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.
What makes just about anything whether its an idea, product, service, etc. successful is having a real world practical application. Communism completely lacks the ability to be practical since it requires humans not to be humans. Human Beings do not possess the ability for pure equality since just about everyone likes having a leg up on the competition, quite a few people try to be unique (whether they are just copying others trying to be unique is another topic), and want to pass whatever advantages they have in life to there children. So having a purely equal society is never going to work. It's not because humans are inherently evil are lack the ability to be compassionate as marxists claim its because communism doesn't understand human behavior since Marx never understood human behavior or he wouldn't have made such a huge blunder.
So the only way to have a purely classless equal society is to use force to do so. That requires the government to implement communism or any type of collectivist system. The problem when a government becomes communist is that they end up with people who enjoy being in charge of others and for the most part could care less about there citizens. They will repress anyone who dissents against them as well. The 1984 novel and film was quite accurate in its description of the techniques the government would use in the name of the greater good which they could care less about but used to keep the people in line, and how repressive collectivism can truly be. The ironic thing is that the novel was written by a socialist.
So to sum up communism and socialism in one word when it has been put into practice would be the word "inhuman".
When an atrocity occurs under the false name of "Communism" everyone points out just how bad Socialism and Communism are (even though they are two distinct ideas). When an atrocity occurs under Capitalism, it is never brought up.
People assume that just because a corrupted version of Communism that was forced did not work that Socialism and Communism cannot work. Then it is completely overlooked that there are plenty of countries slowly making the move to Socialism and doing better than literally all other nations in many aspects.
When an atrocity occurs under the false name of "Communism" everyone points out just how bad Socialism and Communism are (even though they are two distinct ideas).
They are both for the removal of private property rights. The only way to do that is to empower the government to do so. That gives the government absolute power and as the old saying goes "absolute power corrupts absolutely". So the outcome will always be the same regardless of minor differences in theory.
Quote:
When an atrocity occurs under Capitalism, it is never brought up.
Because capitalism (a term invented by Marx no less) is basically being able to buy and sell goods and own property. Something that has been around way before Marx was ever born. Its not inherently good or evil but it is a very human system unlike communism and other collectivist systems.
Quote:
People assume that just because a corrupted version of Communism that was forced did not work that Socialism and Communism cannot work.
They haven't worked because they literally can't work. That is what you and others on here promoting communism and trying to dismiss its faults don't grasp. The only way for pure equality to work is through the use of force and all that creates in the end is corruption and tyranny.
Quote:
Then it is completely overlooked that there are plenty of countries slowly making the move to Socialism and doing better than literally all other nations in many aspects.
Name them then. Seriously by all means show me which countries right now are thriving due to Socialism and not because of Capitalism that are not repressive. No first world country practices socialism. The welfare state if that is what you are referring to is not socialism. Adam Smith advocated the government using resources for the general welfare of society and Hayek who debated communists constantly pointed out that the government does have a responsibility for the general welfare of its citizens. Hayek rightfully pointed out that the welfare state later on got to be considered socialist because of stupidity of conservative politicians and the communists and the left leaning politicians who are more supportive of collectivism were cleaver in getting the two to become known for being the same when they aren't.
Yes two self avowed socialists are going to point out the millions killed by communism. After all it's not like they have a hidden agenda or anything.
Typical communist bull**** remark sweeping millions of deaths under the rug.
Marxism is a forerunner of communism. It's the philosophical construct behind communism. But Marxism itself has never ever been implemented. The fact that you use the two interchangeably, not distinguishing between Marxism and communism (of which there are many forms---are you so naive that you think the form of communism practiced in Cuba is exactly the same as the communism practiced in China?) shows that you would benefit particularly from taking a class on Marxism.
Fascism is the same thing as socialism. "The road to serfdom" an excellent book clearly explains why. Progressives also have a lot more in common with fascists and socialists then they do with classical liberalism.
Fascism and socialism are two very different things.
Fascism is government-assisted corporatism coupled with nationalism as the governing principle of diplomatic and foreign relations.
Socialism is about workers owning and managing the means of production, and it disdains nationalism entirely.
I guess you missed the whole practical application of marxism part of the course.
Yeah, because if I took a course on Shakespeare and one of the assignments was to write a modern play segment in the manner of Shakespeare prose, that would make me Shakespeare, right?
Yes. Well, I'm still not convinced the Young Republican/Tea Party Classes would pass the muster of necessary faculty/Committee approval and fit in among these other fine classes being offered through the PSU Chiron Studies:
Art Within Activism (4 credits)
Flood of Change: Vanport: Portland History Through a Social Justice Lens (4 credits)
History & Theory of Anarchism (4 credits)
Revolutionary Marxism: Theory & Practice (4 credits)
Portland State Chiron Studies | Spring 2012 Chiron Studies Courses (http://pdx.edu/chiron/spring-2012-chiron-studies-courses - broken link)
You left out "Exploring Buffy the Vampire Slayer (4 credits)"
Marxism is a forerunner of communism. It's the philosophical construct behind communism. But Marxism itself has never ever been implemented. The fact that you use the two interchangeably, not distinguishing between Marxism and communism (of which there are many forms---are you so naive that you think the form of communism practiced in Cuba is exactly the same as the communism practiced in China?) shows that you would benefit particularly from taking a class on Marxism.
Read my other statements. I've already explained regardless of the minor differences in theory it always leads to the same conclusion. You would know that if you bothered to read my comments which you clearly didn't.
Yeah, because if I took a course on Shakespeare and one of the assignments was to write a modern play segment in the manner of Shakespeare prose, that would make me Shakespeare, right?
Talk about deflection. The course is run by socialists and it's very obvious that its going to be an indoctrination course nothing more nothing less. I take it a lot of people on here saying they don't see the problem with this have never been to college or forget what it's like going to college. Since you do encounter preachers in college not professors who don't want to actually teach but just force there beliefs upon you. If you question there beliefs they tend to do there best to fail you for daring to question them and I'll bet everything I own that's how this course is run by the professors.
Read my other statements. I've already explained regardless of the minor differences in theory it always leads to the same conclusion. You would know that if you bothered to read my comments which you clearly didn't.
OH, I read you, dear. Unfortunately, your assertion that it always leads to the same conclusion is irrelevant. The course is about studying a particular philosophy. Like a course that studies Friedman economics and how Friedman's theories might be applied. Like a course studying behaviorism in psychology. We take certain theorists, and break down the theories, study how they function, where they fail. Studying Marx and his version of communism is no different than studying Keynes and his economic theories. We study specific people and theories to gain a larger understanding of a broader topic. The fact that you don't want people to study a subject like communism says a lot about you. Like how you want to hide your head and close your eyes instead of deal with reality. You know, the reality that there are countries in the world that embrace communism. Understanding what they are embracing adds to our understanding of those countries, of their people, of their economic and foreign policies. Understanding and knowledge are what we need. Not people who advocate for ignorance.
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.
What makes just about anything whether its an idea, product, service, etc. successful is having a real world practical application. Communism completely lacks the ability to be practical since it requires humans not to be humans. Human Beings do not possess the ability for pure equality since just about everyone likes having a leg up on the competition, quite a few people try to be unique (whether they are just copying others trying to be unique is another topic), and want to pass whatever advantages they have in life to there children. So having a purely equal society is never going to work. It's not because humans are inherently evil are lack the ability to be compassionate as marxists claim its because communism doesn't understand human behavior since Marx never understood human behavior or he wouldn't have made such a huge blunder. 
