Why is Communism Bad?

I'll see if I can find the article..... its old though..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901228_pf.html

There is an example (though not exactly the same its close).

I think though that instead of charging us money to make money and then again to spend it we should only be taxed once. Its stupid that it happens when you spend and make money. And then having to file tax returns is eliminated. And then fewer people get in trouble for honest mistakes filing taxes. This keeps the jails clear for more serious crimes. And then we don't have to pay as many taxes for people to take our money (I mean, this is a government by the people of the people for the people. Why the hell do we do so many stupid things with it?) and then the government will have an easier time getting the money and it can start to cut down this debt.
 
I'll see if I can find the article..... its old though..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901228_pf.html

There is an example (though not exactly the same its close).

I think though that instead of charging us money to make money and then again to spend it we should only be taxed once. Its stupid that it happens when you spend and make money. And then having to file tax returns is eliminated. And then fewer people get in trouble for honest mistakes filing taxes. This keeps the jails clear for more serious crimes. And then we don't have to pay as many taxes for people to take our money (I mean, this is a government by the people of the people for the people. Why the hell do we do so many stupid things with it?) and then the government will have an easier time getting the money and it can start to cut down this debt.
whilst i do agree that in some situations it will be abused thats why youget to vote for your politicians and you vote the untrustworthy ones out

so what your saying is we should get rid of sales tax or we should get rid of tax returns , i dont fully understanding what your saying we should do to tax people
 
Well heres my take.

I live in America.

The american dream is to have a nice house and nice cars and a family and children who are well educated.

In a communist country, the government basically helps you out alot, right? So you get your basic needs and everything you got it all covered. But this is only your BASIC needs. What do you think when you look at bigger houses? Expensive cars? Higher education?

You basically can't prosper, there's really no oppourtunity for you to shine in a communist society, everyones the same. Theres no class system.

There are good things about it, i mean if we were communist here in america, there wouldnt be homeless, uneducated and/or unemployed people. But I beleive these people get themselves into such a situation, and just because the government doesnt help them they become homeless? But then again, there wouldn't be the upper class (rich people), to stimulate the economy, someone has to buy the ferraris and lambos, fill in the expensive neighbor hoods. A neighbor hood like mine would just be empty, just too over priced for the average communist paycheck, the economy would fail just because a small neighborhood with a few houses went unfilled. Can you communists afford 2+million dollar houses? Do you even get to choose your house? Do you even know how much your house is worth? You dont even own it. Its government property. In a democratic society we can OWN our own homes, and have the right to say "i have a 2 million dollar home and 2 cars in the garage and its my property and you cant take it"

We can work hard, get OUR money, and it all pays off when youre living it up.
 
whilst i do agree that in some situations it will be abused thats why youget to vote for your politicians and you vote the untrustworthy ones out

so what your saying is we should get rid of sales tax or we should get rid of tax returns , i dont fully understanding what your saying we should do to tax people

well, tax returns should go out. There is a debt that needs to be paid off. And then kept off.

And either sales tax goes or income does, but I don't think people should be charged money for everything they do. I can't have an income without taxes, I can't spend without taxes and I can't own land without taxes and I think having all this tax paying can really confuse people and the IRS does not play on a two way street, which is also BS.

And yes, there is much corruption, and those that go to change end up getting sucked in. Really it all needs to be flushed clean every few years for it to work right.
 
Soon when I make my big bucks when I get out of the military... I would like to keep my hard worked money that I went through a lot of shit to get . I don't need my old pot smoker friends taking it because they didn't want to do anything with their lives.. :)

I know a lot of people that are just making babies, working at Mcdonalds and just don't give a fuck about nothing. But they want that money any way they can get it without really working for it.
 
No system is perfect, but IMO Capitalism works out the best practically. It has it's flaws, but it gives a person an incentive to work. We all know lazy people who, if they had the choice of having everything handed to them, would do so.

In a Capitalistic society a lazy person has to work to have anything. In a communistic society, one persons extra labor benefits everyone, not the man who did the work. For example, if my family and I farmed cattle in a Communistic country (like we do now in the US) and that after all the time, work and expenses we put into raising cattle when it comes time to sell, the government takes our money and spreads it to people who did nothing to help us in raising them. I would have no incentive or desire to do anything productive, I'd just sit around and wait for someone else to do the work.

Although, I have to admit Karl Marx's theory on Communism sounds and looks good on paper, but put into practice it don't work, never has. Although, technically there are no purely Communistic governments out there, I still believe that it is destined to failure...but, I suppose all civilizations and empires eventually fall, I just think the Communistic ones would first:p
 
I think the idea of theory v. practice has been established by the little I've read. If you want some background information on why the US has trouble with Communism I suggest you research the followig topics:

The 1920s Red Scare
McCarthyism/Joseph McCarthy
The Cold War
 
If I were not so informed, I would take offence to your comments about the criticism simply because I'm Chinese
well that'd be silly, because it's not a criticism aimed at the Chinese people so much as the practises of the state

I feel like the one child policy is a good idea. Though it does limits the free will of people, it is a necessary sacrifice to make. A country growing like China couldn't possibly sustain itself on its resources for much longer. There is already a huge job crisis in China right now. It's extremely hard to find decent consistent jobs. The way I see it, if they didn't limit population growth many of those that would have been born will die from overpopulation, famine, ect.

