Why is it that people with no knowledge of communism are so against it?

page: 12
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
In regards to Communism and such, I want to point out that equality of outcomes requires a political decision about measurement and allocation, a decision no society can make without some group forcing its view on others. True equality of results is logically impossible in a diverse world, and the attempt to achieve it leads to nightmarish results. Producing equal outcomes would require treating people unequally.

People are not equally tall, equally beautiful, equally successful. But if there's equal rights, then everyone will be equally free. I agree with what Jefferson had in mind: the right to equality before the law.
As mentioned in the Declaration of Independence: The freedom for the "pursuit of happiness".




posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by NysgjerrigDame
I agree. Most so-called communists just use that fact that communism is most logical and makes the most common sense to become dictators. Examples are the USSR, cuba, North Korea, etc. But nobody ever talks about Spain before Franco's coup. I believe that unless you've read the Communist Manifesot, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, State and Revolution: by Lenin, the Foundations of Leninism, The New Class: Djilas, Combat Liberalism (communists detest liberalism), I do not believe that you have right to talk about it. There are many more works that ought to be read on the matter. Most of ATS believes the lies of the West, but if any, those of you whom have truly studied the communist works, what is your argument against it?
edit on 2-1-2013 by NysgjerrigDame because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-1-2013 by NysgjerrigDame because: (no reason given)


I don't care if you want to be a communist.

As long as you don't force your views on me or any other human being, you can go do whatever you please.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by greenfruit

Now my country is New Zealand, I'm biased but will say this we do rank well in the world when it comes to lifestyle and standard of living.

Universal health care
7% unemployment
A passport that is almost universally accepted.
We have a unarmed police force.
A small military highly respected around the world.
ACC - no fault medical care for everyone, including foreign nationals on holiday.
No national ID system, don't need it.
High tech 1st world infrastructure

I feel as a nation we have the best and worst of all government systems at national down to local levels. But this is what makes my country one of the best in the world to live and play.

I don't bother reading much OP, I prefer to live life through doing!


I agree that New Zealand is a great country. If I could I would move there myself. However, we should keep in mind that the population of New Zealand is only slightly more than 1/2 the population on New York City.
If the population continues to grow you will see your quality of life steadily decrease.
edit on 1/3/2013 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by NysgjerrigDame
I agree. Most so-called communists just use that fact that communism is most logical and makes the most common sense to become dictators. Examples are the USSR, cuba, North Korea, etc. But nobody ever talks about Spain before Franco's coup. I believe that unless you've read the Communist Manifesot, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, State and Revolution: by Lenin, the Foundations of Leninism, The New Class: Djilas, Combat Liberalism (communists detest liberalism), I do not believe that you have right to talk about it. There are many more works that ought to be read on the matter. Most of ATS believes the lies of the West, but if any, those of you whom have truly studied the communist works, what is your argument against it?
edit on 2-1-2013 by NysgjerrigDame because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-1-2013 by NysgjerrigDame because: (no reason given)


I don't care if you want to be a communist.

As long as you don't force your views on me or any other human being, you can go do whatever you please.


Voluntary Communism FTW



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Communism by design was never meant to really be utopian, it was made to control the world. It is in itself a religion, or I should say an extension of another religion. A small group of very intelligent and deceitful folks crafted it to bring the world to their cause. At first it required military force but now the decades of psychological brainwashing seems to have done the trick. These same folks also own the capitalist side of the coin as well.

We are all living in a communist world whether you know it or not. We work for them, fight for them, dance for them, throw our cultures and histories down the drain for them, denigrate ourselves for them, and 99% of us don't even realize it. WE ARE THE PUPPETS.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Communism only works locally but it was implemented to be GLOBAL....their motto is "Workers of THE WORLD Unite" Not "Workers of Russia......"



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Jess117
 


Thats pretty much the achilles heel of socialist doctrine: who will ADMINISTER the allocation and measurement of state services?? They love the utopian rhetoric, but ignore the foibles in between theory and practice - the issues which inevitably lead to the use of force against dissidents of the regime.

The caretakers of the regime represent a minority. Who are the friends of this minority and who are the enemies of this minority determines the ambit of state interests. If their atheist secularists, they persecute and stifle the practice of religion. If they're conservatives (as the Nazis were) they'll persecute liberals and democrats. Socialist doctrine is best described as a "fatal conceit" - the gall of people who think they have a right to determine for others what true justice is or should look like.

