Communism??

[Fire]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Aug 21 2004, 01:31 PM
Communism is simply not culturally acceptable to the majority of westerners. The idea of a dictatorship does does not blend easily with our values.

Yet we still vote the Liberals into power. When the Liberals had majority I would argue that Chretien was a dictator for the most part. His fellow Liberals had to vote his way or else.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Fire+Aug 22 2004, 04:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Fire @ Aug 22 2004, 04:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Aug 21 2004, 01:31 PM
Communism is simply not culturally acceptable to the majority of westerners.# The idea of a dictatorship does does not blend easily with our values.

Yet we still vote the Liberals into power. When the Liberals had majority I would argue that Chretien was a dictator for the most part. His fellow Liberals had to vote his way or else. [/b][/quote]
If that is really how you feel, then you have know idea the amount of crap that goes on in most other countries. Canada is probably one of the least corrupt nations, and one of the only ones where it is possible for ordinary civilians to work their way into high government offices.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally posted by Fire+Aug 22 2004, 01:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Fire @ Aug 22 2004, 01:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Aug 21 2004, 01:31 PM
Communism is simply not culturally acceptable to the majority of westerners. The idea of a dictatorship does does not blend easily with our values.

Yet we still vote the Liberals into power. When the Liberals had majority I would argue that Chretien was a dictator for the most part. His fellow Liberals had to vote his way or else. [/b][/quote]
all political parties are like that, the Conservatives were like it, and it's more to the party line in the US.

the theory behind it is, you join a party for their views and beliefs, then you carry through with said views and beliefs when elected (it's amazing how if you don't tow the party line you're a liar, if you do you're a dictator, and in Canada you're both!)

**********************************************

Also want to point out that yes indeed Communism wasn't invented by Marx but he was the one to merely explain the concept the best. If you pick up the most popular book in the world (the Bible) you'd see that Heaven is a very communisitic place (since I don't know the Bible THAT well I won't go as far as to say it is communisit, but the ideals are similar if not the same)

[Ozymandias]

I study political science, and for as much as a bane communism is to human nature, I believe Marx was right in saying we are not ready for a true communist revolution. I believe this will only come with the advent of super-advanced medicine and technology, when there is (if not near)-perfect solutions to our health, environmental, and societal issues. For example, if in the future medicine that cures a cancer with the pop of a pill is mass produced at a cheap price, then we can all be affored an opportunity to utilize an effective program of national healthcare. Likewise, if all the needs and amenities of food / shelter can be mass produced at extremely cheap prices due to technology, then we can have a proper program of national welfare.

Of course, human employment may be at risk in such an advanced-future, so there would be many flaws to say the least. However, Marx himself said that we are not truly free until we can look beyond basic needs that are taken care for. Are robotics and technology our saviours in this context? Who knows. All I know is that if I don't have to work or worry about survival, then I can truly follow the Marxist ideal of expanding my horizons creatively under an equally-distributed system.

Fire away!

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Maritime Q-Scout@Aug 22 2004, 05:06 PM

Also want to point out that yes indeed Communism wasn't invented by Marx but he was the one to merely explain the concept the best.# If you pick up the most popular book in the world (the Bible) you'd see that Heaven is a very communisitic place (since I don't know the Bible THAT well I won't go as far as to say it is communisit, but the ideals are similar if not the same)

That is true. It is well known that the pre-Roman people of Israel had formed a communal society. Many people believe that one of the reasons Jesus was killed by the Romans is because he was trying to re-establish communal living in Israel and the idea was spreading.

When many Jews settled in Europe during the middle ages, they brought with them a communal life style, so it's not surprising, given the rampant anti-Semetism in Europe, that many viewed communism with suspicion. Even still, many people (like Nazis) try to draw the line between communists and Jews as a reason to support anti-semetism or fear communism.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Jews+comm...n=20&fl=0&x=wrt

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Maritime Q-Scout@Aug 22 2004, 06:33 AM
Communism works in theory (whereas Capitalism does not)

Capitalism doesn`t work in theory? Tell us more about it.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Theory of socialism (communism) and capitalism:

http://www.mises.org/etexts/Soc&Cap.pdf

[Flame Of Liberty]

Another article:

Ludwig von Mises - A Hundred Years of Marxian Socialism

http://www.mises.org/mmmp/mmmp16.asp



Thinking that communism will ever work (when humans become angels and start poping pills that will make them fly) is pure phantasmagoria, nothing more nothing less.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Aug 22 2004, 05:51 PM

Thinking that communism will ever work (when humans become angels and start poping pills that will make them fly) is pure phantasmagoria, nothing more nothing less.

I would say the exact same thing about Libertarianism. Sounds good on paper, but it would never work, at least not combined with a modern nation state.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Aug 22 2004, 06:09 PM
I would say the exact same thing about Libertarianism. Sounds good on paper, but it would never work, at least not combined with a modern nation state.

Well if it will be combined with the state then it will not be Libertarianism

Stateless societies did exist (ie it`s NOT utopia), then they were overrun by centralized societies (states). Why did it happen is whole another topic though.

But I agree, these ideas are pretty hard to get across (thanks to state school system where people hear only one side of the story, guess which side it is)...but hey I am doing my bit here

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Aug 22 2004, 02:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Aug 22 2004, 02:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Maritime Q-Scout@Aug 22 2004, 06:33 AM
Communism works in theory (whereas Capitalism does not)

Capitalism doesn`t work in theory? Tell us more about it.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Theory of socialism (communism) and capitalism:

http://www.mises.org/etexts/Soc&Cap.pdf [/b][/quote]
in capitalism there's a winner and a loser. There's always a loser.

