Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why do people still blame communism?

Page 8 of 10 [ 159 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

19 May 2013, 7:37 pm

some capitalists are so greedy that they won't even save their own children.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

19 May 2013, 7:47 pm

There would be no middle class without the Communist Menace... so we owe that to Communism. Completely. This is not being a troll, this is speaking the truth. No Communism, we'd be in the Guilded Age and we're headed back there now that the Menace is said to be dead.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

19 May 2013, 7:54 pm

Who needs a middle class when you can become a member of the upper class?



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

19 May 2013, 7:57 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
Who needs a middle class when you can become a member of the upper class?


Membership is extremely limited. The Communists are responsible for the comfortable lives people have had in the West who otherwise would be subsisting in dank tenements and flophouses.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

19 May 2013, 8:01 pm

Rich conservatives say that membership opportunities are extremely limited because the middle class holds back those who aspire to be rich.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

19 May 2013, 8:06 pm

Conservatives tend to hate most people and they consider that if those people are not living in abject poverty, then a cosmic injustice is happening. They certainly do not envisage a large percentage of the population living the upper class lifestyle.



OddButWhy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2013
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 637
Location: Penn's Woods

19 May 2013, 9:23 pm

marshall wrote:
OddButWhy wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
No it's just that the selfish people hold the power.


As the always have and always will.


One of the dilemmas in forming a workable political/social/economic system is to recognize that the selfish, opportunistic, ruthless, rapacious, etc, will always gravitate towards positions that promise them power over others. Given that, how do you structure the system so they can accumulate and enjoy the perks of wealth and status while permitting them to do the least harm to everyone else? A capitalist, constitutionally-limited government seems to be a good way to accomplish this goal: capitalism permits the individual to accumulate wealth and enjoy its advantages; while the status–minded and power-hungry can participate in the political system; and constitutional limits prevent both groups, either singly or combined, from wielding unlimited power over everyone else.

It's not perfect, no human creation is, but it can be workable.


But wealth tends to lead to power, even within an enforced framework of laws preventing fraud and theft. Those with more can always outplay those with less. They have the bargaining leverage. Inequality taken to extremes will harm society no matter how one tries to legitimize it.


True, in any system that man can devise. There will always be haves and have-nots. No argument there. The question is, what do you do to minimize the damage that can be done by the haves to everyone else? Lacking an omniscient, omnipresent, and beneficent ruler, what practical system can be put in place to accomplish this end?

It may be that no system can fully contain the trend of wealth and power accumulation in fewer and fewer hands over time. If you accept this as true, then ask if any form of government can permit for a less violent reorganization of itself than the other possible structures, while allowing the common person a chance at a decent life. An ideology that believes in permanent revolution is unlikely to provide any stability whatsoever to the average person. A system that can only be changed by violent revolt is likely to be supplanted by a regime headed by elements that are themselves going to be resistant to peaceful change down the road.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

19 May 2013, 9:36 pm

xenon13 wrote:
Conservatives tend to hate most people and they consider that if those people are not living in abject poverty, then a cosmic injustice is happening. They certainly do not envisage a large percentage of the population living the upper class lifestyle.


I think you have the hate part wrong. Those who have tend to be -indifferent- to those who have not.

Hating someone and not caring about someone are two totally different things. Hate and love are not opposites. Indifference and love are opposites.

ruveyn



Lenart33
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 19 May 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1

20 May 2013, 9:08 am

The commnism is notion is good. The execution is bad. :(
Sorry, I am beginner english language study. I am hungarian.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 May 2013, 9:26 am

Lenart33 wrote:
The commnism is notion is good. The execution is bad. :(
Sorry, I am beginner english language study. I am hungarian.


Round up the usual excuses. The fact of the matter is that human nature is basically selfish and egotistic. That is what we are. Accept the fact. We are more interested in ourselves, our children and our families than we are in the Greater Good of Society or The Nation. And that is why collectivist economic schemes fail and fail and fail. And the goody two shoes folks always say, its a wonderful idea but it was done poorly. BS! A wonderful idea does not keep on failing and failing. An idea or a procedure that invariably fails is bogus and defective. That is one of the operational definitions of unworkable. The thing never turns out like it was supposed to.

Accept humans for what we are. We are motivated by self interest. Let us craft our societies and associations in such a way they we engage our self interest constructively. That is the basic premise that Adam Smith used in his opus "The Wealth of Nations".

ruveyn



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

20 May 2013, 10:19 am

ruveyn wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
Conservatives tend to hate most people and they consider that if those people are not living in abject poverty, then a cosmic injustice is happening. They certainly do not envisage a large percentage of the population living the upper class lifestyle.


I think you have the hate part wrong. Those who have tend to be -indifferent- to those who have not.

Hating someone and not caring about someone are two totally different things. Hate and love are not opposites. Indifference and love are opposites.

ruveyn


I disagree, the way in which the gutter media with political guidance is able to whip people into a frenzy against the "undeserving poor" is proof not of indifference but of outright hatred.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

20 May 2013, 3:18 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
Everyone has this idea that they deserve more money than their inferiors. A Doctor believes he deserves more money than a janitor and now we have millionaire preachers who feel that they are entitled to more money.


On some level, a doctor DOES DESERVE MORE MONEY than a janitor.

Training you need to become a doctor (in money and time) compared to training needed to be a janitor.

Maybe if the doctor's training was paid by someone else you'd have more of an argument.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

20 May 2013, 3:22 pm

xenon13 wrote:
There would be no middle class without the Communist Menace... so we owe that to Communism. Completely. This is not being a troll, this is speaking the truth. No Communism, we'd be in the Guilded Age and we're headed back there now that the Menace is said to be dead.


I agree with that in part. There was value in ensuring the wealth was "spread around" by higher wages rather than ultra rich and abject poverty, but who do you think is behind the destruction of the middle class in America? THE SOCIALISTS! Global policy is shaped by Socialists, and it's forcing a wider divide between those with wealth and those without.



mikecartwright
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 398

22 May 2013, 1:05 am

I mostly blame Capitalism to be honest I view Communism/Socialism as State Capitalism.



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

22 May 2013, 12:37 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Lenart33 wrote:
The commnism is notion is good. The execution is bad. :(
Sorry, I am beginner english language study. I am hungarian.


Round up the usual excuses. The fact of the matter is that human nature is basically selfish and egotistic. That is what we are. Accept the fact. We are more interested in ourselves, our children and our families than we are in the Greater Good of Society or The Nation. And that is why collectivist economic schemes fail and fail and fail. And the goody two shoes folks always say, its a wonderful idea but it was done poorly. BS! A wonderful idea does not keep on failing and failing. An idea or a procedure that invariably fails is bogus and defective. That is one of the operational definitions of unworkable. The thing never turns out like it was supposed to.

Accept humans for what we are. We are motivated by self interest. Let us craft our societies and associations in such a way they we engage our self interest constructively. That is the basic premise that Adam Smith used in his opus "The Wealth of Nations".

ruveyn

Self interest itself is not in conflict with communism. People who think communism is selflessness have a poor understanding. Capitalism is a top down form of collectivism where one person has absolute power land and/or institution. Its a system in where people are have to earn tokens from rulers to get food in their mouths. The idea that I should be able to take things as my own possession as opposed to respecting another persons "property" is not selfless. If you don't regularly hold it or occupy it, its not yours in my eyes.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

22 May 2013, 12:55 pm

RushKing wrote:
Self interest itself is not in conflict with communism. People who think communism is selflessness have a poor understanding.

Oh, by all means, please elaborate... How is it that communism coordinates self interest towards productive purposes?