List of Reasons

[Right_is_right]

I wanted to start a thread that i can systematically gather information. Lists are efficient i find.
I think communism will not work.

Here is my list of reasons:
Human tendency to be racistThis will cause division in the utopia
Human tendency to be selfishNormally people do not like to share and try to preserve their lives even at the expense of others
Human tendency to be greedyNormally people like to get more, even at the expense of others
EmotionsIn the Utopia, say somebody gets cheated on/break up by their gf/bf. Their emotion may cause them to do something bad. In which case a police would be needed, which means there is a form of centralized power.
Unreliability of EducationNot every child will respond the same way to the communization and could result in people who retain the traits mentioned earlier, upsetting the Utopia's delicate balance.
Robots are not a solutionThis could make the Utopia even more fragile because he/she who controls the robots have central authority-like power.

To summarize, i think the communist utopia can be reached but will be too unstable to last very long, and when/if it collapses, you can imagine the catastrophic results because nobody will have protection from the ensuing anarchy.

[Latifa]

Human tendency to be racist

WHAT??

Honestly, that's such bullshit! Do you teach the children the colour of their feet when they play in the sandpit?


Human tendency to be selfish
Normally people do not like to share and try to preserve their lives even at the expense of others


Ever been in a family??


Human tendency to be greedy

The 'human tendecy' to be greedy is fuelled by advertising. "Wow! My TV has 3 more square inches viewing space! You suck!"


EmotionsIn the Utopia, say somebody gets cheated on/break up by their gf/bf. Their emotion may cause them to do something bad. In which case a police would be needed, which means there is a form of centralized power.

Do something bad? Like, kick over a rubbish bin?

Angst is your enemy. Just get over it.

Your last two points are semi-valid... I'm sure a more learned member of the board will prove me wrong.

[(R)evolution of the mind]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 08:51 AM

Human tendency to be racist

Bullshit. Humans weren't racist until it suited the capitalists to divide&rule the working class.


Human tendency to be selfishNormally people do not like to share and try to preserve their lives even at the expense of others

The only people who lose anything by this is a handfull of billionaires.


Human tendency to be greedyNormally people like to get more, even at the expense of others

But once people lose the slave mentality capitalism has taught them, they can't be ruled and thus taken advantage of by wannabe-capitalists. It becomes difficult to exercise greed at such a scale that thrives in capitalism.


EmotionsIn the Utopia, say somebody gets cheated on/break up by their gf/bf. Their emotion may cause them to do something bad. In which case a police would be needed, which means there is a form of centralized power.

No. Each community could have its own security force directly responsible to the people and absolutely having no authority more than anyone else over anyone. (The only justification to violence is self-defense or the defense of another on request.)


Robots are not a solutionThis could make the Utopia even more fragile because he/she who controls the robots have central authority-like power.

Workers are expected to function like robots under capitalism. Work all day through without questioning the capitalist masters, and after the day is over, consume.


To summarize, i think the communist utopia can be reached but will be too unstable to last very long, and when/if it collapses, you can imagine the catastrophic results because nobody will have protection from the ensuing anarchy.

Would it be too hard to read some anarchist texts to actually find out what anarchy is really about?

[Right_is_right]

i should have said nationalistic, in the sense that they will favour their family/kin.

Humans are selfish. However, there is often a special bond between a parent to child. Your point is valid but i was talking about every other case of interaction between humans.

And about greed. Read any history book and you will find greed all over the place, people seeking wealth, glory, fame. Capitalism is also based on the idea that humans are greedy and will try to accumulate wealth. Doesn't capitalistic theory work? Its not nice to the poor but it does work. Therefore, people are greedy. It isn't taught. You can even notice it when children play with each other. If there is only one toy, they all want it right?

[Right_is_right]

But once people lose the slave mentality capitalism has taught them, they can't be ruled and thus taken advantage of by wannabe-capitalists. It becomes difficult to exercise greed at such a scale that thrives in capitalism.

??? huh? :blink: what does slavementality have to do with greed?

Each community could have its own security force directly responsible to the people and absolutely having no authority more than anyone else over anyone. (The only justification to violence is self-defense or the defense of another on request.)
This security force will need leadership, otherwise it will be impotent, read any military theory book and it will tell you the importance of organization. But leadership means concentration of power. So i guess thats not a good solution to stop a smart terrorist sneaking around the communist utopia. Even a criminal reporting system would have major weaknesses if its not being controlled by anybody. Terrorists could easily use it to their advantage.

