Communism and Socialism for Dummies

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


Do you deny that these are the options available to you, or did you just want to get that little rant out of your system?

[edit on 4-8-2010 by LeftWingLarry]




posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


I see the problems with democracy, but everything else that's been tried has been much, much worse. I'd never support giving it up.

The problem with Communism is not that it's bad. Rather, the problem is that it's so good (and requires such altruism from everybody involved) as to be impossible on a large scale. It can't be implemented. The 'horrors of Communism' lie not in what it is, but in what it becomes during it's implementation- It will inevitably become a tyranny. Communism itself is not a tyranny.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by LeftWingLarry]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by LeftWingLarry
 


Appreciate that clarification, thank you.

Communism is indeed too idealistic, and not realistic.

Probably students of the ancient Christians would agree also, since some of the first Christians supposedly practiced a kind of communism, and yet, for all the "altruism" we might grant these people, it still could not work, even for them. And so Paul ends up telling the slackers that if they didn't work, that they also would not eat.

I suspect it will always come to something like this, even if the majority was mostly on board. We will always have those who prefer to take, more than they give. And so, the central Marxian tenet, "To each according to his needs, from each according to their abilities", ends up destroying the whole communist edifice, since it will always be hamstrung by simple human nature.

JR



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by LeftWingLarry
 


Your 'options' (geezus do you consult the newspeak language dictionary before writing your posts?) are like my sticking a gun in your face, demanding your money, and telling you that you have the 'option' between giving me all your duckets or having your head blown off. Oh and you definitely have the option to pee a little down your leg.

And no, theres no magical land i can fly away to that wont demand its pound of flesh. Statists have cornered the market as far as societies go; theyve been building a worldwide dictatorship for mellenia, and they are quite effective at scaring the hell out of the slaves and buying up support from the sociopaths among us to enforce their decree across the globe. So unless theres some freeman colony on Mars that I havent heard of, I'm stuck here arguing with the likes of you, which seems to be a waste of time as you seem to be suffering from some sort of Stolkholm Syndrome.

Can you at least consider that violence *may*, just *may* not be the answer to humanities problems? thx...



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by LeftWingLarry
 


Your 'options' (geezus do you consult the newspeak language dictionary before writing your posts?) are like my sticking a gun in your face, demanding your money, and telling you that you have the 'option' between giving me all your duckets or having your head blown off. Oh and you definitely have the option to pee a little down your leg.

Not really. As I already said, you can campaign and vote for somebody who will change the system in your favour. If you aren't willing to do this then you're free to take advantage of your other options-voting with your feet, going into outright rebellion or just sucking it up.


And no, theres no magical land i can fly away to that wont demand its pound of flesh.

Which is hardly my fault or my problem.

en.wikipedia.org...

You're wrong, anyway. Scroll down for a list of countries with low or non-existent income taxes or various other taxes.


Statists have cornered the market as far as societies go; theyve been building a worldwide dictatorship for mellenia, and they are quite effective at scaring the hell out of the slaves and buying up support from the sociopaths among us to enforce their decree across the globe.

I don't support dictatorships.


So unless theres some freeman colony on Mars that I havent heard of, I'm stuck here arguing with the likes of you, which seems to be a waste of time as you seem to be suffering from some sort of Stolkholm Syndrome.

Clearly anybody who disagrees with you has a mental disorder. It can't be that they simply have a different set of priorities or values from you.


Can you at least consider that violence *may*, just *may* not be the answer to humanities problems? thx...

There is no such thing as an 'answer to Humanity's problems'. Each and every solution has all sorts of other problems and difficulties attached.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by LeftWingLarry]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by LeftWingLarry
 



I don't support dictatorships.


You live in one and seem to support it. Your tax dollars fund countless dictatorships worldwide. You buy goods produced by them. So I'd count that as support. You think thats air youre breathing?



Clearly anybody who disagrees with you has a mental disorder. It can't be that they simply have a different set of priorities or values from you.


People who support the initiation of force to meet their ends *do* have a mental disorder. Its called sociopathy.


There is no such thing as an 'answer to Humanity's problems'. Each and every solution has all sorts of other problems and difficulties attached.


Finally we agree. But if there is no answer, why do you continue to insist on a top down solution from the State, who cannot possibly have the answers? The State is just a violent monopoly that belives is has *all* the answers.

Anyways this system you defend is dead economically, morally and logically. We're gonna need fresh thinking, and now, if we are to mitigate the destruction its collapse will rain upon us, and build a more positive future in the aftermath. Not more of the same.

/good day



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Finally we agree. But if there is no answer, why do you continue to insist on a top down solution from the State, who cannot possibly have the answers? The State is just a violent monopoly that belives is has *all* the answers.

