Hey, ya ignore what this said, someone went into my forum account and did some stuff, and hacked my in-game account and did some stuff and I'm still trying to find out the extent of who they made mad and attacked. so Wahtever, I have nothing against 3rdreick. I think it was someone from my school who heard us talking about RWL at lunch and sighned up and has attcked the people form schools accounts, his in-game account is Michael'sagay. So send him angry messages about this
Well I'm a communist and partly of yugoslavian decent so I dislike nazi ideology as much, if not more, then most people and even with that in mind I still think that this is wrong and hypocritical. I am reminded of Voltaire, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."
That said I would recommend to the 3rd reich clan that they try and be conscious of other peoples feelings, nazism is quite a traumatic issue, I myself know that 1.5 million serbs and montenegrins and an additional half a million bosnians died in concentration camps so the issue is very personal to me, I just want to tell them not to press ideologies of hate onto people(I doubt they really agree with nazism, it's probably just a military fancy but still...).
Also I noticed quite the oddity while playing turbo, I made a clan as a tribute to one of my favorite rap groups, OutKast (the rap group that won the grammy for best album of the year the other night) and quoted on the clan page a paticularly catchy hook of theirs from their song Rosa Parks, Ah Ha, Hush That Fuss, Everybody move to the back of the bus (this line is basically what was told to Rosa Parks and is the reason they called the song Rosa Parks)Do you wanna bump and slump with us, We the type of people make the club get crunk. And following that people accused me of being racist because I had racist lyrics as my clan name and that they planned to kill me for it, so basically they accused to african americans (Andre 3000 and Big Boi of OutKast) of being racist to their ethnic background which is quite silly. Oddly enough the clan name was Pimps In Action, or PIA which was built around hip hop lore, and I find it ironic that they are calling people racist while equating rap music and to a lesser degree african americans to such a reprehensible profession that is the slavery and objectification of women. I actually found it funny at first because have a couple half african cousins and I come off as Hispanic quite often but I began to be quite offended by their hasty assumption. I was reminded of Noam Chomsky, a Jewish man who quite hilariously was called an Anti-Semite on TV, and he said that throwing terms like racist out there is like throwing mud, doesn't matter if it's true, everybody looks dirty. I just want to warn these people about the gravity of calling somebody a racist.
sorry bout the post size
Very nice message Juby . . I agree with almost everything you said, although I strongly disagree with communism, which you identify yourself as being a supporter of. It bothers me that Hitler and the Nazis are today viewed as being utterly and completely evil, while the horrible crimes of Stalin and the communists, who were just as bad if not worse then the Nazis, have largely been ignored.
On the actual subject, I think it is very tasteless to name a clan after something of that nature, but I don't think it's necessary to go after them in the game because of that. It's kind of pointless.
Checkerpaw, I think Juby refers to TRUE communism, of which Russia did not practice.
Does this mean that people who play WW2 computer games on the German side are Nazis? Think about it....
Quote from: The Weasel Liberation MovementCheckerpaw, I think Juby refers to TRUE communism, of which Russia did not practice.
Actually, I did not say that Juby supported Stalin and what happened in Russia, although I realize I might have implied that he did. I just kind of suddenly switched gears without clarifying. Sorry. I did not mean to say that Juby supported Stalin or anything of that nature.
That wasn't what I meant. What I meant to say is that it is hard to form an opinion on true communism as it has never (or rarely) ever manifested itself in any form outside the basic theory.
(Ah, and thanks for the explanation, Lazarus...)
Oh, I see.
Well, I don't know if I necessarily agree with that, either, although to a certain extent it is true. I'd have to look up the exact definition of "communism" before I made any further comment.
Thank you for stating that Devari, yes, here is a quick list of ways you can tell a real communist government from a corrupted communist state, 1) if there is a dictator it is not a communist nation, true communism has no leader, it would kinda of be like Canada's Parliament with no Prime Minister or The US Congress and House of Representative with no president, you can not have a peoples government without democracy because without democracy the bourgosie (rich people who control the means of production) just get replaced by a different ruling class so the cause of the proletariat (the working class) is back at square one. True communism must be democratic and the only times communist government were democratically elected was in Spain and Nicaragua (both goverments were undemocratically overthrown). 2) If you know of any sort of rewards given (Stalin gave rewards to certain exemplary people, this defeats the purpose of communism) or any economic disparity (China has poor rural people and urban people who are approaching upper class) then it is not communist government. Truly there has never been a communist government, the closest example that was sustained was Tito's yugoslavia after he had stepped down as dictator and remade the government into a large senate of sorts with no leader, though he had alot of influence as a member of the government for the rest of his years so he was kinda of the unofficial leader, and even Yugoslavia in it's great days (basically Tito's last 10ish years, prior to the mess of the late 80's) was not completly communist.
Ok, true communism involves only a strong central government, no private property (the land is divided among all the people of the land), and no rights that we Americans and (add your county here) take for granted.
3rdreich is pretty strong right now just to get back on subject.
once again, that is false communism, communsim is about economic equality being the only way to achieve pure equality for all, if one person has more power than another it is no longer communist, and if everyone has equal power then it is democracy, the moment one person is silenced or denied their rights it is no longer communist because power, money and private property are no longer equal.
Bah, whatever. Communism can't work anyway...
It can be argued that we don't have "TRUE" democracy......
QuoteIn general terms, a democracy is a form of government in which the people have the right to control their own destiny. In a democracy the people have the final authority, they have the right to make or at least influence decisions that affect their everyday lives. The term itself comes from the Greek words demos, meaning "people," and kratos, meaning "authority."
Quote* Direct democracy: This is where everyone is given the opportunity to participate in making all policy decisions. In countries and large organizations, direct democracy is rarely utilized.
* Representative democracy: This approach entails people voting to elect representatives in a free and fair electoral system to make policy for them under a wide range of checks and balances to help ensure leadership accountability.
In my opinion, direct democracy is the best form democracy. Where everyone is equal and everyone has a say. Which is, in fact, part of the theory of communism. And, like communism, it is unlikely that direct democracy will exist outside of very small organizations.
Even so, the representative democracy we have (I mean in the western world) doesn't quite live up to the definition. I don't quite see "a wide range of checks and balances", or at least enough...
(And I have no idea why I'm saying all this :unsure: )
I agree with what Weasel Liberation said at the end of his message.
One note--the United States of American was not founded as a democracy, nor was it intended to be a democracy. It was what we call a republic, or a democratic republic. When our leaders, and I don't care if they're Republican or Democrat, speak of this nation as being a democracy and speak in glorious terms about democracy in general, they are revealing their appalling ignorance about the foundation of this country.
I agree with Weasels when he says, "I don't quite see 'a wide range of checks and balances', or at least enough..." Our political system has become corrupted--politicians basically rob the people of almost half their money and often spend it on frivolous things, the courts have abandoned any pretense of interpretating the law and Constitution, I could go on and on . . . And what makes this even more sickening is that almost all politicians gush about how wonderful a democracy we have, while the very rights of the people themselves are being taken away. And the people don't even realize it.
