What's So Funny Bout Communism?

[Scayde]

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 distribution. Individual acts of economic altruism doesn't change the global welfare 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.

While I find nothing fundamentally wrong with your statement, I find the portion, which I have highlighted to be inflammatory and judgmental. It would seem that we have a classic irony here. You have promoted yourself as more compassionate and moral than someone who holds the belief that a worker is worth his wage is greedy and the reason there is poverty in the world. Here is the irony. I am sorry; I do not see you as more compassionate or moral. You have stated the reason you don’t believe in personal charity is that it will not do any good, you have chosen a better solution. That you will wait on a utopic system where all of the worlds problems will be solved before you decide to give of your excess, while condemning others and labeling them as greedy and immoral, because they wish only to do the same as you are doing, with out the socialist rhetoric?

You said you don’t know me….Let me introduce myself. I am a middle class nurse, divorced 3 times, 2 children, and aged and infirmed mother. I work 50-60 hours a week, and barely have enough left over to treat my kids to a movie. I have taken 5 people into my home at various times, in order to help them get back on their feet. I fed them, clothed them, provided them with transportation and a roof over their head. I do not remember a time, growing up, when my family did not have someone living with us. My brother has a young man living with his family now who is mentally challenged. He is providing him a job, a place to live, food at their table, and teaching him basic business principals. When this young man is ready, my brother will help him start his own business. They have raised nieces and nephews. Have sent a friend’s son to school. I donate money out of every paycheck to a foundation, which teaches adults how to read here in town. Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, teach him how to fish, he will never go hungry again. But I do it voluntarily……Not against my will….THAT is why I am NOT greedy !!!

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?

I grow weary of this insinuation. I will answer it once more. If asked again, I will find it offensive.
No….I do not believe in the strong over the weak, and more than the weak over the strong…I believe in human dignity, individual freedom, …and self reliance.

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".

Yes, I am aware of these studies…I think it is very encouraging, and lends credence to my argument, that left alone, Those who are most capable, are inclined to share what they have, without coercion.

[fable]

Re: Oi - too many people to answer

Originally posted by Lazarus
How do I explain … I meant a “moral system” as: a system that is moral. Admittedly, this judgment of what is moral is by my standards. This is what we are all arguing about here – our different standards of morality. I do not view egalitarianism as a moral system, because I view it instead as an immoral system. Does that clarify my use of the term?

Yes, but can you see the logical circuitousness of stating--

But none of you can answer this one basic – so very basic! – point: there exists no moral system that would allow for the redistribution of wealth and resources on this planet.

...when you've already predefined the moral systems mentioned above as being acceptable to you? I strongly doubt that we can answer your point, if you've removed every moral system from the table that you don't find agreeable. And it still remains that moral systems meeting your criteria do exist, despite the fact that you (and I, in some cases) dislike them. Our opinions aren't the issue, here.

I'm afraid we're walking into a deadend, in any case. Some of us see the redistribution of wealth as an ethical or moral absolute. Others see it as a monstrous injustice to the idea of self. I see no plane where both armies can meet and get a bite to eat together.

[Chanak]

...If Communism is evil, does that make the Mennonites, and Amish evil because they hold almost identical ideals?

Have you ever lived in an Amish or Mennonite community? Have you spent time amongst these people, and come to know them intimately, beyond coffee table books, magazine articles, or second-hand information?

To the best of my knowledge, no one posting in this thread has ever voluntarily (or even involuntarily) surrendered all of their possessions and income, and placed it within a “common purse” for the good of the whole. There is only one person that I know of in GB who has done this. Me.

