Communism is in.

[Elledan]

<< A check of history for anyone who takes off their blinders....should quickly reveal that any society brought up around any pure philosophical idea....lends itself to eventual destruction or at least severe stagnation. >>

Excellent argument. I fully agree.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Communism is hopelessly flawed system. It could never possibly succeed becuase of our n8 greed and the fact that no two people (let alone an entire society) will ever be equal. The only way to achieve "equality" would be through gov't coersion where everyone is "made" equal... and that simply does not work. Elites will always exist and will always find a way to be in power.

This is what happened in the USSR and what continues to happen in Castro's Cuba. The poor have nothing, and the governing elites retain all of the wealth. How is this better than any other system.

Never has. Never will.

 

[Elledan]

<< Communism is hopelessly flawed system. It could never possibly succeed becuase of our n8 greed and the fact that no two people (let alone an entire society) will ever be equal. The only way to achieve "equality" would be through gov't coersion where everyone is "made" equal... and that simply does not work. Elites will always exist and will always find a way to be in power.

This is what happened in the USSR and what continues to happen in Castro's Cuba. The poor have nothing, and the governing elites retain all of the wealth. How is this better than any other system.

Never has. Never will. >>

You could've have summarized your post by simply stating that greed (for power), together with other elements of Human nature will make any system fail to a certain degree.

The USSR wasn't so bad in the beginning. Lenin wasn't a tyran and the future was bright, yet then Stalin gained power and quickly became a tyran, similar to Sadam Hussein. During the period that Stalin was in power, the Communistic state was transformed into a tyranny.

It wasn't the fault of Communism, it were the people in power who are to blame for the downfall of the USSR.

 

[Moonbeam]

Does anyone ever consider that the hopelessness they express for human nature may be only a projection of their own personal feelings about their own personal state created by those feelings?

Who knows what man may become who doesn't even know himself?

 

[Zenmervolt]

<<Who knows what man may become who doesn't even know himself?>>

What "man may become" is all well and good, but it is completely irrelevant to a discussion on what is. If, at some point in the future human nature does a 180 and everyone suddenly (and irrationally) adopts altruism as his driving value, then communism may have a chance of working. However, the fact remains that currently most people do not act out of altruism, which makes any system based on altruistic principles (such as communism) a poor fit with the current nature of man.

ZV

 

[Rahminator]

<< Todays enlightenment for the followers of buddy:

Communism is a proven failure. At their height, the worlds most murderous regimes were communist. Why? Because the mental masturbation of intellectuals bent on utopian persuits always leads to failure.

Believe in yourself and God - not the state. >>



Invalid point. There was never such a thing as a true communist nation (b/c of human nature) so you can't tell if concept of communism is a failure or not.

 

[Tominator]

Just like there has never been a true Capitalist state....However, I'll take the latter anytime and in any form!

This discussion is typical of Communist Apologists who always state that the only reason Communism has failed is that it has never been tried with the right people.

 

[Ornery]

Simple question for Elledan that he either overlooked or chose not to answer before. Would the world be better off now with more industry and business or more grunts and workers? Take your time...

 

[Elledan]

<< Just like there has never been a true Capitalist state....However, I'll take the latter anytime and in any form! >>

Imagine Britain during the Industrial Revolution, but then a couple of times worse.

Wow, good choice.

I think that Ferocious was right when he said that every system which is based on some kind of ideology is doomed to fail.

Capitalism is based on the idea that a 'natural balance' will be reached after a while. However, as history shows, this balance is never reached.

 

[Elledan]

<< Simple question for Elledan that he either overlooked or chose not to answer before. Would the world be better off now with more industry and business or more grunts and workers? Take your time... >>


Both.

Whatever is necessary at a certain time.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

All I can say is this- be careful what you ask for. Pure capitalism would suck as much as pure communism. Capitalism maximizes profits. Remember lake Erie? Love Canal? And as someone said, remember the British industrial revolution. 12 year olds being crushed to death after falling into machinery at the end of a 16 hour day. That's one of the useful aspects of government. To keep us from falling into that trap. So... No one lives in a capitalistic or communistic society in anything like a pure form. The first is too cruel and greedy, while the second could never work because of human craving for power.

 

[Ornery]

"Whatever is necessary at a certain time. "

Would the world be better off now with more industry and business or more grunts and workers?

At what point in time would we be better off having too many workers? Oops, that's a second question. I don't want to overload anybody here...

 

[Moonbeam]

"What "man may become" is all well and good, but it is completely irrelevant to a discussion on what <I>is</I>."

Irrelevant, of course, when what he may become is unknown. Perhaps, had you any idea of what you were talking about, the only point would be that nothing else is relevant.


I think if bakners are interested in anything about Marx it would be his analysis of the flaws of capitalism and what therefrom might have application, but then I'm not a banker and have no real idea of the vision such an advocation would impart.

 

[Tominator]

<< Pure capitalism would suck as much as pure communism. >>



Why discuss 'pure?' There is and has been no such thing!

A large influx of one sure as hell beats a small influx of the other...every time!