[(R)evolution of the mind]

??? huh? :blink: what does slavementality have to do with greed?

People not allowing wannabe-capitalists to take advantage of them economically. Unless large majority of the people shed this mentality, any kind of classless society won't hold up, because part of the people can be turned by the greed people into instruments of oppressing the rest.



Each community could have its own security force directly responsible to the people and absolutely having no authority more than anyone else over anyone. (The only justification to violence is self-defense or the defense of another on request.)
This security force will need leadership, otherwise it will be impotent, read any military theory book and it will tell you the importance of organization.

So you'd have periodically rotated managers chosen by and directly responsible to either the whole community or the workers of the security syndicate, just like any other workplace in a classless society. No absolute rulers does not mean no any kind of "managership".

[Right_is_right]

So you'd have periodically rotated managers chosen by and directly responsible to either the whole community or the workers of the security syndicate, just like any other workplace in a classless society. No absolute rulers does not mean no any kind of "managership".
There are a lot of people so im assuming this temporary managership will be a one time thing. Won't this system cause the leaders to always lack leadership experience and skills, which will result in a weak leader always in command?

[(R)evolution of the mind]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:42 AM

So you'd have periodically rotated managers chosen by and directly responsible to either the whole community or the workers of the security syndicate, just like any other workplace in a classless society. No absolute rulers does not mean no any kind of "managership".
There are a lot of people so im assuming this temporary managership will be a one time thing. Won't this system cause the leaders to always lack leadership experience and skills, which will result in a weak leader always in command?
It depends on how the community/syndicate decides to do things. Do they want to rotate the positions through everyone or everyone willing, do they decide by voting on candidates (with revocable position and not allowed to have more than one term in row), and so on. Some might even decide in a small enough community to do all management decisions together.

Also "leadership skills" isn't really applicable. "Management skills" is. A "strong leader" must also possess the skills to manipulate people into doing his/her bidding. A manager that is responsible to the people (s)he manages instead of someone with higher authority only needs to be able manage others' work to their satisfaction. An unexperienced manager is likely to receive help in his/her work, and management could also be organised to be done by a small group of people with part more experienced and part only learning.

There are many ways to organise these things in a society without absolute rulers. What works best can only be found out be experimentation, the only limit being that no-one must be given coercive authority over others; who manages and what must be a mutual decision.

[Essential Insignificance]

There's unquestionably a large number of groundless assertions in your "elucidation" on why communism "will never work"... or "will only work" for a "short period to time" -- because it will be "brought down" by the "internal contradictions" of the fallible nature of the human species.

Let's get a few things "straight"... however.

Communist societies will not resemble any fanciful notion of a perfect, pristine, faultless "utopian" society.

The word "utopian" itself -- generally connotes something tending to deal with admirable but impracticable ideas.

And as such... "we" communist do not anticipate nor await for such an unfeasible society... revolving around rational, mechanical deliberation -- instead of human emotion and sentiment.

The "assertion" that "racism" is "inherently built in the human psyche" is grossly tenuous and for me fallacious. But even if we were to "grant" such "transgressions" in a communist society... it ultimately dissolves.

The sphere of wanting to be "accepted" by a "social identity" is one, which most of us try to actualize and therefore crystallize, insofar as the "sensation" of acceptance and recognition is an overwhelming "urge" to find... amongst all of society's dissimilarity's.

Insofar as present day society harbors and indeed encourages this racism, the contradiction of the "exploiter" and the "exploited" will resolve these seemingly "social contrasts" (racism).

This contrast of "racial discrimination" is only the necessary expression of hiding the real and underlying social disparity of society -- the exploiter and the exploited -- as I aforementioned... and all races "fall under" this distinction.

And as the "revolutionary consciousness" of the working class ferments -- and unity of the exploited grows -- so to will follow the disbandment of racial prejudice.

We often hear the argument that mankind is "innately" "selfish" or "greedy". But if one were to look back to pre-class society (10, 000 years ago) or different cultures nowadays -- they will immediately discover that it is a gross mistake to think that that man is -- by nature "selfish" and "greedy".

[redstar2000]

I remain convinced that whenever "human nature" arguments are raised against communism, the person so doing is not really talking about "human nature" at all...they are talking about their own nature.

Since they look into themselves and see nothing more than insatiable appetite, they assume that "everyone" is "like them".

They are not, of course. If they were, then the Hobbesian nightmare of a war of all against all would be daily reality...and everyone's life would indeed be "nasty, brutish and short".