The State helps to solve the problems which are highest on my list of priorities, and is more accountable to the general public than corporations.


Anyways this system you defend is dead economically, morally and logically.

And yet, it's still very much alive.


We're gonna need fresh thinking, and now, if we are to mitigate the destruction its collapse will rain upon us, and build a more positive future in the aftermath. Not more of the same.

I'm in favour of various reforms to the system. I don't, however, want it abolished in favour of an Anarcho-Capitalist utopia.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry


The State helps to solve the problems which are highest on my list of priorities, and is more accountable to the general public than corporations.


Wuuuuzaa?

Did you just say accountable? With a strait face? What galaxy are you from my friend? The war criminal Tony Blair would get a good kick out of what you just said, haha~

Have you considered that maybe corperations are protected by the violent umbrella of the state as are their board members who have no liability? (again because of state sanction)



And yet, it's still very much alive.


Goddammit its dead, Jim!

All that remains is the twitching corpse that the carrion birds are currently feeding on. Like I said give it a year and then we talk.


I'm in favour of various reforms to the system. I don't, however, want it abolished in favour of an Anarcho-Capitalist utopia.


Utopian is believing in the State. You cant reform the system from stealing from you and raping your future anymore than you can send a vampire to AA (guess that would be BDA) to reform his blood drinking, night slalking ways. Its the nature of the beast, my friend. I will always steal, it will always kill, and yes, it will always collapse. Thats what happens when you continue to beat people into submission to solve problems. Collapse. But youll get a front row seat soon enough.


Anyways its funny how two people can have the very same outcome in mind (social harmony) and have such vastly different opinions on how this should be achived. I pose to you that neither you, nor I have the answers..but neither does the State. Any 'solutions' it imposes, while perhaps 'fixing' the problem in the short term (kinda like a junkie), will always create two or more in the long run. These errors accumulate until they cannot be pushed further into the future and cannot be hidden any longer...and then BAM. You get the mess were in right now.

Anyways good luck in the coming collapse, and i actually do mean that in all sincerity. Its gonna be rough for us all, including my self righteous ass over here across the pond.

/good day.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
Wuuuuzaa?

Did you just say accountable? With a strait face? What galaxy are you from my friend? The war criminal Tony Blair would get a good kick out of what you just said, haha~

There was an inquiry into the Iraq War. If there's a legitimate reason for 'War Crimes' trials, he'll be sought.


Have you considered that maybe corperations are protected by the violent umbrella of the state as are their board members who have no liability? (again because of state sanction)

Yes, and I'd like to see that reduced. I'm not sure how you think that reducing the state's regulatory powers would help matters, though. Or do corporations suddenly become benevolent once they have nobody enforcing certain standards onto them?



Goddammit its dead, Jim!

All that remains is the twitching corpse that the carrion birds are currently feeding on. Like I said give it a year and then we talk.

With your powers of foresight, perhaps you could tell me my lottery numbers too.



Utopian is believing in the State.

When a viable large scale solution which wouldn't result in the rape of the poor makes itself known, let me know.


You cant reform the system from stealing from you and raping your future

Raping my future?


yes, it will always collapse.

Prove it. Then prove that there is another system which doesn't collapse.


I pose to you that neither you, nor I have the answers..but neither does the State.

Which is why I'm not in favour of giving it total control.


Anyways good luck in the coming collapse, and i actually do mean that in all sincerity. Its gonna be rough for us all, including my self righteous ass over here across the pond.

You too.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry

Originally posted by Neo_Serf



There was an inquiry into the Iraq War. If there's a legitimate reason for 'War Crimes' trials, he'll be sought.


If? *cough* Downing Street Memos? No he wont be sought. Worse case for him is to be passed over for EU presidency. OooOOOoOo he might not be awarded more power. I murder a co-worker and I might not get a raise.


Yes, and I'd like to see that reduced. I'm not sure how you think that reducing the state's regulatory powers would help matters, though. Or do corporations suddenly become benevolent once they have nobody enforcing certain standards onto them?


Almost no one acts benevolently! And certainly not the state! In fact one could logically expect a band of murderous theives to act distinctly malevolently! Again you trust the state, instead of your fellow man, as the final arbitor. The state is not your friend.




With your powers of foresight, perhaps you could tell me my lottery numbers too.


Cant tell you winning lotto numbers, but i can inform you that the sky is indeed blue.



When a viable large scale solution which wouldn't result in the rape of the poor makes itself known, let me know.


Its called freedom. Your pretense of concern for the poor is rebuked by your admitted desire to keep them dependant on a system that enslaves them. 'the poor slaves, perhaps if we feed them better they wont die of malnutrition quite so often!'



Raping my future?


Its called inflation. Debt. Mandatory fiat currency. Institutionalized generational poverty. You know, all the horrors your state sanctions.



