PDA

View Full Version : Communism: Good or Bad?


Nick
15-09-2004, 08:51 AM
I know that ever since the Cold War everyone has viewed Communism as "evil", but what I came to realise is that what people are calling Communism isn't really Communism at all. It is infact Socialism that they are refering to, they just confuse the two. People think of Communism as a form of government where a dictator forces the public to divide everything equally. This is not the case because there is no such thing as a "Communist government." The whole point of "true" Communism is to eliminate government. The principle behind Communism is that everyone will willingly divide all possessions equally without having to be told by a government official. So the problem is not that Communism is an "evil" system, it's just not a very practical idea on a large scale because by the time you divide everything your portions are extremely small. However on a small scale it could in theory be a functional system, that is of course if you're community is free of greed which of course is not likely. That's another reason why "true" Communism could never work. It's impossible to completely eliminate greed.

Socialism on the other hand is a system in which you have a government (whether it be a Republic or a dictatorship) that distributes everything in equal shares and eliminates social classes, hence the name Socialism. So really there has never been a truly Communist system, infact even the Soviet Union wasn't a Communist system because U.S.S.R. stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. So in reallity it's actually Socialism that people hate not Communism.

Now before you start screaming at me that I'm an "evil" Commy, I would just like to say that I am neither for nor against the Communist beliefs. I think it has it's pros and cons just like any other system.

Anyway I apologize for the long essay but I just wanted to make sure you know what Communism really is so you could make an educated decision for yourselves as to what you think about Communism. If you still hate Communism that's fine, or if you've changed you're mind about what you think of it that's great too. I just want to hear some of your opinions about it. However if you do voice your opinion try and think for yourself, don't start ranting that Communism is evil just because that's what you've been taught your whole life. If you think Communism is bad give some real reasons why you disagree with this "philosophy" so to speak, and visa-versa if you think Communism is a good system give some good reasons why you think it's a good system.

duckula
15-09-2004, 09:06 AM
Doesn't work.

deviljet88
15-09-2004, 09:13 AM
"However on a small scale it could in theory be a functional system, that is of course if you're community is free of greed which of course is not likely."

And that's why its very, VERY unlikely communism would work, so I vote disliking it. Fair ideal, if unrealistic.

kalexander
15-09-2004, 10:28 AM
>I know that ever since the Cold War everyone has viewed Communism as "evil",
>but what I came to realise is that what people are calling Communism isn't really
>Communism at all. It is infact Socialism that they are refering to, they just confuse
>the two. People think of Communism as a form of government where a dictator
>forces the public to divide everything equally. This is not the case because there is
>no such thing as a "Communist government."

The implementing of communist theory results in dictatorial government, whether the government is a committee with dictatorial power or an individual. That’s because communist theory is ungrounded: bad theory doesn’t work.

> The whole point of "true" Communism is to eliminate government.

Eliminating government will strip people of legal rights. They’ll have rights only in the ethical sense, which in a tyranny, is having no rights at all. Tyrannists love communism, especially the anarchic goals, because it removes the legal barriers to tyranny, and allows the unregulated use of force.

>The principle behind Communism is that everyone will willingly divide all
>possessions equally without having to be told by a government official.

Why does anyone believe that it is ethical to willingly give others your possessions? One reason is that most people have been indoctrinated into believing this stupid value throughout their schooling by socialist teachers.

However, it is not ethical to give up your possessions. It is more ethical to be self-reliant, to be dependent on no one else for your survival. It is also ethical to encourage others to be self-reliant.

Instead of imagining a world with no possessions, as John Lennon asserts, consider imagining a world where every normal adult is self-reliant—that is, able to survive on their own, without depending on others. In such a world people would be happier, more successful, and there would be less hunger and need. And that world is practically realizable, but not through encouraging incompetence or dependency.

>So the
>problem is not that Communism is an "evil" system, it's just not a very practical
>idea on a large scale because by the time you divide everything your portions are
>extremely small.