Another and more immediate reason for these views is that our young cappies have been raised to be ambitious -- they've been taught by their parents or other close adults that they are "entitled" to rise to a high position in the social pyramid...or worse, that they have a "solemn duty" to their parents to "achieve eminence".

In a sense, they have to deny the possibility of communism...it would undercut their whole outlook on life if humans cooperated in an egalitarian society.

The "reason" that communism "can't work" is that there's no place for them in it.

And they're right; there isn't. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by (R)evolution of the mind+Feb 2 2005, 08:36 AM--> ((R)evolution of the mind @ Feb 2 2005, 08:36 AM)
[email protected] 2 2005, 10:42 AM

So you'd have periodically rotated managers chosen by and directly responsible to either the whole community or the workers of the security syndicate, just like any other workplace in a classless society. No absolute rulers does not mean no any kind of "managership".
There are a lot of people so im assuming this temporary managership will be a one time thing. Won't this system cause the leaders to always lack leadership experience and skills, which will result in a weak leader always in command?
It depends on how the community/syndicate decides to do things. Do they want to rotate the positions through everyone or everyone willing, do they decide by voting on candidates (with revocable position and not allowed to have more than one term in row), and so on. Some might even decide in a small enough community to do all management decisions together.

Also "leadership skills" isn't really applicable. "Management skills" is. A "strong leader" must also possess the skills to manipulate people into doing his/her bidding. A manager that is responsible to the people (s)he manages instead of someone with higher authority only needs to be able manage others' work to their satisfaction. An unexperienced manager is likely to receive help in his/her work, and management could also be organised to be done by a small group of people with part more experienced and part only learning.

There are many ways to organise these things in a society without absolute rulers. What works best can only be found out be experimentation, the only limit being that no-one must be given coercive authority over others; who manages and what must be a mutual decision. [/b]
What if "the people" decide they need 14 coffee breaks per 4 hour shift? Or what if they decide they want any other working condition or method that would clearly be detrimental to the production process?

Is the manager to be beholden to them, ensuring inefficiency and waste; or is to excercise his "power over" and manipulate them into doing things properly?

[(R)evolution of the mind]

What if "the people" decide they need 14 coffee breaks per 4 hour shift? Or what if they decide they want any other working condition or method that would clearly be detrimental to the production process?

Is the manager to be beholden to them, ensuring inefficiency and waste; or is to excercise his "power over" and manipulate them into doing things properly?


It is not the job of the manager to tell people how much and at what times they must do work and so on. Such issues the group must mutually agree upon, possibly together with the rest of the community. If anyone strays too much from this, first the matter would probably be discussed with him/her (sigh. English needs a new word) to try to solve the problem, and if this doesn't help, request that (s)he find something more interesting to do.

What the managers do is simply coordinate the division of tasks among the workers, and possibly act as delegates to discussions with other groups. If someone doesn't agree with the task division decisions, the managers decisions could be contested in a group meeting with everyone having an equal voice.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Essential Insigni[email protected] 2 2005, 10:05 AM
But if one were to look back to pre-class society (10, 000 years ago)
Primitive tribalism ? Who the hell wants to go back to that ?

[RedStarOverChina]

"Human tendency to be racistThis will cause division in the utopia"
...? I dont know wht to say about that...u just gotta know that its utterly preposterous... I hope u could learn more from this site... We'll talk about this later alright?

[Right_is_right]

Also "leadership skills" isn't really applicable. "Management skills" is. A "strong leader" must also possess the skills to manipulate people into doing his/her bidding. A manager that is responsible to the people (s)he manages instead of someone with higher authority only needs to be able manage others' work to their satisfaction. An unexperienced manager is likely to receive help in his/her work, and management could also be organised to be done by a small group of people with part more experienced and part only learning.


its not that simple. In order to coordinate a group of people, there needs to be somebody who makes they decisive decisions and execute them successfully and quickly. People cannot help him make these decisions because then he will get "wurmtongued" at which point he is just a puppet leader. Keep in mind that we are assuming this leader doesn't really know what he is doing. Group leadership does not work too well because it is not decisive and can easily get boggled down in arguments and the strongest leader in that group would probably take control anyway through a form of informal leadership. All this is not permitted in communism so the security force will have no choice but to work in the most ineffective and inefficient way possible. So the bad guys probably never gonna get caught.

