Communism..Good or bad?

[jebckr]

I think history has proven the ill effects of communism. As said, a great idea on paper, but when put into effect human nature throws off the balance. People want to advance, want power, want wealth. Communism does not offer it, so in my opinion, it will eventually fail.

 

[jaamal]

I think history has proven the ill effects of communism. As said, a great idea on paper, but when put into effect human nature throws off the balance. People want to advance, want power, want wealth. Communism does not offer it, so in my opinion, it will eventually fail.

The want to strive is important in many cases, but striving can mean more then money. The power to balance peoples lives in your hand is power, and advancing in education is still good instead of social class, the only thing that isn't offered is wealth and money causes so many problems anyway.


Also I hate when people say history will repeat itself like all democratic forms of government succeeded in the smaller countries that tried.

 

[Gnomey]

Ok, so you are saying that because someone grew up in a major city that they brought it upon themselves if they are poor/homeless? like what shredder said, they might of been born into poverty.

are you saying every janitor didnt work hard in school? because i know a student that got some tuitions for high school, but he chose to be a janitor instead. he is a 3.4gpa student. not all janitors are lazy people.

edit/

and actually, i donate money about 4 times a year to a local homeless shelter, i donate my time to help there lives. all im saying is that if we donated some, we could help some get there lives back on tract. Yes there are some who just keep on skating by in life, living off of the free stuff, but there are some who are able to turn there lives around.

It doesn't matter where people are born, their family, how they grew up, or anything. People that live rich, posh lives fail and people that have nothing succeed. Using the US as an example, what about the immigrants who came here with nothing, some without the ability to speak English, and make a life for themselves. Capitalism is all about PERSONAL MOTIVATION. If you're willing to work harder than the next guy, you'll get more. If people who have very little when they're younger choose to use it as an excuse or reason to not try, that's their problem.

A 3.4 GPA isn't that good. Just because he didn't want to work harder, take out a loan, or work jobs while taking classes doesn't mean I should have to -pay for it. MANY people work multiple jobs as a student. He could have, and should have joined them, but he CHOSE to not, and as such, deserves less than the students that do take out loans and work during college to pay for it.

Just because you're a sucker doesn't mean everyone has to be.

In my opinion communism is good. From what i've seen of the capitalistic ways USA practices, anything is better really. Fucking imperialistic pigs.

This has NOTHING to do with my education. In fact, most schools here promote Right-wing ideas. I've researched socialism/communism/capitalism and since i'm a paganist, capitalism is definately NOT the way to go. Way to kill the earth. If i could decide, we would be back in small villages without electricity, industrys or money.

Oh, I see, because the USA is the only capitalist nation. As for the latter part, feel free to make your own Amish spin-off where you do that, but sadly, communism doesn't meet your odd needs either.

The want to strive is important in many cases, but striving can mean more then money. The power to balance peoples lives in your hand is power, and advancing in education is still good instead of social class, the only thing that isn't offered is wealth and money causes so many problems anyway.

Also I hate when people say history will repeat itself like all democratic forms of government succeeded in the smaller countries that tried.

Just because you have good intentions doesn't mean everyone does. Anyone can make a life for themselves, they just have to work for it. If people don't want to, well frankly that's there problem.

 

[TJ]

A 3.4 GPA isn't that good. Just because he didn't want to work harder, take out a loan, or work jobs while taking classes doesn't mean I should have to -pay for it. MANY people work multiple jobs as a student. He could have, and should have joined them, but he CHOSE to not, and as such, deserves less than the students that do take out loans and work during college to pay for it.

so you are saying if you get a 3.4 gpa then you didnt work that hard? what if they gave it there all, studied day and night but still ended up with a 3.4 gpa? i agree that we all shouldnt have to pay for it, but you should be willing to help your fellow man, in a time of need.

 

[Shredderbeam]

This has NOTHING to do with my education. In fact, most schools here promote Right-wing ideas. I've researched socialism/communism/capitalism and since i'm a paganist, capitalism is definately NOT the way to go. Way to kill the earth. If i could decide, we would be back in small villages without electricity, industrys or money.

Capitalism is not designed to kill the earth. If it does as a by-product, oh well. The Earth is not a living entity. It will survive.

So, if you could decide, you'd undo a massive chunk of science's progress, without regard to the fact that science improves lives?

 

[Gnomey]

so you are saying if you get a 3.4 gpa then you didnt work that hard? what if they gave it there all, studied day and night but still ended up with a 3.4 gpa? i agree that we all shouldnt have to pay for it, but you should be willing to help your fellow man, in a time of need.