Communism is an extremely light theory that views wealth the old way, as something that passes around from one thief to another.

However, wealth is created by the efforts of individuals, especially those working together with mutual consent, toward goals they agree upon which further their particular interests, in free societies where they must respect others’ rights.

Free people are more able to create wealth than those in tyranny, because there is greater incentive in self-ownership and their minds are more able to function in free societies.

>However on a small scale it could in theory be a functional
>system, that is of course if you're community is free of greed which of course is not
>likely. That's another reason why "true" Communism could never work. It's
>impossible to completely eliminate greed.

“Greed” is properly defined as “desire for the unearned”. That is a different desire than to desire to earn wealth. Communist professors and teachers have never grasped this fundamental difference.

>Socialism on the other hand is a system in which you have a government
>(whether it be a Republic or a dictatorship) that distributes everything in equal
>shares and eliminates social classes, hence the name Socialism.

Socialism neither distributes everything equally nor eliminates social classes. Socialists say they desire to do so, but they are lying or are themselves mislead by others who are lying. The socialists plan is to remove property rights in order to steal wealth, and use whatever line of bs that works in order to accomplish this aim.

>So really there has
>never been a truly Communist system, in fact even the Soviet Union wasn't a
>Communist system because U.S.S.R. stands for Union of Soviet Socialist
>Republics. So in reality it's actually Socialism that people hate not Communism.

Very convoluted reasoning. People challenge socialism and communism because they are poor theories, both coming from the same relativistic and nihilistic intellectual heritage. Neither of them work because they are bad theories—bad as in based upon invalid inductive abstractions.

>Now before you start screaming at me that I'm an "evil" Commy, I would just like
>to say that I am neither for nor against the Communist beliefs. I think it has it's
>pros and cons just like any other system.

At best you’re dishonest. You are promoting socialism/communism.
You have posted these comments here to make them accessible to young and impressionable minds, and this statement is an attempt to make yourself look objective, when you are not.

>Anyway I apologize for the long essay but I just wanted to make sure you know
>what Communism really is so you could make an educated decision for yourselves
>as to what you think about Communism.

And now you ask for their decision.

>If you still hate Communism that's fine, or
>if you've changed you're mind about what you think of it that's great too. I just
>want to hear some of your opinions about it. However if you do voice your opinion
>try and think for yourself, don't start ranting that Communism is evil just because
>that's what you've been taught your whole life.

Thinking for yourself is definitely more ethical. However, for those who would, consider that in a communist/socialist society, thinking for yourself will make you an enemy of such a society.

>If you think Communism is bad give
>some real reasons why you disagree with this "philosophy" so to speak, and visa-
>versa if you think Communism is a good system give some good reasons why you
>think it's a good system.

ryan
15-09-2004, 10:38 AM
it very obviously doesn't work.

Liam
15-09-2004, 10:56 AM
at best you’re dishonest. You are promoting socialism/communism.
You have posted these comments here to make them accessible to young and impressionable minds, and this statement is an attempt to make yourself look objective, when you are not.

If anyone is stupid enough to change their beliefs on politics, religion or anything else for that matter because of a post on an internet forum, they have problems.

There has been no such thing as a true communist government, so there are no examples to point to. The theory is fundamentally flawed as it does not take into account ingrained elements of the human nature - competition, love of material goods, etc.

If it could work, it might be good. But it cant.

Narg
15-09-2004, 11:27 AM
"pffft, in theory, communism works.." - Homer J Simpson.

Leonie
15-09-2004, 11:43 AM
Communism... Good or bad?

"And I said do you believe we are fundamentally judgmental, fundamentally evil? And you said yes. I said 'I don't believe in revenge, in right or wrong, good or bad'. You said 'But what about the man that I saw handcuffed in the emergency room? Bleeding after beating his kid, she threw a shoe at his head. And I think what he did was wrong, and I would have had a hard time feeling compassion for him, I'd have to watch my tone for fear of having him feel judged.'"

Followed by the chorus "I was hoping", the communist catchphrase in my opinion.

