# Can someone please explain Communism to me? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 17, 2001, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-communism-to-me/76762 "2001-08-17T16:48:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2001, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-communism-to-me/76762/41 "2001-08-20T21:38:25Z")
Well, the pinko is back. I don’t have the time, energy or knowledge to constantly defend communism, but I do have the ability to explain it. I’ll do a couple of quote-by-quote posts for my detractors, but I can’t sustain an “I’m right- no your wrong and I’m right- no _your_ wrong and I’m right” battle for long. I just want people to have a better understanding of what Communism means. I really encourage any other Commies to help me out here, because I am badly outnumbered! > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Protesilaus \* > It seems to me that they usually work for themselves, and only occasionally for charity. Unless you’d like to provide a cite to the contrary. Even when they work for themselves, they are doing work that will _not improve their standard of living_. Now why the heck would they do that? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Protesilaus \* > I wouldn’t say you’re not benefitting. Sure, you’re not benefitting _financially_, but you’re benefitting the same way as every student who raises their hand in class to answer a teacher’s question. You want to show off your intelligence. Your ego is benefitting. Gold star for Protsilaus! There are other forms of compensation than getting more stuff! There are other motivations for doing labor! > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Protesilaus \*Presumably, under an “each according to his abilities” scenario, I would have become an engineer whether I wanted to be one or not. Personally, I’m glad we are free to seek our own way, I for one believe I have found mine. You didn’t like school, so you would be a prime candidate for one of those jobs that require less schooling. It would be almost exactly the same choice you made in a capitilist society- “Would I rather spend my time training or working?”. For every person I know that is in school (but doesn’t like it) because he or she wants a job that makes more money, I know a person that would wanted to study but _didn’t_ go to school because they wanted to start making money immediate, rather than spend years in poverty and debt. I think that the two forces would balance each other out, and more people would end up in labor they found rewarding. Luckly, there are engineering students out there that dig engineering. I know a few myself. No one would make a good engineer if they hated it. It would not be one of your abilities. All we ask is that you work hard at _something_ that adds to society. Thankfully, it takes a lot of different kinds of people to make society work. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Protesilaus \*Why do people become engineers? I hesitate to generalize on the whole population, but nearly every other engineering student that I have met was, like me, in it for the money. There are a great deal of immigrants and children of immigrants in engineering because they know it will allow them to have a better life, because they’ll make a great deal of money. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Protesilaus \*You may think you know what a stressful education is like, **sven** , but you can’t understand unless you’ve experienced it yourself or through your friends. As a history major, I’d be glad to spend another ten years in college. As a engineering major? No way. Absolutely none. I am a geek. I would say about half of my friends are either computer science or engineering majors. Perhapse we just come from different worlds, but the people I know really enjoy what they are doing. They program for fun. They build wearble computers for the sheer sport of it. I asked one friend (who was working as a poorly paid intern for a big computer firm) why the heck he did what he did, and he said he really loved seeing his hard work come to fruition in the form of bringing new technology to the world. He loved being on the frontiers of what human works could do. I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy your engineering experience, but there are plenty of others that do. > [@](#): > > I guess what my long-winded ramblings are getting at is this very important fact that virtually guarantees that communism can never work: > **You _need_ these people, and they don’t come cheap.