What's So Funny Bout Communism?

[Lazarus]

@Scayde: no problem. Don't thank me, just don't ever take that sig you have off!

Look! Now Aegis is calling you "incorrect!" What a hoot.

[Scayde]

Originally posted by Lazarus
@Scayde: no problem. Don't thank me, just don't ever take that sig you have off!

Look! Now Aegis is calling you "incorrect!" What a hoot.

LOL....My Sig?...I am glad you like it..

I do plan on keeping it

[Scayde]

Originally posted by Aegis
Firstly...

"The communist belief is Give what you can, receive what you need, or from each, according from his ability, to each according to his need."
this means, basically, that if you have a wife and two children, you obviously have more need then a man with just a wife. Of course, that does not take into consideration health, and such, but that is the most basic belief of Communism.

You have not answered the question though.who decides what I need. And conversly, who decides what my abilityis to give.

As for your last comment, that is rather shocking to see, but I am glad you said that. You are very incorrect in saying that. Everyone works for their share of what they get. Everyone has work, which is a massive change from capitilism. In the ideal Communist soceity, there is no poverty and destitution, everyone is equal, and therein lies the key. You have this mind set that you work, and are supporting people who don't work, which isn't the case.

And as for having lived in a Communist society, I must ask, what kind? Mennoite, or Amish? Because in reality, those are the only real communist soceities, and ironically enough, they are not communist by name. Rather, they were part of Communism's inspiration. So, I have to ask. If Communism is evil, does that make the Mennonites, and Amish evil because they hold almost identical ideals?

Oh but you see, everyone does not work, and those who do work, work at different levels, and with different skills, some contribute more than others, some less, some not at all.

As far as Communistic societies I have lived in? I have lived on 3 reservations and in The People's Republic of China. I am aware that China is not a 'pure' representation of the 'communistic ideal' However it is principally because people have to be forced at gunpoint to fork over their earnings to the state. They are slaves. Their can be no human rights when freedom does not exist. The reservations were pure representations of communism. They were also appallingly poor, because there was no incentive to achieve. Eventually gambling was instituted on each of these reservations as a way to generate an income.

Edit: Scayde, by chance, are you Catholic, or of the Christian faith?

My Father was a Catholic . My mother was a Protastant . I am a Christian in the sense of my personal belief system, however you might more accurately refer to me as Agnostic.

[RandomThug]

Scayde you hurt my feelings, you know Im on level with you.

And to those who oppose Scaydes view with passion, the truth is that life is horrificly unfair to millions of people everyday.

Is it fair that I have been born into a life more safe and happy than many others will ever see? No. Does that mean I am at fault? No. Is it my responsibility to wor kday in and day out and b forced to give part of my earnings to those who werent given the life i was? no. Just like they didnt CHOOSE to be in thier life, I never made a choice to be born.

I feel no need to give my earnings away to anyone less fortunete, i find myself feeling the WANT to help others when I do donate. It should never be mandatory to aid others with your own blood and sweat.

[Scayde]

@Aegis: It is interesting that you should bring up Christianity here. The early Christian Church was purely communal in nature. I find it ironic that an idea which was pioneered by a religious leader, and emulated by a young man studying to be a priest, would be instituted by a man like Lennin who persecuted millions for having anyreligious beliefs, adn is now the norm to see most communist nations strongly oppose to and by the church.

[Scayde]

Originally posted by RandomThug
Scayde you hurt my feelings, you know Im on level with you.

Thanks Thug....*HUG*

[C Elegans]

Ooo, so many posts, I will try to reply but I'm sorry I can't keep up with your tempo!

I don't know you @Scayde, so I can't tell whether I have understood your point or not. I have seen from your other posts that you are certainly not a heartless, non-caring person, quite the opposite. Previously on this board I have had similar discussions with Lazarus, and I believe that the main difference between him and me came down to believing or not believing in an inherent goodness in human nature, that will result in a fair and humane world if this goodness is only allowed to be free, without regulations.

