Teach me Communism

[The Question]

A very small percentage of the population has access to enourmous resources. I wouldn't mind putting them at a disadvantage.

For what purpose? So that you could become one of them by violence? How does that make you any better than you think they are? And if it doesn't make you better than you think they are, then isn't it a good thing they're advantaged and you're not?

How? It didn't prevent the war in Iraq.

There you go again looking for 'perfect.'

It's only an economic policy.

An economic policy in support of a social policy -- very much the opposite of Communism, which relies on a social policy to enforce economic policy.

 

[MessengerX]

For what purpose? So that you could become one of them by violence? How does that make you any better than you think they are? And if it doesn't make you better than you think they are, then isn't it a good thing they're advantaged and you're not?

I didn't say anything about violence. I meant that insanely wealthy people don't need the wealth they possess.

There you go again looking for 'perfect.'

Are you saying that the war in Iraq was a necessary evil of the Capitalist system??? I wasn't asking for perfect.

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

An economic policy in support of a social policy -- very much the opposite of Communism, which relies on a social policy to enforce economic policy.

Doesn't Capitalism enforce the social policy just the same? If someone has enough money, they can purchase justice and get away with crime.

I can think of a possibile alternative...... total worldwide political and economic transparency.

 

[WordInterrupted]

Which only shows that you need more practice at thinking.

It shows that you have a poor grasp of social science terminology, and use it inappropriately.

 

[The Question]

I didn't say anything about violence. I meant that insanely wealthy people don't need the wealth they possess.

Well, all you really need is the minimum amount of food and water necessary for survival, and the minimum necessary protection from the elements, don't you? Of course, in a Communist system, it's "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need." Same in Capitalism, actually -- the only difference is, in Capitalism, YOU are the one who decides what your needs are, and YOU are the one who must discover and hone your abilities in order to satisfy those needs. Those who have achieved "insane wealth" have done so one of two ways -- they either inherit it, in which case those unfit to have it eventually dissipate it and end up with little or nothing, or they earn it from nothing themselves. Either way, their ability still determines the fulfillment of their need, and it is no more your business or mine to tell them what their abilities or needs are than it is theirs to dictate likewise to us.

Are you saying that the war in Iraq was a necessary evil of the Capitalist system??? I wasn't asking for perfect.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it was a necessary evil that would have been unnecessarily more badly handled under any other system.

Doesn't Capitalism enforce the social policy just the same? If someone has enough money, they can purchase justice and get away with crime.

No, Capitalism doesn't enforce the kind of limited Democracy the United States enjoys -- it merely enables it. As far as the money/power = corruption problem, Communism has always displayed that problem as well, but in far greater severity.

I can think of a possibile alternative...... total worldwide political and economic transparency.

And by "transparency", you mean what? By the way, you've proven my point about Communism being the game of con-men. You opened this thread asking someone to "teach you about Communism", and it's become clear that you're already a firm disciple. You're living proof of the inherent dishonesty of the ideology.

 

[MessengerX]

Well, all you really need is the minimum amount of food and water necessary for survival, and the minimum necessary protection from the elements, don't you? Of course, in a Communist system, it's "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need." Same in Capitalism, actually -- the only difference is, in Capitalism, YOU are the one who decides what your needs are, and YOU are the one who must discover and hone your abilities in order to satisfy those needs. Those who have achieved "insane wealth" have done so one of two ways -- they either inherit it, in which case those unfit to have it eventually dissipate it and end up with little or nothing, or they earn it from nothing themselves. Either way, their ability still determines the fulfillment of their need, and it is no more your business or mine to tell them what their abilities or needs are than it is theirs to dictate likewise to us.

Bush is rich. Does he have ability? Would you have problems having his wealth redistributed? His entire family has robbed people. The Capitalist system let's it happen. We need an ideological, political system to have some say in the matter of his family's wealth.

I don't think you know just how rich some people are. Some companies have greater capital than the GDP of entire nations!

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it was a necessary evil that would have been unnecessarily more badly handled under any other system.

How much more badly handled can it get when soldiers have to pay for their own armor? http://www.wvgazette.com/section/News/2006020623

I was thinking that under a different system, we wouldn't have had the war at all..........

No, Capitalism doesn't enforce the kind of limited Democracy the United States enjoys -- it merely enables it.

How does it enable it?

As far as the money/power = corruption problem, Communism has always displayed that problem as well, but in far greater severity.

Transparency on all levels would be able to point out corruption in any way it would manifest itself.

And by "transparency", you mean what?

I'm glad you asked. Total access to any organ which is meant to serve the populace, in all countries. This would eliminate corruption. Countries wouldn't be able to create weapons of mass destruction or draw up plans for war.

