Communism
- Thread starter Dys
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's story time children!
One day a communist was walking through the poorest suburb of a city. To his left and right, all he could see were the destitute and diseased, old and weak, living and dying on the streets. Shocked by what he saw, he decided to walk to the wealthiest neighbourhood to see how the rich lived. There he saw an enormous mansion, complete with all the luxuries a man could want. Appalled, he remarked
"No man should have so much."
His colleague, a capitalist philosopher, came up beside him and replied
"No, my friend. All men should have so much."
Hope that says something for you. If you want to really understand utopias (and why they won't work), I humbly recommend that you read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World .
That is all.
One day a communist was walking through the poorest suburb of a city. To his left and right, all he could see were the destitute and diseased, old and weak, living and dying on the streets. Shocked by what he saw, he decided to walk to the wealthiest neighbourhood to see how the rich lived. There he saw an enormous mansion, complete with all the luxuries a man could want. Appalled, he remarked
"No man should have so much."
His colleague, a capitalist philosopher, came up beside him and replied
"No, my friend. All men should have so much."
Hope that says something for you. If you want to really understand utopias (and why they won't work), I humbly recommend that you read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World .
That is all.
*facepalm*talon92 said:
I'm not going to go overboard with what is silly about that story, but I will point out that capitalism doesn't work if everyone is wealthy. It relies on their being a working class and there being people who are better off than others. This is a very flawed example.
Anyway, just going put this back out there, this thread was supposed to be more about it being annoying when people blindly use terms they don't understand (not necissarily limited to politics), rather than a debate on the pros and cons of communism (although this is also fun).
Oh, my, that is appalling...talon92 said:
See, as stated above, capitalism doesn't work if everyone has lots-o-cash.
Also, I don't feel that the communist's statement is the full thing. That doesn't really hit the main idea of the system.
Both characters' statements inaccurately reflect their respective economic beliefs.
The communist would make more sense saying, "No man should have so much when others have so little."
The capitalist would make more sense saying, "No, my friend, some men should have so much."
Decide which one sounds more asshole-ish on your own...
communism is perfect in theory. it is putting it into practice aand human corruption that ruin it
there has only been one true communist society, and tht was the mormon state of deseret, it worked perfectly until the U.S. government tokk the land by force and made the mormons live by their rules.
there has only been one true communist society, and tht was the mormon state of deseret, it worked perfectly until the U.S. government tokk the land by force and made the mormons live by their rules.
Communism is perfect and absolutely every1 has what he wants and doesn't need anything that he doesn't want.
This in term leads to what is called as indifference and laziness. If no man has desires no results will be fulfilled and nothing will become of the human race. Communist states and that includes the state of deseret were never truly communist because there will always be a ruling class and a subjugated class. Communism can only be fulfilled if no man has more than the next and that is impossible because even nature itself makes communism impossible by making one man smarter than the otehr.
In a communist state no economy thrives and the only desire the state has is to keep every1 fed. Nothing else, nothing more because every1 is equal and has no desires. Now if every one is equal who will scrub the toilets of the restaurant owner. Why isn't the toilet scrubber the owner of the restaurant and why does the restaurant owner even own a restaurant when it should belong to every1?
Communism is a dream and impossible to work with human society because every1 is striving to be more than what he is.
And I will demonstrate that by using the very argument communism is built on.
No classes.
First of all one may own resources to the means of production in communism. This leading to people striving to obtain those resources and every individual getting the chance to obtain those resources. However there are limited resources meaning that there will be a group which has resources and a group without.
Out of communism, a classless system in itself, grows a new class order.
The materialists and the labourers.
Now the materialists may choose with whom to share their resources and thus become the ruling class while the labouring class becomes the subjugated class that strives to earn the good will of the materialists.
This example of the very foundation of communism resulting in a class system within a dream in which no classes exist shows that communism itself is false and failing.
This in term leads to what is called as indifference and laziness. If no man has desires no results will be fulfilled and nothing will become of the human race. Communist states and that includes the state of deseret were never truly communist because there will always be a ruling class and a subjugated class. Communism can only be fulfilled if no man has more than the next and that is impossible because even nature itself makes communism impossible by making one man smarter than the otehr.