:(
Quote from: Badrang the TyrantBah, whatever. Communism can't work anyway...
That's a little rude, brush off my very dearly hold ideology without backing it up.
Quote from: Badrang the TyrantBah, whatever. Communism can't work anyway...
I disagree, In "the art of war" by Sun Tzu, they mentioned an ancient province that was literally a Utopia, everything was divided equally, no-one ever went hungry, they were protected by their neighbors and had no need for arms. This village and all of its customs and laws were recorded by one of the emperors advisors, and while it is argued whether or not it is true. Even if the advisor did make it up, it had very in-depth information about how a perfect-country/province would function. So long before Marx, people believed that society could exist without money, and unequal division of wealth. I personally believe that a true socialist state would work but you would need:
1. A small country
2. A strong leader(s) to set it up until it was functioning
3. A society with whom peace is a core value (it wouldn't work for the Mongols, Vikings, and other society who gain food and goods through raids and warfare)
4. Probably a lower level of technology, since this country would have to be self-supporting, and becuase you would not have the resources to supply very citizen with a car, computer, house, radio, powertools, farming equitment. I think that going back to middle ages technology like the amish did would make the runnung of the country easier.
Odd how on a wargames messageboards we are talking about how to create a Utopia....
Well I don't think it is impossible for technology and communism to coexist, for example, Canada produces way more food then we need, we export most of it, and even then the agriculture industry only employs about 350 000 people, (source:
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/labor10a.htm ), which means that we are easily fed by 1% of the population. All the jobs that need to get done to maintain our standerd of living (I inclueded all primary industries, manufacturing and trades, education and health care) amounts to about 8 million, that means about 1/4 of the population and about half the current workforce (this workforce excluedes the unemployed and disenfranchised) can provide all the technological products, all the necessities and all the art we need as a nation, the rst in this present system work in the support of capitalism, their jobs are really useless (like an insurance agent, useless in communism,(many manufacturing jobs would be useless so that makes up things I've missed) (now at this level the deep marxian in me would recommend everybody be trained in two professions because it is unfair to force certain poeple to work hard labour jobs and the rest get to do what they want, therefore I would say that everybody should have to do some hard work, and then move on to the extra jobs that would need to be created) I would think with that much of the population completly useless but completly provided for, living in middle classia, that Canada would quickly become a mecca of the arts and sciences because the Arts and sciences are one of the few things (sports would be in their too) that serve to truely benefit the people.
Quote from: Juby (Tercios)I would think with that much of the population completly useless but completly provided for, living in middle classia, that Canada would quickly become a mecca of the arts and sciences because the Arts and sciences are one of the few things (sports would be in their too) that serve to truely benefit the people.
But then everybody is no longer equal. If some excelled in art and others in sport they would garner the respect of others and as such would soon rise above the common people.
Respect makes you treat people differently.
[Edit: One more thing, how are you going to get the people in power to give up their power and sink to the middle class?]
Yeah thats a good question.
Well if you elected communists who beleive in communism they should just take their equal pay, if they got elected then didn't take the pay cut in Canada, the Auditor General would Scream Sheninagans on the top of her lungs and they'd lose the next election. As far as respect being contrary to communism I doubt that, if someone rises to the top of their feild does that mean they get more votes and more money then others in a communist state, no. they do influence people but only in that feild, for example if somebody does sometime very original in their painting style, It could inspire people and influence their style, however it will not change their vote, and even the people who have respect, respect other people. And at the end of the day, Communism is about control of the economy and the means of production, not peoples views or thoughts, a communist government would attempt to end evils such as hunger, poverty and greed. Not change what people are, just change their surroundings to reflect equality.
Quote from: Juby (Tercios)Not change what people are, just change their surroundings to reflect equality.
What about the people who try to change their own surroundings instead of letting someone do it for them. Like a theif. If he were to steal say $40,000 he would no longer be equal to everyone else.
well thats one of the great things about communism, many crimes disappear, not all of course, but stealing generally disappears and heavy narcotics. the reason; Well why are most people stealing and why do most drug dealers sell drugs, usually because their poor and naturally they ask themselves, why does that jerk over their deserve this and I don't? and since their is no good reason (note: you may say, cause he works harder or he should get a job but saying that is not accurate, full employment in Canada is estimated at 6%, thats the point when so many people have jobs that inflation goes crazy which in turn eliminates jobs, this means their will always be unemployed in capitalism regardless of work ethic, and the Unemployment rate only counts those who are looking for work, so people who have been disenchanted by the economic system don't factor in which means that for many more then 6% of the population there isn't a job waiting for them) they become disenchanted with the economic inequalites and take matters into their own hands, ie crime. Why would you steal a CD from your neighbour when you could order it at the end of the week? Why would you risk prison selling drugs if you had all you needed.
You guys just don't get it. Communism is flat impossible for humans to work. It involves so many things that are directly opposite to human desires that it can never be implemented.
(Break real quick here) As someone of Russian-Polish decent, I also find this 3rd Reich clan offensive, but if they only care about the greaqt military of the 3rd Reich, then I have no problems, because something as magnificent as the WW2 German empire almost has to be admired, regardless of what motive lay behind it.
(Back to argument) The first problem with communism in our world, is it requires that no one has any desire for power. As long as humans crave power, communism can't work. It is technically the perfect form fo government, but as long as humans crave power, it can't work. It fails right there, however, if you wish to disagree, then I will go into more details.
We do not have true democracy in this country, we have a liberal representative democracy. By liberal I mean it involves personal freedoms, which technically a democracy doesn't have to have. It only requires the right to vote freely. The reason we have a representative democracy is because direct democracy can't work on the scale of our country.
And crime doesn't diminish in a communist country, only if there is true communism. But as I said, it won't work in the human world. One more thing. Humans want to be able to be ahead in life of other humans, with communism you can never have more or less than your fellows, so it diminishes the work ethic. Lastly, communism in our world has string central government, but as I believe was mentioned, that is not true communism.
(*Has taken polysci classes, government, and Econ classes.*)
So you think Capatilism is goodthen?
(*Has taken Economics, polisci, and all the scoical sciences offered in grade 12 U*)
Well, on the power issue, I do not believe that people are inheriantly power hungry, I beleive that that is a something you develope when faced with the incessant competition of capitalist society, in various types of aboriginal communities this concept of power does not exist and they all work towards collective goal because they have been raised to work together and not for themselves.
As far as democracy goes, in a communist state(a proper communist state) a representative democracy would probably still exist but in a different fashion, first, referendums on important issues would be more common, adn second the role in government would longer be associated with power, it is a burecratic organizational job, which is why government positions have names like General Secretary, if the person were to abuse their position, the various positions in Canada such as auditor general and the ethics commission or if their consituency complained that they were not being accurately represented then they would fire the person on grounds of incompetance and corruption and the person would be forced to work outside of government.
