quote:

---

Originally posted by Maya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by marine16:
It is not biased, in anyway, to say that in communism the poor want to steal from the rich. They want to steal from the rich because they chose not to work hard enough to acumulate wealth. Sure, the rich abuse and use the people, but that is because it is human nature. People need to be ruled, they have a primitave urge to be governend. Sinc ehte government isn't willing to a good job ruling its people, the rich take over.

---

The first sentence in that post is really hilarious! (well the whole post)

And about this: "since the government isn't willing to do a good job ruling its people, the rich take over"
Are you implying
1-that the rich do a good job? and 2-that Bush doesn't do a good job as president?

---

That's an interesting post...old interesting post.
Rich people get there money from somewhere,by some way,and very often,not a fair way.Do price scissors make sense to anyone who thinks all rich people take their money for granted?

quote:

---

They had rivers so polluted, you could set them on fire, deep green forests were turned to deserts, the soil, once so fertile, was basically sand because of all the chemical fertilizers that were in there. islands of untreated sewage floated in lakes. one was 1 mile long and three miles wide (found in Lake Baikal) , dangerously polluted air, and sinkholes the size of football stadiums caused by overmining in coal regions. why was this? because, under communism, the resources belonged to the government or state, or you could say they were owned by no one and thats why they were exploited so viciously. (another reason why socialism is economic poison)

---

Because we don't do all that stuff here?

quote:

---

Originally posted by marine16:
It is not biased, in anyway, to say that in communism the poor want to steal from the rich. They want to steal from the rich because they chose not to work hard enough to acumulate wealth. Sure, the rich abuse and use the people, but that is because it is human nature. People need to be ruled, they have a primitave urge to be governend. Sinc ehte government isn't willing to a good job ruling its people, the rich take over.

---

The first sentence in that post is really hilarious! (well the whole post)

And about this: "since the government isn't willing to do a good job ruling its people, the rich take over"
Are you implying
1-that the rich do a good job? and 2-that Bush doesn't do a good job as president?

It's pretty apparent no one here has ever read "What Men Live By".

quote:

---

I mean why is your government so scared of something that everybody seems to know may never exist????

---

Because there's a bunch of people out there who want to implement socialist policies. There are a bunch of very vocal commies out there (A.N.S.W.E.R, etc.) and unless you protect against creeping socialism, people will keep asking for more from the government. Somewhere along the line, people got it in thier head that stuff from the government is "free".
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

AND DrStrangelove you are right Communism would never work in America because your country is built on an entirely different set of values . But since you know it wont work there then WHY have Americans gone to such an exten to prevent it . I mean why is your government so scared of something that everybody seems to know may never exist????

Communism isnt wrong . Its a pretty sound theory . The only problem with it especially in countries like USSR was that it failed with the very class of people it was made to help .
Besides it you HAVE to chane with time . In fact it may have worked well with basic countries but not everywhere and definitely not as it is now.

Wait.For those who believe Communism means sacrificing individuality,here is one thing many Capitalism governments tend to ignore.
There's a condition before Communism could be put into practice.That is,productivity should be high enough to afford the society.The access to Communism isn't about sacrificing the current resources,it's about producing more for all.
It's simple.If resources are not enough,people have to claim private property because you'll starve if you don't.If some people have to sacrifice so that others can have what they need.That is not real Communism.
When we have more than enough for each individual,competition won't be a major option.

The real trouble lies in human nature.We are lazy lazy creatures.When we get our suppliments equally,slowly people will work less,and stop developing new technologies to raise productivity,This proved to be true.

And after all,the theory of Communism helps to keep a big country of large population in order;it also helps sustainbale development.Take my country for instance,if the major trend in China is individuality,then we'll probably eat up the world in the way Americans consume 1/3 of world resources every year.

quote:

---

The whole idea of Communism is based on share,collectivity,public interest and the belief on the good side of humanity.Just so it's not a world view that you've grown up with,doesn't mean it's 'wrong'.

---

Communism, in order to work, needs a homogenous, collectivist culture. This involves surrendering indiviualism. It's the ultimate way of giving up your own rights to ensure total equality. This, in my eyes, is entirely unhuman and goes against the beliefs America was founded in. In America, and for those who beleive in the ideals of our founders, Communism IS wrong.

quote:

---

Agreed. The US has this insane belief that unless a country has a democracy, it is evil and inhumane and should be forced to change.