 

[Elledan]

<< "Whatever is necessary at a certain time. "

Would the world be better off now with more industry and business or more grunts and workers? >>

It's so easy that it's just stupid:

to choose either of these choices would be choosing for an ideology. The only right, non ideological choice would be using whatever is necessary in each area. Since I'm no expert on economics, I'll refrain from making any choices, since it would be a mere unedicated guess.



<< At what point in time would we be better off having too many workers? >>

When the need presents itself. Do you want a date?


<< Oops, that's a second question. I don't want to overload anybody here... >>

Don't worry, it appears that there's another person here who might overload before that happens.

 

[Elledan]

<<

<< Pure capitalism would suck as much as pure communism. >>



Why discuss 'pure?' There is and has been no such thing!

A large influx of one sure as hell beats a small influx of the other...every time! >>

Don't be so idealistic.

Certain parts of Capitalism make sense. So do some parts of Communism. Actually of just about any system some parts are usable. Using these fragments, one can build a non-idealistic system, a system which is based on adaption and common sense.

 

[gotsmack]

<< And you are not. Go take a hike, or even better, a drive in your Yugo. >>



don't commies drive trebants? <sp?>

 

[Ornery]

Would the world be better off now with more industry and business or more grunts and workers?

Hell, I'll just keep asking this simple question till I get a simple answer.

At what point in time would we be better off having too many workers?

When in our history or future would we citizens be better off outnumbering available jobs? Under what circumstances would that be preferable?

That's another simple question! I have a simple one word answer, but I'll wait to hear the leftist/communist/socialist reply first.


I don't want to overload anybody here... should I ask more slowly?

 

[Zenmervolt]

<<Irrelevant, of course, when what he may become is unknown. Perhaps, had you any idea of what you were talking about, the only point would be that nothing else is relevant.>>

You may be free to spend your time considering the intricacies of the universe and the ultimate purpose of life. I, however, am not. I will content myself with working in the mundane world as it currently exists. The path of the mystic is honorable, but it is not a valid path for everyone. To borrow part of a phrase from Tenyson and adapt it a bit, mine is not to question why, mine is but to live with things as they are.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

<<to choose either of these choices would be choosing for an ideology. The only right, non ideological choice would be using whatever is necessary in each area. Since I'm no expert on economics, I'll refrain from making any choices, since it would be a mere unedicated guess.>>

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." What you are not seeing here is that your belief that you must use whichever works in a given situation is an idealogoly.

ZV

 

[Elledan]

<< <<to choose either of these choices would be choosing for an ideology. The only right, non ideological choice would be using whatever is necessary in each area. Since I'm no expert on economics, I'll refrain from making any choices, since it would be a mere unedicated guess.>>

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." What you are not seeing here is that your belief that you must use whichever works in a given situation is an idealogoly.

ZV >>

In that case pure logic is a mere ideology, which it obviously not.

Okay, let's nullify your argument:

An ideology never changes that on which it is based, being a set of ideals or ideas. Isn't pure logic devoid of any subjectivity, without any ideas or ideals to work towards to?

Conclusion: pure logic is not an ideology.

If one would choose either of these options presented earlier, one would choose for a certain kind of ideology, while not choosing either of these options means that one prefers to use whatever is necessary in a given situation. This choice is the most logical one. Any other choice would be inferior.

 

[Martin]

Its funny to see how people here defend mindlessly capitalism without realizing that it doesn't exist anymore in first or second world nations.

The US, canada, eurpoe, they'll all social democracies, some more so than others.




What people don't realize also, is that communism has had many positive effects on our current systems. England in the early 1800s was ugly and it was the threat of communism that made governments enact laws that protected workers for their tyrant employers.

 

[linuxboy]

An ideology never changes that on which it is based, being a set of ideals or ideas. Isn't pure logic devoid of any subjectivity, without any ideas or ideals to work towards to?

Woah. Sorry mate, you're wrong here. Which is what I keep trying to tell you. The selection of original premises or axioms within a set theorem is arbitrary. That's when you get to epistemic circularity. That's what Moonbeam and I keep trying to tell you and after we do you keep going, "sorry, your theory doesn't make sense". Of course not, it's outside your constraint system.


Cheers !

 

[Elledan]

<< An ideology never changes that on which it is based, being a set of ideals or ideas. Isn't pure logic devoid of any subjectivity, without any ideas or ideals to work towards to?

Woah. Sorry mate, you're wrong here. Which is what I keep trying to tell you. The selection of original premises or axioms within a set theorem is arbitrary. That's when you get to epistemic circularity. That's what Moonbeam and I keep trying to tell you and after we do you keep going, "sorry, your theory doesn't make sense". Of course not, it's outside your constraint system.


Cheers ! >>

In that case I would be incapable of seeing the truth behind certain statements and something much more fundamental would be wrong with me.

Unacceptable. I'm functioning normally.

 

[Scarpozzi]

I once took communism. It was pretty good, but they didn't use real wine. They used grape juice. I think we got ripped off. I talked to my pastor about it, but he said they couldn't give real wine to the kids...sucks.