I have both spent time in these communities, and come to know many individuals there personally. Some became dear friends. I miss them all. Perhaps I can share a few details about their daily life that would help you to understand how they live:

Each community is different. In one such community, the men must wear white shirts, black hats, blue work slacks, and black boots or shoes. The shoes must be laced according to the protocol. The shirt must be buttoned fully, all the way to the neck, so as to not show any flesh on the chest. The shirt must be long-sleeved, and in the presence of females must be buttoned securely at the wrist, so as to not expose the arms. To do so would be considered immodest. They may be rolled up only when working in the fields, only in the presence of other men/boys. No mustache may be worn, and the beard (which must be grown unless you are unable to grow one) must not be trimmed. To do so is considered vanity, and that is sinful. In this community, electricity is also forbidden, for the world is considered to be fallen and evil, and under the rulership of Satan. The community must be fully self-reliant in order to reflect true godliness…

For the women: A light blue or white dress may be worn, with an apron secured at the waist. It must be buttoned, and must be buttoned completely, from neck to hem. The buttons must be black. It must have long sleeves, and cover the legs completely. A head covering must be worn. It must be white in color, and kept spotlessly clean. In this community, this head covering must cover the entire head of the woman/girl, save for her face and ears…makeup was forbidden…

I could go on and on, but I won’t. Is anyone offended by what they read above? Let me add that anyone who deviated from any of the dictates that I described above was dealt with harshly…all the way to being excommunicated from their friends, family, and community. Mothers and fathers would shun a son or daughter who was excommunicated. Such a person was an outcast, and was not allowed to return. Usually, they sought out another, more liberal community in which to live…but these have their own standards and rules as well. A good number of these people you see have lived in more than one community…and most have lost friends and family along the way. I knew one such family very well…they are amongst those whom I miss very much.

I’d like to preface the remainder of this post by stating that not all that glitters is gold. Those who believe this need to experience what they pontificate on personally, and live the reality of it. Ghandi put it quite bluntly (I’m paraphrasing here): Before you preach it, live it. What many in this thread term “greed” is in actuality a basic human need, and of itself is not “evil.” Everyone seeks to fulfill this need, no matter who you are. In a society or culture where you are forced to conform to a predefined image of “morality” and “goodness” this need still exists, no matter how “high” the ideals sound. If there is an evil here, it is these “ideals”…for I lived under them for over four years, and have seen, and reaped, their fruits. Misery. Suffering. Slavery. A longing for freedom, to be liberated to pursue your dream. This is such a basic human need, I need not expound upon what it is, nor justify its existence.

I have lived under “ideal” Communism. I was utterly taken by it, for it sounded so true and just to me at the time…finally, a place where there was no want. But is there? Amongst those who enjoy the fruits of others, yes, it is ideal. But for one who is strapped to the grindstone day after day, providing for those who do not work…people who are not your own flesh and blood…it is at once humiliating, demeaning, demoralizing, and hell on earth. It is one thing to see a need, and take care of it yourself…it is quite another to be forced, or coerced, into surrendering your blood, sweat, and tears to give to those (and these are the majority) who will not work. Disease, sickness, and frailty is not as rampant as you might think…

What is honorable? Most people are concerned with what others do, instead of concerning themselves with what they do. It is atrocious to accuse a hard worker of being “greedy” simply because he wishes to control the fruits of his own labors. Tell me…if I jumped in your car tomorrow and drove away into the sunset with it, what would you do? Well, if someone else bought that car for you, you probably wouldn’t care, beyond the horrible inconvenience that it might cause you. But if you bought that car yourself…need I finish this hypothetical situation? You would report your car as stolen, of course.

To the sheltered elite who enjoy the fruits of their own labors, anything looks good under the sun. Most of us who post here live in major western countries, and enjoy a standard of living that puts bread on the table, a roof over the head, a computer on the desk, a vacation in the summer, and so on…I have read earlier that giving up one’s possessions for the “poor” is not exactly the answer. If that isn’t, then what is? Postulating the exact answer? When you get down to it, that is exactly what “true” Communism entails, for after all, all are “equal” in ideal Communism. Would it be fair for you to enjoy jaunts to the mountains while the downtrodden sweeps the streets during your absence? He waits in line for toilet paper while you ski in the Alps? He drinks tap water while you sip on a fine Merlot? You are that which you despise most, for you enjoy the fruits of your own labors while preaching how evil this is.

