Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
You know where that ^^^ came from, right?
[/i]
Yes we all know where that came from, the problem is that you seem to discount the fact that “liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are not allowed under communism.
Yes we all know where that came from, the problem is that you seem to discount the fact that “liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are not allowed under communism.
Man Made Climate Change does not allow "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" either. Their solutions are all counter to that, and it is the replacement for Communism since Communism failed.
Let me sum this up for you....
what you wrote...sounds great on paper, however, to make it work you have to force people to abide by it or be severely punished. How do you think communism worked under Stalin, Castro and Mao?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz
Or, can we?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
You know where that ^^^ came from, right?
You have little idea about what communism is about. There is nothing wrong with its principles.
All have the same rights.
All work and are productive to society.
To each according to his needs and from each according to his capabilities.
What's wrong here? All this bs about women being shared and else, is propaganda and sick fantasy of those, who got their hands on power in country, whose population they hated like nothing else in the world.
What will be the influence of communist society on the family?
It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage – the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents. And here is the answer to the outcry of the highly moral philistines against the “community of women”. Community of women is a condition which belongs entirely to bourgeois society and which today finds its complete expression in prostitution. But prostitution is based on private property and falls with it. Thus, communist society, instead of introducing community of women, in fact abolishes it.
What will this new social order have to be like?
Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole – that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society. It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association. Moreover, since the management of industry by individuals necessarily implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the manner and form in which the control of industry by private property owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual management of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement – in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods. In fact, the abolition of private property is, doubtless, the shortest and most significant way to characterize the revolution in the whole social order which has been made necessary by the development of industry – and for this reason it is rightly advanced by communists as their main demand.
The biggest issues I have with communism (or similar concepts):
1. Individual people are valued less than the achievement of some societal goal, or common good.
2. The idea that it’s justified to aggress against your neighbor or take their belongings because you need it, or because they simply have more than you, is the antithesis of civilization itself.
It’s a recipe for disaster when the majority (or whoever is in power to “represent everyone”) view individuals as pawns in some scheme. Instead of allowing people free will and choice in their lives, a system is forced upon them, and dissent is criminalized.
If you refuse to go along with the scheme, even if you’re not initiating force against anyone else or their property, you’re viewed as “harming society” and that’s the justification to use force against you. It’s so twisted.
The very concept goes against the very nature of humans. We can't all be "equal", there are lots of smart and lots of stupid people, and the smart ones naturally will gain more, so why did so many in the 20th century actually think the concept of Communism was ever good or could even work? There's a reason every Communist country has ALWAYS been ruled by the worst dictators ever.
The proper adjective to describe communism or socialism is EVIL.
And here is that reason. The new leaders wrested power from interests who already had organized power bases, and had to be draconian to keep at bay formidable enemies within and without. You couldn't just give them freedom to strengthen the underground and easily overthrow you.
Hitler, Franco, Salazar, The Shah, Marcos, Amin, Park, Mobutu, Batista, Duvalier,were all virulent enemies of Communism
The only way to implement communism is through dictatorship, tyranny and genocide.
Name one communist idea that can be implemented without violence. By violence, I mean slaughtering or threatening to slaughter a large percentage of the people.
Last edited by lifeexplorer; 09-19-2019 at 09:12 AM..
The lure of communism isn't success, it's retribution. It's about teaching those with wealth a lesson. It's about "I'm going to get you."
The lure of communism is an ideal of a fair relation between the capitalist and worker. The business owner and capitalist have an advantage over the worker and exploit this position to the limit.
Communism not only makes this situation worst, it even damages other areas of social life.
So although capitalism is a superior systems, it is not working for vast numbers of people. The root of the problem is paying people for their time. A business owner or investor is not paid for their time but for the fruits of their labour. This needs to apply to workers. When a new technology is developed to increase productivity workers do not benefit, the benefit is transfered to the capitalist. As always the person with the money has the advantage.
Although it is certain people who have the capacity to accumulate, and invest money, it is through the workers that the capital was accumulated. So the answer is not to redistribute it through government programs. It is to bring the worker to a position where he can be a business partner and not a disposable wage earner. That way he won't need government assistance, but be also able to rely upon the fruits of his labour.
People in the US can borrow trillions of dollars thanks to the strongest economy and strongest military force. It is an unsuatainable aporoach that hides the flaws of capitalism. Most third world countries are too busy trying to work for their next meal. Only some people think of ideals like the one I showed.
Reading through 5 pages of replies, I am actually pleasantly surprised. A few ignorant comments, but mostly intelligent replies to the question. You don't see that much on this forum.
The lure of communism is an ideal of a fair relation between the capitalist and worker. The business owner and capitalist have an advantage over the worker and exploit this position to the limit.
Communism not only makes this situation worst, it even damages other areas of social life.
So although capitalism is a superior systems, it is not working for vast numbers of people. The root of the problem is paying people for their time. A business owner or investor is not paid for their time but for the fruits of their labour. This needs to apply to workers. When a new technology is developed to increase productivity workers do not benefit, the benefit is transfered to the capitalist. As always the person with the money has the advantage.
Although it is certain people who have the capacity to accumulate, and invest money, it is through the workers that the capital was accumulated. So the answer is not to redistribute it through government programs. It is to bring the worker to a position where he can be a business partner and not a disposable wage earner. That way he won't need government assistance, but be also able to rely upon the fruits of his labour.
People in the US can borrow trillions of dollars thanks to the strongest economy and strongest military force. It is an unsuatainable aporoach that hides the flaws of capitalism. Most third world countries are too busy trying to work for their next meal. Only some people think of ideals like the one I showed.
I think the bold is wrong. Workers are more productive when they’re provided with new technology, and are therefore worth more. Employers are the ones who use their own resources to set up a facility with good equipment, and then the employees they hire make use of them. Without the employer, they don’t have any of that...unless they start their own business and be their own employer, which they’re always free to do in a capitalist society.
I think of how workers in Central America, Africa, or poor Asian countries are paid less because they’re inherently worse at their jobs...it’s that their economy is bad and they haven’t built up the same amount of wealth as advanced countries, so they (or the employer) can’t afford the new technology that makes them more valuable. A worker in the US is worth more because their employer has the money to buy equipment that makes them more productive.
So, I definitely wouldn’t say the employees don’t benefit. Everyone benefits.
Alexander Romannov's big mistake was not changing and allowing the people a bigger say in Russia. Some of his advisors even said he needed to do that. The example given was Great Britain that went from a complete rule by the monarch to rule by the parliament with the people having a voice.
The Bolsheviks saw this and pounced on this opportunity to usher in communism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
