Now while some people thing that communism would fail after a certain point... what if... you reformed it into a more socialistic society?
In theory communism is best, we all know that. But in real life a less stringent form of goverment like socialism would be far better as we know not everyone will work equally like machines. Although socialism is similar, in many ways it is also different. It prevents the oppresive dictators from forming and more rights to the people. I believe that capitalism is about as sad as it gets. The Soviet Union would of lasted much longer had they increase consumer goods and decrease military might. See the way to a great nation is not through death and war. It is through creating a country that is so great, safe, and powerful. That people from other places would say.
Hey, would i want to fight them, they've done no harm. In fact i would rather go and fight for them than here.
It is sort of a unique form of socialism, keeping the basics, but working on the details, show others that you are strong, happy, and proud of your country. That if it came down to it. Would you give your life to go fight for your motherland? You, by your own mind, would immediately say Yes.
And to one day, have peace, by achieveing a global socialistic state. It have a end to wars, to focus on reserch in space, and work on technology for quicker food production, cheap and clean fuel sources.
To have the Reformed USSR on the globe and nothing else in my dream. For everyone to be equal and have a fair chance at life, if they want to be an astronaut, they will be. Not have some school deny him or her that dream because they can't afford the ridulose price of college.
For education and healthcare to be cheap or free. To help their neighbor in times of need. This is my dream, and i'm ready to make it happen.
[i]The Revolution is coming... The Question is... Are You Ready...?
Don't you understand that in socialism that no one can even be a millionaire? Socialism is by definition economic suppression. It cannot be an economic ideology that will work. It requires perfection, something we will never have.
That is a good thing. The more wealth one has. the less others have.
And guess what, 2% of the population currently owns 50% of the wealth. We also have enough food to feed everyone but due to capitalist restriction someone dies of hunger every 3.6 seconds.
It is untrue that everyone would have to be poor if wealth was shared fairly.
The American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.
The Mexican replied, âOnly a little while.â
The American then asked, âWhy didnât you stay out longer and catch more fish?â
The Mexican said, âWith this I have more than enough to support my familyâs needs.â
The American then asked, âBut what do you do with the rest of your time?â
The Mexican fisherman said, âI sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siesta with my wife, Maria, and then stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos. I have a full and busy life.â
The American scoffed, âI am a Harvard MBA and I can help you. You should spend more time fishing, and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat. With the proceeds from the bigger boat, you could buy several boats. Eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor. Eventually opening your own cannery, you would control the product, processing and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then Los Angeles and eventually New York where you will run your ever-expanding enterprise.â
The Mexican fisherman asked, âBut how long will this all take?â
To this the American replied, âTwenty or thirty years.â
âBut what then?â asked the Mexican.
The American laughed and said, âThatâs the best part. When the time is right you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions.â
âMillions? Then what?â
The American said, âThen you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos.â
And guess what, 2% of the population currently owns 50% of the wealth. We also have enough food to feed everyone but due to capitalist restriction someone dies of hunger every 3.6 seconds.
I'm assuming that you're a utopian. Wake up for just a moment. Do YOU want to be 2 or 98? Also, believe it or not, those 2% have 10's of billions, not millions.
And why should I care about those poor african kids that would never have even the slightest effect on me? I know it sounds cold, but they are often better dead then suffering.
They will never have food, not with the most extreme utopian communism or with the most pure consumerist capitalism. They will always die ever 5 seconds.
I'm assuming that you're a utopian. Wake up for just a moment. Do YOU want to be 2 or 98? Also, believe it or not, those 2% have 10's of billions, not millions.
And why should I care about those poor african kids that would never have even the slightest effect on me? I know it sounds cold, but they are often better dead then suffering.
They will never have food, not with the most extreme utopian communism or with the most pure consumerist capitalism. They will always die ever 5 seconds.
A utopian? I am being 100% realistic. I dont understand what you mean by "Do you want to be 2% or 98%"?
And why should I care about those poor african kids that would never have even the slightest effect on me?
Why should they care about you? So we should all die because there is someone in the world that doesnt care about another?
A utopian? I am being 100% realistic. I dont understand what you mean by "Do you want to be 2% or 98%"?
I don't see much realism in it. I was asking a simple question. Are you going to succeed in life (or at least try) or are you going to be a lazy loser with no life?
Not if you feed them, wth?
And starve ourselves? Not to sound selfish, but we don't have nearly enough food (even if we sent every little piece of waste we get to them) to feed half of them. It's a simple fact communism works beautifully in small groups and villages, but doesn't work with 6.7 billion people.
Why should they care about you? So we should all die because there is someone in the world that doesnt care about another?
I don't care about them, so I don't care if they care about me. I know the simple fact is they don't. I've always seen it as poor people are always the greediest, taking whatever they get, never working for it. The essence of greed. To get as much material with as little effort as possible.
Now, Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm going to leave you with this disturbing fact. If you took the money the entire western world spent on grocieries, and gave it to third world countries, you could feed them for one year. Now, I dont know about you, but I think we're being over charged for our grocieries.
-Jimmy Carr
Not if you feed them, wth?
What about those that is too late to save them? What about the ones that die from diseases? What about the ones that will die from AIDs, or war? Sure, feeding them would save some, but they would eventually die from some other thing...
But of course, this can be countered with the whole 'but you too will die someday, so why not give your commodities up too' ...
Communism is the idea that you can make a classless society by giving everyone the same relative pay while everyone works for each other. If everyone is given similar pay, they will grow lazy. They will not be motivated to work hard. Most people don't have the devotion you have when it comes to supporting the government.
Even if everyone did do their job, some people will spend money while others save it. The people who spend their money will be poor as those who save their money will become rich. What can you do about that? Force the rich to spend their money?
Your definition of communism is false.
Communism is not about giving everyone a million dollars. The goal of communists is to abolish classes and private property so the people as a whole have the power to take democratic control of the means of production and thus, their own lives, rather then be enslaved by the capitalist mode of production. Production will become about use and not profit. Communism will produce what the people want and not what would be profitable.
Not all communists even support equal wages. I posted my argument on the human nature on page 3 which you have yet to comment on. In short, the current human incentive for more money does not consist of a gene that creates a lust for green paper, but rather this want of humans exists because money provides people with what makes them happy. Communism does not destroy this factor, and thus is not a obstacle of human nature. If you want to argue that communism wont provide people with their needs, its a completely different thing from saying communism is incompatible with humans.
And about saving money, how useless would it be in a society where you cannot own the means of production and cannot gain more money then you earned yourself. There would also be no reason to save your money. If for some maniac reason all you brought was bread to survive on and you ended up with $3 million dollars at the point of your death, so what? You'd have no power to transform society.
Your idea of communism is a cheap distortion of what it really is and now I understand what your arguments are built on.
I don't see much realism in it. I was asking a simple question. Are you going to succeed in life (or at least try) or are you going to be a lazy loser with no life?
What does this have to do with communism? Are you saying people who are rich are so because they worked hard and everyone who isnt in the top 2% is a loser? lol.
And starve ourselves? Not to sound selfish, but we don't have nearly enough food (even if we sent every little piece of waste we get to them) to feed half of them. It's a simple fact communism works beautifully in small groups and villages, but doesn't work with 6.7 billion people.
We do have enough food. http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061005025331AA1shBq AFRICA ALONE COULD FEED THE WORLD http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227143.100-africa-alone-could-feed-the-world.html
Every source will tell you that.
I don't care about them, so I don't care if they care about me. I know the simple fact is they don't. I've always seen it as poor people are always the greediest, taking whatever they get, never working for it. The essence of greed. To get as much material with as little effort as possible.
WTF?! They try to get whatever they can because their god dam f'in starving to death. Working for it? The only jobs you can get in Africa are those that pay $1-3. It seems you never been exposed anywhere outside your house.
Even people in America are struggling now to get jobs and your criticizing people of third world countries of being lazy and greedy.
To get as much material with as little effort as possible.
And please explain how Bill Gates did more effort of over say 300,000 workers who worked their whole lives?
In third world countries, people actually work the hardest. http://home.mtholyoke.edu/~nshah/fashioncrimes/Sweatshops.html
Because their wages are often only $.10 to $.20 per hour, the women may receive no wages for years as they attempt to pay off these debts.
The garment industry is part of the global economy, which is ruled by a free trade system. In this system, a powerful country such as the U.S., negotiates trade agreements with poorer developing countries (also called the Global South). Free trade agreements promise more market access to all countries involved by lowering or eliminating trade barriers such as taxes or tariffs. I
"* Extreme exploitation, including the absence of a living wage or long work hours, * Poor working conditions, such as health and safety hazards, * Arbitrary discipline, such as verbal or physical abuse, or * Fear and intimidation when they speak out, organize, or attempt to form a union."