(Sorry Lazarus if you read this, I may have misunderstood you but this is how I interpreted your opinions in our discussion about education, taxes, global warming and similar issues. Btw, will reply to your post too...later.)

As is obvious, I do not share this view and I do not share the belief that "to each his own" and "the stong shalll prevail over the weak" is a working method for making this world a more humane place. With increasing exploitation of resources, increasing pollution, an increasing part of the population that are not productive, the need for distrubution as urgent as ever. Not only globally, on a local level too. In modern society, children do not contribute until they are at least in the middle or late teens, often later due to long educations. Elderly people are more numerous than ever and we all live longer. Disabilities and diseases that killed people in the former days, are now possible to survive. So apart from the global poverty problems, there are also local issues. And to me, this is not a question of viewing people as stong or weak, it is a question of my lack of acceptance for a world where people who were not lucky enough to be born rich and healthy, are less worth and have less rights than the lucky population. To me, a world with this ideology would be grossly inhumane and immoral.

Originally posted by Scayde But why is it so politically un-suave to admit that one enjoys the finer things in life. The remark about the envy of my friends having been made with tongue in cheek, I wished to illustrate the grand style in which I would love to live. I would hazard to say though, that everyone in this forum has more wealth than they need.

Enjoying things in life is not equal to saying we have more rights to those things than other people. (The remark about envy of your friends may have been made tongue in cheek, I saw no sign of that in your first post, so I thought you were serious about it. However, if it was a joke I just drop that part.) I agree with you that every member of this forum probably has more weath than we need, but that is not to say I am satisfied with that situation. Contrary to what you seem to think, I do not at all believe the rich population in the world are rich because we deserve it more than the poor population. You and Chanak mention that people should be rewarded for certain behaviours and personality traits like risk-taking, intelligence and creativeness. I think there are millions of people who are at least as intelligent, creative and risk-taking as you view yourselves, but they happened to be born in the slums of Calcutta or in the starvation of Somalia. And it doesn't matter how smart or creative you are, disease and famine are not impressed and will not reward you.

"I" am not worth anything other than that by which I appraise myself. My cadaver will sell for approximately the same amount as his. I judge a person's worth to be equal to his ability to contribute. If I own a patent which no one else owns, yet everyone wants to benefit by, I deserve the reward for having thought of it. I should not be required to "share" it for the "benefit" of my fellow man. If this is what anyone would propose, I would say he is promoting thievery.

As Fable pointed out, many people are not able to contribute due to factors that are totally out of their own control. If you judge a person's worth to be equal to his ability to contribute, then in your eyes a chronically ill child, an disabled person or a person born in poverty are not worth as much as you or I? Personally, I do not measure a person's worth in what they are able to contribute – if you had been sold to prostitution as a 10-year old girl and was now severely traumatised and in need of healthcare, I would still think your value as a person was equal to mine.

So maybe 1000 other people had the same idea, but they were in Bangladesh. Why do you deserve a reward more than they just because they were too poor to even know they could take a patent of their idea?
I don't understand why you call it theivery to share what you earn if you have more than you need? Is is not thievery to eat all the food on the table so that some people get no food at all? Do you have the right to eat more because you were strong enough to push your neighbour aside?

Come now CE, Your posts demonstrate that you enjoy a standard living at least equal to, if not better than mine, yet the socioeconomic system being championed would have all of the wealth in the world redistributed equally among all people, thus ensuring everyone's standard of living to be equal.

Are you so sure you would be ready to give up all you have and take what meager trappings were redistributed back to you to satisfy your basic need of survival? If you would still be expected to put forth the same amount of effort, the same quality of work, would you be eager to do this? And if this is truly your belief, why wait for communism to take hold. Why not do this act of altruism as an individual, without insisting the rest of the populace join you?

Like you, I belong to the lucky part of the population. I was born and bred in a rich country, and I never needed to struggle to ensure my physical survival. This is IMO a huge privilege, not a right. Since I don’t believe in reincarnation and charma, I don't believe anyone is born to have more or less rights that another person.

