Capitalism or Communism? Is communism really that horrible?

[Intense]

Practicality. The American spirit lives.

Well I suppose modesty is humbleness..

I don't think anyone really needs a BMW or marble bathroom and kitchen counters..

Doesn't matter. Why have we allowed ourselves to get to a mindset where we mouth phrases like "Well, no one really needs . . ."? What if that's what they want? Why are we willing to accept, even provisionally, the idea that everyone should be constrained to have just "enough", as defined by some sort of nationwide average or median or something?

It scares me that I posted a defense of the right of people to decide their own individual desires, and within five posts, people who were putatively agreeing with me have talked themselves back around to some liberal collectivist idea of "they don't need that".

While those setting the limits continue to live in luxury at our expense

 

[Flopper]

But flew the banner of Communists? Really?

Yes they were really not Communist at all. Not even close. They were totalitarian images of Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot.
There was no equality there at all. They were ruled by an iron fist as a result to a fragile government that had nothing to offer. One killed the educated. One held an assault on those that led the deposed regime and the other killed everyone they didn't like. This is not Communism or any kind of real government. It certainly wasn't any Communism I ever studied. The Communist theory was never accomplished and I don't believe it is workable on a giant scale.
They can call their governments anything they want. It doesn't make it true. If I call an apple bacon won't be bacon no matter how many times I say the word. .

By this logic, communists cannot criticize capitalism because true capitalism has never existed either.

This is merely a philosophical argument suited for a classroom and that's all. Truth is, dozens of countries attempted communism in one form or another. Whether or not it was "pure" communism is irrelevant because it presumes that human action fits nice and neatly into the dictums of some theoretician about how society should work, not how it actually does work. What matters is the driving force of social organization, not whether or not everything fits exactly as the communist philosopher theorized.

And today, there are only two countries which call themselves communist. One is slowly changing and will accelerate when the ancient brothers die off, and the other is a model no one else wishes to emulate.

Capitalism is a self regulated market system where Communism is a strict government run economy. Neither system works very well for very long. Capitalism can be very workable and sustainable with regulations. Communism can not. The only way it can produce a robust healthy economy is to divorce itself from it which is what China is doing. However, it's not really communism anymore.

 

[bripat9643]

When you are talking about human nature are you talking about that which is learned or the nature of a child who grows to create his or her own ideas?
If you had been born in say the old Soviet Union or CCCP would you have totally different ideas? Of course you would. Your entire learning system would have encourage That type of though.
If you would have been born in France I could say the same thing.
Human nature or the things we do are governed by what we have learned and been exposed to. So what really is human nature?
I don't believe Communism can work in large units.

By definition, human nature is not that which is learned. You are born with it. So your entire post is horse manure.

 

[bripat9643]

You are talking about a system of social systems put into place by the US. These social programs in no way reflect Communism or Socialism. They are reflective of bad management by those in authority.

They are socialist in nature.

End of story.

 

[bripat9643]

Communism cannot work due to nature of man.

About cover it?

Neither does capitalism, for much the same reason...

Horseshit. Capitalism works every time it's tried.

 

[bripat9643]

I have been trying to decipher what you are trying to say. You speak of progressives and I am not even certain what you believe this is. I have been trying to get a handle on this elusive term from your prospective.

From what I have gathered is you don't like the current welfare system in the US but have no clue how is should be ended.

Ending it would be the simplest thing in the world: Simply pass a bill terminating funding for all welfare programs.

 

[regent]

If you can't call things communism that aren't really communistic what good is communism? That has been the big gun of the Republican party since they started their attack on Social Security in 35.
Imagine if something had to be communistic before you could label it communism, why there might not have been a Senator McCarthy, and the Republican party would have been without its best attack dog for all these years.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

You are talking about a system of social systems put into place by the US. These social programs in no way reflect Communism or Socialism. They are reflective of bad management by those in authority.

They are socialist in nature.

End of story.

No they are not. They are social programs but not a part of a socialist ideology. Just because a program is implemented directed toward social systems does not make it socialism. If you think hand outs are a part of true Socialism you are wrong. In a Socialist or Communist society for that matter if you don't work you don't eat. The nature of handout welfare comes from nations that have capitalist societies. They are a correction within those systems to repair the disparity of wealth between upper and lower classes.
So you would be wrong in what you are saying, thinking, and believing.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

I have been trying to decipher what you are trying to say. You speak of progressives and I am not even certain what you believe this is. I have been trying to get a handle on this elusive term from your prospective.

From what I have gathered is you don't like the current welfare system in the US but have no clue how is should be ended.

Ending it would be the simplest thing in the world: Simply pass a bill terminating funding for all welfare programs.

That's a great idea and your nation would be ready to deal with the instant fallout? Charities would be up and running to handle those millions that have lived off your welfare system? Your doctors would open free clinics to help those that have been care for by your government?
You would have police at ready to handle the riots in the streets?
I am not saying you are wrong. I am asking how do you handle the end of a welfare state without creating chaos.

 

[Flopper]

Tell me about these Communist takeovers. What countries were truly Communist? Were these changes peaceable or did they come by means of revolution and war?

Communism cannot work due to nature of man.

About cover it?

No, I think Communism doesn't work because people like to own things, a lot of things.

 

[inALIENable]

I am asking how do you handle the end of a welfare state without creating chaos.

