Print Page | Close Window

Communism

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Modern History
Forum Discription: World History from 1918 to the 21st century.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1234
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 20:03
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Communism
Posted By: Winterhaze13
Subject: Communism
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2004 at 16:58
What do you aspiring or distinguished scholars think about communism. Do you think Marxism is a good idea undermind by many of its followers? Why did is ultimately fail? Why is it stigmatized?



Replies:
Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2004 at 18:52
Marxism does not work because simply because human nature is greedy, so we cannot have a classless society where everone is supposed to be doing everything right. In a society with about 20 people, it is possible to have everyone working well. But in a large society, there will always be those who want to exploit others. Unlike bees and ants, humans are more individualistic and tend to work for themeslves.

The formation of authoritarian communist nations already proved that Marxism was wrong about a classless society.

What's considered communism is debatable. But I guess it's an application of socialist idealology.


Posted By: Slickmeister
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2004 at 19:25

In America as well as many capitalist NATO nations, communism has been given a pretty bad rap. Why? because it is not of their country's political agenda. One of the problems is that Josef Stalin was more as a totalitarian leader than that of a communist. He was very oppressive and killed millions of people. That is a similar problem is that that is how the country is run. North Korea is led by a maniac and the build up on nuclear weapons is on and that focus off from who really matters--the people.

 Communism is a good idea and it looks good on paper but the world has yet to see a communist government that can survive. I mean yeh it works until some idiot decides that buying up nuclear weapons is more important than feeding and supplying necessities to the citizens of the nation that is being governed. I'm not saying that democracy is the answer because it clearly is not. Any government that is as driven by the economy as the United states is a formula for environmental disaster, and so far, it has been. The problem with majority rule is that it is simply, popularity rule. The majority isnt always right and when change needs to be implimented for the benefit of everyone, it can't be done. The government of this country has no juristiction to fix the severe environmental problems that are facing our country today. That means that private organizations have to clean up after everyone and they rely on funding from donations or government grants. However because the clean up is not the popular thing, donations will be minimal and the government can only justify to the people giving a small amount as well. This results in a minimal impact by the mentioned organizations. The only thing that people care about is money and people just arent concerned with these issues and if they are, they are not willing to sacrifice enough money and the damage just goes on and on. I guess what i am trying to say is that in a democracy, when something needs to get done, it is only done if the idea is popular, which is why this things are constantly neglected. Communist countries just need to be run right.



Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2004 at 20:15
I loath communism in theory and practice, even when it is not hijacked by totalitarian leaders it is a flawed system for providing basic human needs and violates the right of a man to profit from his own skills. 

-------------
Member of IAEA


Posted By: Kubrat
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2004 at 20:28
Spoken like a true capitalist .

I agree with both Imperator Invictus and with Slickmeister.  Genghis, I just want to point out to you that capitalism and democracy are far from perfect.  You also have greedy manipulators working in such societies, although often wearing a mask or working behind the scenes.  Also, in democracy and capitalism, often one man is robbed of what he deserves for his skills and knowledge just so another can profit.


-------------
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare


Posted By: Lannes
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2004 at 21:05

Originally posted by Kubrat

one man is robbed of what he deserves for his skills and knowledge

Thus describes Communism, and for that matter, why it won't work: People like to receive what they earn.



-------------
τρέφεται δέ, ὤ Σώκρατης, ψυχὴ τίνι;


Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2004 at 21:13

Capitalism is not perfect, but it's far closer to it than any other system human beings could devise or impliment.



-------------
Member of IAEA


Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2004 at 22:19

Communism can only work in a small society of individuals in a close relationship with each other. Such as a kibbutz. However a communist society is a perfect society, because at the base of it is the fundamentals of human charity. Think of what you would want on your tombstone.

"He gave everything he had for others" or

"He saw to himself first, without worry of others."



-------------
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2004 at 07:47
One of the problems is that Josef Stalin was more as a totalitarian leader than that of a communist. He was very oppressive and killed millions of people. That is a similar problem is that that is how the country is run. North Korea is led by a maniac and the build up on nuclear weapons is on and that focus off from who really matters--the people.

