How Marxism&Communism Destroys Our Civilization...2016-06-16

a reply to: Gaussq

some people are just not rational or willing to let go of acquired notions from a lifetime of a marxist brainwash. I see that young people have a very hard time to see anything wrong with marxism. It´s just because they never experienced anything else or met any people with real principles and a high moral standard.

You do realize that "marxism" was the creation of the ruling class, so they could "have an enemy" We're screwed by the left and right.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Money is a means of exchange, not division.

BTW I live in former CSSR - it was socialistic country and while the regime was oppressive on some levels, it was better living for vast majority of society then today after 26 years of freedom and real capitalism.
We had strong industry which was in national and/or cooperative possession. We had no national debt but surplus.

Individually were companies strong - problem was central planning with mad head in USSR. If the ownership structure would stay and political/market restrictions would be lifted, our country would flourish.

Instead everything was sold to foreign corporations, "tunelized" simply robbed and destroyed. Class of insanely rich people emerged on one side of spectrum and homeless people on other. Median of society is struggling to keep at least some dignity and many fails to poverty - and all are indebted as is indebted state treasury. Quality of almost EVERY staple product degraded. Especially FOOD quality - its bound to barbaric change in agriculture which was in CSSR complex, localized and in contemporary meaning highly organic. There were 7-12 years crop rotation plans for every field. If done rationally such plans limit degradation of soil, limit spreading of pests (because you have much grater variety of crops) and hence need for pesticides. It was accompanied by 100 - 500 pieces herd of cows and/or pigs per village so there was enough manure for fields ... it was closed cycle, now its pure robbing - soil had unbelievably degraded and erosion spread.

We were in many respects self-sufficient - now we are dependent on unpredictable octopus of higher and higher ranks of global mafia which embrace what? Capitalism

Yes, current state of affairs is exactly where capitalism headed all the time. And no, this is not some version skewed by ... whatever. This is pure capitalism at its finest.

Communism begins by destroying cultures. It has to tear down cultures, and have people forget the past for people to accept it. That's the stage we are in right now. It teaches that culture is wrong, that pride in oneself, community, or cultural group is wrong. It destroys sense of place. Without a sense of place, it is easy to deceive people.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It is divisive because it is a metric that cleanly tabulates a person's material wealth. That leads to a desire for more, and more, and more. It stimulates human greed.

originally posted by: LesMisanthropeYet someone like Oprah can go from poverty stricken child to a multi-millionaire. A slave to your own choices. Very few people but you have got you to where you are, whether that is in chains or not.

If someone wins, another one has to suffer. A stupid and barbaric system, which does not deserve the term "society".

a reply to: anotherdaytoday

I would disagree with that. The issue is that the people who "win big" always want more and more, and in doing so destroy everything in their path. If it weren't for the disgusting wealth distribution then there would be no problem. This planet easily has enough resources - if used correctly - for everyone. The issue is that humans as a species covet power and control. Individuals may not, but there will always be a segment that will push others down as they quest to go up.

a reply to: anotherdaytoday

If someone wins, another one has to suffer. A stupid and barbaric system, which does not deserve the term "society".

That's not how it works. The notion that wealth is fixed (fixed pie fallacy), that the rich are only rich because they took from the poor, or that the poor are only poor because the rich took from them, is nonsense.

originally posted by: anotherdaytoday

originally posted by: LesMisanthropeYet someone like Oprah can go from poverty stricken child to a multi-millionaire. A slave to your own choices. Very few people but you have got you to where you are, whether that is in chains or not.

If someone wins, another one has to suffer. A stupid and barbaric system, which does not deserve the term "society".

In today reality another at least 100 have to suffer, sometimes thousands, sometimes hundreds of millions (M$ Windows for example). Its global dude. Sweatshops at far east are base of our illusion of relative economical safety and well being. Wealth did not trickle down, but up. At least in capitalism.

And do we live in capitalism?

If anybody wants to answer this question, please define term capitalism first.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Money is a means of exchange, not division.

You are wrong if you exclude it.

Money is a means of division. Money has become an existantial resource since food can only be bought by money. Any means of trade leads to inequality of money. Inequality of money leads to existantial pressure. Existantial pressure leads to aggressiveness amongst people. Aggressiveness leads to division of people. You see it everday.

originally posted by: JanAmosComenius
In today reality another at least 100 have to suffer, sometimes thousands, sometimes hundreds of millions (M$ Windows for example). Its global dude.

Correct and fully agreed.

a reply to: anotherdaytoday

You are wrong if you exclude it.

Money is a means of division. Money has become an existantial resource since food can only be bought by money. Any means of trade leads to inequality of money. Inequality of money leads to existantial pressure. Existantial pressure leads to aggressiveness amongst people. Aggressiveness leads to division of people. You see it everday.

Food can be grown or hunted. It's just easier to get food with money, and everyone is pretty lazy.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
I would disagree with that. The issue is that the people who "win big" always want more and more, and in doing so destroy everything in their path. If it weren't for the disgusting wealth distribution then there would be no problem. This planet easily has enough resources - if used correctly - for everyone. The issue is that humans as a species covet power and control. Individuals may not, but there will always be a segment that will push others down as they quest to go up.

Yes, I agree that our planet has the resources for everyone to have a good life.

And yes, there may always be people who want to push others down, but money makes this exceptionally easy, because it puts people under pressure without someone holding a gun against his head.

originally posted by: LesMisanthropeFood can be grown or hunted. It's just easier to get food with money, and everyone is pretty lazy.

You must pay taxes for every m² land in a country. Without money you can't grow nothing.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Query 1: Where and how do you acquire the seeds to grow your food without any usage of money?
Query 2: Where and how do you acquire the equipment necessary to hunt your food (including transport) without any usage of money?

Our society is utterly dependent on money. I do think it's a useful tool, but I also think it's extremely easily abused, and is abused, for the purposes of control and hoarding wealth by the few. We need communistic/socialistic/whatever systems and ideals in place to stop it from coagulating and accumulating in the hands of only a tiny portion of the population.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
That's not how it works. The notion that wealth is fixed (fixed pie fallacy), that the rich are only rich because they took from the poor, or that the poor are only poor because the rich took from them, is nonsense.

You can't get wealth if the resources have already been confiscated by someone else. So much for "choice"...

Maybe your "choice" is a suggestion to stand up and "kill them riches all"?... Perhaps this is the way.

a reply to: Gaussq

Marx was not a Satanist.

Marx viewed religion as a tool of control for the elite. The same he viewed a capitalist, monied, profit-driven economic system.

And the church was a tool for political control, one only need to read medieval history to learn that.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Query 1: Where and how do you acquire the seeds to grow your food without any usage of money?
Query 2: Where and how do you acquire the equipment necessary to hunt your food (including transport) without any usage of money?

Our society is utterly dependent on money. I do think it's a useful tool, but I also think it's extremely easily abused, and is abused, for the purposes of control and hoarding wealth by the few. We need communistic/socialistic/whatever systems and ideals in place to stop it from coagulating and accumulating in the hands of only a tiny portion of the population.

Yes hunting and agriculture is easier with money. That's why money is a good thing.

a reply to: anotherdaytoday

You can't get wealth if the resources have already been confiscated by someone else. So much for "choice"...

Maybe your "choice" is a suggestion to stand up and "kill them riches all"?... Perhaps this is the way.

Wealth isn't fixed. That's not how it works.

We need communistic/socialistic/whatever systems and ideals in place to stop it from coagulating and accumulating in the hands of only a tiny portion of the population.

Wealth isn't fixed. That's not how it works.