Yes, I realise this isn't the great lyrics thread. It's just that whenever I read good or bad it reminds me of this song by Alanis Morissette, I Was Hoping. And it just so happens to apply here. It shows once more that there is no such thing as good or bad. And it has this nice line about human nature as well.

Was it ever gonna work? No. Not in a human world. Men are competitive. They lie and steal and betray if it will help them. Not because we're all bastards, not just because we're all bastards, but more so because it is human nature. This simple fact about the lot of us is enough to prove that communism isn't gonna work. It requires a certain level of selflessness that we don't possess.

Don't get me wrong, it would be great if we did. That's exactly my point, communism itself is neither good nor bad. Essentially, it would be the perfect society. It's the human factor that spoils it.

But even hippies couldn't pull it off. Two of the biggest countries in the world had a go and failed. Why? Because they had a leader. Communism doesn't have leaders. Communism sees individuals as equals. Anyone deciding they're better than the rest, or in charge, fails to understand the most important aspect of communism. But a society without a leader? Would that work? Again, yes, if men were selfless. But we're not. There would always be someone considering it the perfect situation to take advantage of. If people go power crazy on a forum, how can you expect them not to in the real world? It's this inbuilt wanting, the human species craves power and, and... More, essentially. We're never content with what we have. As long as that longing, that wanting is still part of menkind, communism is doomed.

End of my post for now, I might add stuff later, when I actually wake up. I like this discussion :)

Nick
15-09-2004, 12:04 PM
Kalexander you make it sound like I was trying to brainwash the youth or something. I was not being dishonest, I honestly haven't even quite made up my own mind about Communism. Like I said there are pros and cons in a Communist system just like any other system. I think that "true" Communism, not the dictatorship you're talking about, isn't an altogether bad philosophy in that everyone would be equal and there would be peace if you could get it to work, and therein lies the problem. Like I said before it's not a practical system on a large scale because everyone would be getting small portions of everything and you're right Liam it doesn't take into account things such as the human tendency to love material goods.
So I'm not in any way saying it is a perfect system, all I'm saying is that as a strictly philosophical idea it's not as evil as everyone makes it out to be.
There was however one society (or I guess I should say group of societies) that came about as close to "true" Communism as any society ever has. That society (or societies) was the Native Americans. If you think about it they had a society that was very much Communist. For example if a hunter went out and Killed a deer he didn't keep all the meat to himself, he gave an equal portion to each family in the village, or when it came time to plant the crops every available person would come to help plant the crop. So basically everyone was willing to chip in wherever they were needed, and it worked because they applied it on a smaller scale, rather than having an entire nation to distribute the wealth among they only had a small village of probably no more than 20 people or so.

As for you calling me a socialist/communist that is a contradiction as I've already explained that Socialism and Communism are two different things, granted they are similar in some respects but they do have differences. To illustrate the differences lets use a hypothetical situation, say a community has a bunch of chickens. In a theoretical Communist system everyone would each get a chicken, now lets say everyone now has a chicken but there are not enough axes to go around. How are you supposed to kill a chicken without an axe, in a Communist system you would simply take turns with what axes you had (keep in mind this is a hypothetical situation, I know this probably wouldn't work in real life).
In a Socialist system on the other hand (again this is a hypothetical situation) the people would not divide the chickens evenly, the government would take the chickens and divide them among the population, but again we run into the same problem, there aren't enough axes so what do you think the govenment would do? Well this is where the Socialist theory degenerates because it doesn't really say what should happen in this kind of situation. So more than likely the government would keep what axes they had and tell the population "tough luck there aren't enough to go around." This is the same sort of thing Joseph Stalin did, hence the reason why the Soviet Union was actually a Dictatorial Socialist society rather than a Communist society. He of course wasn't withholding axes or chickens, he was keeping money and luxury goods for himself and telling the people there wasn't enough to go around, so he made himslef rich while his nation got poor.