Just picture this, everyone wants to do something different, and that manager, who is responsible to the people can't decide what to do because he can't satisfy everyone. Once he chooses to ignore some people, at that point he has just stepped above the group. Now the group has to follow his decision or they know they cannot function. What i wanted to stress here is that the leader can't be under the group. Do you remember what the soviet system in USSR was supposed to be like? Didn't it fail to keep the government responsible to the people?

The rules of the communist utopia are flawed.

[Right_is_right]

"Human tendency to be racistThis will cause division in the utopia"
...? I dont know wht to say about that...u just gotta know that its utterly preposterous... I hope u could learn more from this site... We'll talk about this later alright?
Give me a break here. I admit, I have realized this is wrong. Saying people are naturally racists, naturally hateful of other races, was going too far. What i should have said was that they have a tendency to become nationalistic, whether that is family unity, clan unity, or national unity.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 05:51 AM
you can imagine the catastrophic results because nobody will have protection from the ensuing anarchy.
I was going to post my views on this topic, until I was this. :rolleyes:

[encephalon]

i should have said nationalistic, in the sense that they will favour their family/kin.

Humans are selfish. However, there is often a special bond between a parent to child. Your point is valid but i was talking about every other case of interaction between humans.

And about greed. Read any history book and you will find greed all over the place, people seeking wealth, glory, fame. Capitalism is also based on the idea that humans are greedy and will try to accumulate wealth. Doesn't capitalistic theory work? Its not nice to the poor but it does work. Therefore, people are greedy. It isn't taught. You can even notice it when children play with each other. If there is only one toy, they all want it right?

Correction, sir: read western history and you will find abundant greed. Our very identity is based on the medieval search for "Gold, Glory and God" which led to imperialism. Read history and you will also find countless examples of egalitarianism.

Selfishness is not inherent in humanity. It is a learned process. The inherent human quality that leads to selfishness is will to survival, to slightly change a mistaken nietzche phrase. Under capitalism, or any system in which class schism exists, this will to survival manifests in its extreme as greed. The source, however, is not humanity, but the pitting of one human against another for what is commonly called property, which is the means of survival in a material world. Ownership, as we currently think of it, is the manifestation of one's desire to survive. If ownership of the means to survival is taken out of the equation, in which case owenership of the means of survival is held in common, so too is the competition thereof, and the manifestation of humankind's two greatest instincts--survival and social organization--into greed.

Doesn't Capitalism work? It depends on what one defines as working. Capitalism failed imperial Rome. Feudalism worked for quite some time: does this mean that man is naturally a peasant, serf or noble? Egalitarian societies have also worked throughout history, some still do in isolated areas.

Here's my definition of a system working: if it denies the means of a noble existence to the masses while transferring the vast proportion of "wealth" or "property" to a select few, it is not a system which best serves humanity nor the individual.

Children act as they are taught to act. I've seen a one year old be more giving than any adult I've ever met, near the point of self-negation. Children learn from the day they are born.

And, if you read a history book, you'd know that "Nationalism" has only existed within a capitalistic context, and not at all a common theme throughout human social history. It is a phenomena tied directly to capital imperialism. No reason for nationalism exists but to impose force upon another or group of others far removed from yourself.

Family, as we know it, has also not existed throughout history. The concept of "family", in fact, differs greatly from one culture to the next. You are imposing your own western cutural standards upon humanity as a whole, wheras a little anthropological research will show that humanity is dominated by cultural values and societal norms, not at all by some innate "human nature." It is a misapplication of effect as cause.

[Publius]

Let me some this up:

"Humans weren't they way until other humans made them that way!"

If humans weren't racist, humans wouldn't be racist.

Apply that to greed or anything else.

Non-contradiction.

[Right_is_right]

Lets do a thought experiment.
Say you put to babies in one play pen and you put one toy inside. Will both babies want the toy? Will they fight for it(i mean tugging and pullling)?
You put 2 babies in a play pen. You give one baby a toy, the other baby nothing. Will the baby with no toy try to take it? Will the baby with no toy cry?

Basic human nature is most obvious in babies. Some babies are more aggressive than others. You need to recognize that there are many baby types. Not everyone will respond the same to educating in the communist utopia. Will you kill the babies that seem to exhibit aggression or greed? Do you call that humane? If you have children who have not responded well to communist teachings, the utopia's future will be put at risk. So what will you do?

[Publius]

Communism solves that problem by just starving everyone to death.

Voila! Instant equality.

