What's So Funny Bout Communism?

Skooter327 · Post by **Skooter327** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 9:48 pm

Originally posted by Aegis
...the problem can actually be removed without worker B turning around, and taking the company for all it's got for wrongful termination.

Please don't confuse the ideals of capitalism with the f-ed up legal system present in our country.

Also, I belive comunism (literally, not Marxism) does exist in the small religious comunes, such as those practiced by Mennonites, Ammish, and others.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 9:50 pm

ok for the last time.

Man is an animal with basic needs that go beyond your definitions of greed and sloth.

Those words are not a figure in my equation.

Its Instinct to want more and to do your best, its thebasic lack therof motivation that creates lazy non producing people.

Man is an animal and the only perfect world we could live in would be a pure Survival of the fittest.

We are not above the beast, rather we just pretend to be gods.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 10:04 pm

Originally posted by Scayde
Why would anyone want to be supported by another person, unless he is inherantly lazy.

Or ill. Or elderly. Or extremely young. Or disabled. Or debt-ridden. Or enslaved--which was what Russian serfdom amounted to.

Until the 20th century, it was rare to find a nation that provided any support to any of these categories. (Russian serfdom was a special case, and a sad one.) Such institutions as existed were often accounted worse than death--the Victorian workhouses were tubercular sweatshops, damp, uinheated, while debtors' prisons were common. People who didn't have children that would take care of them in old age often lived and died alone. Children who were abandoned became hookers and thieves before they reached the age of ten. All this is well-documented.

To its credit, Leninism *did* recognize these problems, and moved to address them. The Soviet provided the first nationwide child welfare bureaus to deal with child gangs and prostitution. Hospital care and education were open to all. (And even the opponents of the Soviet Union--and I'm no friend of it--acknowledge the superiority of the Soviet education system.) State loans were given out to collectives, rather than individuals, and specifically for the creation of self-maintaining shops.

I'm not trying to whitewash a bad deal, and Stalin was the worst kind of deal. But it would be wrong to misunderstood why Communism was so popular, and what it actually achieved.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 10:40 pm

It is past time for me to go home, but before I go , I wanted to say one more thing...

I do not want anyone to suffer. I am a health care giver primarily because it is my very nature to want to help people. I give away thousands of dollars a year. My taxes support many statewide and national programs to help the needy, In addition to this, I give of my own free will to those charities I feel a calling to support. I feel it a good thing to help oneanother. I do not feel it is a good thing to have the rewards of my efforts taken from me by society and redistributed as they see fit. In my opinion this amounts to thievery.

@fable: I understand the needs of those you have mentioned, I know there are those who are truly alone in this world, and throw themselves on the mercy of the state, and others. I feel the primary responsibility of these unfortunates, still fall to themselves, and their families, local charities and churches, community efforts at the grass root level. I do not in any form believe in state run charity. I know many would fall through the cracks...I sound cold...but I feel the greater evil would to be the enslavement of the productive members of society.

I will give you an example...A friend, who was out of work, went to a day labor station and signed up for temp work. It was menial labor, but an honest day for an honest wage. A woman approached her begging for a hand out. My friend told the woman she did not have any money, but directed her to the nearby counter telling her they were still hiring for the day. This person sneered at my friend and went down the block abit, where, to my friends dismay, she witnessed her begging again, only this time, with success.!!!

In Texas, this woman, if she does not declare her panhandling income accurately, and she probably won't, will most likely also be recieving public assistance for food, medica, and housing, because she falls withing the "poverty level"

In other words...My taxes are supporting her...

I am not heartless...but things like this leave me feeling a bit victimized...

Good night folks

*HUGS*

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 11:03 pm

Originally posted by Scayde
I do not want anyone to suffer. I am a health care giver primarily because it is my very nature to want to help people. I give away thousands of dollars a year. My taxes support many statewide and national programs to help the needy, In addition to this, I give of my own free will to those charities I feel a calling to support. I feel it a good thing to help oneanother. I do not feel it is a good thing to have the rewards of my efforts taken from me by society and redistributed as they see fit. In my opinion this amounts to thievery.