By the way, you've proven my point about Communism being the game of con-men. You opened this thread asking someone to "teach you about Communism", and it's become clear that you're already a firm disciple. You're living proof of the inherent dishonesty of the ideology.

Why the ad hominum?

 

[Sarek]

Wrong. Now shut the fuck up MX.

 

[MessengerX]

Wrong.

Care to explain why?

 

[The Question]

Bush is rich. Does he have ability? Would you have problems having his wealth redistributed? His entire family has robbed people. The Capitalist system let's it happen. We need an ideological, political system to have some say in the matter of his family's wealth.

Yes, I would have problems with anyone's property being stolen.

How much more badly handled can it get when soldiers have to pay for their own armor? http://www.wvgazette.com/section/News/2006020623

How about when soldiers are deployed without armor or weapons of any kind, merely to serve as cannon fodder, as Soviet troops were during WW2?

I was thinking that under a different system, we wouldn't have had the war at all...

Then you are not completely informed about the causes (plural) of the war.

How does it enable it?

The ability to choose one's government does not exist in a system where one has no ability to make the most basic choices regarding one's personal life.

Transparency on all levels would be able to point out corruption in any way it would manifest itself.

This is another theory which attempts to imbue perfection upon imperfect human beings. How can you expect those who enforce this transparency to be immune to corruption?

Why the ad hominum?

It's not an Ad Hominem. I have answered all of your questions as well as insulted you, rather than insulting you instead of or as a pretense to answering your points. Only the latter is an Ad Hominem.

 

[Sarek]

Care to explain why?

No. I'm pretty busy right now. Possibly later though.

Now shut the fuck up.

 

[MessengerX]

Yes, I would have problems with anyone's property being stolen.

I realise it opens the door to have anyone's property taken away. But I don't think he earned it. Under Communism, no one really has private property. Let's reform it. Only property which you honestly earn should you be able to keep.

How about when soldiers are deployed without armor or weapons of any kind, merely to serve as cannon fodder, as Soviet troops were during WW2?

You're using that as an example? The Soviet Union was on its last legs. The North Korean military is among the best equipped in the world.

Then you are not completely informed about the causes (plural) of the war.

You are jumping to conclusions. China, a communist country, didn't have to march into Iraq. China purchases its needed supplies. China exploits its people, yes, but it probably won't have to in the near future. It's position in the international economy is probably he most secure, and its not capitalist..........

Its ideology can be called into question, but not its economics.

The ability to choose one's government does not exist in a system where one has no ability to make the most basic choices regarding one's personal life.

Let's reform it. We need to stop looking at our governments as alien entities. They are here to serve us, after all.

This is another theory which attempts to imbue perfection upon imperfect human beings.

You're hanging on a word which you brought into the discussion.

How can you expect those who enforce this transparency to be immune to corruption?

Because if anyone could walk into the Kremlin or Microsoft's home office and take a look for themselves what they are up to.

It's not an Ad Hominem. I have answered all of your questions as well as insulted you, rather than insulting you instead of or as a pretense to answering your points. Only the latter is an Ad Hominem.

Let's strike it from the record.

 

[MessengerX]

No. I'm pretty busy right now. Possibly later though.

Now shut the fuck up.

Shut up.

 

[Sarek]

Stop spamming. You know it's not allowed in these forums.

 

[MessengerX]

Stop spamming. You know it's not allowed in these forums.

LOL! Leave the thread, go away. I took your STFU under advisement, and told you not to spam here.

 

[The Question]

I realise it opens the door to have anyone's property taken away. But I don't think he earned it. Under Communism, no one really has private property. Let's reform it. Only property which you honestly earn should you be able to keep.

And who guarantees the honesty of those who judge whether or not you earned your property honestly?

I don't think you came by your computer honestly. I suggest redistributing it. To me.

You're using that as an example? The Soviet Union was on its last legs. The North Korean military is among the best equipped in the world.

You asked how it could be worse under a different system, and I provided an example not only of how it could be worse, but how it has been worse.

China exploits its people, yes, but it probably won't have to in the near future.

China also didn't have to slaughter dissidents in Tianenmen Square, either.

Its ideology can be called into question, but not its economics.

I thought that's what we were discussing, its ideology. And its economics have only been improving the more it embraces Capitalism.

Let's reform it. We need to stop looking at our governments as alien entities. They are here to serve us, after all.

Does Communism? How does any government serve its people by enslaving and imprisoning them?

You're hanging on a word which you brought into the discussion.

Sorry, you're wrong there. Let's review:

Does the possibility exist that there is no perfect ideology, and that we are doomed?

Because if anyone could walk into the Kremlin or Microsoft's home office and take a look for themselves what they are up to.