** They can be bought with things other than Beemers, yachts and trips to Paris. Beyond that, money doesn’t always ensure that people will do a certain unpleasent line of work. After all, being a whore is a very lucrative profession, and damned if ambitious women arn’t exactly flocking to the brothels. > [@](#): > > In a society where I get what I get due to my “need” instead of what I earn or the value I provide? I must admit it would be tempting. I doubt I’m the only one to feel that way. Have you ever spent time unemployed? Even without the financial burden, it sucks. You feel like an unvaluable person. Your talents wither and go to waste. It is kind of like that miserable feeling you get when you sleep in till noon on a Sunday and realize that your day is wasted on nothing. After a while, alcohol, drugs and other numbers start to seem appealing- a way to break the depair of uselessness. We have seen a lot of this on Native American reservations, for example, where unemployment and loss of a sense of purpose has brought on general depair. I don’t know whether it is innate or socialized in to us, but to be useful is the human condition. > [@](#): > > Work is not enjoyable. People must be given compensation for it, because they would rather be doing something else, something enjoyable. You, my friend, need to find another line of employment. I find my work enjoyable (even though I resent being alianated from my labor). I enjoy the companionship of my coworkers. I enjoy the old fashioned feeling of “a job well done”. I enjoy the chance to show off my knowledge. I enjoy meeting new and interensting people. It is certainly preferable to laying idle in the gloom of my house. And this is for work without purpose. I would be even more satisfied with my employment if I felt it was serving some useful purpose (other than enriching the portfolios of Viacom stockholder). > [@](#): > > And yet, despite the fact that you or I or the average Doper might think of modern American films, they are indeed quite popular with the masses. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be making all the money they are. If you don’t know that the science in, say, _Armageddon_, is bullshit, it won’t keep you from enjoying the movie. The popularity of something has nothing to do with how good something is. Otherwise, we would still be learning Creationism in school. And, once again, you make my point for me. Learning to appriciate film is work. It takes some amount of thought. It is much more likely that a capitalist society will put out work that is easy to enjoy but has little lasting value. As popular as “Bubble Boy” may be, I do not think it will add to the good of our society or our cultural heritage. > [@](#): > > Well, first off, subtitles are unneccessary unless the film was made in another language. A film made in America wouldn’t be made in a language other than English, (unless you count some small scenes in flims involving a different language being spoken, which does indeed happen) as it would make no sense to do so. Secondly, I understand _Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon_ did quite well. It was even nominated for a Best Picture Oscar. It’s subtitled. You know what I mean! The do not widely distribute films with subtitles, and as a result America misses out on the cinema of most of the world. And **Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon** is what I actually what I am basing my observations on. I work at a video store. I cannot tell you how many people _refused_ to watch CTHD, full well knowing it is an exellent film, because of the subtitles. I have had people come in and literally yell at me for daring to stock something not in English. At least once a day we have someone come in and demand their money back on CTHD due to its subtitles. Heck, yesterday someone came up and asked me if **Chocolat** had subtitles. After I assured her it didn’t, she put it back anyway, stateing “I heard it takes place in one of those French countries, and I don’t think I will be able to follow it.” > [@](#): > > How do you account for the widespread popularity of films such as _Clerks_ and _The Blair Witch Project_? How do you account for the fact that after the commercial sucess of **Clerks** , Kevin Smith went on to make FOUR movies with the same tired characters and recycled jokes? Or how do you account for **Blair Witch II**? In both these cases, it appears that commerical success has dampened innovation in both these cases. > [@](#): > > You don’t think there has been innovation in American film? I didn’t say there was _never_ innovation. Nor did I say that the Soviets didn’t produce some bombs (ever seen a tractor musical?). I was asserting that the twentieth century versions of Communist states have produced a signifigant amount of innovation, and Western film has produced a signifigant amount of stagnation, especially considering the amount of resourses that are poured into American fil,. > [@](#): > > Also, innovative does not necessarily mean entertaining. I’ve seen “innovatitive” films that bored me to tears. Once in a while, it’s nice to be able to relax for a couple of hours. I never said that all film has to be heavy. I do, however, expect film to add to a country’s society and cultural heritage. Plenty of innovative films can also be entertaining. French New Wave films were often about gangsters, outlaws, prostitutes and other entertaining subjects. Fellini’s films, surreal though they be, are a rollicking good time. Innovation and entertainment are not mutually exclusive. I think that good film ought to bring us both. > [@](#): > > Absurdly simple. Everyone dies of something, right? If they merely treat you, they’ll make money now, but once you die, they won’t anymore. Tell that to the companies that no longer research and produce vaccines because they are not particulatly profitable. > [@](#): > > However, humans have tended to be greedy and selfish throughout history, and there’s no reason to believe the trend will change. That is because humans have tended to be in situations where greedness and selfishness have been rewarded. They know no other way. Just because you can’t picture it, doesn’t mean it can’t happen. All you have ever known is Capitalism. Of course you are going to assume that Capitalism is the One True Way, because you have never seen anything else and have never been able to have a thought that was independent of the Capitalist way of thinking. It is pretty hard to open your mind and imagine a world where things worked differently. Luckly for us, some people do manage to do that- we call them visionaries. > [@](#): > > If your “cover charge” is too much, you can just not join the party, but you can’t just not join society. \*\* Of course, Capitalism doesn’t have this problem… {fixed code. --Gaudere} [Edited by Gaudere on 08-21-2001 at 01:15 PM] ---