LOL, I am certainly not waiting for communism to take hold, my view of communism and capitalism coincides with Gaxx's post: they are both nice theories, but they aren't working. IMO both ideologies belong to a social structure that is long gone, neither of them are fit for modern society, and cannot solve the problems that rise in this society.

However, communism aside, I would of course give it all up in a second, if I believed this would lead to equal distribution of the world’s wealth. Wouldn't you, if you were convinced it was that easy to save millions of people from suffering and death from the consequences of poverty? However, I do not believe for a second it would, and that's why I don't do it. I think it is very naive to believe that the world's distribution problem would be solved because one person lower her living standard. Even more so when that person is not even Bill Gates, but me, with my salary as a university researcher.
Unfortunately, I also think it is very naive to believe that we can change anything by just giving away what we have. That's not what I am suggesting either. You see, it is my firm belief that the world's distribution problem lies not only in the distribution as it is this very second, it lies also is the structures that will maintain unequal distrubution. Individual acts of economic altruism doesn't change the global wellfare situation. As one individual, I can only make a difference for a few other individuals. And instead of sympathy-starving together with them, I have choosed another solution I believe everybody benefit more from than if I simply gave away the money I have. Global problems can't be solved with regional acts only. And as long as this world is filled with greedy people who seriously refuse to share any of the excess they have in resources in all forms, there will not be a change. Donations of money are short term solutions, they human mind needs to learn a different way of thinking.

My comments are a harsh reflection of the basic survival instinct present in all animals. Capitalism is a reflection of nature. Survival of the fittest. I make no apologies for my belief system.

This sounds very similar to a social ideology called Social Darwinism. Are you familiar with this? In brief, Social Darwinism states that poor people are poor because they were not fit enough, that the Western world is richer than Africa because we were fitter. It is a very prounouced "the strong shall rule over the weak" ideology. Is this a thought you share?

Btw, you'd be interested in the latest results from behavioural science about altruism and moral – there was an excellent article in Nature last year demonstrating the evolutionary value of altruism. Altruism and moral among other primates than man has also been investigated recently, with results that suggest humans may not be the only animal with a moral system.

So "the basic survival instict" in us may hold more than the good ol’ “survival of the fittest”, especially today when we have a world where "fit" is equal to "rich".

[C Elegans]

Re: Oh, Lord - it's the c word

Originally posted by Lazarus
Actually, one of the most dangerous comments in here came from C Elegans. Her last sentence: “Sharing the resources of our planet has nothing to do with communism, it is a question of humanism.” I disagree. How do you mean “share?” And is this a moral obligation you are stating here? And how do we determine when we have “shared” enough?

Please explain what you find so threatning about that comment. What do mean "share"? Re-organize the political and economical systems that maintain and worsen the unequal distribution of consumption of the resources. Moral obligation? I wish it was. How do we determine when we have shared enough? When the distribution gets closer and closer to an equally distributed average in terms of living standard. Equal opportunites.

I noticed that you recently took a vacation to the middle east. Couldn’t the money you spent have been better put to use if it were donated to Ethiopian war refugees? And I know that all that lab equipment you work with is very expensive, and uses vast amounts of energy. I wonder if maybe that energy wouldn’t be better off in the hands of someone who currently uses wax candles to light their home?

Do you seriously want me to reply to these questions, or did you just wish to make a point? Since I went on that holiday (I usually go abroad about 2 times a year) and since I haven't sold our lab equipment and given the money to the Red Cross, I bet you can guess what my answer is. If you seriously wish to know my thoughts I can post them, but if you merely want to make a point, I prefer discussing politics on a level of ideology rather than my personal life.

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by C Elegans
In brief

I always love it when CE says that One complaint (which in fact a compliment) Brevity isn't your strong suit

Social Darwinism imo is as archaic as the Victorian era that first spawned such nonesense, my brother was reading me some of the reports made during that time about the "savages" of Africa, it is enough to make one sick.