Liam
15-09-2004, 12:07 PM
Stalin? Not really.
Brezhnev? Fuck yes.

hasselbrad
15-09-2004, 12:29 PM
Good or bad, it doesn't really matter. It can't work in any setting much larger than a family unit. It's a wonderful theory that human beings could share all possessions for the greater good, but the theory is flawed...because it is based on human beings sharing. Go to a playground...any playground...and count the kids crying because they can't get a turn on the swings or those little bouncy horseys. Sharing sounds great until you are forced to give up something you don't want to give up.
Sure, you may find 10 or 20 people who are willing to work together and share the fruits of their labors equally, but eventually human nature will take over, and someone will begin thinking they are pulling too much of the load and the infighting will ensue.
That, or a gang of bikers will show up, eat all of the food, beat up the men, impregnate the women and leave the commune a smoldering wreck. :icon_mrgr
Communism on a large scale. Fucking disaster.

BTW, Stalin didn't really withhold the axes or the chickens...he just killed millions of people to lessen the demand.

AureaMediocritas
15-09-2004, 01:24 PM
As can be read in Karl Marx's and Friedrich Engels' "Manifest of the communist party" , the whole communist ideology is based on the marxistic theory that throughout history, all societies have been eternally involved in fundamental
fights between a dominating class and a dominated one. Marx therefore insists on the fact that there have been four different types of societies before his time , himself living in the so-called "capitalism".

His initial idea consisted of the fact that the proletarians , literally oppressed by the rich owners of the big factories , living in very poor conditions ( funnily , some capitalists owned as well a tavern near their factory... ) and being
unprotected against the arbitrary decisions of their bosses , must revolt , as
happened before , and become themselves the leading class... In order to avoid new inequality , Marx intended to help creating some kind of ideal society without distinctions of any kind , a communist society.

He nevertheless was not so naive to believe that people in general would immediately fit into such a society , so he first foresaw to "educate" them in a socialist type of society and thus make them "ready" for communism.
A really communist society , as has been pointed out before in this threat ,
has never existed and is probably going not to exist ever ; the USSR have always been a "Union of Socialist Soviet Republics" , never a communist country.

Regarding the current development of "our" democratic societies plus the fact
that the working conditions of modern workers are almost impeccable , why is
there still a need for communism ? Differences between rich and poor people
do still exist but no one would die nowadays because they wouldn ' t get help
from the governments... If you really try , you should get a materially
satisfying life. In addition , democratic laws already assure general equality as
everyone is theoretically treated the same by the justice department.

-> Communism would be cool , but there is no really flagrant need for it.

Adolf-The-Apple
15-09-2004, 03:18 PM
Communism sounds like: "Everyone's happy and everything's fine." But in reality it doesn't work!

Best is my mother, when I tell her to buy a new car, a Lada 110, she says: "I will never buy a communism Car." :icon_rofl

PS: Sorry, I don't know what the adjective of "communism" is...

Liam
15-09-2004, 03:20 PM
'Communist'?

hasselbrad
15-09-2004, 04:46 PM
Marx intended to help creating some kind of ideal society without distinctions of any kind , a communist society.

Which is absolutely impossible due to human nature. Communism isn't good or bad, simply because it's impractical on virtually any scale. It's an idea, which may look good on paper, but doesn't really take into account that human beings behave in certain ways which run counter to the idea of communal living, which is why socialism has failed across the globe.

Narzys
15-09-2004, 07:20 PM
Some idea's behind it are good.
But it doesn't work.
Fun of life dissapears. :dontknowa

kalexander
15-09-2004, 09:37 PM
If anyone is stupid enough to change their beliefs on politics, religion or anything else for that matter because of a post on an internet forum, they have problems.

There has been no such thing as a true communist government, so there are no examples to point to. The theory is fundamentally flawed as it does not take into account ingrained elements of the human nature - competition, love of material goods, etc.