**Author:** ![Tretiak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a88e57/32.png) [@Tretiak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tretiak)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2001, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-communism-to-me/76762/42 "2001-08-20T22:11:40Z")
I would have to simply go with the fact that Communism lacks the informational tool known as prices to allocate scarce goods and resources and to provide incentives. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2001, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-communism-to-me/76762/43 "2001-08-20T22:16:05Z")
OH MY GOODNESS! I did that whole last post in Italics! Preview! Preview! Preview! My humblest apologies for my sloppiness! And for the sloppiness of the post in general. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > Doubtfull. Ummm…you have been around for the twentieth century, right? Communism shaped our world, and it continues you. Even if you don’t like it, it is a major force. That is why I think it is important to understand it. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > Capitalism tends to fall apart only when goods are so plentiful that their price is effectively zero. So _thats_ what happened in Cuba (China, Russia etc). Boy, **msmith537** , I really wish you taught history class! > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > All it takes, however, is a couple of people to start hoarding supplies and they can obtain an economic advantage over their neighbors. But “economic advantage” is irrellevent in Communism, because the whole concept of economics is different. Unless your neighbor manages to horde so many lentils that people begin to starve (a rather unlikely situation) then it doesnt really matter if your neighbor has five bags of lentils or five hundred. You have enough lentils. I have enough lentils. Who cares if Bob has more than enough lentils. And, if his lentil hording habit does endanger the community, justice will be served by the community. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > Production is only part of the problem. There is still the issue of raw materials. The world does not have an endless suply of them. There is not an infinate supply, but there is a plentiful supply. It doesn’t take much to live in a healthy and happy manner. Capitalism, as you know, is fueled by surplus goods. Without capitalism, we wouldn’t be so concerned with making surpluss goods, and we would use our raw materials more wisely. Sure, we might play soccer instead of resourse-heavy golf, but we would still be exersized, entertained and happy. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > The question is bullshit because if everyone had a million dollars, no one would dig ditches or clean garbage cans. Because they want a job that does not require extensive training. Because they enjoy physical work instead of mental work. Because they like fresh air. Because the stakes are lower. And heck, just because you dig ditches doesn’t mean your life has to be devoted to digging ditches. I am sure a few doctors would like to take the day off of their high-stakes work and get a good round of ditch digging. Instead of going to the gym, and actually _paying_ for the priledge of doing labor, you could maintain an active life and benefit the community at the same time. Win win. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > Pretentious art-house bullshit. > > Free from the constraints of money, you also end up with films like Waterworld, Godzilla (American version) and Battlefield Earth. Money has no corellation to film quality. Only quality of special effects. Ummm…I assume you have no idea what you are talking about. I have no reason to discontinue that assumption. I am not talking about budget constraints while making the movie. Plenty of low budget movies turn out well. I am talking about the constraints of having to make money off the movie, a very important distinction. All of the movies you mentioned were calculated to make a maximum profit. They all sucked. Even sucessful audience pleasers often suck. Having to rake in dough by pleasing the hoi-polloi is a form of censorship in itself. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > The Soviet Union collapsed because a central government beurough cannot set price and production levels as efficiently as a free market economy. That is why they had 3 hour long lines for items like bread. Silly me! I thought it was because the Soviet Union was A MOTHER LOVING DICTATORSHIP!!! > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > There will always be ‘needs’ and ‘wants’. Perhaps, but what those actual needs and wants are can (and often do) change. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > Because the liberal view tends to support big goverment taking care of everyone like little children. Kind of like a Big Brother who, instead of going through your stuff and punching you on the arm when you screw up, protects you from bullies and shares his lunch with you. That is an awefully strange thing to hear, considering I support a system that ends up with no government at all. I am amazed at how little you know, and how little you try to aquire knowledge, of what Communism actually is. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > From what I’ve seen, most supporters of communism feel that the capitalist system has let them down in some way. Some are ‘oppressed worker’ types. Others just have some 60’s fantasy of lounging around a commune and growing tomatoes, corn and hemp in their spare time. A still others are just lazy academics who think supporting communism somehow makes them look more intellectual or enlightened. > > I know very few ambitous types who favor communism as a form of government. Now why would anyone ever feel that Capitalism let them or others down? They must be hippies! And we all know their view doesn’t count! Or “lazy academics” who just louge around with faddish ideas. Thats the ticket! Honestly! I have avoided calling you names. I never called Capitalists, greedy, selfish, foul, ugly or pig-like. I would appreiciate it if you kept you arguments in the realm of reality and out of the realm of name-calling. And our definition of “ambition” is often “one who seeks career advancements that lead to monetary sucess”". OF COURSE PEOPLE WITH THOSE IDEALS WOULD NOT BE COMMIES! Want to know something else? The sky is blue! As far as great people that favor communism, I can name a few. One that is particularly beloved to Americans is a certain Mr. Martin Luther King, who embraced Communism soon before his death. Few consider Mr. King a shiftless hippy or a lazy academic. I really want to inform people here. Please don’t make me take you to the pit. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by even sven \* > > **Why would you want to be one?** > > And so that is why I am a Communist (kind of). For as much sense that capitalism seems to make, in practice it tends to fail as well. Take a look at African diamond mines, South Central LA, child prostitutes in Thailand, or any number of places around the world to see how spectacularly capitalism can fail its people. It is not the magic wonder drug. Capitalism is basically survival of the fitest. For those with the tools to succeed, the rewards can be limitless. For those lacking education, drive or ability, however, the capitalist world can be a very hard place. \*\* [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2001, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-communism-to-me/76762/44 "2001-08-20T22:19:46Z")
Man, I screwed up again. Guess I’ll be up against the wall, too, when the revolution comes. Sorry about the continued sloppiness. _sigh_ ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2001, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-communism-to-me/76762/45 "2001-08-21T01:17:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by even sven \* > Ummm…you have been around for the twentieth century, right? Communism shaped our world, and it continues you. Even if you don’t like it, it is a major force. That is why I think it is important to understand it. Understand yes. But attempting to force a communist system before the world is ready (if it ever will be) will result in economic disaster. And from what I understand of economics, such a system is impossible in todays world. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by even sven \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > > Capitalism tends to fall apart only when goods are so plentiful that their price is effectively zero. > > So _thats_ what happened in Cuba (China, Russia etc). Boy, **msmith537** , I really wish you taught history class! Thank you for making my point for me. In all those countries a communist system was put in place. Since those nations don’t have unlimited resources, they soon feel pressure from basic economic forces (ie suply and demand). The government can’t set prices as efficiently as the market can so you end up with shortages and black markets. No, you didn’t have Capitalists (with a capital C) like J.P. Morgan or Rockafeller in Russia or Cuba. But you have capitalism (small c) in the sense of people buying and selling goods on a market. If anything, Russia and China have become more capitalist, not less. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by even sven \* > But “economic advantage” is irrellevent in Communism, because the whole concept of economics is different. Unless your neighbor manages to horde so many lentils that people begin to starve (a rather unlikely situation) then it doesnt really matter if your neighbor has five bags of lentils or five hundred. You have enough lentils. I have enough lentils. Who cares if Bob has more than enough lentils. And, if his lentil hording habit does endanger the community, justice will be served by the community. Why is that unlikely? Is there an infinite suply of lentils? If I run the lentil factory, whats to keep me from hoarding lentils until people are ready to trade with me? Suply and demand economics is not a philososphy. It is a certainty, like gravity. We don’t always know why it works, but it does. If I have two lentils and you have none, I am not going to just give one to you out of the goodness of my heart. I expect something in trade. For Communism to work, there would have to be some kind of governing body that will force me to give you one of my lentils, otherwise there will always be someone hoarding them. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by even sven \* > There is not an infinate supply, but there is a plentiful supply. It doesn’t take much to live in a healthy and happy manner. Capitalism, as you know, is fueled by surplus goods. Without capitalism, we wouldn’t be so concerned with making surpluss goods, and we would use our raw materials more wisely. NO NO NO!!! Capitalism is not fueled by surplus goods. Capitalism is fueled by the fact that there are more people who want goods than there are goods available. The goal of capitalism is NOT to make surplus goods. The goal is to increase efficiency and production so we can make more goods more cheaply. Which situation do you believe would result in raw materials being used more efficiently: a) Simply digging them out of the ground and allocating them according to each persons perceived need? b) Charging money per each pound of raw material mined/cut/drilled/etc and force people to consider how much they truly need? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by even sven \* > Because they want a job that does not require extensive training. Because they enjoy physical work instead of mental work. Because they like fresh air. Because the stakes are lower. Instead of going to the gym, and actually _paying_ for the priledge of doing labor, you could maintain an active life and benefit the community at the same time. Win win. Thats great and all, but its a little hard to organize a labor force if everyone just goes around and does what they please. If this communist utopia of yours is industrialized/computerised, you will need dedicated professional engineers, machinists, and other highly trained specialists. In a capitalist society, the fluctuations in wages influence people to enter or leave a profession. What influences people to become ditch diggers in EvanSvenLand if there aren’t enough volunteers? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by even sven \* > Now why would anyone ever feel that Capitalism let them or others down? Because they are in jobs that they feel are beneath their abilities. Some may have a legitimide gripe, like a smart kid who was too poor to go to college. Others are just lazy in the sense that they would rather live in a society that provides them with a decent lifestyle instead of being responsible for providing it for themselves. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by even sven \* > They must be hippies! And we all know their view doesn’t count! Or “lazy academics” who just louge around with faddish ideas. Thats the ticket! Honestly! I have avoided calling you names. I never called Capitalists, greedy, selfish, foul, ugly or pig-like. I would appreiciate it if you kept you arguments in the realm of reality and out of the realm of name-calling. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by even sven \* > And our definition of “ambition” is often “one who seeks career advancements that lead to monetary sucess”". OF COURSE PEOPLE WITH THOSE IDEALS WOULD NOT BE COMMIES! Want to know something else? The sky is blue! According to Webster’s Dictionary: Main Entry: am·bi·tion Pronunciation: am-'bi-sh&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin ambition-, ambitio, literally, act of soliciting for votes, from ambire Date: 14th century 1 a : an ardent desire for rank, fame, or power b : desire to achieve a particular end 2 : the object of ambition 3 : a desire for activity or exertion \ Ambition is not limited to monetary success. You can have ambition to be a great football player or guitarist or whatever. However since Webster also defines lazy as 1 a : disinclined to activity or exertion and since according to you Communists have no ambition, then by your own words, Communists are lazy. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by even sven \* > As far as great people that favor communism, I can name a few. One that is particularly beloved to Americans is a certain Mr. Martin Luther King, who embraced Communism soon before his death. Few consider Mr. King a shiftless hippy or a lazy academic. Are you referring to **Dr.** King Jr. or his father? Dr King was a civil rights activist and a reverend who graduated from Morehouse College with a degree in sociology. I see nothing in his background that would lend any credibility to his opinions on business or economics. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by even sven \* > I really want to inform people here. Please don’t make me take you to the pit. And do what? Bicker back and forth like a couple of school girls until I grow weary of ignoring your posts? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2001, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-communism-to-me/76762/46 "2001-08-21T02:36:07Z")