Really? really really? you agree with this policy, you do know how the policy is enforced right?

If a family has a child then everything is ok, then if they have a second child they are taxed a massive amount as a fine, (can be up to a years wages for some of the poorest), then that child is never registered as a citizen, meaning that they are denied an eduction, and denied the possibility of getting gainful skilled employment,

you are FOR a policy that seems the poorest least educated taxed to death, all not first born never recognised as people and essentially left to rot?

True, i disagree with China's suppression of information. But i feel like they are becoming more open as seen from Olympic games 2008
I don't even pretend to understand this.

you do know that even more people were suppressed during the olympics than at any other time.

here's another pub fact for you, they eat dogs in china, (and no that's not my pub fact, they eat horse meat in France we don't in Britain, whoopee it's just a different culture).
BUT, over the time of the Olympics local takeaways in the area where people were staying were forced to remove local delicacies (like dog) from their menu, because outsiders would probably find it unappealing.

everyone knows that Chinese eat dog meat, nobody cares, it's a different culture, same as Indians would look oddly at me for eating a steak.

then of course there is stuff like this

Tienanmen square, I'm not sure if it's still the case, but if you google Tienanmen square and image search outside of china you get those classic pictures of man standing in road blocking tank, if you did the same search in chine you get lovely flower filled pictures of Tienanmen square looking like a really nice and lovely place, (and I'm not saying that it isn't a nice place), just that the great firewall of china blocks out the stuff that they don't want the good citizens to see. -though this isn't limited to china, I'm sure that our Australian members may have something to say about this sort of thing as well.

IDK what distribution of wealth your are referring to...are you saying they take from rich and give to poor so? The way I see it, corrupt politicians and rich simply get richer. Very small middle class in China. And many people that live in cities are still poor. There are either the rich or the poor
no, because if I was talking about taking from the rich to give to the poor I'd be talking about re-distribution of wealth, I'm talking about the way that money is divided throughout the country, with large cities haveing a few wealthy people in them, and with vast swathes of countryside haveing people living in almost third world conditions, yes, I'm aware that poor people can live in cities as well, but generally people tend to migrate towards cities, because even though they are poor they are better off working in a city than working the land,

I bet your one of the people who doesn't agree with the same widening participation scheme aimed at working class people that means that next year i will hopefully be going to a top university in england even though my parents never went to university and normally i would not even have considered applying to that uni because i would have considered it out of my reach
Personally I disagree with anything that makes it easier to get into uni... it's entirely selfish, but here is why...

Firstly, I got good A-level reslts, not great, buy good, and I went to a uni that accepted those grades, (when working in a uni after graduating I had this same argument), the uni that I worked in )specifically the department inside the uni, was the second best in the country for the course that they offered, and you needed 3 A's to join the course. that is of course unless you were an inner city black kid, in which case you needed an A an 2 B's because you were from a disadvantaged background... I'm not racist, buy what I will say is this, positive discrimination is still discrimination, I understand that bright kids get help back in cities, and the situation is particularly prevalent amongst inner city black kids, but really, surely anyone can see that regardless of your skin colour or background, or indeed area of residency. some people have it tough, some people have the wrong crowd around them. of you only get there because the uni has to make special exceptions for you, then after you leave saying I've got a degree from xyz institution then people employ you on the basis that you have a degree from a well respected institution, when they find out they are not as good as your degree says that you might be then they in future take a dimmer view towards that uni, so when the next person applies saying I've got a degree from xyz institution, they start thinking that degree isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Secondly, the reason that I disagree with widening programs is for the following reason, I got my A-levels, and went to a uni. I got a degree, the thing that makes getting a degree useful, is that not everyone has one. the thing that make some uni's more popular than others, and able to say well you need to be this clever to enter is the fact that different unis have different levels of teaching, and staff and reputations. for example an English degree from an Oxford uni would be worth more on paper than an English degree from perhaps a Leeds uni.
if more people are allowed degrees from better colleges because the government think that's "fairer", then they are wrong. all it does is add more degree qualified people to the market and devalues the strength of the degree holders that went before them.
because over time the attitudes are changing from a degree holder being someone who wanted to further themselves, to someone who couldn;t be bothered to leave school... also announced in the UK news today was that they are thinking of offering free uni courses to the unemployed... which I find shocking, I graduated almost 5 years ago, and have been paying back my student loan ever since, I still owe 9 grand on that loan. why should someone else get what I had to pay for for free, just because they don't have a job right now.

by all means train people, but train them in essential skills, like typing, maths, English, vocational skills, like plumbing, bricklaying etc...

(neither of my parents went to uni, and none of my siblings did either).

There are good things about it, i mean if we were communist here in America, there wouldn't be homeless, uneducated and/or unemployed people. But I believe these people get themselves into such a situation, and just because the government doesn't help them they become homeless? But then again, there wouldn't be the upper class (rich people),
There are homeless and jobless, and uneducated, people in china, tere is still carious people in different tiers of wealth and class as well. there are sill upper class Chinese people and lower class
 
Back
Top Bottom