Indeed that's the problem.

Many people call the victims of Stalin's purge, the Khmer Rouge killing fields, etc. vicitims of communism, but they aren't. Communism is above all an economic system. Communism can be in a democracy (unfortunately that's rare) or in a dictatorship. The people who were killed by Stalin weren't killed because Stalin was a communist but because Stalin was a dictator. It's strange that people never call victims of communist regimes victims of comminism, but they don't call the vicitims caused by capitalist dictatorships (Pinochet, Papa Doc, numerous other Latin American tyrants, the Greek colonel's junta, Soeharto, Apartheid South Africa, etc.) victims of capitalism.

Everyone knows that in Mao's China some 30 million people needlessly starved to death. that was indeed a great crime. But little people know that in Mao's regime there were built medical posts and other facilities that many peoples lives. In 1950 the child mortality in India and China was about the same. In the next years the child mortality drastically dropped in China, in India it stayed about the same. It is estimated that in the period between 1950 and 1980 in India every 8 years the same amount of people died from easy curable deseases in India as died during the Great Leap Forwards in China.

I once found on the internet an exerpt from an interview with the Dalai Lama about communism

Q: You have often stated that you would like to achieve a synthesis between Buddhism and Marxism. What is the appeal of Marxism for you?

A: Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes--that is, the majority--as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism.

As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers' International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.

I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is nor much left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of compassion.

The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist
Apart from the half-Buddhist part, I agree with this.



-------------



Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2004 at 15:48
tcommunbism is for mindless ants, not for people.  Humans are greedy, greed propels human progress and regulation often interfers as much as it helps.  No system is perfect, indeed, I would argue all monetary systems are inheirently bad, but the market is th emost efficient and communism is the most stupid.

-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Omnipotence
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2004 at 17:06

"Communism can only work in a small society of individuals in a close relationship with each other. "

 

Well said, one example would be the family. Communism leans on human morality while captalism leans on human greed. Of course, when it comes to family, there is a much higher degree of human charity because it's their wife, children, ect... that is included. But when it comes to absolute strangers on the other side of the country...



Posted By: Kubrat
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2004 at 20:34
Well, you are all correct.... to a certain point.

One of the thing, especially in the rural areas, in Communist Bulgaria (I use Bulgaria because I am most familiar with it, not to single-mindedly popularize it) which I view as very good, was the generousity and hospitality of the people.  Now, I don't know whether this is just because people are generally like this (from your above posts, I think it isn't the case), or because the people really believed in Communism.  In fact, most of the supporters of the Communist regime came from the rural areas (which is very ironic since the Communists stressed modernization and urbanization).

Another point I want to make is that maybe greed is an aspect you learn as you are growing up, being raised, just like hate.  Maybe it isn't a necessary part of human nature, just one that is passed on.


-------------
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare


Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2004 at 13:35

In fact, most of the supporters of the Communist regime came from the rural areas (which is very ironic since the Communists stressed modernization and urbanization).

I don't think communism being strong and starting in rural areas is ironic at all as these are traditional people who care more about their family and neighbors well being rather than how much money than can get.

Another point I want to make is that maybe greed is an aspect you learn as you are growing up, being raised, just like hate.  Maybe it isn't a necessary part of human nature, just one that is passed on.

Greed I feel is a very essential part to human nature, it's the survival mechanism. I'll steal food from this guy because if I don't eat I'll die, is a very good thing to have ingrained into a survivalists mindset. However as humans we have the ability to determine when survival is necessary such as if I steal food from my brother than he'll die and so will his 8 children whereas I have none so our common genes will not be passed on (of course that's all subconscious). But that is where greed is taught to be either accepted or unaccepted.

If you'd really like to see the relationship between the nature vs. nurture of greed do some research on the Ik tribe.



-------------
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2004 at 15:06
Greed is the most productive trait a person can have, it has forged nations, been issential to invention, and created innovtion.

-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2004 at 17:55
Actually I would say envy drives those things.

-------------
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.