And in theory the process keeps going until there is one winner, and well then it's not capitalism anymore, it's not functioning as you need more than one company/firm/person controlling the economy.

[Clarkey]

It's great in theory but it doesn't work. Humans are constantly searching for power and because of that communism will always fail.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Aug 22 2004, 02:10 AM
Plus show me evidence that millions upon millions of women are killed in India each year. Because I can and will back up everything I have given as a fact, something I have the feeling you will not do.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=India+women+...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Weak evidence in my view but then why not look at the Chinese government which has all but had a hand directly in the killing of women by forcing couples (at least in urban communities) to only have one child and due to societal differences men are prefered as they are stronger. But lets see that has to do with capitalism and not due to their society right?

[FlamesAddiction]

Sure, why not look at that? I'm NOT denying that nasyt stuff happens in communist countries, but I'm just just saying that suffering is not limited to communism. Neither are intrincically evil.

Start reading my posts. You're replying like I was defending it, when I never was.

[troutman]

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.--Winston Churchill

[Table 5]

some of you communist apologists make me laugh.

you talk about how some people in eastern europe still support communism. you want to know why?

its pretty simple really. THEY were the communists in power. THEY were the ones opressing the others by being in high and nepotistic positions. THEY were the ones who had it good because they horded all the goods and services of their nation because of their political stature. And its not just political leaders of course, its the civic leaders, corrupt cops, party members, citizen spies etc. etc. Of course they want the lifestyle back....the cheated and opressed their way to fortune without deserving it, and had the upper hand in life.

im willing to bet none of you guys would be saying these things if you had experienced communism first hand, or even through your parents or relatives. well unless you were the bad guys of course....

But sure, on a very simplistic level, communism did provide its people with the basics though. I'll give you that. You had food ( thats if you didnt mind waiting in line for hours ), you had healthcare ( quality is another story though ), you had an education ( i just hope youre not too picky about what you want to be ), you had a car ( pity that you had to wait years to buy one, and it was a lada ) and yes, you even had your own apartment ( too bad the only reason you got it was because the government took away your house ).

communism is all about brackets really....there is always more going on than the outside layer would like you to think. too bad some of you fail to realize this and still cling to ideological beliefs as opposed to reality.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Table 5@Aug 23 2004, 04:15 PM
some of you communist apologists make me laugh.

you talk about how some people in eastern europe still support communism. you want to know why?

its pretty simple really. THEY were the communists in power. THEY were the ones opressing the others by being in high and nepotistic positions. THEY were the ones who had it good because they horded all the goods and services of their nation because of their political stature. And its not just political leaders of course, its the civic leaders, corrupt cops, party members, citizen spies etc. etc. Of course they want the lifestyle back....the cheated and opressed their way to fortune without deserving it, and had the upper hand in life.

im willing to bet none of you guys would be saying these things if you had experienced communism first hand, or even through your parents or relatives. well unless you were the bad guys of course....

But sure, on a very simplistic level, communism did provide its people with the basics though. I'll give you that. You had food ( thats if you didnt mind waiting in line for hours ), you had healthcare ( quality is another story though ), you had an education ( i just hope youre not too picky about what you want to be ), you had a car ( pity that you had to wait years to buy one, and it was a lada ) and yes, you even had your own apartment ( too bad the only reason you got it was because the government took away your house ).

communism is all about brackets really....there is always more going on than the outside layer would like you to think. too bad some of you fail to realize this and still cling to ideological beliefs as opposed to reality.

I wholeheartly agree with all of this, but the problem lies somewhere else.

These communist appologist think that these horrible things you just mentioned can be avoided (if people were angels), or they are not inherently `communist as it was intended` but a result of `human nature and its greed for power`.

That`s the tragedy. Thinking like that. Thinking that the problems lies only in people, not in the system.

Because things you just said are at the core of communism, it is what communism is all about. It is agression and violence on grand scale, this agression is `justified` as a proper tool to build their dream on Earth.

Very good post thought.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Maritime Q-Scout@Aug 22 2004, 06:30 PM
in capitalism there's a winner and a loser. There's always a loser.

And in theory the process keeps going until there is one winner, and well then it's not capitalism anymore, it's not functioning as you need more than one company/firm/person controlling the economy.

In capitalism there`s a winner and a loser? How?

Capitalism is based on voluntary exchange of property - trade. Two people trade because they expect that their ex post utility will be greater (greater than if they didn`t make the trade). How does that imply one of them will be a loser? Should there be a power (ie government) that would stop them from making the deal? These people chose to trade because they saw it as the best option they had. Forcing them to settle for less preferred option will make them winners? How?

You cannot compare interpersonal utility. Only people actually making the trade can assess it. They know what they are looking for from the trade. On the hockey board its widely understood - Team A trades a defenseman to Team B for a winger. Both teams filled their need, because Team A values winger more than the defenseman and vice versa. It makes sense when its about hockey. Why it doesn`t make sense when its about economy?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Table 5@Aug 23 2004, 04:15 PM
some of you communist apologists make me laugh.

Show me anywhere on this thread where someone is being an apologist for tyranny that occurred in communist countries. I certainly didn't, but I will also not be an apologist for capitalism, nationalism, or colonialism either - all of which have caused varying degrees of human suffering, but also have their upsides. I am quite open to my fondness of living in a capitalist society, and I hope to one day utilize to my benefit. I can however, see how some people in certain situations would only see the downside and would support communism.

If anything, simply calling communism "evil" is being an apologist for tyranny since it take the responsibility off the tyrant, and puts it on an "ism". Communism isn't evil by it's very nature, anymore than capitalism under an oppressive regime. Most of the time there are social and cultural things going on that are the cause of the suffering, and not an economic system.