[encephalon]

you repeatedly refer to communism as utopian, and in this you are fallacious. Look up utopian socialism some time.

yes, some babies are more aggressive than others. Such is the curse of being ruled by chemicals. Yet humans are above all responsive to social stimuli. This is why chinese babies can grow up culturally as americans, and americans as culturally chinese. And in egalitarian societies that exist today, they simply don't have this problem that you claim would indeed be a problem. Except for the criminally insane, all societies quickly abdicate those behaviors which it deems as a whole to be undesirable. I suppose, by your logic, that they simply aren't human, since they don't have such innately human problems that you claim can't be circumvented.


Let me some this up:

"Humans weren't they way until other humans made them that way!"

If humans weren't racist, humans wouldn't be racist.

Apply that to greed or anything else.

Non-contradiction.


The problem with your argument here is that you only consider humanity on an individual basis rather than the whole. By your logic, I could simply defend any number of egalitarian ideologies by saying since there are egalitarian societies, all humans must inherently be egalitarian. This is faulty logic, as it renders true two completely opposite arguments. Or I could simply apply it to monarchy: since monarchy has existed, and indeed still exists in many places, then everyone must be a monarchist. It is an overextension. To be sound and cogent, an argument must not render true two entirely opposed statements.

[encephalon]

Communism solves that problem by just starving everyone to death.

Voila! Instant equality.


It is with this statement that I conclude that you know next to nothing about what communism actually is, and simply spouting forth reactionary triteness without knowing what you argue against.

[Limbiko]

Say you put to babies in one play pen and you put one toy inside. Will both babies want the toy? Will they fight for it(i mean tugging and pullling)? - Right is Right

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

Question:

Does a baby born in Rwanda - which does not have a play pen or a toy - fit into your biased example????

Publius, for you - a comment: "You should be modest and prudent, and guard against arrogance and rashness".....:unsure: ...Mao?

[truthman]

Communism requires that one abandons all hope of ever advancing. Humans desire to advance. Hence we create more advanced ideas like communism and capitalism. Communism is a dead end because it forces humans to abandon their urge to advance.
Oh, and Communism sucks because it forces abandonment of private property. I lose my freedom to use my land how I want to. Instead others decide what I can or can't do. I sacrifice individualism. Which humans don't do. All humans will be individualistic when they see the chance.

[encephalon]

Communism requires that one abandons all hope of ever advancing. Humans desire to advance. Hence we create more advanced ideas like communism and capitalism. Communism is a dead end because it forces humans to abandon their urge to advance.
Oh, and Communism sucks because it forces abandonment of private property. I lose my freedom to use my land how I want to. Instead others decide what I can or can't do. I sacrifice individualism. Which humans don't do. All humans will be individualistic when they see the chance.

How is it that humans are forced to abandon any hope to advance?

I depend on how you and everone else uses "your" land and "their" land to stay alive, as does the whole of society. That which all of humanity depends on to survive necessarily is the "property" of all humanity, whether you want to call it your own or not.

Communism does not supress individuality, but is the extreme expression thereof. You display a lack of knowledge about communism itself by claiming as such.

[Essential Insignificance]

Communism requires that one abandons all hope of ever advancing. Humans desire to advance. Hence we create more advanced ideas like communism and capitalism. Communism is a dead end because it forces humans to abandon their urge to advance.
Oh, and Communism sucks because it forces abandonment of private property. I lose my freedom to use my land how I want to. Instead others decide what I can or can't do. I sacrifice individualism. Which humans don't do. All humans will be individualistic when they see the chance.

When I read your first sentence I thought you meant that a communist society wouldn't "advance" in to other "forms"... but I was wrong.

Under capitalism people are not able to realize or actualize their true potentialities -- either because they "financially" cannot do so or because their discouraged too (of course there are more reasons).

But under communism people will have the sum ability to "become conscious" and achieve their diverse capabilities... whatever they may be.

You are completely wrong in "thinking" that humanity, or individuals advance or make brilliant achievements (in the felids of technology, medicine, science, etc) with the intention of acquiring more or an unbounded amount of material possessions.

It's usually to be "recognized" or to better and improve humanity's capabilities and understanding.

Capitalism kills "individualism" and uniqueness... if you are a "manual labor" (a plumber) then that is all you ever will be (a plumber).

Your "chance" of "progressing" to something "better" is minimal!

Under communism... your "chance" of "progressing" is infinite!