If they start chaos, fucking kill them all as you would any rabid animal. Gawdalmigthy, what do you think weapons are for? You use them to protect yourself from the chaos-doers. Kill anything and everything that threatens you!

 

[Unkotare]

Take your pills, Francis.

 

[bripat9643]

You are talking about a system of social systems put into place by the US. These social programs in no way reflect Communism or Socialism. They are reflective of bad management by those in authority.

They are socialist in nature.

End of story.

No they are not. They are social programs but not a part of a socialist ideology.

Of course they are part of a socialist ideology. They came into existence because socialists of all stripes endorsed them.

Just because a program is implemented directed toward social systems does not make it socialism.

Straw man argument. No one ever claimed that is the reason they are socialist.

Capitalism: private control of the means of production.

Socialism: Government control of the means of production.

If you think hand outs are a part of true Socialism you are wrong. In a Socialist or Communist society for that matter if you don't work you don't eat.

That was state policy under Stalin, but nowhere is that considered a core plank of socialist doctrine.

The nature of handout welfare comes from nations that have capitalist societies. They are a correction within those systems to repair the disparity of wealth between upper and lower classes. So you would be wrong in what you are saying, thinking, and believing.

Of course, you can only have handouts in a mixed economy because they have to be taken from producers to give to people who don't produce. If an economy is completely socialized, then government is the only producer, and nothing is considered a "handout."

Calling handouts a "correction" is akin to calling armed robbery a "reallocation" of finances.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

I am asking how do you handle the end of a welfare state without creating chaos.

If they start chaos, fucking kill them all as you would any rabid animal. Gawdalmigthy, what do you think weapons are for? You use them to protect yourself from the chaos-doers. Kill anything and everything that threatens you!

If all welfare systems were abolished it would literally put millions of peoples lives at risk. By your own logic, they should be the ones picking up weapons and coming after you.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

They are socialist in nature.

End of story.

No they are not. They are social programs but not a part of a socialist ideology.

Of course they are part of a socialist ideology. They came into existence because socialists of all stripes endorsed them.



Straw man argument. No one ever claimed that is the reason they are socialist.

Capitalism: private control of the means of production.

Socialism: Government control of the means of production.

You refute a straw man with a straw man? Food stamps in the government indirectly buying food for poor people, it is by no means the government controlling the means of production. Controlling the means of production means that the government owns or controls the farm.

 

[rdean]

Capitalism or Communism? Is communism really that horrible?

yes

 

[daveman]

Ideal communism, Most or all communism is corrupted. And i dont belive ideal capitalism exist either.

"Ideal" communism is doomed to failure because it proposes to control people's thoughts and motivations. It fails to take into account human nature.

As such, whenever tried, it immediately devolves into a totalitarian oligarchy.

Every. Single. Time. This is absolutely undeniable.

Anyone who thinks communism can "work" is either malevolent or stupid.

Malevolent because they know of the immediate devolution and they want to be in charge, or

Stupid because they ignore history and blame its bloody failures (if they even acknowledge they exist) on other factors.

"Communism never worked because the United States always interfered and never gave it a chance! When WE'RE running it, it'll be a paradise!"

 

[Katiegrrl0]

They are socialist in nature.

End of story.

No they are not. They are social programs but not a part of a socialist ideology.

Of course they are part of a socialist ideology. They came into existence because socialists of all stripes endorsed them.



Straw man argument. No one ever claimed that is the reason they are socialist.

Capitalism: private control of the means of production.

Socialism: Government control of the means of production.

If you think hand outs are a part of true Socialism you are wrong. In a Socialist or Communist society for that matter if you don't work you don't eat.

That was state policy under Stalin, but nowhere is that considered a core plank of socialist doctrine.

The nature of handout welfare comes from nations that have capitalist societies. They are a correction within those systems to repair the disparity of wealth between upper and lower classes. So you would be wrong in what you are saying, thinking, and believing.

Of course, you can only have handouts in a mixed economy because they have to be taken from producers to give to people who don't produce. If an economy is completely socialized, then government is the only producer, and nothing is considered a "handout."

Calling handouts a "correction" is akin to calling armed robbery a "reallocation" of finances.

I think you need to read up. Your errors are so many It would take forever to correct your mistaken thoughts. You are sounding like John McCain now it's getting silly.

 

[auditor0007]

Ideal communism, Most or all communism is corrupted. And i dont belive ideal capitalism exist either.

The entire concept of Communism is a joke. If everyone is equal, who decides who makes all the decisions? Why are only certain people running the show if everyone is equal? There is no such thing as equality, never has been and never will. It doesn't matter what system you want to describe, equality does not exist. In a capitalistic system or any democratic system, at least there is some equality of opportunity, but even that isn't true. Not everyone has an equal opportunity to become successful in their lives.

 

[inALIENable]

If all welfare systems were abolished it would literally put millions of peoples lives at risk. By your own logic, they should be the ones picking up weapons and coming after you.

Come after me? Why? I don't know any of them welfare people, I have nothing to do with them, I don't associate with their kind, I don't even give a rats ass about them. I mind my own business and affairs and give others no cause to come after me. If anyone does however try to fuck with me, I'll slaughter them and let my dogs have their corpse(s) for sexual pleasure and then dinner. Seriously, fucK off humanity, I want nothing to do with your kind, humans SUCK! Leave me alone. Leave everyone alone. GD f'n humans, what the hell is wrong with some of you out there anyhow? Gawdalmigthy, what a creepy species. Planet lice.