It was discovered that they were forced to work up to 19 hours a day, were poorly-fed, and often beaten
What about those that is too late to save them? What about the ones that die from diseases? What about the ones that will die from AIDs, or war? Sure, feeding them would save some, but they would eventually die from some other thing...
Over 15 million children die from hunger. Thats a lot to save.
And also, other things have quite easy fixes too. $5 misquote nets? All those things are rather the horrible inventions of free trade capitalism.
You know all too well that my arguments are valid, and that is what they turn out to be.
I think your the most ill informed person I have ever debated. Rather sad that you think your completely right.
Now give me that society and I'll admit my ignorance.
New rule: It must have lasted longer than 10 years.
Lol. Communism is really rather quite a new idea. Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848. This leaves less then 200 years for a communist society to arise and live for 10 years.
You know how impossible that sounds. How could a communist society survive while the world is dominated by capitalist governments.
Heres one though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_commune
It lasted until the French army went in and killed 30,000 workers. And simply summarizes why the conditions for a communist society do not currently exist.
Now give me that society and I'll admit my ignorance.
I just showed much to show you wrong of everything else you said. About poor people being lazy and greedy for one. Im expecting a refutation of that, if you have one.
Actually in a capitalist economy, the working class is forced to spend their money "wisely" in order to survive. If you really look at it, the rich can spend their money as they please and not worry about the consequences. Inheretents can live like the "ghetto crack mothers" they despise all they want and afford to take care of babies, pay for abortions, medications for STDS, and be outright lazy! The only reason why they get a pass is because they stimulate the economy by purchasing things to maintain their lazy lifestyles while the "ghetto people" leach off of society to do so.
In other words, working class people are forced to every day by the flux and flow of the market to dip into their savings, cancel trips to see grandma, afford for only one of their kids to go to school, etc. while the rich can do as they please. Every time there is a dip in the marketplace, the working, poor and middle class have to adjust their lives and are forced to make sacrifices that can help or endanger their families.
Why do capitalists keep insisting that Socialism is about force, when the market drivien economy forces us to adjust our lives to accomodate the wealthy!? Reply With Quote
Quite impossible it sounds, but communism as an ideology is as old as humanity itself. Its' manifesto was just written a few hundred years ago yes, but it is a very old idea.
Maybe a good one, the Commune. Can you quote or place a laymans terms where it is communist?
About poor people being lazy and greedy for one.
Okay, here's my refutation:
There is a 50-50 difference in poor people. The lazy lobbyists, and the hardworking suppressionists. The hardworking suppressionists are poor because the lazy lobbyists are not working hard enough, so they drag everyone down.
Good enough?
So yes, I'll admit I was bit misinformed. But only of its' true definition, and my estimates were a bit off. It's characteristics that I stated were spot on though, for most communist cases.
and it is hailed by both groups as the first assumption of power by the working class.
And the fact that its called a commune, you know, same root word as communist
Also
* the separation of church and state; * the remission of rents owed for the entire period of the siege (during which, payment had been suspended); * the abolition of night work in the hundreds of Paris bakeries; * the granting of pensions to the unmarried companions and children of National Guards killed on active service; * the free return, by the city pawnshops, of all workmen's tools and household items valued up to 20 francs, pledged during the siege; the Commune was concerned that skilled workers had been forced to pawn their tools during the war; * the postponement of commercial debt obligations, and abolition of interest on the debts; and * the right of employees to take over and run an enterprise if it were deserted by its owner; the Commune, nonetheless, recognized the previous owner's right to compensation.
It's characteristics that I stated were spot on though, for most communist cases.
Most communist states ended up being ruled unintentionally by complete assholes. If communism was so nice and truly worked trust me, I'd be on your side.
* the separation of church and state; * the remission of rents owed for the entire period of the siege (during which, payment had been suspended); * the abolition of night work in the hundreds of Paris bakeries; * the granting of pensions to the unmarried companions and children of National Guards killed on active service; * the free return, by the city pawnshops, of all workmen's tools and household items valued up to 20 francs, pledged during the siege; the Commune was concerned that skilled workers had been forced to pawn their tools during the war; * the postponement of commercial debt obligations, and abolition of interest on the debts; and * the right of employees to take over and run an enterprise if it were deserted by its owner; the Commune, nonetheless, recognized the previous owner's right to compensation.
Some slight discrepancies, but not bad. Good job at that. Now find me one that lasted a year. And we'll go from there.