If they can't achieve more than a 3.4 working day and night, it's not a "time of need", it's a "life of need". People with 3.4 GPAs can do better than a janitor, and could easily work a second job if need be. In order to keep their kids out of Detroit Public Schools, the parents of some kids at my school work 4 jobs to cover living expenses plus tuition. I have to work in order to help my parents pay for mine. I did well for years in DPS, others at my school choose to not. Some didn't care, some dealt drugs, and to be quite honest some died before graduation. We only recently moved out of the area, and now live in a relatively nicer area, but I still benefit from a change in venue when it comes to schools. Now, back to my point. People get what they deserve. The concept that some guy that sits on his ass all day and as a result cleans up after someone that applied themself more, deserves the same as these kids and parents who make the best of their circumstance and succeed deserve the same reward is repulsive. I understand the want to help people that can't help themselves. Give to an orphanage, great! Give to organizations that provides mentors or help with young kids that have family issues, awesome. Organizations like Red Cross, St. Jude's, or other such places that help people overcome problems that are caused by nature, both physical and medical, are awesome places to give your time and money. These people aren't responsible for some/all of their difficulties, and deserve time and money. Call me crazy, but a 7 year old with cancer deserves your attention a whole lot more than that janitor.

 

[TJ]

Call me crazy, but a 7 year old with cancer deserves your attention a whole lot more than that janitor.

Ok, so imagine this :

a family, living on minimum wage, has a daughter. That girl is a very pretty girl, and is taught the rights and wrongs of life. Not to steal, lie, etc. When she is at age 10 she develops lung cancer. Her family cannot pay for the treatment she needs. You just let the girl die?

Now by what you are saying, that if a mother/father does bad in school, then that is there fault, and i agree with that. BUT should the girl suffer because of what her parents did when they were in school? Should you let the girl die?

Thats my opinion.

And when you say give to organizations, thats basically what you are doing when you help people out. Im not going to walk down the street, hand a guy that is poor a $100 bill and walk off. I will see to it that a good charity gets it and distributes it where needed.

 

This has NOTHING to do with my education. In fact, most schools here promote Right-wing ideas. I've researched socialism/communism/capitalism and since i'm a paganist, capitalism is definately NOT the way to go. Way to kill the earth. If i could decide, we would be back in small villages without electricity, industrys or money.

Let me first say that all public schools in the first world push left leaning ideas. The old right, the liberal capitalist right, of the 1850s is all but completely lost.

You have been brainwashed by left wing propaganda.

You would have us go back to the feudal system and scarcity age simply because YOU think that humans are destroying the planet. You would reduce the life span of the average human being to 35 years and reduce the earth's capacity to produce food to the point where it can only support a few hundred thousand people.

You would have 5 billion people die of starvation just so the planet has a slightly better chance of still looking exactly like this in 5 million years?

You should really get a grip on reality. The human scale. Even with 6 billion humans we inhabit so little of the earths surface. And even with all the 'pollution' we contribute we still have very little impact.

Man made global warming has been utterly disproven. The climate models are WRONG. They are completely divergent with experimental data. And even if they weren't wrong, the push toward 'clean' energy will likely resolve this issue within the span of 500 years. A mere spec in time compared to the age of this planet, and the universe.

Capitalism and the Free Market are natural human systems that arise when humans are free to do as they please. You promote enslaving humanity just so you don't feel bad about the earth; regardless of your scientific ignorance.

 

Ok, so imagine this :

a family, living on minimum wage, has a daughter. That girl is a very pretty girl, and is taught the rights and wrongs of life. Not to steal, lie, etc. When she is at age 10 she develops lung cancer. Her family cannot pay for the treatment she needs. You just let the girl die?

Now by what you are saying, that if a mother/father does bad in school, then that is there fault, and i agree with that. BUT should the girl suffer because of what her parents did when they were in school? Should you let the girl die?

Thats my opinion.

And when you say give to organizations, thats basically what you are doing when you help people out. I'm not going to walk down the street, hand a guy that is poor a $100 bill and walk off. I will see to it that a good charity gets it and distributes it where needed.

What a stupid example.

If the lung cancer is genetic then there is no scientific reason why the girl should survive. Because her kids would probably have the same problem and so on until the family line died out.

But if it is environmental then the family still has a few options. They could attempt to get a private charity to sponsor the surgery. Or they could attempt to get a loan from a bank or financial institution to pay for it. Or the hospital itself may well give out some sort of credit.

The fact is some people always die. You cant use this as your moral epoc and base every action of every other person off this fact.

Consider the morality from the other side.
Ok this girl is dying, and the family are too poor to pay for her surgury. The bank and hospital have denied them credit. So you advocate stealing money off some rich person to pay for the girls surgery. This is theft, and it is much more immoral than letting someone die.

Heres why:
If everyone stole from everyone else (irrational anarchy), or one organization stole from everyone without limitation (communism), then no one would have any money. And many more people than just one girl would die.

Modern society is based on reaping what you sow, keeping what you earn. If you take away this capitalist foundation then any sort of meaningful human existence becomes impossible. How would scientists do their research if their lab equipment was always being stolen. And when they got home their house was on fire, their valuables gone? Factory owners would have no factory to run.

Forced redistribution of wealth never helps in society as a whole.

As if I needed any better evidence of just how bad communism is in practice google: soviet cannibalism
and see what you think of your amazing system of government.

 

[TJ]

Actually, im in between anarchy and communism. for all of you who do not know what the real term of anarchy is, is that the world would be lead by the people. they were basically "modern day" terrorist. they picked off world leaders, hoping that they could destory the government and let the people run it.

both seem good ideas, but then they turn out bad.

and yeah i kinda figured the cancer thing was a bad idea, but what i was trying to get at, is should the girl suffer because of her parents choices?