It is the opposite of political realism. Take Obama. He clearly has socialist affinities, being a disciple of Saul Alinsky's activist philosophy. Despite this ideological slant, Obama has no other choice but to face up to political realities. The opposition isn't exactly stupid either: we've read Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals; were mindful of tactics leftist radicals might use to benefit their radical political aims. Nevertheless, in a democracy, Obama gained office. Now that he's at the helm of the American ship, he has to deal with the complexities of political realities, i.e. interest groups. Thanks be to God also that the American political system divides power enough to curb the power of the executive office. Congress - which most represents the temperament of the American populous, is still overwhelmingly conservative.




People are not equally tall, equally beautiful, equally successful. But if there's equal rights, then everyone will be equally free. I agree with what Jefferson had in mind: the right to equality before the law.


The american constitution is metaphysically enthralled with diversity. Equality exists only between person and the law. Every citizen is required to pay deference to the formal laws of the land. It stops at that.

In my opinion, diversity is an intrinsic ingredient of existence. Radical leftists have this quixotic notion that their spiritual or metaphysical preferences can be reconciled with political reality. Instead of acknowledging and recognizing the differences inherent in existence, as you noted, in height, intelligence, looks, strength, empathy, etc, they try to artificially level people by imposing upon them a system that harkens back to an imaginary void; he "void" of religious, theological or metaphysical systems is a theoretical construct. Leftists take this construct and strive to hammer it onto the real world - ignoring pesky facts like biological evolution - which governs us far more than they were willing to concede - and onto society.

Socialism cramps society. It never fosters prosperity. Its depressing, unexciting, unrealistic.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
FYI: There is no 'state' in Communism.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJourney
 

Call it ("the State") the Russian Republic (or its predecessor the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics) then or other "communist country" as the case may be and it is administered by the "Party" (Communist Party). The word "state" refers to the political institution of central government not a state like in the 50 United States.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by TheJourney
 

Call it ("the State") the Russian Republic (or its predecessor the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics) then or other "communist country" as the case may be and it is administered by the "Party" (Communist Party). The word "state" refers to the political institution of central government not a state like in the 50 United States.


Riiiight. I know what the word state means. You're totally mis-understanding me. True communism HAS NO centralized state. The fact that countries that call themselves 'communist' have centralized states, particularly ones that foster violence and in-equality, proves that they are not truly communist.
edit on 3-1-2013 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJourney
 

I know that you didnt mean "states" like Virginia (but others may be confused on the term). However, "communism" with a small "c" is the theoretical (to which you write) while "Communism" with a capital "C" is what we get in terms of practical application....and the power of the proliteriat becomes usurped by the state.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


As I was reading, I agreed with you so much that it has left me speechless.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheJourney

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by TheJourney
 

Call it ("the State") the Russian Republic (or its predecessor the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics) then or other "communist country" as the case may be and it is administered by the "Party" (Communist Party). The word "state" refers to the political institution of central government not a state like in the 50 United States.


Riiiight. I know what the word state means. You're totally mis-understanding me. True communism HAS NO centralized state. The fact that countries that call themselves 'communist' have centralized states, particularly ones that foster violence and in-equality, proves that they are not truly communist.
edit on 3-1-20713 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)


Riiiiiight. So if there is no state, who orders or manages and directs the work force? Or do factories just spring up in order to fill a need and meet what society demands? Yikes, that sounds so evil, it sounds like capitalism!



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   
If communism was actually a wonderful way to run a country then at least one communist country in the world would have been amazingly successful.

Then everyone would want to live there..

My question, where is it?



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Riiiiiight. So if there is no state, who orders or manages and directs the work force? Or do factories just spring up in order to fill a need and meet what society demands? Yikes, that sounds so evil, it sounds like capitalism!


No currency, no private property, no centralized state. People group together and create according to the needs and wants of the society, and it is distributed according to the needs and wants of individuals.

You're right, it is not inconsistent with anarcho-capitalism...that is the future. Anarcho-communism will arise voluntarily out of anarcho-capitalism...



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
If communism was actually a wonderful way to run a country then at least one communist country in the world would have been amazingly successful.

Then everyone would want to live there..

My question, where is it?