If it could work, it might be good. But it cant.
What? Should you get your opinions from Oprah or Homer Simpson? What a frivolous perspective.
Each of us are given a certain amount of time alive. Any influence on us is worth considering and assessing.

kalexander
15-09-2004, 09:45 PM
Kalexander you make it sound like I was trying to brainwash the youth or something. I was not being dishonest, I honestly haven't even quite made up my own mind about Communism. Like I said there are pros and cons in a Communist system just like any other system. I think that "true" Communism, not the dictatorship you're talking about, isn't an altogether bad philosophy in that everyone would be equal and there would be peace if you could get it to work, and therein lies the problem. Like I said before it's not a practical system on a large scale because everyone would be getting small portions of everything and you're right Liam it doesn't take into account things such as the human tendency to love material goods.
So I'm not in any way saying it is a perfect system, all I'm saying is that as a strictly philosophical idea it's not as evil as everyone makes it out to be.
There was however one society (or I guess I should say group of societies) that came about as close to "true" Communism as any society ever has. That society (or societies) was the Native Americans. If you think about it they had a society that was very much Communist. For example if a hunter went out and Killed a deer he didn't keep all the meat to himself, he gave an equal portion to each family in the village, or when it came time to plant the crops every available person would come to help plant the crop. So basically everyone was willing to chip in wherever they were needed, and it worked because they applied it on a smaller scale, rather than having an entire nation to distribute the wealth among they only had a small village of probably no more than 20 people or so.

As for you calling me a socialist/communist that is a contradiction as I've already explained that Socialism and Communism are two different things, granted they are similar in some respects but they do have differences. To illustrate the differences lets use a hypothetical situation, say a community has a bunch of chickens. In a theoretical Communist system everyone would each get a chicken, now lets say everyone now has a chicken but there are not enough axes to go around. How are you supposed to kill a chicken without an axe, in a Communist system you would simply take turns with what axes you had (keep in mind this is a hypothetical situation, I know this probably wouldn't work in real life).
In a Socialist system on the other hand (again this is a hypothetical situation) the people would not divide the chickens evenly, the government would take the chickens and divide them among the population, but again we run into the same problem, there aren't enough axes so what do you think the govenment would do? Well this is where the Socialist theory degenerates because it doesn't really say what should happen in this kind of situation. So more than likely the government would keep what axes they had and tell the population "tough luck there aren't enough to go around." This is the same sort of thing Joseph Stalin did, hence the reason why the Soviet Union was actually a Dictatorial Socialist society rather than a Communist society. He of course wasn't withholding axes or chickens, he was keeping money and luxury goods for himself and telling the people there wasn't enough to go around, so he made himslef rich while his nation got poor.
Even your moral code makes it clear that you're an advocate of an altruist society.

It is stupid and immoral for a person to be selfless. No one should give up their individuality and their fight to think for themselves, if they want to remain as ethical and honest.

For the rest, if any person tells you you should give your possessions to others, remember someone out there is going to collect them. It just might be those people who are doing the preaching.

Socialism/communism are the same: political systems based upon an altruistic, self-sacrificial moral code.

Don't sacrifice yourself for some unknown other person. Be the best you can be, the most able, competent and self-reliant person you can, and be proud to enjoy the rewards that you _earn_ by doing so.

Socialists/communists are crooks who will rob your property and your soul if you let them.

Marxist theory is third rate bunk. Any rational person who has half a wit can assess the validity of the abstractions at the basis of the scam-artist Marx's theory in a heart beat. His theory doesn't work because it is not science, not valid theory, and a body of ideas created to rob the people blind.

frodo1511
16-09-2004, 01:01 AM
Good idea on paper,
Bad idea in real life.