[Aegis]

Originally posted by Scayde
@Aegis: It is interesting that you should bring up Christianity here. The early Christian Church was purely communal in nature. I find it ironic that an idea which was pioneered by a religious leader, and emulated by a young man studying to be a priest, would be instituted by a man like Lennin who persecuted millions for having anyreligious beliefs, adn is now the norm to see most communist nations strongly oppose to and by the church.

My reason for bringing up christianity was not to spark theological quandries (101 ), but to make a point. The majority of people opposing Communism is quite often Christian in faith, if not Catholic, which is very ironic, because they both, in theory, believe in the same thing. Now, tell me why is it that the Catholic church is widely accepted, yet Communism is hailed as the evil power? It is because people, by nature, are hypocritical in their thinking, and are very easily lead about. In Russia, during the Bolshevik uprising, Lenin and Trotsky just happened to be the more charismatic party, and that is why it succeded in those times. (but, as I've said, it wasn't Communism that was put in place).

Now, you've lived in China. All of China, though, is under the guise of Communism, which is, in reality, State Tyranny, or what is known as 'War Communism' or 'Soviet Communism.' Both hold the idea of Communism, and have the name, but neither measure up the Communist ideals set up by Marx and Engles. As has been said, Communism in theory is perfect. In practice, it is flawed, and that is because of people. Like all major thoughts, and political movements, though, change cannot happen over night. Look at how long it took France to gain a constitutional Monarchy. they went through over a century of civil war, bad leaders, and dissention inside it's borders.

Now, I am going to say something, and I will more than likely get flak from a couple members here. I am Pro-Communist. I believe in it's theories, and beliefs. I believe that it is better for everyone to work for the betterment of everyone. Am I evil? No. I am wrong? No. why? Because I hold true to same the morales and values of almost everyone else. The only difference is, I have chosen to ignore the image that was placed inside the minds of people during the Kennedy administration, and the Reagen administration. Communism is considered evil because it challenges the United States, and as we all know, no one challenges the United States. when you look at the world, from a countries perspective, you are given two choice. Capitilism under the indirect control of the United States, or Communism. The countries that do turn Communist, though, are quickly placed under attack by the United States (North Korea, North Vietnam. Both wars that the sates had no business in. then Cuba, in a conflict to remove a Communist Dictator, that Kennedy backed into power!). The onyl country that has not had open warfare with the United States, and is Communist, is China. Why? Because China is capable of slapping the States down, with men, and weapons. This is why people view Communism as evil, simply put, because it is not American.

And lastly, why does it matter who divides the wealth? As long as it worked when put in practice, would it really matter?

[RandomThug]

@ CE

His point is very well made. While you speak of an ideal you would want to work, you do not currently follow through with it because like me you come home tired from work and want to enjoy the fruits of you labor. It is not your fault, nor your workplace, nor your vacation that other people are misfortunete. "Sharing" would never accomplish anything, exspecially with the people in power over these less than fortunete people. Do you believe anyone would seriusly distribute your contributed goods evenly to the people that need it?

I quote this song because all these posts have been making me think about it over and over..

No one lives forever, in fact we all die
From those who bust shots to those who stuff cops
To those who serve rocks on all the hard blocks

Every last soul must pay the last toll
In the dice game of life, who gets the last roll?
Is it the one with the suit? The one with the sack?
The one who hides behind his [freakin] gun and his badge?
Negative outlook? Well that's how I'm livin'
And like he said, it's a wicked world we live in
It's a wicked world we live in

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
I always love it when CE says that One complaint (which in fact a compliment) Brevity isn't your strong suit

ROFL I can only write short when I write scientific articles But then only other scientists can read them

Re Social Darwinism, I share your view about it, and it is of course no coincidence that the idea was born during the era when Europe colonised (read: committed genocide against) the people of Africa.

[dragon wench]

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
I always love it when CE says that One complaint (which in fact a compliment) Brevity isn't your strong suit

Social Darwinism imo is as archaic as the Victorian era that first spawned such nonesense, my brother was reading me some of the reports made during that time about the "savages" of Africa, it is enough to make one sick.

lol!

