Works - ?

[iloveatomickitten]

An argument give oftern against communism is that "It doesnt work" and that capitalism does, but to what how is the decision made as to whether a system works or not. Is it defined in terms of productivty which seem to be the view held by most people? This would certainly adds validity to the capitalist argument (ignoring the whole "it wasnt pure communism" and any other arguments for the moment). Though method caters for only certain views and is certainly due to the capitalist nature of the world going to be assessed in terms of GDP which gives better results to capitlaist countries due to the very nature of the measurement. So as an alternative, a system works if it achieves what its aims were. This perspective to me destroys the capitalist argument totally as the so called failures of communism where not failures Stalins Russia was never meant to form an idilic state and existed for the sake of his greed? This approach if taken then shifts the argument from a unproductive stalemate to a possition where it may achive something avoiding the vast bulk of the functionality issues of the past allowing theory to focus on the ture ideal of communism.

But is this the "correct" view of how to deffine a system that works and does it aviod moral issues which appear to form a large amount of for and against arguments by taking a nihilistic view of everything? - Is there a problem with this view that it justifies all systems? - Can it be used a justification at all?

To me functionally alike morality can be the basis of no argument as they really on subjective views but in the lack of an objective view I simply can't see any reason to be communist or capitlist other that personal gain which due to the very nature of communism is essentially "wrong."


ps I had no idea where to put this and sorry if my ramblings bored you.