I said earlier that only certain types of crimes diminish, like theft and harder narcotics, however a communist country can't stop poeple from getting really mad, therefore murder would still exist just like now.
Finally your comment on the work ethic i disagree based on the way we were raised agian, certain goods you are correct in saying are based on getting ahead of other people, like why do you not only want a car to get you from point A to point B but a car that inspires envy as well, well this is based in our being raised to be competitive but I put to you that Utilitarianism still exists without competition. for example your music collection (assuming your don't download it all) or your book collection, why do you want more, because you enjoy them, would you not still be motivated to get things such as this new CD or book or Movie (recall that with the disappearance of so many jobs that become useless in communism (like insurance broker) that with the fullfillment of all needs that the main employment would be the arts and sciences so their would probably be way more music and way more books simply because their are way more people free for such pursuits). Why not work out of your own interests for what you would enjoy rather then work just to look better then the next man, I knowI would prefer a huge enjoyable CD collection and a generic car that gets me from point A to Point B like it's supposed to then I would a flashy car and a small CD collection.
Where does human nature come into all this? So far you have been using an example of a human that does not have the basic wants and desires of a human being. Jelousy is still a factor as wellm even if everybody has the exact same stuff, the exact same income, the exact same car, house, whatever; they will still be jelous of how other people look.
You may say that they will not be raised that way, but nobody was to begin with, someone had to come up with the idea.
"Nature will find a way."
I've already answered that, communists don't seek to control nature, they seek to control the economy so taht even if somebody is say more attractive, the less attractive person will not have to feel hunger or be denied anything, why does the attractive person deserve more, well they don't but in a capitalist society they often get more, we can't control human nature, we just seek to make everything that can be controled equal because communists believe in the equality of every person. your arguement doesn't discredit communism, just cause people can be jerks, doesn't say squat about the goals of economic equality, we just seek to make the physical existence equal as it should be. just cause life can be unequal in human terms, doesn't mean it should be as far as economics goes and as I've made pretty good arguements for, it can be maintained even by jerks.
Ah, I didn't know we were talking only about economics.
As far as that goes, I don't want someone controling all my money for me.
well the point is that money wouldn't really matter, it'd be more about products, and it would no longer be YOUR money, it would be everybodies labour and everybodies productiveness. And to be honest, with a group of people you elected as able burecrats all putting their heads together, odds are that you on your own are more likely to waste your money then they are. Point and case, the average american is spending 113% of their yearly earnings. This means the average american will be going further in debt, therefore your already wasting your money, you might as well have somebody else to blame when it gets wasted :lol:
Juby I realize you support comunism, for whatever reason, but do it and yourself a favor and stop trying to prove your point by making these unsupported claims... all these claims you are making, one, don't work in real life, and two most are false. THese tribes you talk about. Its not that they don't want power, its that they can't HAVE power because of their situation, power is secondary when you are fighting to survive. You are correct in most of your statements about communism. BUT IT DOESN"T WORK IN REAL LIFE! If you take humans out of the equation, then I will let you have your communism, but communism just doesn't work with humans, the two are simply incompatible.
I do not believe capitalism or democracy is perfect either though, I just think its the best we have right now.
uhhhh, half the point here is that real communism has never been tried so you can't make claims like it doesn't work, and most native communites wre living quite easily until europeans came, they weren't struggling to survive, they were doing fine, and so should actually pose a real rebuttle, explain why you think people are so greedy and lazy, don't just state it.
Quote from: Juby (Tercios)well the point is that money wouldn't really matter, it'd be more about products, and it would no longer be YOUR money, it would be everybodies labour and everybodies productiveness. And to be honest, with a group of people you elected as able burecrats all putting their heads together, odds are that you on your own are more likely to waste your money then they are. Point and case, the average american is spending 113% of their yearly earnings. This means the average american will be going further in debt, therefore your already wasting your money, you might as well have somebody else to blame when it gets wasted :lol:
So what this boils down to is, I'm to dumb to think for myself so I should let someone else do it for me, right?
As for what you say about true communism never being tried, how do you think we got these "corrupt communist states" in the first place?
A) your not too stupid, I just said the odds are that a gorup of people could handle it better because of the mental resources of a group vs, just you and that the average american would probably fair better economically with the government(who they elected, so basically themselves as a group). and remember, Not everybody is money minded, alot of people are really bad with money.
B) All the communist regimes of the past were not elected, the became communist through revolution, therefore its much more awkward to establish a democracy from undemocratic means, whereas the only two democratically elected communist governments, Spain and Nicaragua were both overthrown by right wing revolutions, so it's always been nipped in the behind.
My point on the second part was that it had been tried and failed.
On the first part; I don't think that there is any agreement that we can reach on it.
Quote from: AqualisMy point on the second part was that it had been tried and failed.
On the first part; I don't think that there is any agreement that we can reach on it.
huh, I thought I just established that it hadn't failed, the two time when the people democratically elected it, the minority rich and military overthrew it (war ensued very quickly too so the governments weren't even given a chance), and the regimes founded violently outside the democratic process were the corrupt regimes.
as for the point on money, well if you remember the points about cars and CD's you'll recall that a sports car is really a waste of money because a car is a tool and it's only function is to establish your position in higher society (unless you want one just so you can go really really fast). Establishing your position in higher society is an effort to look special or better then most people, this inspires envy in others and feelings of superiority in you, which are both fairly negative feelings, however a CD is simply for your enjoyment, so the gov would still let you buy what you please, like what cd to buy, or a book or movie or whatever, it just would try and stop you from wasting your money on flashy useless stuff.
Real communism has been tried.. every country we ever called communist did at one point try, as you say, "real" communism. The problem inherent in that is people DO lust for power. These tribes you claim lived in peace until Europeans came in fact regularly warred among one another for thousands of years. If you want some proof, go look in an encylopedia. The only ones who ever lived in relative peace were the ones who were fighting to survive. I mean heck, you must know about the Aztecs right? They warred with EVERYONE, because they needed a constant supply of HUMAN sacrifices. Does that sound peaceful to you?