Nick
16-09-2004, 05:44 AM
Kalexander how can being selfless be immoral? Let's say for instance my neighbor needs help building a fence and I decide to offer to help him. By your reasoning it would be immoral of me to offer my neighbor some help. So I guess to be moral by your standards I should just wreck the fence as soon as he's done simply because I don't like the way it looks, and after all according to you being selfish is moral so I wouldn't be doing anything wrong.

kalexander
16-09-2004, 08:48 AM
Kalexander how can being selfless be immoral? Let's say for instance my neighbor needs help building a fence and I decide to offer to help him. By your reasoning it would be immoral of me to offer my neighbor some help. So I guess to be moral by your standards I should just wreck the fence as soon as he's done simply because I don't like the way it looks, and after all according to you being selfish is moral so I wouldn't be doing anything wrong.
What is selfless? It means being not concerned with your own needs or welfare, correct?
So when you say you should be selfless, you are saying that this value, or guide to your actions, is better than to be "concerned with your own needs or welfare". You are saying as a general rule, you should be more concerned with others' needs than with your own.
Now, consider your example. Your neighbor is building a fence. He needs help, so to you, on your moral code, it is the best thing you can do to stop whatever you are doing to accomplish aims that are important to you, in order to help him.
By the moral code I suggest, the moral thing to do is to be self-reliant, which also includes being goal directed. By this moral code, if you are working on your homework for college, or enjoying time with your wife or kids, or working on some project that is interesting and fun to you, you should first weigh your benefits and losses if you go and help your neighbor, before going there to do the job.
If, for instance, you are doing nothing important to you with your time, you might go help your neighbor. What does it cost you?
There are also lots of unanswered questions in your example. For instance, what happens if your neighbor building the fence is a hot-looking, single, young woman? Or, what if your neighbor is a crook, or some kind of bad person? Suppose they're your friend, and you enjoy your friendship with them?
Clearly, there are different moral actions you could take, depending upon circumstances.
And the latter part of your comment, that by my moral code you should wreck his fence if you don't like its looks--that would be violating his property rights--something you won't have in your communist/socialist state.
And I don't advocate being "selfish". I advocate being self-reliant and doing what's in your own interest. "Selfish" is being callous in regards to others, which is just plain mean, and does not fall within my moral code.
There are many people who promote the moral code of selflessness, so they can go around collecting the unearned benefits of the suckers that buy into that immoral code.

Nick
16-09-2004, 09:29 AM
I guess where we differ than is in our definitions of the word "moral."I don't think it's immoral to be selfless and you do. However I do see your point that no one can be completely selfless all the time because than you'd never get any of your own projects done. Although I still don't think it's immoral to perform an occasional selfless act out of generosity.

Liam
16-09-2004, 09:36 AM
What? Should you get your opinions from Oprah or Homer Simpson? What a frivolous perspective.
Each of us are given a certain amount of time alive. Any influence on us is worth considering and assessing.

No, I like to think that most people are intelligent enough to research a particular topic themselves and formulate their own opinion.

Worked for me.

Airman
17-09-2004, 04:41 AM
people write to much... to tell you the truth communism is great in theory, but it will never work as long as greed is around, and greed will never cease to exist... which totally sucks because I love communism... I mean um... GO DEMOCRACY... (pfft) :mad:

hasselbrad
17-09-2004, 02:12 PM
people write to much... to tell you the truth communism is great in theory, but it will never work as long as greed is around, and greed will never cease to exist... which totally sucks because I love communism... I mean um... GO DEMOCRACY... (pfft) :mad:

That's pretty much been the point of everyones' posts. It seems great, in theory. Not very practical in real life, though.

kalexander
17-09-2004, 02:50 PM
That's pretty much been the point of everyones' posts. It seems great, in theory. Not very practical in real life, though.
No. Lousy in theory, _and_ rotten in application.
You all can seek to live in a place where everyone kisses each other's ...
No thanks: I'd rather live in a place where everyone stands on their own two feet, and are damn good at what they do.
I lived once in Central America, where there was a community of Mennonites. One day I offered a Mennonite farmer walking down the road a ride into town. He asked me how much for the ride, and I told him not to worry about it. He politely asked me to stop the car and I let him out.
Then I said, OK, $0.50, at which point he accepted the offer and paid me the money. His value system said that free lunch was unacceptable.