Prove it. Then prove that there is another system which doesn't collapse.


Prove yours wont. Prove it isnt? Prove there is a reason to stick with the Titanic instead of searching for a life raft. Im suggesting that we dont sail through icey waters in the future. Youre insisting the band play on.



Which is why I'm not in favour of giving it total control.


It already has complete control. Your subservient attitude ensures this. Either way you have no say. What are you gonna do, vote? lol~

Re read 1984.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Neo_Serf]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
If? *cough* Downing Street Memos? No he wont be sought. Worse case for him is to be passed over for EU presidency. OooOOOoOo he might not be awarded more power. I murder a co-worker and I might not get a raise.

Yes, if.


Almost no one acts benevolently! And certainly not the state! In fact one could logically expect a band of murderous theives to act distinctly malevolently!

So what makes you think that there is a better system out there?


Again you trust the state, instead of your fellow man, as the final arbitor. The state is not your friend.

'The State' is my fellow man.


Its called freedom. Your pretense of concern for the poor is rebuked by your admitted desire to keep them dependant on a system that enslaves them. 'the poor slaves, perhaps if we feed them better they wont die of malnutrition quite so often!'

'Freedom' is a buzzword that gets throw around a lot by various groups, but that often means little. Describe your perfect world for me, so I can see this 'freedom'.


Prove yours wont. Prove it isnt? Prove there is a reason to stick with the Titanic instead of searching for a life raft. Im suggesting that we dont sail through icey waters in the future. Youre insisting the band play on.

I didn't say it won't. All nations and all empires will rise and fall, after all.


It already has complete control. Your subservient attitude ensures this. Either way you have no say. What are you gonna do, vote? lol~

No it doesn't.


Re read 1984.

Fun fact: Nineteen Eighty-Four was written by an ardent democratic socialist.

Also, if you honestly think we live in the world that the book describes I would have to say you probably didn't read it very well.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   
If I may:

On the topic of Communism, in my opinion, there is one fundamental thing that must be established:

Foremost, "In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality" (Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto).

Communism is truly equal, far more than a Capitalist society. How does a society, such as the United States, have true equality when the few control the many?

What I, personally, envision, is a society where there are not people starving; a society where there are not people on the street, left homeless; a society where there are not the wealthy few. Should that not be the ultimate goal for humanity, instead of this, presumptuous half-heartedness that is displayed nowadays?

In America today, there are two major classes. We have the capitalists, and the proletariat -- to put it in the simplest terms. The few capitalists are vastly outnumbered by the many proletariat, and yet, the capitalists wholly exploit the proletariat.

As for those who claim Communism is irrational, or is destined to fail: it is my opinion, that Communism would work, similarly to how Capitalism works. In the sense that, people do what they have to in a Capitalist society, so they would in a Communist society.

I personally do not advocate a radical change from Capitalism to Communism for the sole reason that there would be people who would rebel against the change, and thereby destine the new society for failure. I believe there has to be a gradual change, from Capitalism, to Socialism, and then onto Communism.

Communism is the goal.

I repeatedly read, and hear, people saying how Communism would not work because there would be people who would work hard, and people who would slack off, both of whom would get equal shares at the end of the day. However, this is wrong.

In a society that has made a GRADUAL change to Communism, the people's mindset has been changed completely. Today, in a Capitalist society, people work because they have to. They have to have money so that they can survive; so that they can provide for their families. That's their mindset: survive.

However, as the society progresses towards Communism, that mindset would change from having to work to survive, into a mindset where the people work because they can; where people work because they want to better society.

Communism is not about giving the poor what they don't deserve. Communism is about giving everyone what they've earned -- Communism is about bettering society as a whole. Not damning the many proletariat, as we see today in a Capitalist society.

In the words of Karl Marx, "The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains" (The Communist Manifesto, 34).



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
OP, you would be much better off trying to define socialism and communism without them being Marxist of necessity. not all socialists and communists are Marxists. in fact that are many ideologies within each that are quite vastly different. hell, even within the Marxist fold there are a lot of different types of Marxists (council communists, Luxembourgists, Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, Castroists, etc.). a lot of different forms of socialism and communism are actually not even considered true socialism/communism by various other types of socialists/communists (i personally think most forms of Marxism more closely resemble fascist dictatorships than actual socialist ideologies). there is only one general attribute that can describe all forms of socialism, of which communism is a type that can also be described accurately in a very brief description:

socialism - workers' control over the means of production.
communism - a form of socialism that is based on the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".


it is as simple as that. so basically, there are two stipulations for an ideology to be communist. it must first fit the definition of socialism, and then fit the definition of communism. if it meets both criteria, everything else is extraneous and based on that person's personal ideology.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
we love communism






top topics
 
10
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join