My evidence for communism not working in our world? For people being greedy and lazy? (Though I never said they were inherently so, its just that communism will produce it among humans) Look at every country that ever tried communism. IT NEVER SUCCEEDED! No matter what they did, no country ever had true communism, try as they might. Stalin in Russia, Mao in China, the dictators anywhere the inevitably result from a country's attempts to have functional communism. Because there is one important point you are missing. TRUE communism has no strong central government, it is a goverment of many people a making group decisions, hence the "commune" part of communism. And that is why it can NEVER succeed on a country wide scale, there are simply to many people. And even if there was a communist place small enough for it to work with the numbers, it still wouldn't, because human nature runs against communism. People want power. Or failing that, they want a leader. Its just a part of our evolution, in fact its the strongest point in the argument that we evolved from apes, because EVERY primate out there has a leader at the head of the troop.
man, Stalin and Mao were not evel close to communists, the Soviet Union was never communist, socialist mixed with facism at best, China was even worse, IT HASN'T BEEN TRIED. Did I say all natives lived in peace, no, and your dead wrong if you think all the peacefull ones were fighting to survive. your simply not stating any facts, do you realize how many groups of aboriginals their are in the americas alone, not to mention the groups from austrailia and various islands? Most of these communities were not even close to destitute, you should read up on various pacific island cultures and stop thinking of just the aztecs when you here native americans. As for you saying dictators spring up in every attempt at communism, that is an statment that carries no merit whatsoever, Russia and and China were both dictatorships basically from day one, they never said, "hey, lets try and a be a real communist nation", Stalin didn't rise out of communisms failure, he succeded Lenin. Mao was their from day one and passed it on to other dictators. Going back to previous evidence, Yugoslavia, when Tito stepped down as dictator and gave power to a senate of sorts, it experienced it's greatest period of yugoslavia until soon after he died when Racism and religious tensions between the ethnic groups resurfaced (there are many Serbs who lived in the concentration camps and remember how the croatians collaberated with the Nazis, the fact that Tito was croation unified them while he was alive though). You came out and said it was tried and failed but can you tell me a period when the Soviet Union was democratic before it's collapse? Can you tell me the same for China, no of course not because they never were actually communist, it amazes me how people think they know what communism actually is without doing real research and then expect to be able to tell a communist what their beleifs are about, that's like not reading the Qua'ran and trying to tell a muslim why his religion is wrong, and vice versa, a person not reading the bible and telling a christian what christianity is about. And don't say school taught you either, cause school taught you that Stalin was a communist, which is sooooo wrong, he gave rewards to certain people, he was a dictator, he denied people their rights, he's a facist not a communist. My recommendation, Read the Communist Manifesto and the Das Kapital, their not some crazy books that'll turn you communist, but you'll at least know where communists are coming from.
*Clears throat* I have read those books. I know exactly where you are coming from. Unfortuantely for you, you are wrong. Yes Mao was the dictator after the communists seized power, but before that they really wanted to be a communist nation. Stalin didn't succeed Lenin, HE KILLED HIM! How about you do me a favor and go read some HISTORY! LENIN was trying to create a true communist country when he was murdered. Your precious Tito was the de facto leader of Yugoslavia, even if it was claimed otherwise. A communist country is just not possible, if you want the facts for this, go look at EVERY country that tried to be communist.
I was giving the Aztecs as one example of many. These aboriginals and islanders WERE fighting to survive. And they had leaders anyway. Shamans, chiefs, call em what you want, they still had leaders. And if you are trying to tell me that the pacific islanders and the Australian aboriginals were not fighting to survive in a hostile place, then I give up, becuase you are no longer basing your arguments on fact.
Lemme put it to you this way. Say you had a job, and you were paid the same as everone else, yet no matter how hard you work, you will NEVER get a promotion, and you will NEVER get paid any more than your fellow workers. Would you want to work there?
You are so full of it, you have not read those books or you would know the answer to the question you asked, Mao led the Communists during the civil war and was dictator from day 1! you obviously just made that up. Lenin was going capitalist when he died! he was betraying true communism and going further from it by allowing privately owned land! he was going socialist by keeping Command heights of scoiety under government control but privatizing many other things. This shows how easily you lie and how ignorant of communism is because you said "LENIN was trying to create a true communist country when he was murdered". whether or not Stalin killed him is debatable, it's a mystery, their are many many hypothesis on who killed him, hollywood movies sometimes lie if thats where you heard Stalin killed Lenin(case and point, that movie on Jack the ripper implicates Queen Victoria of being involved which is just silly). Lenin was selling out communism. Up until that point the government was being run in a system that was called "Wartime Communism" which is basically giving a government that was not elected (theirfore undemocratic, therefore un-communist) extreme powers over the average citizens (which is contray to communism as well). On Titio, how many times do I have to say this, He was the dictator of Yugoslavia, he then stepped down in favour of a senate, you can't just say he was still basically dictator just so that you can win the arguement, back it up with proof if your gonna say stuff like that. If you think taht all aboriginals were either at war or fighting to survive, you are ignorant of native history and it shows, that is simply not true, many aboriginal tribes were living quite easily and not at war. You seem to be willing to say anything in order to try and "win", face it, your in over your head when it comes to debating a communist on communism, I can tell this because I've debated many, many people who think they know what communism is are wrong and at the same time, many, many capitalists who actually do know what their talking about and your arguements obviously belong to the first groups. Their have only been two countries that have attempted true communism, Spain in the 1930's and nicaragua in the 80's, both were undemocratically overthrown (the first with the help of nazis, the second with the help of the US) so they never got a chance.
Now, for your question, first you should re-read the whole arguement fro the start, not just run your mouth. But I'll answer it: You have to work in a communist country in order to be eligable to recieve, now certain things are universal, most constitutions guareentee life, therefore everyone in a communist country is guareenteed food, water, clothes and shelter. If you wish to be eligible for more then just food and walls (which everyone does want) you work, if your work is consistently showing incompetance or laziness you may get reprimanded and what you earn(the extra's, read back, things like music and books) as extra's would not be provided for a short period ( communism has a saying, "from everyone according to their ability and to everyone according to their needs" therefore you have to contribute to be inclueded, cause if the country is run by the people for the people, everybody has to contribute because it is unfair to let someone reap the rewards of works without working themselves). Would you quit a job if you were living in comfort and their were no other job offers just cause you can't get an extra 50 cents per hour? No, if you were happy, why would want more? you simply assume that because you've been raised equating your value with money. Raises are meant to counteract inflation and to appease you if you are upset because you think you deserve more to improve your standerd of living, in a communinism, their is no inflation and you already live in a great standerd of living, so whats the point. As for promotions, no person has more rights or a better standerd of living because those are kept proper by the government, which represents the people. That said, does your boss have more votes then you? in a communist country he wouldn't get more money then you, and even the term boss isn't accurate, most people who a capitalist would view as a superior are really just secretaries keeping work organized, and if your job required assitants, that would be obvious, you are in charge with assitants to get a job done, the assistants would be people with less experience, when they had experience, they would gain the same position as you, and their are also rotation ideas, for example a group of scientists, one scientist is doing research, his say...4 fellow scientists assist him, when his experiment is done, he works on his thesis paper and assists the other scientists in one their experiments. The whole point of communism is that the currencial system is absurd, why would you care how much you made, does more money make you a better person, do rich people write better books, if your religious do you think you'll get into heaven because you have more money? You will not get paid more then anyone else, so what?
this has really gotten off topic *thinks* what was the topic?
somebody had named their clan 3rd riech, I mentioned that i disliked nazism as much if not more then the next guy cause I'm a communist, then it became about, WHAT, COMMUNIST, and I explained it to the first people and they were all good about it, then a couple more people came along and took it upon themselves to "enlighten" me with the great wisdom they seem to have that I lack despite my thorough research. :lol: basically they think they know more about communism then communists and what they claim should be taken as gold. <_<
The Age of Uncertainty is a good read. So is 1984. Communism is not exactly looked upon kindly in the U.S., what can you expect?
