Communism. Could it work?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
 

In all honesty Communism is based on Christianity and God, now don't jump on me let me explain, ok. Love Everybody, Everyone is Equal, God is King and we worship him, he makes the rules, abide by those rules, etc. Change up a few word, take God out and you have communism. Now God does give everyone freedom(that's why not everyone believes the same)and will not force you to do anything so there in lies your freedoms, in fact the system in Bible is perfect communism, but since we are humans we are incapable of this, but look at the concept of Heaven even if you don't believe in God think about it. There is no currency, everyone is happy, no sorrow, no one is higher than another except for God, Sin is gone, people are perfect, no one is poor(in fact the descriptions of Heaven through out the Bible prompt we are all equal and rich since God has infinite funds but doesn't need funds since he is the creator), God is never wrong, there are no laws since there are no need for them, i could go on. That's not only perfect communism, that's perfect utopia and not only do we as a race(human race) need to be perfect, but the ruler of such an Utopia has to not only perfect but divine. Wether you believe in God or not, there are no such things here on Earth presently so No, it can't work in our present condition since we are not perfect or have a divine ruler of Government.

P.S. I am a Christian and i in no way want to press my religion on people though the post is about my certain Religion, i'm not here to tell anyone they are wrong in their personal beliefs. Sorry if this post feels this way to some of you.

I did not read this thread, I just want to respond to the OP; tough luck if it's already been said.

Eldrig:
Could an ideal society be formed out of the ideas from this document? I seem to feel that a Communist society could be very desirable in an ideal world

Well, what is ideal is a matter of some debate, but, the core element; the means of production being under worker's control would be an enormous, enormous improvement over our current situation. That by itself is to me reason enough to be positive about Marxism, and that's not even the only thing.

Marxists are anti-government in essence, and want to achieve a class-less society in the end; when we do, we'll finally be on a path that has the power to turn humanity in something other than a destructive force.

Read it, and Chris Harman's "Revolution in the 21st Century", and you'll get somewhere.

Cheers.

jdun:

Zen Toombs:

jdun:

This is the end result of the pubic school system. Producing morons after morons.

Classical liberalism is what you are referring to. Classical liberalism is actually toward the right. Classical liberalism believes in less government, more freedom, independents. etc. It's more inline with libertarian point of view which is far right. The rightest you can go.

Modern liberal believe the opposite of Classical liberalism. Modern liberals believe in government control. Modern liberals believe in big centralize control.

Let used logic because the public schools doesn't teach it anymore. How can one be a two bit dictator when everybody is calling you a dumnbass? You can't. In order to stop people calling you a dumbass you need to you know make a strong centralize government system and take power away from the people. That's what modern liberals believe in. A big centralize government and marketed to dumbass kids as more freedom.

Socialism is socialism. Worker party is leftist. You have to be super dumb to believe that the NAZI are not leftist. Hitler nationalized corporations. Took businesses away from owners and gave it to the unions. Hitler was an liberal artist and gone to one of most liberal college in his day. Go read his book he is a fucking leftist socialist.

For the love of all that is sacred, calm down. It's clear now that we're just talking past each other, and so I'm just going to leave this argument and thread

You don't have to believe me for those that are reading this. Go do some research and used the brain that God gave you.

But Hitler wasn't a liberal, Hitler was a Nazi a completely different animal. Liberals today are not Nazi's, do they like Socialism? Yeah most do, but the U.K. has a Socialist economy and they are far from Nazi's. The Nazi party now are so far right the are off the chart. Another about Liberal Government is they don't know how to manage money and Hitler significantly improved the over all German economy. Personally, i don't see Nazis on any scale because they are their own thing and are pure evil. Liberals are afraid to allow a pipeline because it might kill some already over populated animals(no sense at all) The Nazi burned places to the ground, killed, stole, destroyed, etc. Hitler was an artist and went to a Liberal college, considering the things he said, done, and put into action he can't be placed, He was a Nazi that's it, nothing else, but if you want to test it go find your friendly neighborhood Nazi and ask him about his political beliefs and call Hitler a Liberal and see what happens. If you can't find then find your nearest Klan member, you'll the same answer every time. Another reason he can't be placed is because Hitler was a mad man.

colby694:
That's not only perfect communism, that's perfect utopia and not only do we as a race(human race) need to be perfect, but the ruler of such an Utopia has to not only perfect but divine.

Communism by definition does not have a ruler/leader so that makes no sense.

Mycroft Holmes:
Communism by definition does not have a ruler/leader so that makes no sense.

That's not true. There's just a lot of bollocks about how the people would govern themselves, but that doesn't make it true, and that doesn't undo the fact that all communist regimes have had leaders, even dictators.

What you're saying is basically the socialist equivalent of 'but Bin Laden is not a Muslim'. ;-p

Blablahb:

Mycroft Holmes:
Communism by definition does not have a ruler/leader so that makes no sense.

That's not true. There's just a lot of bollocks about how the people would govern themselves, but that doesn't make it true, and that doesn't undo the fact that all communist regimes have had leaders, even dictators.

What you're saying is basically the socialist equivalent of 'but Bin Laden is not a Muslim'. ;-p

All of those communist regimes are not examples of the true definition of Communism.

Just like how all of the deomocratic states in the world are not examples of the definition of Democracy*.

Pure Communism is also known as 'Stateless Communism'. It is a theoretical point in our development in which the Productivity exceeds the Consumption of a Populace. At this point we would achieve 'absolute freedom'; that is freedom from neccessity.

Because no one would have to work to provide, or produce to consume, the class system is abolished and currency simply disappears. Inequality, labour, and alienation from work cease to exist. You don't need to work to make money to buy food nor farm the earth to produce the food to consume.