That a man earns his keep upon the “back” of another is a lie perpetrated by those who envied the largesse of others. The businessman does not amass his fortune by taking advantage of others. Rather, he earns his wage by offering something to someone else that they value. To make his dream a reality, he enlists the aid of others – his employees. They assist him, and in return he shares a portion of his wage with them. His profit turns into growth, and more jobs for others to fill. So it goes…unless the process is tampered with…

Communism originates in class envy. The thoughts underlying it existed long before Czarist Russia. In fact, it originated during a time when there were castes…something which one was born into. There was literally no hope of ever escaping the boundaries of your caste; it was your “lot” in life. This kind of thinking continues in a day and age when castes have virtually been eliminated from most “modern” nations. In my country, it is possible for someone who never graduated from high school to become a multi-millionaire. All it takes is effort, and the desire to take chances, and go hungry once in a while. I know many who have made it this way…I plan to as well. I never finished high school either.

Communism (as well as Socialism) is very much an organized religion, complete with scriptures and saints. To those who embrace its precepts, the natural order is evil and corrupt, and humanity requires a savior in order to save it from itself. That savior, of course, are those who know better. Yes, those who know it is wrong to amass personal wealth, while others starve. Those who starve are called the “poor,” contrasted to those who are well-fed, who are called the “rich.” Its quite an elaborate set-up wherein basic human needs and desires are labeled “evil” and “wrong”…wrong, because one man amassed a fortune, while another floated from job to job, earning meager wages. He must have just been “lucky”, while the other was “unlucky.”

It is interesting to note, however, that Communism only feels good. Impose it upon nature and watch the results…it is one of the greatest evils ever loosed upon planet earth. This is because it is the very antithesis of nature, and the universe itself. Existence is one great gamble, a bid for survival. We are equipped to meet this challenge…all of our needs and desires serve this purpose. That we possess compassion, and therefore can (and do) help each other along the way, is a beautiful part of being human. Nature reflects this in many ways…but never do you find those who are unwilling to make the effort to survive carried by others engaged in the act of survival. This places the greater burden upon the strong, does it not? Therefore, things are not as equal as they are proposed to be, just as it is under Communism. Nothing new under the sun.

Is nature beautiful? Yes. Nature is also brutal…and we, as a species, are not immune to the fundamental laws of nature, for we ourselves are a product of nature. It is no wonder, then, that Communism always results in such misery, suffering, and death…on a wider scale than any other human governmental system. Soviet style communism? Chinese style? Yes, there are subtle differences, for Communism is not monolithic, as the US Government once believed back in the 1950s and 60s (i.e. Sleepy’s “Pinko” scare). Rather, there are varying forms…Socialism being the seed of the entire plant. Yet what do all forms of Communism share in common? The answer is simple…look at history, and current events, to see for yourself. No postulating or pontificating required, just plain reality.

[C Elegans]

@Scayde: It is 1:30 am here...and I still have work to do. I will reply in detail to you posts later. But I find it urgent to say this now:

This discussion that initally was an IMO interesting discussion about different political ideologies with focus on communism, seems to taken a very bad turn. It is sad to see that you interpret my various questions to you this way.

Nowhere in my posts have I stated you are greedy. You call my questions to you "insinuations" and "irony" although I clearly stated I don't know you. I do not think how well or how little we know each other is important for this particular discussion, however. I honestly cannot say why you seem offended over my questions. I ask them simply because I want to know what reasoning is behind the conclusions you have posted here. You seem to be a person full of compassion and with a genuine will to help other people. You seem to believe in the same basic human righs as I do. And that's why I cannot for my life understand how you motivate your opinions regarding distribution of wealth, how you explain why this world is an unfair place full of suffering. Or do you even think it is? I really don't understand your reasoning.

If you do not wish to answer my questions that it entirely up to you. Personally I am happy to continue this discussion with you and everybody else, but I do think we should continue to keep it general rather than personal, in order to avoid ad hominems and getting the thread closed.