The ideals of communism are something to believe in.
I have to also agree with Juby on the comments about true communism. Everyone seems to think that certain countries are communist, but they are not. It's not communism if you have a leader. It's not communism if there are monetary awards for doing something above and beyond. It defeats the whole purpose.
Meh.
EDIT:
Revolution &
Imagine & Working Class Hero
Quote from: Juby (Tercios)you obviously just made that up. Lenin was going capitalist when he died! he was betraying true communism and going further from it by allowing privately owned land! he was going socialist by keeping Command heights of scoiety under government control but privatizing many other things.
I think it's worth pointing out that Lenin was NOT going socialist or capitalist, and that he did NOT want to make the changes you listed (i.e. allow some private property)
He was FORCED to do so because otherwise, the U.S.S.R would have completely and utterly collapsed from the Communist measures imposed upon the people. It was the same way for Stalin. Stalin instituted communist programs that basically bled Russia's economy and culture to death. He too was forced to pull back and allow things like private gardens to save the country from complete breakdown. It is interesting to note that after these relatively minor changes were made, the ecomony and production of the population always started to improve. In fact, much more produce came from those private little garden plots that the people owned then the state owned farms that people were forced to labor at, even though the farms were much bigger.
This is historical fact.
well it is true that Lenin was effecting these measures to counteract the failing system but it was not communism that was failing, it was what I previuosly talked about, what was called "Wartime communism" and he did give private property to farmers, at least he was starting too, that caused alot of turmoil amoung many people in the government. Hence the craziness that followed his death, but I would argue that instituting real communist measures rather then slight concessions to capitalism would have been better. Also the soviet Union was one of the worst mannaged nations ever, in Breznevs day they were spending 70% of their budget on the military, communist or capitalist that's crazy, and a huge problem taht faced all of the leaders was that they never bothered to fix the agriculture areas in the west that were ravaged by war in WWI, and even more so in WWII, step one to any communist changes is too secure the necessities, which they forgot. So really the Soviet Union is just one of the biggest messes in history, ruined resources, ignorance of democracy (politribo was basically a new class of elites, so the plight of the proletariat was back at square one) and mismanagement.
Something interesting to read on this subject would be Lenin's last speech, rahter interesting, shows his growing change from communism and helps explain why Leninism deviates from marxism.
Personally, I like Democratic Socialism. But only if it's not corrupt.
Quote from: Juby (Tercios)somebody had named their clan 3rd riech, I mentioned that i disliked nazism as much if not more then the next guy cause I'm a communist, then it became about, WHAT, COMMUNIST, and I explained it to the first people and they were all good about it, then a couple more people came along and took it upon themselves to "enlighten" me with the great wisdom they seem to have that I lack despite my thorough research. :lol: basically they think they know more about communism then communists and what they claim should be taken as gold. <_<
This will be my last post in this topic, after this I have nothing more to say.
I did not try to "enlighten" you. My first posts to you were questions. All my arguments here have been based soley on what you have said. I've pretty much ignored Communism up until this point because I haven't cared. I'll admit that I know basically nothing about communism, except for what you have said here.
I will never live under communism. I just don't like it.
I actually wasn't talking about you. you were just asking questions which is cool.
Juby, I have been restrainong myself from flaming you, but you started flaming me. So I will discontinue this discussion now, because even though I believe I know more about communism than you, I do not want to start flaming you, so I am doing the honorable thing and stopping, I also ask that either this topic be closed, or it be started as a topic in its own right in the Ultramods. Because it way off fromt he orginal point. And these long posts are starting to seem like spam.
There is no honour in lieing, you said many lies such as Stalin killed Lenin, you said that native americans were all fighting to survive (which is a pretty cruel thing to say about native americans, it's like saying europeans helped them by coming), you said dictators became dictators after communism was established, once again this is not true, Mao established a dictatorship soon as his army one, same with lenin, they said that they would become completely communist but never followed through, face it, you told me to look in an encyclopedia for the facts you stated, I tell you to re-read yours cause you are mistaken, and you obviously haven't read the communist manifesto because you would be using what it says to prove your point, ie saying that it says this but that is wrong because so and so, instead you've simply been stating fallacies and stereotypes of communism. I think it's rude you would try and debate my political ideology without reading about it, and then when faced with your lack of any real background in communist writtings perpetuate ignorance by sticking to your fallacies of fact. I have argued with many people who have read the Manifesto and Das Kapital, and many who have not, the people who have realize that statements like yours are easily countered in the books already and so they naturally don't ask those questions because they know what my response will be, the people who haven't make statements based on preconceived notions and fallacies, I think you owe everyone in here an apology for perpetuating ignorance to save yourself embarressment.
STOP FLAMING! I was NOT lying! Stalin had Lenin KILLED!!!!! GO READ YOUR FREAKING HISTORY!!! Also! Stop it with this holier than thou/I know more than you attittude. I can GUARANTEE you don't. Native Americans WERE fighting to survive! That's why its called SUBSISTENCE LEVEL! Europeans were fightting to survive too, just on a higher level! YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT HISTORY! GO read some and then come back and debate with me!
*Calms down* See there ya go.. you made me flame you.
I have the encyclopedia right here, it says nothing about Stalin killing Lenin, it would be more honorable for you to admit you lied rather then defending a lie just to try and discredit me. And I have never flamed you, I've said, accuratly that you were lieing.
Well its the encyclopedia. IT doesn't tell everything. BUt Stalin did have Lenin mudered. I can find that online for you. And I have not told any fallacies, but you are calling me a liar because you want to prove your point and discredit me. THAT IS FLAMING!
tsk tsk, you know nothing of native american communites, they weren't these starving people waiting for europeans to civilize them, they were living fairly well, some areas had developed strong agriculture, and I never said i knew more then you, but from your arguements, I know I know much more about communism then you, and as for history, you have said blatantly wrong things, and you called me quite a rude thing, but edited it soon after, the only "flame" i committed was confronting you on your historical lies and exposing your lack of knowledge in certain areas that you claim to know more then me about. You said quite angrily i have an I know more then you attitude, you said a bit ago, you know more then me about communism, I've shown this to be false and so you accuse me of doing what you did? I say it again, you obviously have not read the communist manifesto and Das Kapital as you have claimed.
Oh I'm SO sorry for stating such lies.. I don't know what EVER came over me. I mean you must be right because you have read those two books more recently than me.. I mean what do I know.. I'm just lowly college student.. Its obvious that the primitive Native Americans who were living at a subsistence level before we got here were WAY more advanced in political and all other areas than those poor Europeans who sailed across the ocean to meet them.