Except that, again, there is no reason to believe that the person who walks into those places is not as corrupt as the most corrupt individuals already there.

Let's strike it from the record.

Good idea.

 

[MessengerX]

And who guarantees the honesty of those who judge whether or not you earned your property honestly?

I don't think you came by your computer honestly. I suggest redistributing it. To me.

A jury of peers. The Capitalist system of the U.S. thinks that is a good way of judging.

You asked how it could be worse under a different system, and I provided an example not only of how it could be worse, but how it has been worse.

You're comparing the Capitalist U.S fighting invading Iraq to the war of defense in WWII of the Communist Soviet Union.

If they had enough weapons at hand to distribute to their 'fodder,' wouldn't they have done so?

China also didn't have to slaughter dissidents in Tianenmen Square, either.

What does that have to do with the economic exploitation of its people?

I thought that's what we were discussing, its ideology. And its economics have only been improving the more it embraces Capitalism.

It has much more central control over the economy and you know it. As a communist country taking advantage of a capitalist world, it seems to be doing very well.

Does Communism? How does any government serve its people by enslaving and imprisoning them?

You responded to this statement: Let's reform it. We need to stop looking at our governments as alien entities. They are here to serve us, after all.

Sorry, you're wrong there. Let's review:

You have me there. But I did say that it didn't have to be perfect afterwards.

Except that, again, there is no reason to believe that the person who walks into those places is not as corrupt as the most corrupt individuals already there.

But any blogger who isn't corrupt could be a whistleblower.......... if people call him on a statement that an institution is corrupt, they could see for themselves.

 

[MessengerX]

Ideologies by their very nature treat humans as collective beings.

I don't see how this could possibly be misunderstood as meaning 'all ideologies are collectivist ideologies.'

 

[The Question]

A jury of peers. The Capitalist system of the U.S. thinks that is a good way of judging.

And that's just one of the strengths it has over Communism.

You're comparing the Capitalist U.S fighting invading Iraq to the war of defense in WWII of the Communist Soviet Union.

I'm comparing a war to a war, and soldiers' equipment to soldiers' equipment. You implied that it was somehow unjust or corrupt to compel soldiers to purchase their equipment, and I believe it is. However, how much more corrupt and unjust is it to send soldiers into battle whom you cannot or will not equip for it at all?

If they had enough weapons at hand to distribute to their 'fodder,' wouldn't they have done so?

Shouldn't they have abided by the terms of the Soviet-Nazi Pact instead? According to that document, each party was to remain neutral in the event that the other party found itself at war. Presumably, this document excluded Poland, making it a third party to the Pact and the Soviet response to the German-Polish conflict illigitimate.

What does that have to do with the economic exploitation of its people?

You said that we "didn't have to" go to war in Iraq -- the implication being that the use of force in that scenario was uncalled for. I am demonstrating through example that, once again, an unnecessary Capitalist use of force was not as senseless or egregious as an unnecessary Communist use of force.

It has much more central control over the economy and you know it. As a communist country taking advantage of a capitalist world, it seems to be doing very well.

You evaded the point -- China's economy under a purely Communist model was going down in flames. Only by adopting principles of Capitalism has China rebounded to any degree.

You responded to this statement: Let's reform it. We need to stop looking at our governments as alien entities. They are here to serve us, after all.

Communism can't be reformed to this degree and remain Communism. Humans are territorial and possessive animals. The abolition of private property is directly contrary to human nature in that respect; therefore, the abolition of private property can only be maintained through oppression and fear.

You have me there. But I did say that it didn't have to be perfect afterwards.

Which seems to have been the one step forward in prelude to two steps back.

But any blogger who isn't corrupt could be a whistleblower.......... if people call him on a statement that an institution is corrupt, they could see for themselves.

And there's the problem -- you may find a person who isn't corrupt, but give him that power and he soon will be.

 

[The Question]

I don't see how this could possibly be misunderstood as meaning 'all ideologies are collectivist ideologies.'

It can't, unless you really, really want it to, and Wordin has a habit of reading what he wants to read instead of what's written.

 

[Hambil]

Regarding the orginal topic - it's not really necessary to teach communism - it's man's natural state.

 

[The Question]

^^Yeah, 'cause the early humans were starving and freezing to death by the tribe, until each person figured out that if they had food and skins for themselves they'd live.

See, that's what I like about Hambil. He's got that natural stupid, like a dog. Also, he's obviously never been in the presence of a two year old. Or seen a baby reach for everything it lays its eyes on to stuff it into its mouth. Or seen cats fight over food when there's enough to choke a herd of horses. Possession and territoriality are mammal realities, and no amount of bushy-bearded philosophy or beret-in-a-coffee-house angst is going to change that. Ever.