Thats a good point...but plenty will suffer with a "Strong rule the weak" or "Survival of the fittest" world (anarchy, really).

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 11:07 pm

I agree and feel for you Scayde...

...in my country, poverty is used as an excuse to get and justify what they want as much as the rich ones abuse their power.

It is us middle-class people who get the feeling that we've been had.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 11:11 pm

@Scayde: I know your tired, and won't be able to reply to this for a bit, but it seems to me that you are avoiding the facts that I have laid bare to you. Perhaps that could be because America is the prime example of Capitilism in the world, and that it is only natural (in the sense that you gre up with) to not like Communism. But I have yet to see you make comment towards anything I have presented before, and I'm really curious to see your rebut.

Lintelyg · Post by **Lintelyg** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 11:19 pm

Communism rocks in theory, but is certainly not perfect. Practicaly it CAN be done. BUT contrary to what other people posted the leader of the commune must also be free of greed/lust etc., not just the people. The people are a very important factor to communism. And thus they must be pleased whith what goes on. IMO the theory of communism is a bit flawed as well. Compromise is a very good solution to conflict, so the leader of the commune has to change as well. Call it Communedemocracy if you will. By combining the two you can create a better off society. Now don't ask me exactly what my idea is of how such a government is supposed to work, but if enough people want it, they will find a way. We humans have created weapons that can kill millions, we have created means of transportation of which the people of old only dreamt of and we have created a system of government called democracy which in theory looks real fair and good and all that, but non-the-less is ruled by corruption, false promises and greed. One could even ask the question is there a need for a government at all? Couldn't we all live in a world in which there are certain loose rules and regulations that everyone can abide to?(No killing, no stealing etc.) but that is left to be seen or discussed in another thread.

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 11:19 pm

@Aegis, actually, America isn't real capitalism. I think its quite different...I'm too tired to go over my class notes to see why though. And I have an exam on this in two days, too.

I'm gonna fail.

(sorry for the SPAM).

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 11:30 pm

Originally posted by Aegis

@Tybs: Contrary to what you said, Communism in China does not work. In fact, it is not even true communism (nor is it in N. Korea, N. Vietnam, or Cuba), it is Soviet Socialism, or State Tyranny. China is under a dictatorship, regardless of how you slice it. If it were what Communism was supposed to be, then the west would be seeing less chinese imigrants then it does.

Hmmm...interesting.

I wasnt aware of a big difference between Soviet Socialism and Communism. Dont get me wrong, I know the historical aspects of what has occured in China, I know of the deaths, and I know of the dictatorships, and I know of the growth of China during that time, but I was not aware of its differences from normal communism.

Hrm...well there you go I guess. Im no political mind. So Ill just step aside now.

Littiz · Post by **Littiz** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 3:22 am

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 only share a little insignificant episode that I lived, about why communism doesn't work.
I was about ten, IIRC, and was in visit to Praga (sp?) with my family.
Well, one day (it was about 6 p.m.), we wanted to enter a shop to buy some gadgets.
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.
I don't know if things are changed there since then, frankly I'm very ignorant on the matter,
and don't know exactly what form of government there was at the time, but I think I decided
that day that I didn't like communism..

That's not to say other criteria are better, the world is a great chaos

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 3:16 pm

Scayde, although I respect you greatly in all areas, and always rely on you to say something smart and useful in a discussion, this is your one opinion which constantly apalls me.

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.

Scayde, it was already almost certain that you were going to have a comfortable life before you were born, and many babies are born, equally certain that their lives were going to be miserable and painful.

Please don't tell me that the money you have is your birth-right, or that you deserve it more than the next peasant.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 3:24 pm

Originally posted by Gaxx_Firkraag
Thats a good point...but plenty will suffer with a "Strong rule the weak" or "Survival of the fittest" world (anarchy, really).

Yes, you are right, they will. But my stance is this:...Rather to come to the aid of the less fortunate should be my choice. I should not be compelled or coerced in any fashion. It is not a debt but a gift.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 3:25 pm

Re: I agree and feel for you Scayde...

Originally posted by Maharlika
...in my country, poverty is used as an excuse to get and justify what they want as much as the rich ones abuse their power.

It is us middle-class people who get the feeling that we've been had.

Thanks Mah.....*HUG*.I think You and Chanak are perhaps the only two in this discussion who understand my point of view..

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 3:54 pm

Originally posted by Aegis
@Scayde: I know your tired, and won't be able to reply to this for a bit, but it seems to me that you are avoiding the facts that I have laid bare to you. Perhaps that could be because America is the prime example of Capitilism in the world, and that it is only natural (in the sense that you gre up with) to not like Communism. But I have yet to see you make comment towards anything I have presented before, and I'm really curious to see your rebut.

Sorry I did not get around to responding to you last night Aegis, but I will try now.....

OK, here goes

Originally posted by Aegis
This example is somewhat flawed. What you don't seem to realize, is that in communism, people are distributed to areas were they excel. A someone who was skilled in medicine, whould go into health practices, while someone who was skilled with trade skills would become a blue collar worker. In addition, they would be reallocated if they failed to perform to the standerds set by the state. It is exactly the same as a Capitilist state, only in a communist state, the problem can actually be removed without worker B turning around, and taking the company for all it's got for wrongful termination.

This is part of the theory, the other part is not so pretty. The workers are distributed according to the needs of the collective. Talent and interest of the worker are secondary. I have a dear friend form Poland who is a very talented and gifted Physician. In Poland hew was working in a factory because they were experiencing a worker's shortage. They pulled her out of her office and set her to task in the labs of a textiles mill.

She would have traveled to another area where she could continue to practice medicine, but she was not given clearence to relocate

This IMO is way too close to slavery.

Re: Law Suit Abuse in the USA? Don't get me started

In addition, in a Communist state, what do you have to strive to acheive? Why do you need more wealth? Something that people commonly forget about Communism is that the state controls more then just wages. they also set a state wide price range. In other words, the loaf of bread you buy at the corner store would cost exactly the same as the loaf of bread you buy at a Wal Mart. Because the need to become better then your neighbour is removed, it is easier to survive.

Because ever individual defines his own "needs" Do you "need" your own room? A choice of music? The computer you sit in front of to post on Gamebanshee? The variety of clothes you choose from each day? More than one pair of shoes? Toothpaste?...I have lived in a communist country....these were all considered "luxury items" Makeup was astronomically priced in order to discourage vanity. The Artists all worked for the state and the work they produced was "aproved" or not allowed. The Theater was censored, and I was only allowed to purchase 2 tickets per season. As far as pricing? That bread would cost the same everywhere most likely will be attended by long lines of people because a family is rationed as to what their allotment "should be" which is almost never actually what they consume, so they run out before the next ration.

As the Communist belief goes "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." the state will give you everything you need to survive. That doesn't mean you won't be getting the fruits of your labour. What you are given would be on top of what you earn. but, because you are being supported by everyone, as everyone is being supported by you, what you keep for yourself is notcieably less, but rightly so. When you think of Communism, don't think that you have enough to live, and that is it. That is a stereotype of Communism, and one that should be dispelled in the west.

And who is to decide what an individual needs? Society? The envious who eye the achievers adn would steal that which they have earned. You say what you keep for your self is noticable less and rightly so? I disagree whole heartedly. How dare anyone take from me what I have earned simply because they have not earned, and tell me it is their right !!!

Aegis, you are an intelligent young man, but what you propose amounts to State sanctioned theft.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 4:03 pm

Originally posted by Gaxx_Firkraag
@Aegis, actually, America isn't real capitalism. I think its quite different...I'm too tired to go over my class notes to see why though. And I have an exam on this in two days, too.

I'm gonna fail. (sorry for the SPAM).

Actually Gaxx......the fact that the US tempers it's fiscal policies somewhere between capitalism and socialism accounts to a large degree for the stability we enjoy. As you see the supporters of each platform are very passionate about their convictions. If it were not for a compromise, civil unrest would be for certain.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 4:25 pm

Oh, Lord - it's the c word

Poor Scayde! All alone against the board!

I know how that goes. I can’t resist dropping in on this debate, though!