And please...try to understand that I am neither a socialist nor a communist. If you believe so, you have misunderstood the socialism and communism ideology. In a previous post I defined my opinions and labelled them, just follow the link.

[Chanak]

@Scayde: Hang in there, cowgirl. You're putting the point across clearly and succinctly...*hug* *kiss* I wish I could have been here to support you...

@Lazarus: Kudos for some excellently written posts.

@CE: I’d like to comment to you in general, considering that you mentioned me in one of your responses to Scayde.

You commented that

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.

Being born in a “rich” country is a subjective term at best, and makes all kinds of assumptions with no basis in reality. I can’t speak for Scayde (though I know what her response shall be), but I personally have had to struggle for survival a few times during my adult life. I was not born into privilege, nor allotments of money from an inheritance or government allowance. My upbringing was strictly middle class, my parents working for a living, relying on no outside aid or largesse to make ends meet. They were from a generation that believed it was a person’s responsibility to pull their own weight throughout life, and not rely on someone else to do it. I have dropped below “poverty level” a number of times during my adult life. I have been homeless. I have lived on the “street” at times.

How did I make it out of those situations? I realized it was my responsibility to be accountable for myself. I worked tough jobs others turned their noses up at, saved my money, and eventually got back on my feet. I never relied on government aid to do it. That you never had to struggle to ensure your own survival makes me wonder if you truly understand those who you call “poor”…have you acquainted yourself with the homeless in your own city before?

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…

I’m wondering what this has to do with anything Scayde and I are talking about. To quote Dr. Walter Williams, "Poverty is mostly self-inlficted - indigenously created. What are the most commonly held characteristics of the non-poor world? In non-poor countries, people tend to have greater personal liberty, property rights are protected, contracts are enforced, there's rule of law, and there's a market-oriented economic system rather than a socialistic one." Contrast this with poorer countries, whose "policies and institutional structure repel investment and cause their most talented people to leave."

Aid has been pouring into these countries for many years from various sources, both public and private. The truth is, these countries are actually poorer than they were before they began receiving aid.

The fact is, you cannot actually help anyone who is unwilling to help themselves. The people of India and Somalia both need to effect change if any true relief is to be found for their plight. All kinds of aid is funneled into these countries yearly…both governmental and private. What good has it done? The fact is, the United States attempted to aid Somalia in the recent past in a military manner, by striking at a sore point in their suffering. This was of course unpopular, I note…after all, the US is a “greedy” capitalist regime. Why would we want to help people suffering in Somalia?

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Scayde
You have stated the reason you don’t believe in personal charity is that it will not do any good, you have chosen a better solution. That you will wait on a utopic system where all of the worlds problems will be solved before you decide to give of your excess, while condemning others and labeling them as greedy and immoral, because they wish only to do the same as you are doing, with out the socialist rhetoric?

Scayde...I think you are close to a personal attack on me with you last statement. I stated in my previous post that I have choosen a solution I think is much better than sympathy-starving with the people who starve. Here is the quote again:

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.

If you are interested, I could post what the solution I have choosen, looks like. I don't think you should try to second guess my life choices in a serious discussion like this. I understand if you feel upset about my different worldview, but please edit out your guesses about my personal choices. Thank you.

EDIT: @Chanak: I will respond to you post as well, later...let me just clarify one thing: I meant we were brought up in rich countries compared to Bangladesh or Mauretania...I come from a lower middle class home, parents working, and I was thrown out when I was 15 and hadn't finished school because of a family conflict. So no, I don't think you and I and Scayde differ a lot in social background...not that it really matters since we discuss politics here, not personal history...

[Aegis]

Just a Placeholder. I haven't had time to read, much less respond to that last 10 or so posts. I'll try to get something in later though.

[Scayde]

Originally posted by C Elegans
@Scayde:

Nowhere in my posts have I stated you are greedy. You call my questions to you "insinuations" and "irony"I honestly cannot say why you seem offended over my questions.