*End sarcasm*
JUby, that's it. I can't take this anymore, the only thing you do know well is communism, yet you don't the first thing about history or the truth about your precious communism, I'm sick of this pointless argument and I concede. You have worn me out. I'm tired of you flaming me and I'm tired of arguing pointless things. My last point is that communism is not as good as capitalism for humans, if it was, the majority of the world wouldn't be capitalist. THat's all. I'm done, and I am not posting in this thread again.
that's quite the odd post, I never said Natives were more advanced then europeans, however they deserve more credit then you give them. More recently read them? admit it, i mean when I say something incorrect I admit I'm wrong, however here I have siad nothing wrong, sometimes debatable but never wrong, it's not the end of the world for you to admit that you didn't read those books, It's painfully obvious to anyone who has that you haven't. you keep telling me to read history, I've taken a few history courses and did very well (Modern Western Civilization, Canadian American History. etc.) and I may be a lowly grade 12 student applying to a few prestiguos universities, but I guess that doesn't make me even close to your great american college standerds *snickers*, so far, I haven't said anything historically inaccurate, you have, read history yourself, you would realize that Stalin has not been implicated in Lenin's death.
Quote from: Gen. VolkovBUt Stalin did have Lenin mudered. I can find that online for you.
the internet isn't the most reliable source...
Quote from: Gen. VolkovStop it with this holier than thou/I know more than you attittude. I can GUARANTEE you don't. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT HISTORY! GO read some and then come back and debate with me!
It looks like you're the one wit the holier then thou attitude.
May I add my comment?
Communism, in order to work, beleives that all problems are external to man. If we could alleviate, therefore, poverty and lack, and give people opportunity, then we could create a Utopia. However, Communism has never worked because mankind IS self-centered, greedy, and lazy. Therefore, the basic premise is faulty.
Even after the masses gain control, and therefore power; then the power corrupts them. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Read history from the beginning, it has always been so.
So when peasants are no longer peasants, but become the rulers, they fall into the same behaviour that their own rulers had over them before. And the cycle perpetuates.
And I would also like to ad a bit about Stalin: While I don't beleive you can prove Stalin killed Lenin, I have a bit of information about Josef that might enlighten a few people.
Excerpt from "What Everyone Should Know About the 20th Century, page 129-131
Quote
Stalin Launches a Purge of the Communist Party
The event: When the 17th Communist Party Congress in 1934 showed support for Sergei Kirov, a moderate and potential rival of its chairman Josef Stalin, the Soviet leader not only engineered Kirov's assasniation in December 1934, but used the murder as a pretext for arresting most of the parties; high-ranking officials as counterrevolutionary conspirators, launching the first of a series of sweeping and deadly purges of the Soviet Government that would last until 1938 and destroy even the hope of a challenge to Stalin's already all-but-absolute control of Russia.
Stalin was born Josef Vissarionovitch Djugashvili on December 21, 1879, in Gori, a rural town in the tsarist state of Georgia. His brutal father, an impoverished and alcaholic shoemaker, was killed in a brawl when Josef was eleven, whereupon the boy's indulgent mother groomed him for the Orthodox preisthood. By the time he entered the Tiflis Theological Seminary at age fourteen the youth's rebelliousness had earned him the nickname "Koba", after a legendary Georgian bandit and rebel. Koba became involved in radical and anti-tsarist political activity in 1898, and a year later left the seminary to become a full-time revolutionary. Soon he was touring the Caucasus, stirring up laborers and organizing strikes on behalf of the Social Democrats.
In 1903 the party split into two groups, V.I. Lenin's radical Bolshevik faction and the more moderate Mensheviks. Stalin fell in with the radicals and grew close to Lenin. For the next decade, from 1903 until he was exiled to Siberia in 1913, Stalin worked to expad the Bolshevik's power, organizing cell after cell across the nation, and financing ?the parties' work through a series of daring robberies. Repeatedly arrested, ?he always managed to escape, which has led to some speculation ta he was in the pay of tsarist secret police. ?Regardless of such rumours, Lenin in 1912 elevated Stalin to the bolshevik Central Commitee, the parties' inner circle. Reticent, even inarticulate, ?Stalin nevertheless became the first editor of Pravda ("Truth"), the Bolshevik's official newspaper., and adopted the name of Stalin, meaning "Man of Steel".
? In 1913, the wily Stalin was at last exiled to Siberia, returning to Russia only after the overthrow of Nicholas II in March 1917. When the first Bolshevik attempt to seize power in the summer of 1917 failed, resulting in the arrest of Leon Trotsky and the self-imposed exile of Lenin, Stalin worked to re-organize the party and played a central role in the October Revolution.
Stalin served in a succession of commisar posts in the Bolshevik government while working quietly to consolidate greater power. ?By 1922, he was named General Secretary of the party's Central Commitee, a position from which he could control most of the party. By the time Lenin fell victim to the stroke that would kill him, he had grown disenchanted with Stalin and had taken steps to to prevet him from assuming a leadership role after his death. But when Lenin died in 1924, despite a letter to the party he left warning against Stalin, the latter promoted himself as te Communist leader's handpicked successor and rutlessly exploited his position as general secretary to eliminate all who opposed him.
?Once his position was secure, Stalin announced a retreat from Lenin's ideal of world communist revolution by advocating "Socialism in one country". He also imposed a economic program far more moderate than the one Lenin had envisioned. Opposed by party leftistsm Stalin eliminated much of the left. Having accompished this in about 1928, he instantly shifted ground ?and adopted radical leftist economic programs, including the forced collectivization of agriculture and a hyper-accelerated program of industrialization. With his original left-wing opponents neutralized, Stalin attacked the party's right wing. By 1930, opposition on the left and the right had been quashed. Stali had become the undisputed dictator of the Soviet Union.
In order to transform the Soviet Union rom an agricultural nation into a modern industrial power, Stalin expropriated the lands of the middle-class farmers, or kulaks, "deporting" or killing those who offered resistance. His regime decreed a series of five-year plans to enforce collectivization and industrialization, financing the plans by exportin grain and otherproduce despite a devastating famine that swept throuh the Soviet Union in 1932. Millions who resisted were executed, and millions more starved to death. A 1988 estimate put the deahs that directly resulted from the forced collectivization of 1928-1933 at 25 million.
? ?During the first five-year plan, opposition to Stalin mounted, and there was a short-lived peasant revolt, which the dictator easily crushed. More challenging was the 17th Party Congress and its mild suport for Sergei Kirov, a Moderate rival to Stalin. Wit Kirov's murder as an excuse for arresting most of the party's highest-ranking officials as counterevolutionary conspirators, beginning in 1936 Stalin conducted a series of public trials of party officials and senior military officers. As a result of the mssive purges, by 1939 , 98 of the 139 central commitee members had been executed, and 1,108 of the 1,966 delegates to the 17th congress had been arrested. Moreover Stalin's KGB (secret police) cheif Lavrenti Beria directed the arrest, execution, exile, and imprisonment of millions of ordinary Soviet citizens.