Posted By: Kubrat
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2004 at 19:05
Greed I feel is a very essential part to human nature, it's the survival mechanism. I'll steal food from this guy because if I don't eat I'll die, is a very good thing to have ingrained into a survivalists mindset. However as humans we have the ability to determine when survival is necessary such as if I steal food from my brother than he'll die and so will his 8 children whereas I have none so our common genes will not be passed on (of course that's all subconscious). But that is where greed is taught to be either accepted or unaccepted.


You say that greed is a mechanism of survival.  I don't think it is.  Survival is one thing.  Greed is another.  Greed is having enough... and then wanting even more.  Survival is getting what you need, and nothing else.  And human ingenuity is such that there is always more than one solution to any problem.  I'm sure that you would leave enough for the stranger to eat today, that you would share, until the very last possible moment.  I don't think that is greed.  Greed is lining your pockets with gold.

If you'd really like to see the relationship between the nature vs. nurture of greed do some research on the Ik tribe.


What is the Ik tribe?

Greed is the most productive trait a person can have, it has forged nations, been issential to invention, and created innovtion.


No, it is self-preservation that forged nations and inventions, and the search for safer and easier existance.  Which is different than greed, I think.  But greed does play a large factor.  But not I think in inventing something.. you can't force yourself to invent something .


-------------
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare


Posted By: Christscrusader
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2004 at 19:11

What do people think about this statement?

"People should either be fully ruled by the government, or be fully free of government.



-------------
Heaven helps those, who help themselves.
-Jc


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2004 at 19:42

Originally posted by JanusRook

Actually I would say envy drives those things.

 

well, that too, its very simialr to greed.

hmmph, that may explain why the west has become so technologically innovative in the past few hundred years, competition, both feudalism and many ethnicities spurred on more capable technolgy to rule and kill people.



-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Slickmeister
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2004 at 13:57

[QUOTE=JanusRook]Actually I would say envy drives those things.

Well, the 2 (greed and envy) can be used interchangebly



Posted By: Kubrat
Date Posted: 21-Nov-2004 at 09:43
Well, the 2 (greed and envy) can be used interchangebly


Well, if you look at it from a distant perspective, yes.  But the devil is in the details.  Greed is:

An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth


And envy is:

A feeling of discontent and resentment aroused by and in conjunction with desire for the possessions or qualities of another.


They sometimes lead to the same outcome, but they are not the same.


-------------
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare


Posted By: Slickmeister
Date Posted: 21-Nov-2004 at 13:16

You know what I mean. I said can.



Posted By: Kubrat
Date Posted: 21-Nov-2004 at 21:17
I thought you meant that they are synonyms... 

-------------
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare


Posted By: dark_one
Date Posted: 29-Nov-2004 at 20:26
 To sum up: Communsim is like spandex, looked good on paper,b ut real people started using it and things got really ugly.


Posted By: Scytho-Sarmatian
Date Posted: 30-Nov-2004 at 05:23
To me, it doesn't even look good on paper.  The only place it looks good is in the trash bin of history.


Posted By: dark_one
Date Posted: 30-Nov-2004 at 16:53
 The idea of universal tolerance and everyone working and getting as much as they want sounds bad on paper?


Posted By: Winterhaze13
Date Posted: 30-Nov-2004 at 17:35
I'd like to conduct a poll in regards to who here in this thread has actually read the communist manifesto. Many people judge communism based on the Soviet Model which is not communism as Marx described it. I encourage anyone ignorant on communism to actually read the manifesto and I will confidently assume that you will have a completely different opinion on its principles. 


Posted By: sephodwyrm
Date Posted: 30-Nov-2004 at 18:16

A specter is haunting AE, the specter of sephodwyrm. All the Powers of old AE have entered a holy alliance to exorcise this specter: Cyrus and Janus, Cornelia and Dawn, crazy Asian history section and Turkish elite Yeni Ceries...

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as sephodwyrmic by its opponents in power? Where the Opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Sephodwyrm, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?