No such thing as a truly communist country in the world. Never has been, except perhaps in pre-civilized egalitarian societies.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by NysgjerrigDame
 


In a perfect world........
There would be no greed. If there was no greed, then everyone would contribute equally to society and each would be taken care of by that same entity. They would do their respective jobs, smiling all the while, then go home to their apartments, always being careful to limit their child making to the appropriate number of children determined by the government. The Doctor next door would collect the same benefits as the garbage collector in the apartment above him. Yes, utopia. Until.........DUN DUN DUN!!!! someone gets greedy and thinks they deserve just a bit more than others. Then it all starts to unravel quite quickly. The Doctor sees the shop keeper revolting about his wages being the same as the garbage collector! He should be paid more, he has more responsibilities! Then the Doctor starts to think about all his training and hard work. He thinks he should defect and move to a capitalist country and make some real money. Then all the other doctors jump on that bandwagon. Soon after that everyone dies a horrible death. See why communism just doesn't work?


I wouldn't call it "greed" though. I'd call it self interest. It is natural to want to reap the benefits of your own labor.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Hate what you don't understand, fear what you can't conquer... Simple.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJourney
 


umm, I don't think you have read up on the literature, but have been taken in by chomskybots on what communism "really" is.

The literature, from Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, onwards, has always envisaged the state as the administrator of communal power.

Really, no system of communism can function outside of some entity which has "state-like" powers. Socialists are keen on abusing language and using Orwellian tactics - which Orwell, himself a conflicted communist, knew so well.

Take this ridiculous and puerile notion that communism could thrive outside a state-like structure. HOW? You made the claim, but failed to flesh it out with a theoretical explanation.

I like reading up on libertarian socialist literature to see what they're up to. Up till now, I have yet to have read anything explaining how a communist society could operate without state powers. Instead, they replace one term with another, but the idea is essentially the same.

"Communal leaders" representing the interests of the workers. WHAT pray tell, ARE the interests of the workers? Can the workers be homogenized into one group and be simply called workers? Are workers not first and foremost individuals, with personal beliefs, interests, likes and dislikes? So how can the "communal leaders" be said to represent the workers, when the workers are a nameless mass whom the communal leaders, like any regular politician, demagogically molds to advance his or their own philosophical and political interests?

Don't be suckered in by their prattle and abuse of the english language. Communism REQUIRES the use of power. A state power; a paramilitary force that carries out the policies of the government. Society simply could not function without such an apparatus.

I know you're a spiritual guy, but you're following for that canard which I discussed in my earlier post. What makes a radical radical, is their obstinate willfulness in believing political reality - and human beings - can be made to conform with their grandiose "gnostic" revelations.

Just think for a second about all the leftist "causes": gay rights went from demonizing homophobia (which is defensible) to claiming heterosexism (the notion that women and men represent the norm in human relations) inexorably leads to homophobia! An absurdity. There is no such connection. But since radical leftists are subversives who have no respect for the beliefs of those who disagree with their fantasies, they have to use wile and guile to change peoples opinions on matters. If their "libertarian socialist" dream is to become a reality, peoples views have to change; whether these changes reflect scientific facts, is moot. Hence why I find these people as contemptible as radical Islamists. Both reject reality. Both are immersed in LALA land. Women are different from men and biology, evolutionary theory, will aways gainsay claims to the contrary.

In truth, a philosophy that doesn't try to reconcile the facts of experience will always foster within it a tension with reality. As I think I mentioned to you before, life is a mixture of left and right. You cannot have it only one way. You're mystic experiences cannot obviate the facts of reality. You will always have downs because you are a finite being striving against the inertia of existence. This is what life is about. Reconciling the facts of life with our spiritual ideals.

Radical leftists are spiritually immature. They don't know what it means to rest, to come to grips with reality. They are ceaselessly striving against the world, against God, against morality, against culture.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
Well, one could easily turn the tables and ask how many anti-capitalists have read Adam Smith,Frederick Von Hayek, etc. Or how many progressives read anything by John Meynard Keynes?
I, too, condone reading some of the basic writings of any given ideology.
On my end, I personally find collectivism and central management to be destructive of the individual soul. True communism could only work if all (or very large majority) of society's members went along voluntarily. And so, it could only work in a community/state that is both small and culturally homogeneous(In other words, opposite of the United States).


As an anti-Capitalist, I actually HAVE read some of the writings of Smith/Hayek... and the funny thing I've found is that they actually ADVOCATE for populist regulations/welfare/redistribution/Socialism to a certain extent to right the wrongs of Capitalism. The modern Capitalist purists are damned delusional and don't even follow the original writings of their economic priests... remind you of anything??
edit on 3-1-2013 by NoHierarchy because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join