CE, If no insinuations were intended, I will accept that, but in a conversation directed @ me, where the remark is made that people who disagree with the redistribution system you support are "greedy", their ideologies are "immoral" and "inhumane", and I fit nicely into both catagories, I feel that your remarks were intended at me.

I ask them simply because I want to know what reasoning is behind the conclusions you have posted here. You seem to be a person full of compassion and with a genuine will to help other people. You seem to believe in the same basic human righs as I do. And that's why I cannot for my life understand how you motivate your opinions regarding distribution of wealth, how you explain why this world is an unfair place full of suffering. Or do you even think it is? I really don't understand your reasoning.

And I don't understand yours.

And please...try to understand that I am neither a socialist nor a communist. If you believe so, you have misunderstood the socialism and communism ideology. In a previous post I defined my opinions and labelled them, just follow the link.

Yes, I did follow the link, I am not concerned with the label you choose to wear. I am concerned that your philosophy would take what is mine from me, and give to others without my consent. This appalls me.

[C Elegans]

@Scayde: I ask you not to take things so personal. It is very common in any discussion, when we direct a comment to another person, also make general statements about what we think of general behavious.

My statement was:

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.

I don't think I have ever even hinted you were a person who refused to share. From your previous posts, I read out that you were of the opinion that sharing should be out of free will, not that you didn't want to share?


And I don't understand yours.

I know, isn't that the reason we are having this discussion?

Scayde, if you feel personally offended by my posts, please send me a PM and we can continue discussing this. This thread should be kept for the political discussion I hope can continue as previously.

[fable]

I think the offer to take any misunderstanding up via PMs is a good idea. This has really been an interesting discussion, and it would be too bad if articulate people who really intend well couldn't figure things out so that nobody gets hurt.

[Scayde]

Originally posted by fable

@Scayde, I think many people feel that taxes are precisely that: a form of coersion used by governments to acquire revenues for distrubution to a variety of perceived needs. These could include (in the US) Medicaire, legal services, grants to adoption agencies, etc. Are you then talking about a qualitative difference? It seems to me that you're only arguing about a quantitive one. You would object to more money than--how much?--being taken away from you and used for social services; and I don't know how you would feel about the redirection of governmental funding priorities away from defense and towards education and other wealth redistribution models throughout the world.

I think I am in with most fiscal conservatives on the tax issue. Less is more I feel the only just taxes are usage fees. I do not agree with the income tax at all, however, I am willing to pay it, as I see no way the country can provide the services we have all come to depend on with out the revenue it offers. Besides, if I did not pay it, I would go to jail

As far as how much? I would support a 10% flat tax for everybody, no exceptions, no loopholes.

[Scayde]

@CE.....It seems I may have misinterpreted some of your statements....Please accept my apology for the defensive posturing...I have always enjoyed our discussions in the past, and would not want to damage the repoir we have always shared.

[C Elegans]

@Scayde: No problems, apology accepted Even small misunderstandings look so much bigger and can have much larger effets on a forum like this, compared to when one discusses IRL. I'm just going to bed (work finally done!), but I'd be happy to continue the discussion tomorrow.

[Aegis]

I'm just gonna throw something into the mix here, as it's late, and my head is swimming after chanak's post.

For the most part, people in this thread are seeing only Black and White, but failing to see the various shades of grey inbetween. On one side of the spectrum, we have Scayde, Chanak and Lazarus. The only ones that seem to be seeing both the good and the bad of the whole idea of Communism is Myself, CE, Frogus and Fable.

Now, no where in this conversation have those in the middle said that Communism, in practice, works. But at the same time, the same is being said about Capitilism. Those one the side of Capitilism seem set on their views, and unwillingly to change them, instead seeing it as a vicious attack on their life style, and way of life. It is interesting to watch this go back and forth, to be quite honest. The image of Communism that Scayde, Chanak and Lazuras have is all very much the same in how the American media portrayed it during the McCarthy Withchunts (OR Sleepy's 'Pinko' scare), and defend that point of view vehemently.

