Originally posted by WaterBottle
Because they are ignorant and too lazy to actually read about communism.
Originally posted by chrome413
To the OP, after carefully reading your original question again, I have some thoughts.
First, based on your question and some of your reply posts, I would assume that you do have a knowledge about what true communism is. Having that knowledge then, you would know before even asking the question that so many people confuse the "Communist" nations like the USSR and people like Stalin with what the true theory of communism actually is.
You would also know that communism is itself a theory. A philosophy even? You would also know that there is a progression that, according to the theory, must occur in a particular order. You can't skip a step. You can't force a step. It happens when it happens and the time is right.
I guess that in a way what I am getting at here is that, to answer your question, there is no actually being for or against communism. And by communism I mean the true, non perverted theory that was laid out so long ago. I think someone could be a believer in the theory. A believer that someday all this will come to pass, when the time is right. Someone could also believe the theory is flawed and could in no way come to pass. But to go and proclaim the virtues of communism is in itself actually forcing a step. Forcing something that must occur naturally and in it's own time. In a way, it's almost like what happened in Russia and China, when a perverted theory was pushed upon the most vulnerable in society in order to achieve a goal that had absolutely nothing in common with the true theory of communism.
One last thought, I do not think there is any being For or Against communism. I think there is Belief in the theory, or Disbelief in the theory. And neither belief nor disbelief will matter, because true communism will happen when the time is right and nobody will be able to stop it. Or, if the theory is flawed, then it won't ever happen, whether you believe in it or not.
Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by NoHierarchy
What the hell are you on? Hayek advocated at most a mixed system, with some concessions to government interference, i.e in waste management, and stuff like that. To claim otherwise is patent bull$hit.
I'll mention something else. People with leftist sympathies i.e. liberal, spiritual universalism, have no qualms about using totalitarian powers to force their viewpoint on others.
Hayek as well as Milton Friedman also pointed out the irony that in a capitalist society, socialists are allowed to pursue their subversive political goals, whereas in a socialist society, no such presence exists because the government forbids any and all subversive political activity.
If that doesn't prove capitalisms moral superiority, I don't know what does.
Also, the difference between capitalism and communism could be interpreted as the fight between quality and quantity. Marxism thinks all things are economical. Humans are turned into mere economic pawns in it's system. We have no higher interests then to have "enough" to live. By giving people an equal share, socialism also undermines human choice: people are now subject to educational institutions, a media, and government that pushes the official philosophy. Individuals are undercut. The individual is disdained. To create peace, people must be deprived of the blessing of individual choice.
Conversely, capitalism, which makes use of capital, paradoxically defends individual freedoms. Its paradoxical how that works. That socialisms economic focus on equality ends up irreparably harming individuals, thereby reducing diversity and thus quality of living (who would like just a red carpet versus a beautiful mosaic?). Capitalism, which seeks to reward individual merit and so create conditions of inequality, nevertheless preserves diversity by keeping the governments hands far away from meddling too much.
And THIS^^^ is why right-wingers/Capitalists are thought of as utterly stupid/uninformed.
If you actually study Socialism, most of your claims will fall away for many of its incarnations. So... try again, fascist.
Originally posted by ChesterJohn
The form of communism they have in China is not true communism. It is basically Chinese Imperialism without a royal family. It was replaced with a government and it is the government that puts the leader in place in much the same way as imperialistic families did.
All the stratus of Chinese Class is still in place. The way they distribute the land is still done the same as when they were under the historic imperialistic class they let the poor work the land and they keep a certain amount for themselves and then the rest goes to the government.
Chinese Communism is basically a modified Imperialistic program and it works for that particular culture. It would never work for western society.
Lenin/Marxist styled Communism never works because it is based on the principle that Man is basically good and will do for others as he would for himself. But that is a fantasy. If it doesn't get him ahead he will become lazy and not work as hard.
Free market capitalism works because it understands man basic greedy nature and using that it motivates men to work hard when it benefits themselves.edit on 4-1-2013 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by crankySamurai
reply to post by NysgjerrigDame
Communism is the eradication of all private property. This is not something to be welcomed but instead dreaded. Individual sovereignty is non existent without private property. Individual freedom is crucial to society that would like to exist without coercive force. Private property is essential for this.
Most of ATS believes the lies of the West,
Lies of the west?... Sigh! How about the "RESULTS" of every country in history that has tried it... (shakes head unbelief)
Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by clapper
It is the greed of those who decided to take power in those systems that caused the death and decay of morality, not the system itself.