The deaths caused by forced collectivization- through eecution as well as starvation- would have been more than enough to make Josef Stalin the most prolific mass-murder in a century that offered tough competition for that dubious title.
And to these must be added the devastation of the purges, which went well beyond the hundreds of party officialsneutralized and the millions of citizens persecuted or executed. For, in eliminating so many of his senior military officers, Stalin badly crippled the Red Army, making Russia ripe for Hitler's invasion of 1941. The purges, coupled with the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939, not only shocked the citizens of Western nations but also disillusioned many Communists and would-be communists worldwide, including a number in the United States. to them, as to the recently purged old party faithful, Stalin had betrayed the Revolution.
Please pardon my spelling mistakes.
Now that you know all this, you can decide for yourself whether Stalin killed Lenin or not. IMO, I certainly woudn't put it past him to do it with no hesitation.
As a closing comment, I hope, Juby, that you refrain from using absolutes such as "You obviously have NEVER read anything smart.", or "I have said NOTHING wrong.", as its inflammatory. In Volkov's defense, I think he was thinking about that guy who was exiled to Mexico, and then assasinated. Forgot his name though.
Sincerely,
Dur?
The guy is Trotsky.
I never said "You have obviously never read anything smart" I said he obviously never read the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital as he claimed because he was saying stereotypes which anybody who has read those two works would realize that those steroetypes are easily countered and would think of real questions to ask. I also you were selective in your other quotes, I said "I had never said anything wrong, sometimes debatable but never wrong", I said this because I was being perfectly accurate historically but added the debatable because the essence outside of the history and what we infer from history is debatable.
As for your stance, I would say as I previously have that people are not inherantly evil, I do not believe that people are born greedy no more then they are born lazy or theives or anything else. I attribute these qualities to how we were raised, I use the various aboriginal communites around the world as evidence that because these concepts of power do not occur in every society that they must not be inherant. I would say that if we raised our children in a communist country that they wouldn't be just born looking for billions of dollars in paper. I beleive I already went over what I percieved as good utilitariansism and bad utilitarianism earlier so just read back, but this would establish that what is truely important can be easily fulfilled and what is greedy and wasteful is a construct of our specific society.
[Ideas from Scott on cross-x.co,]Capitalism is good, it promotes selfishness, productivity, and life.
Communism is bad, it promotes selflessness, laziness, sacrifice, death.
First of all, selflessness is bad because it is anti-life. I its late, i wont get to far into a warrant, but, if you donated every cent to a bum, youd be broke, a bum, and dead.
Your ideas sound great, taken out of context. Lets bring them back to reality. A poor man wants to be treated, but can't afford it. Under your ideal, society or whatever gang claims to represent the majority, would steal my property and my life for someone elses. ITs the same thing as removing an eye from those who can see and giving 1 to the blind. Is that desirable? you know the answer, its the same principle.
selflessness is the antithesis of life. The meaning of the word itself is to remove or destroy the self. Utilitarian thought is a great way to show you way. Lets pretend their are a bunch of angry North Korean commies who are starving, lets say 22 million. It would be in the greatest good for me to work my ... off growing food, so that i can give it away to them in the process, even if i day of a heart attack. I dont see a dime because the broke communists are too poor. Take that and apply it any form of redistribution of resources, taxes to communism.
Communism IS! Giving one eye to the blind so we are equal
First off, read the whole debate first, second:
You are a catholic who is talking about how doing the right thing is wrong?
Ummmm a rich person could give millions of dollars to the poor and still be middle class. the average person would not have to sacrifice anything, because they are the average, the rich would have to sacrifice most of what they have to help the poor, giving to the poor is not some bottomless pit that your money is wasted in, the poor aren't a bunch of drunks. Rich people per capita are the highest substance abusers. Gang? I talk about democracy and you, captain america, call it a gang? Why would anybody give their eye to a blind man? If you make more money then you need and would waste on something useless like a porsche when all you need is bloody regular car to get from point A to point B. The money goes to the poor, your example is not accurate at all, if eyes represent money, in communism everyone would be guareenteed two eyes (middle class) and we would take the third and fourth and fifth and so on extra eyes the rich have to the blind, so you can see why your analogy fails, your only thinking that everyone is middle class or poor. Also the world as a whole is producing 140% of the food that it needs (americans are consuming way more then what they need, canadians and europeans and such are not free from blame but were nowhere near your levels), we can feed everyone and then some, just cause north Korea is unable to feed itself does not mean that we can't feed them, their is a world surplus, we can feed everyone with ease but don't out of greed, you wouldn't go broke feeding the world because their is enough for everyone, but the rich are controlling way more wealth then they will ever need.
Go back and read why people would not become lazy in communism, think about what I said about good and bad utilitarianism, why not work because it comes out of your interests and not to beat the neighbour. You can't just say something like "Capitalism is good, it promotes selfishness, productivity, and life. Communism is bad, it promotes selflessness, laziness, sacrifice, death." and not back it up with fact, you have to show why your right through examples, people aren't just gonna say, "oh well john says that so it's obviously true", people aren't stupid john.
Here's a question John for your catholic sensibilities, if people are naturally "selfish or lazy" and can never be "selfless and hardworking" and according to the bible god made man in his image then does that mean that god is only motivated by selflishness and when not motivated by selflishness god is lazy?
First off [I've read the topic Juby] I find it interesting that you say that in Communism crimes will go down but then say that Communism has never been tried. Which is it? If it hasn't been tried you don't know it will go down.
Sorry, let me rephrase that Juby. I was actually directly quoting someone else. Now that I read it more thoroughly, I can see several mistakes in it. However, against your arguments:
The average stay average, so he was having poor being blind and rich having 2 eyes, while average have one right now.
The "gang" thing is wrong. He made a mistake here. It can be argued whether or not the "majority" in Communist countries were fully knowlegeable or just wanted to get rid of the curreent leader, or if they were a majority at all.
American farmers could produce MUCH more food.
YOU HAVE PROVED MY POINT! People are greedy and so it will fail. As to your thing on God being greedy, I know there are many people who aren't. However, many will remain greedy, and while it is good for the rich to give to the poor, government compulsory action is not the best way.
This is Something to think about:
[Thornwell Simons]
"Often on the web I'll see people who say things like "Communism would be real nice if it worked." The idea seems to be that Communism would be a wonderful system, but people just aren't good enough to make it work: that the ideals of Communism are worthy, even if the practice of it seems to keep winding up with those dratted gulags and the odd bit of mass starvation here and there. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" sounds like a hunky-dory little phrase, if you don't think about it too much. Since most people don't think too much about politics, there's a tendency to nurse, somewhere in the back of the mind, the notion that Communism might be kinda nice,"if it worked." This is the real problem with Communism: like most other liberalism, it sounds nice. Far nicer than it really is. At its heart, Communism is not nice: it is evil.