 

and yeah i kinda figured the cancer thing was a bad idea, but what i was trying to get at, is should the girl suffer because of her parents choices?

Yes, because it is far better than people outside of the family suffering because of the parent's choices.

 

[TJ]

hmm

dont know if i agree with you on there..

but oh well.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Consider the morality from the other side.
Ok this girl is dying, and the family are too poor to pay for her surgury. The bank and hospital have denied them credit. So you advocate stealing money off some rich person to pay for the girls surgery. This is theft, and it is much more immoral than letting someone die.

Heres why:
If everyone stole from everyone else (irrational anarchy), or one organization stole from everyone without limitation (communism), then no one would have any money. And many more people than just one girl would die.

Modern society is based on reaping what you sow, keeping what you earn. If you take away this capitalist foundation then any sort of meaningful human existence becomes impossible. How would scientists do their research if their lab equipment was always being stolen. And when they got home their house was on fire, their valuables gone? Factory owners would have no factory to run.

The thing is, though, that in the instance of the girl with cancer, we're not talking about everybody stealing from everybody else. We're talking about just this one instance.

Just with regard to this one instance, why is it morally wrong?

 

[awesome973]

Obviously Communism is terrible. My father had to live with Communism, and he says it was the worst possible thing to endure. Communism on paper sounds like a great thing, but it does not work out in the end.

Communism is terrible, fair and simple. Your full of crap if you say It's good.

 

The thing is, though, that in the instance of the girl with cancer, we're not talking about everybody stealing from everybody else. We're talking about just this one instance.

Just with regard to this one instance, why is it morally wrong?

Because it sets the precedent.

Next someone will be complaining that his kid is retarded and therefore deserves top of the line surgery to make him normal. Soon people with minor aliments such a crooked teeth will be lining up for the free lunch.

There is never JUST ONE instance. And you cannot force people to give away their money, no matter how moral you believe the cause. If you do this then you will quickly discover all the people with money have left the country to protect their wealth. Then you'll have to steal from people who have no money. And now is the moral situation better due to your actions? No it freaking isn't. Forced wealth redistribution is a fallacy! Every time you steal from someone you disadvantage society and impede scientific and medical progress.

 

[TJ]

Obviously Communism is terrible. My father had to live with Communism, and he says it was the worst possible thing to endure. Communism on paper sounds like a great thing, but it does not work out in the end.

Communism is terrible, fair and simple. Your full of crap if you say It's good.

I never said it was good, i just said it sounded good.

 

hmm

dont know if i agree with you on there..

but oh well.

Ok let me provide an example for you.

Two couples, both with the same income decide to have kids.

The first couple has 15 kids. The second couple does the math and decides they can only afford to have 3 kids if they want to keep a decent standard of living.

Now, by your logic, the 15 kids should be paid for by the family with only 3 kids because the family with 15 kids has stupid parents. But why should the 3 kids, of the family which planned for the future, be forced to live in poverty because of the actions of the other family?

Charity is only honorable when it is given, and accepted, in mutual agreement.

 

[TJ]

that is why you set standards. you dont just go out, giving moeny to anyone that asks. you have to have a certain agreement before you do give out said money.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Because it sets the precedent.

Next someone will be complaining that his kid is retarded and therefore deserves top of the line surgery to make him normal. Soon people with minor aliments such a crooked teeth will be lining up for the free lunch.

There is never JUST ONE instance. And you cannot force people to give away their money, no matter how moral you believe the cause. If you do this then you will quickly discover all the people with money have left the country to protect their wealth. Then you'll have to steal from people who have no money. And now is the moral situation better due to your actions? No it freaking isn't. Forced wealth redistribution is a fallacy! Every time you steal from someone you disadvantage society and impede scientific and medical progress.

That makes sense if you're talking about society forcing the wealthy to help the needy, but I'm talking about the needy stealing from the wealthy. If I steal from a rich person to pay my medical bills, and nobody finds out, no precedent is set.

 

that is why you set standards. you dont just go out, giving moeny to anyone that asks. you have to have a certain agreement before you do give out said money.

Oh so everyone gets a say in how the money is distributed EXCEPT the people who actually earned the money? Where is the incentive to earn money and build businesses when some central planning comity just empties your bank account 'for the common good'. You are completely nuts if you think communism is moral or that it would work.

Anyway communism is completely self defeating. One last point I forgot to mention above:

Communism basically holds that every human owns an equal share of every other human and every resource and material item on the planet. The aim of communism is to 'eliminate the class struggle' I.e. remove the existence of social classes.

But in practice the actual process of redistribution of wealth and central planning must ultimately be done by a small group of people who are elected or chosen to administer the process. Thus you create an elite government protected class in your attempt to remove class boundaries.

Once established, the people which constitute the government will be more interested in protecting their own cushy jobs and their own position (in which they can take bribes) than actually working to make society a better place.

Thus, in practice, communism is serfdom. The elite aristocracy rule the peasantry. The peasants can't get a foothold in life because they have no rights.