---

See above. We're into self-rule here. Dictatorships aren't inherently inhumane, however they make it a hell of a lot easier for some sociopath to take over. Look at Russia. Lenin and Trotsky were saints reletive to Stalin, however because of the closed off and colletivist party elites, Stalin was appointed after Lenin's death and proceded to kill 20 million people.

Because of the checks and balances in an American style system, the people, the ones being ruled, have a say in the matter. All the grips about recent politics aside, you'd never have a malevolent dictator suddenly take over in the US.

quote:

---

Just so it's not a world view that you've grown up with,doesn't mean it's 'wrong'.

---

Agreed. The US has this insane belief that unless a country has a democracy, it is evil and inhumane and should be forced to change.

quote:

---

And pollution can't be caused by a theory.For instance,the Industrial Revolution wasn't much of an environmentally act either.

---

Nor was it good to humans. Many child laborers in the Industrial Revolution. The book David Copperfield provides a small inside on this, though of course it is a work of fiction (the book itself I mean), but it is said to be like a biography of Charles D.ickens.

It's a matter of choice.Not a matter or morality.The whole idea of Communism is based on share,collectivity,public interest and the belief on the good side of humanity.Just so it's not a world view that you've grown up with,doesn't mean it's 'wrong'.

And pollution can't be caused by a theory.For instance,the Industrial Revolution wasn't much of an environmentally act either.

quote:

---

Just as torture is morally wrong, so is economic punishment for success

---

This is the only part in which I agree with you.

quote:

---

morally wrong

---

When you say something as "this is right" or "this is wrong", especially regarding morals, add an "I think". What is right and wrong is merely an opinion, and morals fade into the category as well.

It is not good in practice, and I am sorry to say it - no I'm not - it is bad in theory. Private ownership, freedom of employment, remuneration according to supply and demand and personal output. These things are moral rights in my view. Just as slavery is morally reprehensible, so is taking someone's land for "the good of the whole." Just as sweatshops are moralyl bankrupt, so is paying people according to need, not effort. Just as torture is morally wrong, so is economic punishment for success. Communism and socialism are morally wrong, yes wrong. Ownership and personal property is a God-given right, inailienable, and should never be taken away even "for the good of the whole."

After what we found in Russia in the late 1980's is enough for me never to want communism. just with the environment.

They had rivers so polluted, you could set them on fire, deep green forests were turned to deserts, the soil, once so fertile, was basically sand because of all the chemical fertilizers that were in there. islands of untreated sewage floated in lakes. one was 1 mile long and three miles wide (found in Lake Baikal) , dangerously polluted air, and sinkholes the size of football stadiums caused by overmining in coal regions. why was this? because, under communism, the resources belonged to the government or state, or you could say they were owned by no one and thats why they were exploited so viciously. (another reason why socialism is economic poison)

if you dont have private property, and sound liability law, like in free market capitalism, this is what happens.
economically, millions starved in the 1920's and 30's during the Russian famines, becauses of the futile collectivsed agriculutral system, (which i might add almost kiled off the pilgrims)
Stalin's forced colectivization caused the deaths of six million people in ukraine in less than a year (1932)
stalin killed off political opponents.
the soviets rulers lived like king while the citizens were starving and dying off.
of course this is only one case of comunism/socialism...

I'm pretty sure I already said that.

Communism will never work.. Yes it will work in maybe a group of 10 people. The only way you can have a communist country is a communist world.

They are countries theoretically progressing towards pure communist or socialist systems with no government, just the opposite of the large government one associates with countries we've seen. What you end up getting are leaders who don't want ot relinquish power or who manipulate theory or the common good to serve their own desire or perpetuate the status quo. You put the leaders in charge of abolishing the heriarchy. Which is dumb.

Well I did say that we would at least need some sort of universal implementation. But the government depicting where we go with our careers... nuh-uh. Never would work for long. I know righ tnow that I want to search for a cure/vaccine to HIV/AIDS but that I would be recommended for English.

All these "Good idea gone wrong" posts are a bit off. They should read: "Good idea that would never work, and is impossible to implement."

All those "Communist" countries were actually socialist dictatorships. I think what most people think of as "socialism" is actually social democracy. There's a key difference.

Socialism requires a totalitarian state that controls all means of production and income distribution. It's sort of designed to bring about equality by forcing everyone to be equal. Social democracy is a system where people still can own private buisness and whatnot, but there's a heavy focus on a nanny state, and usually high taxes to support this system.

I read it too. It was a pretty good idea, but the timing was bad. That's really all. And it would have to be universal to work, over the entire planet, in my opinion for it to work.