I know exactly what you mean. I have recently read a book called The Many-Headed Hydra which, amongst other subjects, extensively details the alledgedly "enlightened" views of "Sir" Francis Bacon. He was, of course, a couple of hundred years earlier than the Victorian era... but his philosophies, amongst those espoused by others of the general time frame, certainly helped give rise to those of the Victorians.. *shudder* Reading about his beliefs was eerily reminiscent to reading about Hitler and his henchmen plotting the Final Solution...

[RandomThug]

@ Aegis

Do you believe that if America was to fall and anyone were to take over or "lead" with comunism, would they be any more or less wicked than the US?

If you had your way of life challenged (Americans Capitalism) would you or would you not attempt to fight those who would try to alter yours? You all act like if the US just accepted comunism it would work, it could never work because we are humans. Not gods with the ability to turn our heads on our desires and needs. I do not give you flak for being pro commie, i find it interesting that you have the gusto to admit it. I find that something to be prideful off, honesty of such.

I have been and never will be religous, I find communism doesnt work because fo my belief that Men are nothing but animals, and when you die you rot and thats that. Its not survival of the fittests, its LIFE. and no one ever said life was fair, life is most unfair.

Hey at least were not arguing about US and Canada

[Maharlika]

Kudos to everyone...

...despite the heated arguments, I like the way everybody voices out one's pov.

@Aegis: I'm a Catholic and I have Communist friends and I don't think that they are evil. What makes certain ideologies evil or religions "bad" are the people who use them to further their selfish motives at the expense of others.

I agree with the others when they say that Communism in itself is not evil. I think the point here is how is this ideology put into practical use or how is it executed.

I think that in theory a communist community is possible without having to ban religion.

BTW @everyone: who said "religion is the opium of the masses"?

I agree that there are situations way beyond our control that hinder us from maximizing our potentials and getting the kind of life we desire...

...however I think that one of Scayde's vital argument is that she feels so disgusted when others use her hard-earned money when they themselves CAN DO IT on their own.

I feel the same way too yet I won't feel bad if I'm in a situation that would force me to shell out my earnings (read:tax) when I can see that it would be used to help people who REALLY NEED help from others.

[Dottie]

I think there is some confusion in this thread about what communism is. Communism is not the belief that everyone should have equal oppertunities. Communism is not the belief that we should help the less fortunate. Communism is not the belief that everyone should be foreced to work the same amount and communism is not the belief that everyone should renounce his/hers individuality.

Communism is an ideology with a defined view of the world and the opinion that how it is right now is not good. It also have a clear idea of what would be good, and also exactly how to achive that goal.

---

Now, my personal problems with communism is that it is far to dogmatic. Since its very difficult to make scientific experiments on this scale every ideology is made up by a number of assumptions without that much evidence. This creates a need for a vision to be somewhat more flexible in its set ideas than communism is. Another problem imo is that it use a doctrine that says an educated elit should rule during the time it takes to institute the communistic system. This view is very out of touch with how reality works imo.

About the opinion that communism doesnt work because people cant be creative and people wont work hard if they are not revarded I think thats a very spectacular conclusion to draw. If you look at the history of the soviet union I can see no sign whatsoever that they suffered from this problems.

Also I basically agree with all CEs posts.

@Maharlika: Its a Marx quote I think.

Edit: Thanks Mahar.

[Maharlika]

Thanks, Dottie...

...btw, I like your input. Very straightforward.

[Aegis]

Re: Kudos to everyone...

Originally posted by Maharlika
@Aegis: I'm a Catholic and I have Communist friends and I don't think that they are evil. What makes certain ideologies evil or religions "bad" are the people who use them to further their selfish motives at the expense of others.

I agree with the others when they say that Communism in itself is not evil. I think the point here is how is this ideology put into practical use or how is it executed.