Now, the four of us (CE, Fable, Frogus, and myself) are not arguing that Communism works in practice. In fact, we have argeed with you that for it to work in practice would be almost impossible. We are merely trying to dispel a myth that Communism, in theory, is the ideal Utopian society. For either system to work, though, it can't be one or the other. It must be amalgamation of both, but it seems we will never achieve that, because of this inherent view of what Communism is.

@Chanak: Remember, I did not say Mennonites and Amish communities were Communist, I said they helped foster inspiration for Marx's Communist theories. The reason those communities are as strict as they are, is because they have a strong sense of religion as well.

@Scayde: I'm just gonna give you a heads up. Calm down a bit. No one is attacking you, so there is no need to defend yourself. I would hate to see something happen because of this discussion.

@All: Thanks for not dragging this into a debate about religion... I'm sick of arguing about that

[Scayde]

Beautiful Post Chanak...*HUG*
I know it took a lot out of you to put that out for all to see...
But I think your personal experiences with communism shed invaluable light on the subject.
I wonder if anyone else wonders at why the only two people here who have actually lived in a communistic setting are so vehemently opposed to it.



A note to any who may be interested...

I have been defensive these last few posts. I think it is in a large part due to the repeated statement that the ideal of personal freedom, of objective self actualization, is "immoral", "inhumane", "monstrous".

I know I have thrown these same terms right back, ....but it is not the way I usually discuss things as subjective as personal ideals, beliefs systems, or philosophies.

People in general identify strongly with their belief systems. My belief in personal integrity, human worth, the value of life, rests very much along the lines of the "Rational Objectivist" argument, although not identical to it.

As I have pointed out to fable, I do recognize the needs of those who for what ever reason are not able to care for themselves. As CE has pointed out, the difference for me is, I believe that help should be given on a voluntary basis. Rather anyone gives or not is their choice, and I pass no judgment on them what so ever. It IMHO should be the right of every person to enjoy what they have accomplished, without harassment. It is also MHO that no one should be passing judgment on the morality of anothers political or fiscal ideals, because they are so very subjective. What is moral and just to one, is an abhoration to the other, and vice versa. As I posted earlier, we enjoy a great amount of civil quiet, and a comfortable standard of living here in the west, principally because their is a mix of these two extremes. In theory, they may each suit our respective ideas of a utopia, but in reality, they, like we, must work together.

Allow me to end my part of this debate with a quote fom Ayn Rand.

"Man is an heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute"

Night Folks......
*HUGS*

[RandomThug]

*Claps*

Good posts all, a fun read. Now I am only 20 and havent lived much of life enough to even delve into the conversation at hand. My only question is directed at all.

Scayde continues to post about how she feels the desire to Donate to charity rather than be forcefully taken away through the state.

What seems more humane? No one addresses her point by saying "It is better to not give it freely" which is basically the argument. Why?

(in my eyes)

[Tybaltus]

Originally posted by RandomThug


What seems more humane? No one addresses her point by saying "It is better to not give it freely" which is basically the argument. Why?

(in my eyes)

Which one is more "humane"? That would be via donations.

Which one is more fair? Thats another story.

[fable]

Originally posted by Tybaltus
Which one is more "humane"? That would be via donations.

Which one is more fair? Thats another story.

Reminds me of an old Russian folk song whose chorus went, "Hope for the best/expect the worst." The Internal Revenue (that's the US governmental arm in charge of collecting federal taxes) stated that once again, the largest portion of individual charity donations came this past year from middle income people, not from those in the upper income brackets. While this hardly counts as a statistically binding sampling, I can also remember from 17 years of public radio management, that our support base was strongest among the middle incomers, again. Wealthy folks tended to take us (and all other services that depended upon private financial support) for granted.