In a communist state no economy thrives and the only desire the state has is to keep every1 fed. Nothing else, nothing more because every1 is equal and has no desires. Now if every one is equal who will scrub the toilets of the restaurant owner. Why isn't the toilet scrubber the owner of the restaurant and why does the restaurant owner even own a restaurant when it should belong to every1?
Communism is a dream and impossible to work with human society because every1 is striving to be more than what he is.
And I will demonstrate that by using the very argument communism is built on.
No classes.
First of all one may own resources to the means of production in communism. This leading to people striving to obtain those resources and every individual getting the chance to obtain those resources. However there are limited resources meaning that there will be a group which has resources and a group without.
Out of communism, a classless system in itself, grows a new class order.
The materialists and the labourers.
Now the materialists may choose with whom to share their resources and thus become the ruling class while the labouring class becomes the subjugated class that strives to earn the good will of the materialists.
This example of the very foundation of communism resulting in a class system within a dream in which no classes exist shows that communism itself is false and failing.
Communism works in theory (equality for everyone? no more being pushed around by the upper classes? sounds good to us, the poor factory workers) but would never work in practice due to a fact that several before me have stated, there is always going to be a leader/ruling class and it is important that we have a leader/ruling class.
Communism would only be even remotely appealing to the poverty stricken and the 'oppressed masses' due to the fact that it promises something more for them (whether it delievers is another question) while those in authority or those who have amassed even a small amount of wealth would only stand to lose in such a system (to keep them equal with everyone else), with this in mind we would have to ask if we would have progressed socially, technologically and culturally as we have if we all lived in a communist society? (after all, if every job and achievement recieves the same reward, what motivation is there to excel or innovate?)
Others it may prove to be appealing to are: revolutionaries, dictators and college boys who want to come across as 'cool' and 'sophisticated' for that hot babe in photography.
Communism would only be even remotely appealing to the poverty stricken and the 'oppressed masses' due to the fact that it promises something more for them (whether it delievers is another question) while those in authority or those who have amassed even a small amount of wealth would only stand to lose in such a system (to keep them equal with everyone else), with this in mind we would have to ask if we would have progressed socially, technologically and culturally as we have if we all lived in a communist society? (after all, if every job and achievement recieves the same reward, what motivation is there to excel or innovate?)
Others it may prove to be appealing to are: revolutionaries, dictators and college boys who want to come across as 'cool' and 'sophisticated' for that hot babe in photography.
i think i would just like to point out something.
im an aussie, i payed attention in "aborigina; studies" too. what i gethered was that they managed to have a true communism going. everyone was equal, everyone got the same amount of food, everyone worked the same amount etc. it was only because of this that many were able to survive in the conditions they had. the only lack of freedom they had was anything that would threaten their tribe. even their leaders (the elders) would get the general concencus.
it seems to me like everyone is looking through scratched lenses or something.
the reason i don't see it working on large scale is because it can fail by self-forfilling prophesies
im an aussie, i payed attention in "aborigina; studies" too. what i gethered was that they managed to have a true communism going. everyone was equal, everyone got the same amount of food, everyone worked the same amount etc. it was only because of this that many were able to survive in the conditions they had. the only lack of freedom they had was anything that would threaten their tribe. even their leaders (the elders) would get the general concencus.
it seems to me like everyone is looking through scratched lenses or something.
the reason i don't see it working on large scale is because it can fail by self-forfilling prophesies
Agreed. At least communism means less exploitation.harhol said:
Uh-huh. What's your argument based on? Oh wait, nothing. At least provide some intelligent discourse or don't bother entering into the conversation.letsnoobtehpwns said:
This is another pointless argument. How many major countries are communist? Oh wait, 1; Russia. People are ridiculously harsh on a system that existed for less than a century, compared to capitalism, which has existed for over 2 millenia.ohellynot said:
Besides, true communism has never even existed.