To understand why, the first thing one has to do is get a reasonably clear understanding of what Communism is. What sets Communism apart from other systems of government is the particular goal of the system, which is the redistribution of goods among the governed, in accordance with the above-mentioned principle of "from each according to ability, to each according to need." In practice, this means that each separate individual living under a communist government should be willing to sacrifice their own good for the good of the community. After all, if you've been able to advance yourself, and someone else hasn't, then by Communist doctrine not only should you be willing to sacrifice some or all of that advancement to help that other person, but the state should force you to do so. Raising the lowest common denominator becomes the highest good. Since, in any society, some people are going to be more capable of advancement than others, and some people are going to be more productive and efficient than others, it becomes the responsibility of those few to support the needs and wants of the society as a whole; the most capable members of the community are, in essence, forcibly harnessed to the common good. There is a term for that, and it's "slavery."
Now, some try to get around this by arguing that, in an "ideal state," such servitude would be voluntary; that if somehow the force and compulsion of government could be separated from the system, everything would go all hunky-dory roses. Even if this were possible, it would be, essentially, arguing that slavery is fine as long as it's voluntary. Is it any less evil to allow a man to break himself in your service, than to break him in such service yourself? For any community of people to say, to an innocent individual, "our collective needs outweigh your individual ones," is an insanely, horribly selfish act on the part of that community, whether they then force that poor individual to sacrifice his needs or not. This is not to say a community cannot protect itself against individuals who do it harm; there is nothing unjustly selfish in telling the murderer he must sacrifice his life (in prison, if not in death) in order that he may not kill again. Yet to say the same thing to one who has in no way caused harm -- to one who has done nothing but create some good that did not exist before, and that the community now desires -- merely because he has done so, to say that merely because someone has surpassed their community they must sacrifice themselves to it, is the height of unjust selfishness. It is nothing more than collectivized greed. Sharing that greed out among the community does nothing to lessen the stink of it.
Once a community has made that step -- once it has, collectively, agreed that the (community-defined) needs of the community outweigh the (community-defined) needs of any given individual within that community, then the above desire that such an ideal Communist state be absent government is rendered inevitably void. Any system of rules by which a group of people agree to live their lives is at least in some sense a government; and the minute any amount of force or compulsion is coupled with those rules --which is necessary if they are to be rules at all -- it is unquestionably such. ("Government" is often defined as "a monopoly on force" for precisely this reason.) Even if those rules are merely the lightest of guidelines, even if the only force behind them is the collective disapproval of the community, they are still a form of government over that community, an enforced common agreement. If that common agreement sacrifices the good of innocent members of the community, in order to further the good of the community as a whole, then it is a covenant based on sacrifice, a common pact grounded in the enslavement of some for the better of others. The fact that the enslaved happen to be the brightest members of the community does not change that.
Many people try to argue against Communism based on practical considerations: that it saps productivity because people are denied the chance to advance themselves, that the State is incapable of organizing anything as complex as a working, efficient economy, that it just doesn't work for any number of reasons. All of those are valid objections to the practice. Yet they sidestep the real question, the moral question: whether or not, even if we could attain such a system, and make it work, it would be morally right or wrong to try to do so. And the answer is that to pursue Communism is horribly, horribly wrong: not just because it doesn't work, and not just because it leads to a whole host of other, secondary, economic and social problems, but because it is evil, an evil system built upon evil principles. There is no moral difference between a society built upon Communism and a society built upon slavery. "
How did I prove your point John? I think people are not inherantly greedy, I beleive that this is developed, my evidence is various aboriginal communities throughout the world where the concept of greed never occured to them, the fact that greed is not a universal to every group of humans pushes my idea that it is just a product of our culture and can be gotten rid of.
you saying americans can produce much more and easily feed the world shows that the your whole idea is mute because their is enough food so saying people would starve is untrue. Also I was astute in my comments on the eye analogy, the average person earns 25 grand a year, blindness in the analogy would be earning 0, if the 25 grand people had one eye, then the 50 grand people would have two, you can't act as though someone who earns 50 grand is comparable to a hundred billionaire like Bill Gates or the owner of wal mart. The analogy is flawed.
Once again I reiterate, read this entire thread, don't just jump in, it annoys me that I have retype things and re-explain things to you when the first is example is already just sitting their.
Using an editorial by some schmuck you agree with is not evidence and he never provides evidence either, he doesn't use statistics nor examples from real life and half of his arguements are just statments that he expects you to accept for no reason and the other half was an arguement made of needles, the whole structure is making assumptions based on the last assumption being true based on the previous assumption being true and so on and so on.
As far as what he says, I would argue that what would anybody advance on the next person in? that does not make sense, if somebody produces more then usual, does that mean they need more then usual? no of course not. Also, why does a person who is say more intelligent deserve more, do stupid people not deserve as much food or enjoyment in life, aren't we all supposed to be equal, and shouldn't you beleive that we are all equal in the eyes of god and so how can you justify giving one person more based on GOD GIVEN talents. and how can he call the society wanting everyone to be equal selfish? if anything it's the opposite, anyone who thinks they deserve more then somebody else is selfish, how can you begrudge someone for wanting middle class? saying that the poor are selfish is just idiotic, the rich person thinks he or she deserves like 20 cars, the poor person says hey I should A car, and then the rich wo/man calls them selfish. I don't care how much money you have, I don't care if your more intelligent, I don't even care if you invented something usefull or if you play a sport really well, you can't justify that you deserve more then another person, an athlete does not deserve luxury any more then a poor person, an inventor does not deserve more entertainment then a poor person, plain and simple, when you go before god, do you think s/he'll care how much money you made or how many touch downs you made or even that you had an idea, s/he'll look at your charecter and does inventing something make you moral, does making money make you moral(if you read some other points i've made it could be said that having money is immoral because money is finite and having more then the average leaves less for the poor, you having needless amounts of money that not only is taking away from the average pool and the fact you could donate it but feel you deserve more then another person), does being a good athlete or a gifted musician make you moral? NO. Communism is not slavery, in a democratically elected government, if all production was redistrbuted equally would that mean you couldn't vote agianst them in the next election. You could still say whatever you wanted. You could still pick the CD's you wanted and the books you wanted and all that, the only thing is that you wouldn't be able to get more then anyone else, but you having hte freedom to earn more is limiting resources therefore forcing the group to earn less, where as in Communism, you may not have the freedom to earn more, but you have the security of equality. But really, why would you define your freedom based on the amount of material goods you can have? why would you only consider yourself free if you could have a ferrari, if you define your whole life by what you have more then the next person, I pity you. In Slavery you get the bare minimum an individual, not the majority can give you, who rules you can give you in food, water, clothes and shelter without you dieing and pocketing the rest, slavery is super capitalism, all the profit goes to one person, the owner, therefore 1 person rich, the rest poor. Under communism they equally divide all the profit amoung everyone their for maximizing the what can be given, therefore everyone is middle class. comparing it to slavery is just silly. Slavery is about one being all and everyone else being nothing, communism is about equality.