However, such a system only works under a 'Universal Constructor' and 'Cold Fusion' which is able to produce any good at whim with no effort or need.

* a Democracy would count every ones vote for every change in government. The largest democratic state in the world, the United States, doesn't even do this. We vote for individuals to Represent us when these changes are made. Although we vote for an individual to represent us, truth be told, individually we have as much say in a specific change of our government as some one in a completely diffrent country does.

In theory,yes. But in practice,no. As history has proven.

Pyro Paul:
All of those communist regimes are not examples of the true definition of Communism.

That's why I already wrote in advance something that refutes this claim: "What you're saying is basically the socialist equivalent of 'but Bin Laden is not a Muslim'."

That some apologists fantasize about something different and call it communism, doesn't change what communism actually is. Even Marx himself wrote of bloody revolutions which would cost millions of lives, and actual warfare over class differences.

Blablahb:

Mycroft Holmes:
Communism by definition does not have a ruler/leader so that makes no sense.

That's not true. There's just a lot of bollocks about how the people would govern themselves, but that doesn't make it true, and that doesn't undo the fact that all communist regimes have had leaders, even dictators.

Hallvard Dovakiin:
In theory,yes. But in practice,no. As history has proven.

History has absolutely proving nothing except that people who don't have a firm grasp on it will lie a lot to further their political goals.(and no I don't necessarily mean you I mean the bulk of the schooling system in general which is why you are arguing for a point that is ostensibly wrong.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=list+of+communist+countries

The page "List of communist countries" does not exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries

wikipedia:
These countries known as "Communist states" in the east, because their ruling parties generally use the name "Communist Party of [country]." However, the countries themselves are referred to as socialist republics, not communist, in their own constitutions. They are defined by a form of government in which the state operates under a one-party system and declares allegiance to the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. In accordance with Marxism-Leninism, the constitutions of these countries claim that all power belongs to the working class, that a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat has been implemented within their borders, and that they are building socialism, with the goal of achieving communism one day.

Communism is the name that the US called them out of ignorance, communism is the name the western world applied as an insult. The countries we called communists freely admitted that they were never communists, they as wikipedia explains only hopped to one day bring about communism by using socialism as a stepping stone(on a page last modified on 10 February 2012 so unless I have some sort of wizard powers and foresaw this argument I definitely didn't edit it.)

To quote Yahtzee:
In short, no.
In long, noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.....

In REAL communism, everybody is equal, no one on top. It's human nature to be the best. If people would refrain from their nature, it would be possible, but humans are humans.

Mycroft Holmes:

Blablahb:

Mycroft Holmes:
Communism by definition does not have a ruler/leader so that makes no sense.

That's not true. There's just a lot of bollocks about how the people would govern themselves, but that doesn't make it true, and that doesn't undo the fact that all communist regimes have had leaders, even dictators.

Hallvard Dovakiin:
In theory,yes. But in practice,no. As history has proven.

History has absolutely proving nothing except that people who don't have a firm grasp on it will lie a lot to further their political goals.(and no I don't necessarily mean you I mean the bulk of the schooling system in general which is why you are arguing for a point that is ostensibly wrong.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=list+of+communist+countries

The page "List of communist countries" does not exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries

wikipedia:
These countries known as "Communist states" in the east, because their ruling parties generally use the name "Communist Party of [country]." However, the countries themselves are referred to as socialist republics, not communist, in their own constitutions. They are defined by a form of government in which the state operates under a one-party system and declares allegiance to the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. In accordance with Marxism-Leninism, the constitutions of these countries claim that all power belongs to the working class, that a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat has been implemented within their borders, and that they are building socialism, with the goal of achieving communism one day.

Communism is the name that the US called them out of ignorance, communism is the name the western world applied as an insult. The countries we called communists freely admitted that they were never communists, they as wikipedia explains only hopped to one day bring about communism by using socialism as a stepping stone(on a page last modified on 10 February 2012 so unless I have some sort of wizard powers and foresaw this argument I definitely didn't edit it.)

Ok, fair enough. However, none of these got very far at "bringing the revolution" to other countries, nor did they really try to bring about the Marxist ideal. The "communist" nations didn't even come about from the source Marx predicted, the working man striving for economic equality, but out of the farmers that were still basically serfs, or forced on the nations by the USSR (see the Warsaw pack excluding Yugoslavia). The USSR didn't even become fully socialist, always allowing a small amount of free enterprise. None of the socialist nations remained as such when the militarism that was keeping the people in line failed. Either they converted (again, see the former warsaw pack nations) or allowed capitalism to come in for the government's survival (China, Vietnam, (too a lesser degree) Cuba, and North Korea).

You want to read the SF novel Voyage from Yesteryear.

An amazing novel about what it would take to create that society and the threats it would face.

Regards

Nightspore

Bad Jim:

Nieroshai:
But such a ruling class would inherently be an upper class that inherently has more than the others. There is a fix for this. Artificial intelligence. Think about it: a computer needs no reward, and continues to act on any input given. An AI will be impartial. An AI being the ruling class is the only way to eliminate the ruling class. The only way for all man to be equal is for no man to be in power. There must be a Big Brother, but Big Brother must ultimately be a machine.

I detect a slight flaw in this idea. Ignoring the fact that current AI is nowhere near intelligent enough, there is still the question of who gets to program it. Which is much the same as the current question of who gets to write the laws. Such a machine would never understand the word 'fair'.

That is a big flaw, but of course my main point is that removing the human element is the only viable solution. Competition with referees, on the other hand, is far more practical to our extrinsically motivated species.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked