Why Communism wont work

[Deathb4Dishonor]

"Communism go's againts the natural laws of survival of the fitest" -=unknown=-

so thats why it will never work now tell me how this isnt true?

[Cheech06]

What kind of natural laws of survival we talkin bout?

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 10:53 PM
"Communism go's againts the natural laws of survival of the fitest" -=unknown=-

so thats why it will never work now tell me how this isnt true?
What about condoms? :huh:

[robob8706]

Survival of the fittest exists in the animal kingdom because animals usually live in individual units, unlike humans who live in large groups, and since technology has made the world even smaller humans are a lot more closer together. But my point is this, natural selection is only applicable to beings that have to strive to survive. Like the animal that lives on its own, it has to provide for itself or else it dies. But since humans live in groups, we can be providers communally. Natural selection does not apply to us because WE HELP EACH OTHER. We are not in a constant struggle to survive, because we work together. This is what will make communism possible, working together. So saying that communism goes against natural selection is true, but in order for this to be true then this statement must be true. "Human compassion eliminates natural selection by helping those who need help" When we help each other, there is no need for inferiority or superiority because we are all in this together. That is what will make communism possible.

[Y2A]

You have it the other way around. Humans live in individual units and most animals live in large packs.

[Nyder]

Helping people and having compassion has nothing to do with communism.

[Y2A]

Exactly.

[robob8706]

Umm yea it does, communism is about people working together for the good of the people, therefore they are helping each other. Communism is based on "community" hence the stem in the word 'communism'.

[Y2A]

You just don't get it do you.

[bush youth]

How do you know it's human nature and not something you just learned from being under capitalism, and being exposed to ads to get you to 'want' things? Or being hostile from the fear of being fired?

Because the natives managed it.

[BuyOurEverything]

"Communism go's againts the natural laws of survival of the fitest" -=unknown=-

so thats why it will never work now tell me how this isnt true?

First, this quote is not quite correct. Species co-evolve with each other and other species, it's not just 'every animal for themself.' If a species or culture constantly killed each other in an effort to survive, the species or culture would be destroyed. As robob mentioned, animals and humans work together.

More importantly, however, the theory of the evolution of species has very little to do with political philosophy. Homo sapiens, as a species, will continue to evolve regardless of how society is structured. Random gene mutation and natural selection will cause the gradual adaptation of the human race for whatever environment they inhabit.

The concept of 'survival of the fittest' is not something that should be attempted to be applied to society, it is something that naturally occurs over time. Attempting the former will result in social Darwinism, which has been proven to be a ridiculous and ineffetive, as well as horrible, philosophy. Take for example, Stephen Hawking. He is certainly not the 'fittest' person, and in "nature" he would probably die. Is it good for society for a 'fit' mugger to kill him and take his wallet? Survival of the fittest at its best...

[revolutionindia]

Darwin's laws apply to the animal world only
and to people who live like animals.

Hence in capitalist businesses its survivial of
the fittest.
A company will survive only if it follows a ruthless
profit oriented policy and indulges in excessive marketing.

In Human society we can observe the weakest are
those who always protected and looked after.

Take for example you had a crippled sister.
Just because she is crippled your mother will not throw her
in a dustbin or consume her for breakfast
or feed your sister to you.

I say this because thats what happens in the
animal kingdom where the mother feeds her weaker offsprings to
her stronger offsprings to ensure the survival of the strongest.

On the other hand your mother is more likely pay more attention to
your crippled sisters needs than yours.Thats because she is HUMAN

You would probably be ignored most of the time.
Ditto reaction from relatives ,neighbours etc.

If your life's existence is characterized by animalistic tendencies
which rebvolve around eating,mating etcetc then you are subject
to darwin's laws.

Nothing animalistic about communism.

[elijahcraig]

This is the social darwinist nonsense invented to allow big business to employ children, no better than murderers and child molesters.

If we were to follow this doctrine strictly, should there also be no union allowed? Etc? It is obvious humans have the ability to change things for the "better," despite evolutionary facts of gradual evolution, or any of the other various variations of that theory.

In other words: if survival of the fittest really was true, there would be no way humans could even put together welfare, or any other helping organization, institution, etc...that would go against the supposed law.

The fact is that humans can very easily change the economic system in order to further their species' survival in the long run. Making war on the poor doesn't seem rational in an attempt to survive, if that is our nature; making peace with all people seems rational if we are to survive.

So you are basically applying an irrationality to an abstract subject derived from the corporate wish to exploit for profit.

[Professor Moneybags]

But my point is this, natural selection is only applicable to beings that have to strive to survive. Like the animal that lives on its own, it has to provide for itself or else it dies. But since humans live in groups, we can be providers communally.

Ah, that's interesting. You are admiting that life requires productive effort, yet this doesn't apply to groups. If you don't provide the productive effort someone else usually has to; at gunpoint.

[Professor Moneybags]

Hence in capitalist businesses its survivial of
the fittest.
A company will survive only if it follows a ruthless
profit oriented policy and indulges in excessive marketing.

This anology starts to collapse when one realises that businesses are run by trade and not by force or parasitism.


On the other hand your mother is more likely pay more attention to
your crippled sisters needs than yours.Thats because she is HUMAN

But forcing people to work at gunpoint for the benefit of others is certainly not "human".

[Fidelbrand]

Survival of fittest implies those who fits to the harmonious universality of nature are the fittest, thus, survival is guranteed.

Communism does not go against this quote. Deductively, the quote above is already wrong in its very first step.

[h&s]

Communism go's againts the natural laws of survival of the fitest

Are these the same laws of survival of the fittest that Hitler used to justify the euthenasia of people with disabilities?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Oh my....all these years I have wasted.

If only you had come along to debunk communism in such a profound and brilliant way a few years sooner.

I have been such a fool.

Go Dubya!

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 03:44 AM
You just don't get it do you.
Actually, its clearly you who doesnt get it, just another thing you dont get, to add to your already impressive score.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by Enigma+Jun 1 2004, 03:56 PM--> (Enigma @ Jun 1 2004, 03:56 PM)
[email protected] 1 2004, 03:44 AM
You just don't get it do you.
Actually, its clearly you who doesnt get it, just another thing you dont get, to add to your already impressive score. [/b]
I'm not talking about communism you imbecile.

[New Tolerance]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 02:53 AM
"Communism go's againts the natural laws of survival of the fitest" -=unknown=-

so thats why it will never work now tell me how this isnt true?

Lol, the use of medicine also goes against this "natural law", (by keeping weak and defective people alive) but does that mean medicine is bad?!?!

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 02:53 AM
"Communism go's againts the natural laws of survival of the fitest" -=unknown=-


Wait wait wait, so i should be i should be like hitler then, ok i am no a nazi so i will survive ok because i dont want to continue my rate of not surving.

[gaf]

if you don't have to survive then you have tendencies to destroy,social or individual doesn't matter, if you have to survive you're to busy for it.

[Deathb4Dishonor]

you guys really dont understand what is tring to be said in this quote some of you are geting it i have to say most arnt id say id explain it but even if i tried you still wouldnt understand it but when you get it your get it your get it

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 09:37 AM
you get it your get it your get it
Can you blame them for not understanding? :huh:

There are typing courses nowadays aren't there?

[Vinny Rafarino]

you guys really dont understand what is tring to be said in this quote some of you are geting it i have to say most arnt id say id explain it but even if i tried you still wouldnt understand it but when you get it your get it your get it


Judging by the content of this post and its resemblence to completely incoherent babble, I seriously doubt that you could ever "explain" anything to anyone.

I hate having to repeat myself on so many occasions, however you kids keep coming back; if what you are attempting to say only makes sense in your mind, you are either a misunderstood genius or you are full of shit.

In looking at this particular post, I have concluded that you are definitely not a genius.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 01:37 PM
you guys really dont understand what is tring to be said in this quote some of you are geting it i have to say most arnt id say id explain it but even if i tried you still wouldnt understand it but when you get it your get it your get it
come'On baby, explain what you intend to convey to us then~ :)

[gaf]

but if your're to stone then you go to high
hey come back man!!!!!!come back.have a Joint for you ;)

[Osman Ghazi]

The thing is that where a being's survival isn't at stake, like say, every single one of us, survival of the fittest doesn't matter. Everyone survives. The fit and the weak.

[robob8706]

Thats what i was saying with us helping each other. Everyone survives because everyone survives no matter what their inferiority may be. So survuval of the fittest does not apply to us.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 07:53 PM
"Communism go's againts the natural laws of survival of the fitest" -=unknown=-

so thats why it will never work now tell me how this isnt true?
Survival of the fittest is a biological, not social, term. It refers to what happens when certain random genetic mutations are beneficial to an organism's survival; as the mutations are hereditary, the organism's offspring will perpetuate the new traits and do a better job at it than those without the traits, leaving the original, unmutated strain to be phased out.

Thus, the social version of the theory has no basis in science and your quote doesn't work without any further justification.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by DyerMaker+Jun 3 2004, 05:58 AM--> (DyerMaker @ Jun 3 2004, 05:58 AM)
[email protected] 31 2004, 07:53 PM
"Communism go's againts the natural laws of survival of the fitest" -=unknown=-

so thats why it will never work now tell me how this isnt true?
Survival of the fittest is a biological, not social, term. It refers to what happens when certain random genetic mutations are beneficial to an organism's survival; as the mutations are hereditary, the organism's offspring will perpetuate the new traits and do a better job at it than those without the traits, leaving the original, unmutated strain to be phased out.

Thus, the social version of the theory has no basis in science and your quote doesn't work without any further justification. [/b]
there ain't a better explanation than this one.

[The idealist]

QUOTE (DyerMaker @ Jun 3 2004, 05:58 AM)
QUOTE (Deathb4Dishonor @ May 31 2004, 07:53 PM)
"Communism go's againts the natural laws of survival of the fitest" -=unknown=-

so thats why it will never work now tell me how this isnt true?


Survival of the fittest is a biological, not social, term. It refers to what happens when certain random genetic mutations are beneficial to an organism's survival; as the mutations are hereditary, the organism's offspring will perpetuate the new traits and do a better job at it than those without the traits, leaving the original, unmutated strain to be phased out.

Thus, the social version of the theory has no basis in science and your quote doesn't work without any further justification.


there ain't a better explanation than this one.

I agree.
"Survival of the fittest" is not a "Universal law of nature". It is more present in capitalisme than in communisme.

In capitalisme every individual has the opportunity to become "the fittest", however small that opportunity may be, it is there. Capitalisme also defies the "natural law" in providing medicine and healthcare, thus supporting the "unfit".

Communisme takes everything an other step. It nearly eradicates this "law", in that it molds all the struggling individuals into a community. People no longer struggle for personal gain, but for the community. In this way they help themselves AND help others at the same time. Don't tell me this is inhumane.

Previouse comments about "working at gunpoint" must be based on ignorance of what communisme IS. Working at gunpoint is SOCIALISME GONE BAD. This happens when capitalists and opportunists grab power for personal gain during the turmoil of a revolution (such as stalin).
In communisme EVERYBODY works, and get given the same amount of food and necceseties.
As society progresses, more benefits appear due to the improvement of society.

If the communist government gains surplus money due to the hard work of the people, and have no other pressing uses for it, luxury goods can be given out. Thus living standard improves overall.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 1 2004, 06:35 AM
Ah, that's interesting. You are admiting that life requires productive effort, yet this doesn't apply to groups. If you don't provide the productive effort someone else usually has to; at gunpoint.
:lol: I love randian propaganda, it never fails to amuse me.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Misodoctakleidist+Jun 4 2004, 12:20 PM--> (Misodoctakleidist @ Jun 4 2004, 12:20 PM)
Professor [email protected] 1 2004, 06:35 AM
Ah, that's interesting. You are admiting that life requires productive effort, yet this doesn't apply to groups. If you don't provide the productive effort someone else usually has to; at gunpoint.
:lol: I love randian propaganda, it never fails to amuse me. [/b]
Care to stop the name calling and address the issue, then ?

[Misodoctakleidist]

The old "at gunpoint" argument is so ludicrous I don't even know where to start, how do I address an issue which doesn't exist?

I'm sure many people have refuted your "argument" in the past and you've continued to ignore them so I feel I'm wasting my time but I'll continue never the less; if we leave aside, for the moment, the fact that communism does no such thing, we're confronted with the question of who's holding the gun. There is no state to hold the workers to gun point, neither is there another class of people, if one could exist without a state, to do so.

Please don't bring up: the example of the USSR or any other leninist country, Im not a leninist and even if I were such countries never claimed to be anything other than socialist, or the argument, adage would be a more fitting description, that "attempts" at communism must always end in authoritarian socialism, if you want to know why this is irrelivent read some of the threads about leninism in theory.

As for the waffle about "productive effort;" I don't feel i even need to address it unless you're going to provide an actual argument instead of making such absurd assertions.

[Deathb4Dishonor]

Heres an explination for it this is the best i can come up with because most it i think you have to figure out for your self what its basicly trying to say is that man has a primitive want to be better then his fellow man and will strive to put him self above him through cheating, trickery, actuall physical abuse or the threat of it. mankinds natural abity to compete amongst each other is what will never allow us to work for one goal although you can argue that in america they worked long hours during ww2 fighting for the common goal of wining the war this is just because they had to so that all there intrest would be allowed to continute at a later time

[New Tolerance]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 05:23 PM
Heres an explination for it this is the best i can come up with because most it i think you have to figure out for your self what its basicly trying to say is that man has a primitive want to be better then his fellow man and will strive to put him self above him through cheating, trickery, actuall physical abuse or the threat of it. mankinds natural abity to compete amongst each other is what will never allow us to work for one goal although you can argue that in america they worked long hours during ww2 fighting for the common goal of wining the war this is just because they had to so that all there intrest would be allowed to continute at a later time
Ironic though, right wingers use this arguement that people are naturally selfish, and whatever they are doing, they are doing for themselves and not others. Then by this logic it is correct to say that Bush invaded Iraq for oil, to win the next election, and NOT to "help" save Americans from WMDs, and NOT to help free the Iraqi people (he's naturally selfish right?).

On the other hand, just look back in your life, has there NEVER been a point at which you truely felt that you just wanted to help someone? (help them for free)

[Nyder]

Helping someone of your own free will is a lot different then the altruist notion that every human individual must sacrifice their effort for the good of others.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 12:54 AM
Helping someone of your own free will is a lot different then the altruist notion that every human individual must sacrifice their effort for the good of others.
Indeed.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 08:54 PM
Helping someone of your own free will is a lot different then the altruist notion that every human individual must sacrifice their effort for the good of others.
That's not a very altruist notion, it's the basis of the wage-slavery system :huh:

[DaCuBaN]

Helping someone of your own free will is a lot different then the altruist notion that every human individual must sacrifice their effort for the good of others

Quite correct, but do you believe the former to be just where the latter is not?

I've always seen it from the perspective that we're here for such a short time, that anything we can do to make the world even slightly better can only be a good thing, whereas the acruement of personal 'baggage' serves no purpose at all.

It's always worried me that this desire to acrue wealth, belongings etc is from a feeling of superiority. Why do I not deserve to gain from my efforts? Why should 'those lazy bastards' be taking a share of my hard work?

When we speak about the 'revolution of the mind' this is exactly what we mean.


right wingers use this arguement that people are naturally selfish, and whatever they are doing, they are doing for themselves and not others. Then by this logic it is correct to say that Bush invaded Iraq for oil, to win the next election, and NOT to "help" save Americans from WMDs, and NOT to help free the Iraqi people

Spot on :D ;)

[Deathb4Dishonor]

What are you people talking about? this is about why communism wont work your supposed to be telling me that my explination is some how wrong but your not instead your asking me questions about if i like helping people and yes i do . i do plently of work for the better of my community in Demolay and CAP. most of you guys arnt even communist you just say you are because you think its cool if you really are communist why dont you tell me how my opion is wrong and stay on the topic of shut the fuck up

[dark fairy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 02:53 AM
"Communism go's againts the natural laws of survival of the fitest" -=unknown=-

so thats why it will never work now tell me how this isnt true?
ok you social darwinist... there is plenty of ways why communism wouldn't work... but you don't simply wake up to a communist country or nation or state of being... it take years and years... we can work towards and start now and that maybe we'll be able to have proper, correct communism but in the times we are in that is very hard... people are hardwired to think capitalist thoughts everyone whats more than what they already have...that is just the way it is

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+Jun 6 2004, 01:00 AM--> (Che y Marijuana @ Jun 6 2004, 01:00 AM)
[email protected] 5 2004, 08:54 PM
Helping someone of your own free will is a lot different then the altruist notion that every human individual must sacrifice their effort for the good of others.
That's not a very altruist notion, it's the basis of the wage-slavery system :huh: [/b]
Then your system must be slavery then.


It's always worried me that this desire to acrue wealth, belongings etc is from a feeling of superiority.

I've heard that freudian bunk before. "Men who own power tools only have them "to make them feel powerful". It's funny, because I thought they had them to put up shelves and stuff.


"Why do I not deserve to gain from my efforts? Why should 'those lazy bastards' be taking a share of my hard work?

When we speak about the 'revolution of the mind' this is exactly what we mean."

You mean "conditioned into servitude", don't you ?

[New Tolerance]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 03:29 AM
What are you people talking about? this is about why communism wont work your supposed to be telling me that my explination is some how wrong but your not instead your asking me questions about if i like helping people and yes i do . i do plently of work for the better of my community in Demolay and CAP. most of you guys arnt even communist you just say you are because you think its cool if you really are communist why dont you tell me how my opion is wrong and stay on the topic of shut the fuck up
And for those people who did try to argue why your opinion is wrong? I don't see a post from you that tries to counter their arguement. You said most people are off topic, but that means some of them are not. So why don't you stop paying so much attention to the people who are off topic and actually start to say something to the people who are not off topic?