I dunno **msmith** , while I do agree with you on views of capitalism, I don’t see that communism is impractical. I see exactly what **sven** is saying, though I took the anarchist ideal over communist (hey, if we can all be nice why need a government?). I still think Communism’s main downfall is that it doesn’t practice what it preaches. I think this is also the reason why capitalism has such a bad view: it doesn’t stand on its own feet; instead it sulks apologetically in the corner. Or at least many of its defenders do. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2001, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-communism-to-me/76762/47 "2001-08-21T10:01:20Z")
**msmith537** : > [@](#): > > Who said everyone deserves all A’s? Not me 🙂 . Sorry if I seemed to imply that. I don’t think everyone deserves all A’s. Nor do I think we should even out the curve so that everyone gets all C’s. But this isn’t a classroom we’re talking about, and I am concerned when too many people start getting F’s. You should be too - It’s those folks who are the seeds of revolution. Which is why I think _some_ vaguely socialistic programs are necessary - public schools, labor laws, the GI Bill, anti-trust law, unemployment benefits, social security, etc. You know, some of the stuff we have now in the U.S. 🙂 . Pure Social Darwinism is not an option if you don’t want to end up guillotined by an enraged lumpen proletariat 😉 ( or alternatively, live in a massively repressive oligarchy ). - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2001, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-communism-to-me/76762/48 "2001-08-21T12:48:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > I dunno **msmith** , while I do agree with you on views of capitalism, I don’t see that communism is impractical. I see exactly what **sven** is saying, though I took the anarchist ideal over communist (hey, if we can all be nice why need a government?). > \*\* Maybe communism would work, maybe it wouldn’t. But I have a couple of questions about its aplication that no one has answered: 1. In a communist society with no central government and no private or corporate ownership of the means of production, what is the mechanism with which it is determined who needs what products (even if its just food and housing) and where? 2. If that mechanism is some kind of organization within society, what is to stop that organization from skewing the distribution of products in its favor? 3. What happens in a communist society if there are not enough resources to allocate ‘each according to their need’? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2001, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-communism-to-me/76762/49 "2001-08-21T17:57:09Z")
It’s all very simple, really… 1. Human beings are essentially selfish, lazy, greedy bastards. 2. Communism failed because it required everyone to be selfless, productive, and altruistic, contradicting the points in #1 above. 3. Capitalism works because it allows a lot of people to be selfish, lazy, greedy bastards, thus reaffirming the points in #1. 4. Capitalism will be defeated/supplanted if someone can invent a new socio-economic system that allows even **more** people to be selfish, lazy, greedy bastards. I suspect robots will be involved somewhere. Go with the base instincts, folks. They never fail. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2001, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-communism-to-me/76762/50 "2001-08-21T18:26:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > Can someone please explain Communism to me, and why a person would want to be Communist? Seems like the explanation’s been provided, and the question’s been answered. Now we’re down to the usual ‘can Communism work?’ debate. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Philosophocles \* > Chapter 4 of Acts of the Apostles Gotta watch out for them godful Communists!! 😉 > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AHunter3 \* > Let us assume “nice people”, i.e., people who would at least voluntarily cooperate cheerfully and would not be bothered by the lack of opportunity to be socially “above” or in power over other people. How about if we call them “Peaceful honest people”? ::_runs like hell_:: ---
**Author:** ![Tretiak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a88e57/32.png) [@Tretiak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tretiak)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2001, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-communism-to-me/76762/51 "2001-08-21T18:49:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rjung \* > \*\*It’s all very simple, really… > 4. Capitalism will be defeated/supplanted if someone can invent a new socio-economic system that allows even **more** people to be selfish, lazy, greedy bastards. I suspect robots will be involved somewhere. > > Go with the base instincts, folks. They never fail. 😃 \*\* Capitalism will be supplanted (possibly) if someone can find a better way to allocate scarce resources than prices. I mean sure Robots can do the work in the future, but then the question is “Which work should they do? How much milk should be made? Where should it go? How many _Godfather Trilogy_ DVDs should be produced? What should the extras on them be? Who gets one?” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-please-explain-communism-to-me/76762.md?page=2)