This is exactly what I've been waiting to here. The issue I've been trying to stress is that Communism has never been put into proactice. It has always been State tyranny that has been used. Even when the Bolsheviks came to power, and claimed to be Communist, they weren't.

@Thug: I'm not saying that if the States were to fall, and a Communist Regieme set up, that everyone would follow it knowingly. Hypothetically speaking, if a nation were able to pull off Communism, as it's theory is, how many people do you think would notice? In a world where the majority of the wealth is controlled by a minority of the people, do you really think to many it would matter? Also, since you brought it up inadvertantly, as a Canada, my way of life is constantly being threatend by American influence. Canada has long since begun to struggle to keep it's on identity, slowly being drowned out by a much more dominant American identity. In many European nations, many people, when asked, cannot tell the difference between Canadians and Americans.

Now, remember, that I agree with you, that Communism is near impossible to have work, because we are people, and we are imperfect. again, I refer back to the fact that Marx took much inspiration from the Utopian World writings.

@Mahar: Yeah, Dottie's right. It is a Marx qoute, later used by Lenin.

[Nightmare]

Again, both communism and capitalism have amazing ideas, but cannot be put into practice. Why? Because we are human.

Communism could never work, because if someone has a little power, they want more...and more... Also, the ones that put in effort are cheated.

Capitalism unfortunitly works, but many of the ideals have been ignored (such as the fact that there will be enough money to go around so everyone will be rich). Capitalism is the strong enslaving the weak, which I find morally wrong (I'm not sure if I can explain it, I could try if asked, but it is one of those things which you just *know*).

Thats how I see it.

Very well if the weak enslave the strong. At least know what its like to be at the bottom. (this last comment is a joke)

[C Elegans]

posted by Littiz
Maybe it's the first time it happens, but I think I agree with C Elegans. I happen to be very lucky, I live in a marvelous place, live in a beautyful home, and did nothing in my life to earn them (my parents did) And again she's right, "Sharing the resources of our planet has nothing to do with communism, it is a question of humanism."

I will not happen often, I think But I do appreciate that we agree in this very fundamental issue.

The shopkeeper was closing the shop, and couldn't be convinced to prosecute the work a minute
longer, to sell us some goods.
I was puzzled, then my father eplained that it made no difference to him, as he got paid to work and stay there, the shop wasn't something of his own.

As Aegis and Dottie points out, this kind of attitude is not really connected to communism as an ideology, but I know it was very prevalent in the Eastern Europe states that called themselves communistic. I used to visit the former Soviet Union/Russia sometimes when I was younger, and I was struck many times by examples similar to what you describe. The former Soviet union was an extremely elitistic meritocratic society, where people who excelled lived in one world, and "the common man" lived in another.

posted by Frogus

Letting the cream rise to the top would be fantastic, but let's be real. Do you honestly think that you are more virtuous and deserving than about 60 million Ethiopians?

That is a serious (and incorrect) view to hold, and one which does not reflect well on your self-image. I'm sure you can see the gaping logical holes in assuming that one's personal merit is the only factor which determines one's income.

I hope you can also recognize that millions of people are starving to death, not because they are bad people, but because they have been enslaved or oppressed or used by the rich minority for personal gain.

Great post, Frogus, I wish I had your razor sharp way with the English language..then Sleep wouldn't need to laugh at my "In brief...."

Seriously though, you present some highly valid arguments and very worrying issues in the ideology Lazarus and Scayde propose in their posts. Arguing that people deserving what they earn is fine only in a society where people have the basic possibility to earn anything at all.

posted by Dottie
I think there is some confusion in this thread about what communism is. Communism is not the belief that everyone should have equal oppertunities. Communism is not the belief that we should help the less fortunate. Communism is not the belief that everyone should be foreced to work the same amount and communism is not the belief that everyone should renounce his/hers individuality.

A very good post @Dottie, and together with Aegis posts, very clarifying regarding what communism is and is not.

And for those of you who have come to the erranous conclusion that I have communistic views, I can say that my type of ideology as described in my long post above, is probably best referred to as Modern (scientific secular) Humanism