This is a much different value system than altruism, and I think much better. It's not "greed", but self-reliance/competence.

hasselbrad
17-09-2004, 02:52 PM
You're right. Theory sucks too. I like that story about the Mennonite farmer.

MarkOB
17-09-2004, 09:13 PM
The economic philosophy of communism doesn't work, as has been said. The social philosophy believes in equality - an equal share of the misery for all.

It really can be put as simply as that.

You get these wiseguys now who say 'Oh, well, what happened in Russia, that's not REAL communism.' Because communism is concurrent with dictatorship so often, the 'real' communists like to distance themselves from the rest.

Democracy has never been rebranded. It has only ever modernised.

Communism has been rebranded more times than Madonna.

johnnyboy
17-09-2004, 11:44 PM
The ideals of Communism are perfect in a perfect world, but too bad, it isnt. Communism would be the perfect government if humans (all of us) weren't so damn greedy:(

kalexander
18-09-2004, 10:26 AM
The ideals of Communism are perfect in a perfect world, but too bad, it isnt. Communism would be the perfect government if humans (all of us) weren't so damn greedy:(
Complete bunk.

The "ideals" of communism stink. No privacy, nothing for your exclusive use, conformity to a stupid theory. "Equality" of everyone, rather than equal justice under the law is completely boring and only caters to the envious crowd.

Loving everyone equally is similarly bunk. Rather than paying people with affection for their earned traits of character, communists would adore Stalin, Doctor Death and any two-bit whore equally as much as Keira.

This is a disincentive to become a better person, and creates a world of little, weak people, rather than strong, able ones.

Communism is a scam theory used by those who want to steal the accomplishments of others, peddled to the ignorant or intellectually lazy in order to pursuade them to vote away their own property, using the envy of others as the bait.

As I said, communism is stupid, unsound theoretically and catastrophic when implemented on any kind of person, greedy or not.

Airman
22-09-2004, 12:30 AM
privacy has nothing to do with communism, we aren't talking stereotypical communist remarks, we're talking about the theory of communism itself... and i repeat privacy has nothing to do with communism... and to add to my previous post, communism is so simple it's complicated :) cool huh?!

Nick
22-09-2004, 06:43 AM
It seems that the point that keeps being reiterated is that Communism is good in theory but it's not a practical idea in the real world. So since most of us can agree on that try expanding your thoughts a little. No Communism isn't practical, but why? What is it that makes Communism so impractical? Is it really because humans are inherently greedy? How can we be so greedy considering that from the time we are small children we are taught to share? Than when we are adults suddenly we are expected to make as much money as possible so we can be good little Capitalists. So we are basically living in a hypocritical society where as children we are basically taught Communist ideals but than as adults we are expected to be greedy and make lots of money. This makes me think that maybe humans aren't inherently greedy, maybe we are only greedy because in this society that is what is expected of us.

hasselbrad
22-09-2004, 12:02 PM
It seems that the point that keeps being reiterated is that Communism is good in theory but it's not a practical idea in the real world. So since most of us can agree on that try expanding your thoughts a little. No Communism isn't practical, but why? What is it that makes Communism so impractical? Is it really because humans are inherently greedy? How can we be so greedy considering that from the time we are small children we are taught to share? Than when we are adults suddenly we are expected to make as much money as possible so we can be good little Capitalists. So we are basically living in a hypocritical society where as children we are basically taught Communist ideals but than as adults we are expected to be greedy and make lots of money. This makes me think that maybe humans aren't inherently greedy, maybe we are only greedy because in this society that is what is expected of us.

Sharing the swings so that everyone gets a turn during recess isn't communism. That's being polite. The sort of sharing we (as in my generation) were taught was polite. The sort of sharing that is taught in schools now is communist. When I was a kid, you got a list of school supplies and your mother bought them for you...for you. Nowadays, teachers send a list home that parents are supposed to buy, and then the teachers collect the supplies and put them into a common box for everyone. That is communism. That is the reason my daughter isn't going to public school. I realize this doesn't happen at every school, but it happens in enough of them. I'm sure the NEA would love nothing more than to help lead the fight to cram socialism down our childrens' throats. Makes it easier for the Democrats to brainwash later.
I love how someone who works hard and makes a lot of money is simply labeled greedy. Nevermind the fact that most people who do make a lot of money give very generously to charity. Is that greedy?