2 things result from this fact:
1. Sephodwyrm is alrady acknowledged by all AE Powers to be himself a Power.
2. It is high time that sephodwyrm should openly, in the face of the new AE, publish my own view, my aim, my tendency and meet this nursery tale of the Specter of Sephodwyrm with a Manifesto of Sephodwyrm himself.

To this end, followers of Sephodwyrm of various nationalities have assembled in the (soon to be created) Sephodwyrm section and sketched the following Manifesto to be published in all language so that you sorry good for nothings can read them.

Bow before my will. Overthrow the self proclaimed Empress of the Universe! Destroy her vassals! Down with the Shah! Down with the Emperor! Down with the Sultan! Up Sephodwyrm.

Bored and self-deluded ones of all forums, unite!



-------------
"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them"
"Not what goes into the mouth that defiles the Man, but what comes out of the mouth" Matthew 7:12, 15:11


Posted By: Scytho-Sarmatian
Date Posted: 01-Dec-2004 at 06:45

Dark One -

It is not possible for one to get as much as one wants in life, so I would say that a system that advocates such illusions does not look good on paper or in practice.  Also, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is still a dictatorship, and therefore wrong (in my opinion). 



Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 01-Dec-2004 at 11:55
I would say "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is a stupid, weak-mongering idea.  It should read "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his abilities".  No one should get anything because they "need" it, they should get it because they have shown themselves valuable enough to society to warrant society giving them what they receive.  A person who contributes nothing to society, like a homeless person or drug addict, might need food, but they don't deserve it because they do not work toward the good of the collective.  Such unproductive people are a blackhole of money for society and any society that strives to sustain them is like an ill person encouraging cancer, which is why I despise the theory of communism.

-------------
Member of IAEA


Posted By: Winterhaze13
Date Posted: 01-Dec-2004 at 15:38
I am afraid that you don't understand the theories of communism. Communism was created for the benefit of the masses, whereas capitalism is designed in such a way that everyone looks after their self interest. Therefore, many of the disadvantaged are left out in capitalism which benefits the very few that are able to propel themselves. Now, which system sounds evil, which one oppresses the the lower class. Your ranting appears to be fascist and Darwinist in nature and is full of contridictions. I pity you for your public embarressment.


Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 01-Dec-2004 at 18:33
How is it full of contradictions just because you disagree with it?

-------------
Member of IAEA


Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 01-Dec-2004 at 19:43

A person who contributes nothing to society, like a homeless person or drug addict, might need food, but they don't deserve it because they do not work toward the good of the collective.  Such unproductive people are a blackhole of money for society and any society that strives to sustain them is like an ill person encouraging cancer, which is why I despise the theory of communism.

We all have our own problems and issues, and individually we hope others would help us out. Who are you to say that a homeless person or a drug addict are the bane of societies. What about the drug dealers that contribute so much money to the economy and create drug addicts, they are saints under capitalism. Or the rent lords who keep the poor homeless and in the streets, their abilities are exploiting others for personal gain, so these people should be looked up to. Hell if you want to get legitimate, tobacco companies make millions of dollars promoting a product that has been linked with higher cancer rates.

Capitalism attacks the products of the problems of society because they feel these people put themselves in their situation, Communism believes that the problem begins with the roots of society who have abused their positions as the base of an economy and withered the branches on their own self gain.

This is where I think your confusion lies, capitalism encourages the exploitation of others, communism encourages the equalization of the exploitation.



-------------
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.


Posted By: sephodwyrm
Date Posted: 01-Dec-2004 at 19:47

I think he feels sympathetic to you if you say you despite a theory.

I despite a theory because it creates unproductive people.

Technically, Communism doesn't want to create unproductive people, and neither does capitalism. But capitalism has loads of unproductive people too. I see bums in People's Park in Berkeley. Do I despite capitalism? No.

I believe my philosophy is that I can take it if its great for the people. That's why Singapore is a mixture of Communism and Capitalism. They're practical people. They don't despise theories. They despise unproductivity.



-------------
"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them"
"Not what goes into the mouth that defiles the Man, but what comes out of the mouth" Matthew 7:12, 15:11


Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 01-Dec-2004 at 21:00

I would say that the idea "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", is exploitative of productive people who must support with many needs and no abilities.  So, who would you rather exploit, the best or the worst of society?

