Communism is not liberty
>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.
>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
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.