Originally 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?
…
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.

Let me start by answering your original question, frogus. There is nothing funny about communism. Not a friggen thing. It is a morally corrupt philosophy (as others have pointed out) which no longer deserves the attention it still garners.

To the specific of your above post: you call Scayde’s opinion “incorrect.” Well, I’ll turn around and call yours incorrect.

People in Ethiopia are starving because rich people are keeping them down? Perhaps you could explain how you mean that? I’m rather of the opinion that Ethiopia has remained poor because it is chock full of warlords who are incredibly tribalistic, immoral and vicious. I think wealth has very little to do with it. Furthermore, I, for one, know that to be truly free requires a system of law to maintain that freedom (personal, social, economic, etc). Ethiopia may lack this system, but a proper capitalist society would not – and could not. A fully communist system starts off the bat by saying that property is theft, which pretty much makes any kind of rule of law impossible (except maybe the rule of the mob).

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? 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?

All I’m trying to say here is that it may not seem fair that some people are born into the wealth of the US (or Sweden, or Britain), while some are born into the poverty of the third world – but there exists no moral system for the redistribution of wealth and resources except (as Scayde has pointed out) that which is entirely voluntary. Anything else is expropriation, and should be viewed as such. Give money if you like, but please do not tell me that communism is some kind of wonderful moral ideal when you are all sitting in front of machines which never were and never could have been created in such a system, because it simply gives lie to your supposed moral value.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 4:27 pm

Originally posted by frogus
Scayde, although I respect you greatly in all areas, and always rely on you to say something smart and useful in a discussion, this is your one opinion which constantly apalls me.

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?

No frogus, I do not. But at the same time, do you really believe that the state of want entitles them to anything I have? And if you do, why.

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.

But what you propose is the enslavement of the achievers to satisfy the needs of the masses. I find this, or any other form of slavery apalling

Scayde, it was already almost certain that you were going to have a comfortable life before you were born, and many babies are born, equally certain that their lives were going to be miserable and painful.

Please don't tell me that the money you have is your birth-right, or that you deserve it more than the next peasant.

Was it really? Are you personally familiar with the circumstances of my birth? My families economic status at the time? The USA is a land of very diverse peoples and situations. There are people in Apalachia who have never had access to running water, sanitation, healthcare, electricity, nonparrishable foods. The Southwest where I spent much of my formative years is some of the most destitute on the continent. I was advantaged because I was born in a land which still allowa a person to achieve according to his willingness to dream,work hard, be practical, make good decisions, and keep much of whqt he has earned. No the money I have is not my birth-right. It is mine because I have earned it. Every last dime of it. I worked hard for it. And yes. I deserve to keep it, spend it, or give it away as I see fit.

Tell me, what gives anyone the right to take from me what I have worked all of my life for, and redistribute it among those who have less, simply because they have less than I do.

Are you willing to forego all of the things you enjoy, your computer, your games, your vacations, and send the proceeds to those Ethiopians? If you are, great..do it, if you are not, would I have the right to impose my moral code on you adn come take it from you against your will?

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 4:36 pm

@ Lazerus: Thank you....*Tearful HUG*

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 4:44 pm

Originally posted by Scayde
Because ever individual defines his own "needs" Do you "need" your own room? A choice of music? The computer you sit in front of to post on Gamebanshee? The variety of clothes you choose from each day? More than one pair of shoes? Toothpaste?...I have lived in a communist country....these were all considered "luxury items" Makeup was astronomically priced in order to discourage vanity. The Artists all worked for the state and the work they produced was "aproved" or not allowed. The Theater was censored, and I was only allowed to purchase 2 tickets per season. As far as pricing? That bread would cost the same everywhere most likely will be attended by long lines of people because a family is rationed as to what their allotment "should be" which is almost never actually what they consume, so they run out before the next ration.

And who is to decide what an individual needs? Society? The envious who eye the achievers adn would steal that which they have earned. You say what you keep for your self is noticable less and rightly so? I disagree whole heartedly. How dare anyone take from me what I have earned simply because they have not earned, and tell me it is their right !!!

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.

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?

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