Nick
22-09-2004, 01:13 PM
Oh yes the whole give to charity to make myself feel better trick. That's all it is when those bluebloods give to charity it's just to make them feel better so they can sleep at night. They don't really give a damn about the charity they're donating to.

hasselbrad
22-09-2004, 01:41 PM
Oh yes the whole give to charity to make myself feel better trick. That's all it is when those bluebloods give to charity it's just to make them feel better so they can sleep at night. They don't really give a damn about the charity they're donating to.

Whatever it takes.
You're right...maybe those evil bluebloods should put their checkbooks away. We don't need arts programs, homeless shelters or cancer research.

Nick
23-09-2004, 05:27 AM
I didn't say we didn't need any of those charities, it's not the charities I have a problem with. I have a problem with aristocrats, you can't tell me most of those people aren't greedy. How do you think they became so wealthy? Yeah sure some of them give to charity but like I said it's because it makes them feel good not because they really care about those organizations. I think if you're going to give to a charity you should do it because you really believe in what that organization is doing not simply because it makes you feel good.

Jasper
23-09-2004, 01:07 PM
I didn't say we didn't need any of those charities, it's not the charities I have a problem with. I have a problem with aristocrats, you can't tell me most of those people aren't greedy. How do you think they became so wealthy? Yeah sure some of them give to charity but like I said it's because it makes them feel good not because they really care about those organizations. I think if you're going to give to a charity you should do it because you really believe in what that organization is doing not simply because it makes you feel good.

Um, I don't know about you dude, but when I give to charity. It makes me feel good. That's pretty much the whole point of doing it. To help others, and making you feel good in the process.

hasselbrad
23-09-2004, 01:10 PM
I guess rich people should just turn to drugs to feel good. Fuck helping the poor and downtrodden.
Lord knows if I was living under an overpass, I sure wouldn't want any help from some rich bastard just so he'd feel good! :err:

Nick
24-09-2004, 05:29 AM
I think you're all missing my point, I'm not saying giving to charity is a bad thing. I just don't like people who give to charity solely for the purpose of feeling good. Feeling good shouldn't be your motivation for giving to charity, truly and honestly wanting to help the less fortunate should be your motivation. I think there are a lot of people who give to charity because they've done something that they know is immoral and they think giving to charity will cancel out that immoral act somehow.

hasselbrad
24-09-2004, 12:46 PM
I think you're all missing my point, I'm not saying giving to charity is a bad thing. I just don't like people who give to charity solely for the purpose of feeling good. Feeling good shouldn't be your motivation for giving to charity, truly and honestly wanting to help the less fortunate should be your motivation. I think there are a lot of people who give to charity because they've done something that they know is immoral and they think giving to charity will cancel out that immoral act somehow.

The good feeling that comes from helping others is the by-product of wanting to help others. I buy Christmas presents for needy kids because I want to help them have the best Christmas they'll probably ever have. It gives me a feeling that's similar to being high.
My point is that it's impossible to separate the wanting to help from the good feeling it produces.
And, I think your last statement is false...that's why they go to church. ;)

Nick
25-09-2004, 09:13 AM
What I'm trying to say is I don't like it when people get arrogant about it. In other words they think they are just perfect and they can do no wrong because they gave to a charity. Now if you give to a charity and after you give to that charity and see what good it's done and you feel good about it, there's nothing wrong with that. For example when you give the presents to those needy kids you're not doing it for the sole purpose of trying to make everyone think you're this incredible person, you're doing it because you really care about the kids and if you feel good when you see the kids open their presents there's nothing wrong with that. I guess what I'm really trying to say is it's the people who give to charity just for publicity purposes alone to try and make themselves feel and look good in the public eye that really aggravate me.