Unless, it's because your quote has been so fatally countered by our camp that you can't think of anything except "going on the offensive" about how we are bad, and thus avoiding having to mount a defense for your own ideology.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 10:23 AM
Heres an explination for it this is the best i can come up with because most it i think you have to figure out for your self what its basicly trying to say is that man has a primitive want to be better then his fellow man and will strive to put him self above him through cheating, trickery, actuall physical abuse or the threat of it. mankinds natural abity to compete amongst each other is what will never allow us to work for one goal although you can argue that in america they worked long hours during ww2 fighting for the common goal of wining the war this is just because they had to so that all there intrest would be allowed to continute at a later time
Here's why you're confused: You aren't arguing survival of the fittest, which is a synonym for "natural selection", and Darwin's theory of the mechanism by which evolution occurs; you're attempting to use "will to power", which Nietzsche tried to argue was the ultimate reason for natural selection and many other things. It was the theory that all relationships between all matter are dictated by the desire for supremacy.

The problem is that your arguments have nothing to do with natural selection, which has at least a basis in biology, but instead rely upon will to power, which has no basis other than those of Nietzsche's syphlitic ramblings.

[DaCuBaN]

PM, One of these days I'm going to ask for your head if you don't start either reading before you post, or posting something that actually has some substance.


I've heard that freudian bunk before. "Men who own power tools only have them "to make them feel powerful". It's funny, because I thought they had them to put up shelves and stuff.


You got that from


It's always worried me that this desire to acrue wealth, belongings etc is from a feeling of superiority

:blink: :lol:

I would like to think you have the capacity to understand this as well as I - Of course I was intimating the attitude of 'I deserve, you do not'


You mean "conditioned into servitude", don't you ?

Conditioned by whom?

I don't believe in violenve and I don't believe in a state... so who the hell is going to do the conditioning.

No, this is about realisation - about that moment of epiphany where you realise that the universe does not revolve around you

Honesty, I'm beginning to think you're thick - surely not...

[Guerilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 02:53 AM
"Communism go's againts the natural laws of survival of the fitest" -=unknown=-

so thats why it will never work now tell me how this isnt true?
Well it seems to me that mankind has done a pretty good job of introducing things into the world that go against the supposed laws of nature. DO YOU REALLY THINK CAPATALISM IS SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST? TRY AND ARGUE THAT.

[Professor Moneybags]

I would like to think you have the capacity to understand this as well as I - Of course I was intimating the attitude of 'I deserve, you do not'

Straw man. If I created/earned and you did not, then your claims are groundless.

(Other nonsense addressed in another thread.)

[DaCuBaN]

If I created/earned and you did not, then your claims are groundless

Only in your mindset. When we're dealing with survival though, we should be looking at it from a more compassionate viewpoint, don't you think?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 09:23 PM

If I created/earned and you did not, then your claims are groundless

Only in your mindset. When we're dealing with survival though, we should be looking at it from a more compassionate viewpoint, don't you think?
Erm...no.

[Deathb4Dishonor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 08:29 PM
Well it seems to me that mankind has done a pretty good job of introducing things into the world that go against the supposed laws of nature. DO YOU REALLY THINK CAPATALISM IS SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST? TRY AND ARGUE THAT.
do you even understand capatalism? in capatalism say 2 people were selling cheeseburgers and there business in terms of profit was breaking even. so one day one of the cheeseburger sales men makes his cheeseburgers bigger and uses a better grade of cheese on them so his sell better. his cheeseburgers business is best suited to this area because thats what the people want so it will survive and the other cheeseburger seller will have to make his product more appealing some how or go out of business. but say he dosnt the guy who is making them bigger with more cheese will survive because his style of making them is more suited to survive in this particular area of the world

[DaCuBaN]

do you even understand capatalism? in capatalism say 2 people were selling cheeseburgers and there business in terms of profit was breaking even. so one day one of the cheeseburger sales men makes his cheeseburgers bigger and uses a better grade of cheese on them so his sell better. his cheeseburgers business is best suited to this area because thats what the people want so it will survive and the other cheeseburger seller will have to make his product more appealing some how or go out of business. but say he dosnt the guy who is making them bigger with more cheese will survive because his style of making them is more suited to survive in this particular area of the world

If we're talking laissez faire, then he could've easily gone round and nicked the gas cylinder his competitor uses in his fryer to the same effect.

The other option of course is that the entrepeneur makes his inferior burgers cheaper and as such those in society who have either failed to 'make it' or have not yet done so will buy from him.

It's crude to call it 'survival of the fittest', but it's the closest I can see.