Contrast the impoverished system of public radio in the US as it is today, when most stations can only afford to pay for an outside service that offers news and music, with the UK, where a mandated tax on televisions pays for the BBC. I suppose it's clear where I stand: if you want well-funded social services, the arts, education, and health benefits, required support is the only way to find the funding. The harrowing lessons of the US and UK in the 19th century, when none of these services were provided, furnish a cautionary tale. Some people will give out of the goodness of their hearts, but the vast majority of people won't bother thinking about what they're missing. Out of sight, out of mind.

I wonder if anyone else wonders at why the only two people here who have actually lived in a communistic setting are so vehemently opposed to it.

There's a great difference between communism as an ideal economic theory and communism as realpolitik. Nobody here is in favor of communism as it has been practiced in any government, so you'll get no argument on that point. But the fascination of theoretical communism lies in its visionary goal of granting everybody an equal share in the business of living. It is, I admit, a lot more attractive than theories which merely endorse the continued exchange of goods at the expense of those multitudes at the bottom of the economic scale.

[C Elegans]

*quick post before going to work*

Originally posted by RandomThug
What seems more humane? No one addresses her point by saying "It is better to not give it freely" which is basically the argument. Why?

I disagree. I don't think it is more humane. It may feel more humane for the giver, but I do not think a humane society with wellfare and equality should be built up by charity. That is not a fair system. Equality should be built up by having a political and economical system that ensures people get equal pay for equal work, which is not the case today.


And besides, I need only to look at the world and look at the countries based on entirely volontary wellfare systems, to see it does not work. People don't give enough.

[Littiz]

I live in Tuscany, a region known to be "red".
Actually it is, I may speak out of direct experience: students at schools, people
in the streets, friends, whatever... it is very difficult to find someone who isn't
left-winged (and the term weighs more than in the States, I assume) if not a total
communist fanatic.
Some don't even agree that "practical" communism didn't work, where it was applied.
I've never shared such views (even because it often seem more of a fashionable behaviour
than else), but you'd have to learn quickly to keep your reasonings for yourself, unless
you're ready to engage flaming discussions all the time, in which you get repeatedly
and heavily offended, while no one listens to your arguments.

I am amused by many common contradictory inclinations, and I have to agree with Chanak
that communism often is born from envy.
(I don't want to be offensive, and I am speaking about a situation like the one I live
in, where nobody actually starves)
Take the lotto games. Forgive me, I don't know the english word, but I think you understand
what I'm speaking about: one buys a ticket, and hopes his number will be extracted, so that
he will be covered by money.
Ah, funny. We have a lot of such games, above all the "superenalotto", which can premiate a
singole person with a cash of the order of 50 millions of dollars, or more.
Let's analyse this phenomenon. Mainly the "pool" of this games is made by the people of
mid-low class, who hope to chase the ace of life in a rapid and lucky shot.
How many of these self-declaring communists I've seen with two or more tickets in their
hands!
I'd want to ask them, what's your goal here? Are you aware that this mechanism continuously
creates new rich, disgustingly rich people, taking the money from the middle-low class??
Is this the redistribuition you speak about?? Oh, of course it IS a redistribuition...

And nobody can convince me they're going to take the money to "equally" divide them,
damn, they were *already* distribuited before they were caught in the lotto's mechanism!!
So, as long as *they* are the rich, or they can *hope* to be the rich, great amounts of
money in the hands of single persons are a fine thing, even if they are totally unearned...

I'm saying this in the line of Chanak's thoughts: we are all the same, at last.
So I'm always suspicious when I hear the proclamation of ideals of equality and the like.
It's hard to thrust their "genuinity".

It's clear from my words that I feel very much in line with the positions of Scayde and
Chanak, but I also said that CE is right, and I confirm it.
I surely prefer free social models like Americans have, but we cannot negate their flaws.
I like disparity, but only as long as people don't die because of it.
I'm promoting a sort of "contained" disparity...
The third world has to be helped, people are dying with absolutely no guilts, we HAVE
to feel some degree of obbligation towards this matter.
Don't know how this can be realized in practice, but the aim to bring all the people at least
above the survival level is indeed to be perscuted.
I repeat though that limiting the total of population is essential in any case.