouldn't have egoic needs is because their survival needs, which include safety needs, haven't been met. So it becomes a viscious cycle, they can't reach egoic needs because they or their families haven't met survivial needs, but the society's primary support for survival needs presume individuals have egoic needs, which they don't!).

This leads many to feel that some socialist policies are required to balance out capitalism. The basic principle of such socialist ideas essentially differ from communism in that they aren't meant to restrict an individuals opportunities and ability to advance in life, but rather make it easier to do so. In communist societies, for the most part you work to survive. Unfortunately, in capitalist societies this is also increasingly becoming the case. So some proposed socialist measures to address survival level needs in order to make it easier for individuals to pursue egoic needs, which is radically different from what communism proposes. Furthermore, socialist policies are meant to address the fact that the poor can't even reach egoic needs in order to participate in society fully, so they propose that we address survival needs in these communities so that individuals from those communities can eventually begin to feel the desire to makes something of their lives, which currently they do not feel.

So in short, communism was right in that meeting the survival needs of a population is important and humane, they were right in that the social system actually has some very significant ability to do this. They were wrong about this being ALL there is to human beings, and they were wrong to think that human beings should be confined to mere survival satisfaction.

There is much much more, including communism's rediculous attempt to repress religion, but that is the segment of the equation I can offer.

Answer 2

In many senses, the system is a great idea. Workers own all the facotries, land, farms, houses and so on (not the government as a previous poster claimed) - and they manage their affairs, the production of goods and raw materials and the distribution of food etc among themselves. Healthcare, education, entertainment (eg the opera!) and many other things are provided for free universally by the state.

Workers also have a direct influence over the political process via committees: every work group is a committee, elects one person to speak for them who in turn goes to a higher level committee... etc etc, meaning that the smallest concern can sometimes make it all the way to the central committee.

The main problem with communism in practice is that it just doesn't work. Without huge interference by the state in the form of the secret police, forced labour, forced migration etc, communist states don't seem to be able to function. Also, the concept of communism is at odds with the teachings of the catholic church and western liberalism meaning that if you're brought up under either of these, you will likely find many aspects of communism to be diametrically opposed to your moral viewpoint. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just subjectively difficult to reconcile.

Answer 3

Actually, in communism, everything is co-owned by the community (as opposed to being owned and controlled by the government, which is socialism). Communism looks great on paper, but it doesn't take the human mind and spirit into consideration. some (maybe most) people will not accept a system where some people will just lay back and share equally with others who may be toiling a little harder.

Answer 4

It starts out as a good idea; everyone shares with those in need so no-one does without. But human nature being what it is there will always be those who are 'more equal' and abuse the system.

Cuba probably came closest to succeeding but even there a great deal of the population lives in poverty while the rules live it up.

Answer 5

i look at it like this: you and someone who works half as much or as hard as you do would get the same. now, i don't know about you but, personally, i wouldn't want to be the one pulling the weight. i would want to be the one with the free ride. the only problem with that is that no one would want to be the one pulling all the weight. and if there's no one to work hard to get the stuff that's passed out equally among everyone, then everyone gets an equal share of nothing. nothing would ever advance with no incentive for trying to advance anything. maybe...just maybe...that's why countries that practice, say...capitalism....advance fairly quickly. competition is a powerful driving force, no?

Answer 6

Ideally, communism has everyone work how much they can, and receive as much as they need to live. The problem is that that involves people scamming the system to receive what they need without working, and it also involves a very strong government to take everything and hand it out as they see fit.
In our world, it just hasn't worked.

Answer 7

The idea is right but the system is wrong. Personally, I like the idea of "compassionate capitalism".

Answer 8

would you let your mother stand in a queue, in the rain/snow/sun just for a loaf of bread? no, ofcourse not. in theory it sounds like a revolution but in reality, too many communist leaders have gone nuts from all the power.

Answer 9

With Communism, the government owns everything, even your property and homes. I, myself, would not want to give up my land and home.

Answer 10

its nice that everyone is treated the same.. everyone gets everything.. health care, schooling.. all provided..

Answer 11

Everyone is equal, but it doesn't work.