And part of the theory of capitalism as propogated by Adam Smith is that capitalism in the end works for the common good by raising all levels of economic productivity and output.  Drug dealers clearly don't do that, there's a difference between caring for yourself as capitalism promotes and making money on the suffering of others.

I really also don't like how you brought up smoking, that's a personal choice, and if people want to make that choice, I see nothing wrong with a company providing them with the product.

I've smoked before, but I don't think I was exploited.

And I would say I'm practical about economics.  I'm not a doctrinaire laissez faire capitalist, and I do think there should be some government involvement to assist the economy and direct economic activities toward something beneficial for the state.



-------------
Member of IAEA


Posted By: sephodwyrm
Date Posted: 01-Dec-2004 at 21:07

Why did I keep typing despite when I wanna type despise? haiz...
I'm too lazy to change it.

I think you guys are going to philosophical about exploitation etc etc. Masochists choose to be exploited...so...



-------------
"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them"
"Not what goes into the mouth that defiles the Man, but what comes out of the mouth" Matthew 7:12, 15:11


Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2004 at 10:28

Genghis I think you and me are very alike except when it comes to the purpose of government and economics.

I really also don't like how you brought up smoking, that's a personal choice, and if people want to make that choice, I see nothing wrong with a company providing them with the product.

I've smoked before, but I don't think I was exploited.

I also have no problem with people smoking but if someone conciously decides to participate in self-destructive behavior they are using it as a blanket for greater issues which need to be addressed.

Also the tobacco companies don't exploit individuals but the masses. Besides you can't argue that smoking cigarettes don't cause an increased risk of cancer. Therefore tobacco companies are marketing a product that may lead to an early death, not very humanitarion if you ask me.

However I do respect your opinion Genghis as I know that the goals of communism and capitalism are the same, to benefit all people.



-------------
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.


Posted By: Winterhaze13
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2004 at 10:34

Originally posted by Genghis

I would say "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is a stupid, weak-mongering idea.  It should read "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his abilities".  No one should get anything because they "need" it, they should get it because they have shown themselves valuable enough to society to warrant society giving them what they receive.  A person who contributes nothing to society, like a homeless person or drug addict, might need food, but they don't deserve it because they do not work toward the good of the collective.  Such unproductive people are a blackhole of money for society and any society that strives to sustain them is like an ill person encouraging cancer, which is why I despise the theory of communism.

To Genghis:

I am not attacking you because I disagree with you. Your comments suggest that the poor are inherently weak human beings, which is a main feature of social darwinism and a main motivation for fascism. Is there any physical or mental distinction between a poor African and a rich wsterner? No, there isn't. You are lucky that I do not report you to an administrater because that is a derogatory comment and is despicable. You are no longer welcome on my thread. 



Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2004 at 14:17

Genghis did not say anything offensive. If one believes in social darwinism that is fine. If one is a fascist that is fine. Even if one is a racist that is also fine (although one must be civil in the forums). I don't think that Genghis has been anything but civil. Also he did not say that there was a physical or mental distinction between a poor African and a rich westerner. He just believes (correct me if I'm wrong) if a poor african works hard enough than he should benefit from his hard labors. You implied that (incorrectly I hope) from what he said. 

Also you do have a right to request that Genghis no longer posts in this thread, although you do not have the authority to make it so. Nevertheless, I hope that Genghis respects your wishes, but I believe you, Winterhaze will lose out in the long run by taking this course of action.



-------------
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.


Posted By: Winterhaze13
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2004 at 14:24

It is unacceptable to believe that the poor are weak and deserve their fate. Why don't you read the Codes of Conflict, it violates it,  it's absurd.

6. Nationalism, derogatory remarks to national or ethnic groups, jingoism, bigotry, racism, political propaganda.

By defending fascism and social Darwinism you are condoning racism, because that is what they imply. This is nothing personal, I just think his comments are offensive and I think that it should at least be brought to his attention. Don't compromise the integrity of this forum.



Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2004 at 14:33

No it doesn't people are entitled to believe in what they want, the only thing this forum asks is that you control the way you express your beliefs that may be offensive to others in your postings.

In short believing in something and saying you believe in something are two different things. Sorry I was being philosophical when I wrote it.

Again I stick by Genghis has done nothing wrong if you can find somewhere where he said something inappropriate PM it to me. Also if you find any problems with anything I've said I would like to address it in PM, I do not want this to turn into an issue.



-------------
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.


Posted By: Winterhaze13
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2004 at 15:35
Here are more issues to consider: Why did communism fail and would you say that capitalism has failed in many of the areas in the world where it resides? Capitalism is a very unstable system and many people think that it will ulimately fail ad that we will revert to socialism.


Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2004 at 20:08

Originally posted by Winterhaze13

Is there any physical or mental distinction between a poor African and a rich wsterner?

I'm not talking internationally about underdeveloped nations.  I'm talking about the people who cannot or do not support themselves in a prosperous society which has shown itself capable of allowing self-created success.



-------------
Member of IAEA


Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2004 at 20:25
Originally posted by Winterhaze13

It is unacceptable to believe that the poor are weak and deserve their fate. Why don't you read the Codes of Conflict, it violates it,  it's absurd.

6. Nationalism, derogatory remarks to national or ethnic groups, jingoism, bigotry, racism, political propaganda.

By defending fascism and social Darwinism you are condoning racism, because that is what they imply. This is nothing personal, I just think his comments are offensive and I think that it should at least be brought to his attention. Don't compromise the integrity of this forum.

I never intended this to show that certain countries are superior to others.  I was saying that an individual within his own society should be allowed to work hard and be justly rewarded, and that within that same society people who take resources but do not give their efforts toward the benefit of society as a whole should not receive any help from society.  This can apply to the very wealthy US and EU to the very impoverished areas of sub-Saharan Africa. 

If anything, sub-Saharan Africa is an example of what I was talking about.  The majority of the hardworking African populace has been forced to support parasitic colonial and corrupt indigenous regimes with their labors, leading to the unfortunate state Africa is in now.  I think that if any country adopted my philosophy, and didn't tolerate and support parasitic individuals be they resource wasting thieves and drug addicts to the very wealthy and corrupt leaders like Robert Mugabe, Africa would be a very prosperous continent.  They are after all blessed with extreme mineral and plant resources.

Thus, I don't see how my remarks fit any of those.  I'm talking about groups within one society, such as when a person makes national policies. 

I also never referred to any particular country by name, and meant by the terms "society" and "state" to make it clear I was talking about any hypothetical country.  Nor did I refer to any ethnic or religious group, and my circle of friends would make it clear to you that I'm no racist or bigot.

How I am being fascist also escapes me.  Just because I'm more utilitarian and less humanitarian in my views on the role of government doesn't make me a fascist.  I've also never used any reference to any political group, individual, or philosophy (with the obvious exception of communism and capitalism).



-------------
Member of IAEA


Posted By: Lannes
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2004 at 20:45

Originally posted by Winterhaze13

You are lucky that I do not report you to an administrater because that is a derogatory comment and is despicable. You are no longer welcome on my thread. 

Actually, Janus hit it dead on, Genghis has been quite civil in this discussion.  For this, I applaud him, becuase he has undoubtedly had to bite his lip to reply camly to your insulting posts.

On the contrary, what this discussion needs is for you to quit jumping to conslusions that degrade Genghis's ideals, and generally, for you to calm down on the accusations.



-------------
τρέφεται δέ, ὤ Σώκρατης, ψυχὴ τίνι;


Posted By: dark_one
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2004 at 21:18
[Q]

It is not possible for one to get as much as one wants in life, so I would say that a system that advocates such illusions does not look good on paper or in practice.  Also, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is still a dictatorship, and therefore wrong (in my opinion). [/Q]
 In that case if only people were more like me. I would ask for barely more than I have now. Food, shelter, job with weekends and 1 or 2 expensive thigns a year.



Posted By: Slickmeister
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2004 at 16:59
Money was a dumb idea overall anyway



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com