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Essential [email protected] 3 2005, 08:15 AM

Communism requires that one abandons all hope of ever advancing. Humans desire to advance. Hence we create more advanced ideas like communism and capitalism. Communism is a dead end because it forces humans to abandon their urge to advance.
Oh, and Communism sucks because it forces abandonment of private property. I lose my freedom to use my land how I want to. Instead others decide what I can or can't do. I sacrifice individualism. Which humans don't do. All humans will be individualistic when they see the chance.

When I read your first sentence I thought you meant that a communist society wouldn't "advance" in to other "forms"... but I was wrong.

Under capitalism people are not able to realize or actualize their true potentialities -- either because they "financially" cannot do so or because their discouraged too (of course there are more reasons).

But under communism people will have the sum ability to "become conscious" and achieve their diverse capabilities... whatever they may be.

You are completely wrong in "thinking" that humanity, or individuals advance or make brilliant achievements (in the felids of technology, medicine, science, etc) with the intention of acquiring more or an unbounded amount of material possessions.

It's usually to be "recognized" or to better and improve humanity's capabilities and understanding.

Capitalism kills "individualism" and uniqueness... if you are a "manual labor" (a plumber) then that is all you ever will be (a plumber).

Your "chance" of "progressing" to something "better" is minimal!

Under communism... your "chance" of "progressing" is infinite!
Your problem is that you view money as the only way to fully self-actualize, which any priest or monk or new-age, anti-materialist hippy will tell you is completely false.

Basically, you come across as someone who is jealous of the wealthy and nothing else.

I don't make much money at all and have more debt than I should; yet I know for a fact that I am much happier than many of my wealthier friends. I'd not trade my situation for theirs just to gain their money in a million years.

Lots and lots of other people feel the same way.

So, consider your assertion debunked.

Have a nice day.

[Taiga]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:02 AM
Lets do a thought experiment.
Say you put to babies in one play pen and you put one toy inside. Will both babies want the toy? Will they fight for it(i mean tugging and pullling)?
You put 2 babies in a play pen. You give one baby a toy, the other baby nothing. Will the baby with no toy try to take it? Will the baby with no toy cry?

One toy for two babies -- that's exactly what happens in a capitalist society -- one has more than another. The communism proposes a toy for everyone -- according to his wish. If every baby has his own toy -- they will play together.

Will you kill the babies that seem to exhibit aggression or greed?
Man, you&#39;re insane.............. <_<

[Professor Moneybags]

One toy for two babies -- that&#39;s exactly what happens in a capitalist society -- one has more than another. The communism proposes a toy for everyone -- according to his wish.

What, goods are produced by wishing ?

[Right_is_right]

The toy is not a need.

[Raisa]

My list of reasons:

Give the working people the power, and they will not let a class exist that is solely based on taking what is theirs.

[Right_is_right]

Will you kill the babies that seem to exhibit aggression or greed?


Man, you&#39;re insane..............

No.... don&#39;t get me wrong.... i don&#39;t think babies should be killed, im even an anti-abortionist. I have merely come to expect extreme measures from communists.
Plz don&#39;t start on abortion. Just watch an abortion documentary.

[Martyr_Machine]

Communism solves the problem of the proletariat being slaves to the rich by making everyone slaves to the state.

[New Tolerance]

Communism solves the problem of the proletariat being slaves to the rich by making everyone slaves to the state.

Plz refrain from posting directionless one liners.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 09:34 PM
Communism solves the problem of the proletariat being slaves to the rich by making everyone slaves to the state.
Find me a quote of Marx which states that it&#39;s the goal of Communism to enslave people to the state. Otherwise you&#39;ll get a suspension for spamming the next time that you state "communist state". Base your arguments, there is no room for spam here.

[Right_is_right]

Capitalists have learned from their past mistakes. They will never let communists get powerful again. You won&#39;t get a second chance. The capitalists have realized that they have to keep their workers reasonably content now, so there are unions to enhance communication between workers and the corporation. Its basic business theory taught in business courses. So their homefront is pretty safe because everyone will be kept reasonably content. Your only other option is to go to much poorer nations and convert them. But you saw what the US did to iraq, their power projection capabilities are far reaching and they will swiftly uproot communism there, and with it they will bring some prosperity to those nations as well to make them look good. Then nobody will believe communism is better. There is no socialist superpower to help you now. So just give it up already....the best thing you can do now is donate money and take useful education to poverty stricken nations so they can get back on their feet.

[Essential Insignificance]

Your problem is that you view money as the only way to fully self-actualize, which any priest or monk or new-age, anti-materialist hippy will tell you is completely false.

Basically, you come across as someone who is jealous of the wealthy and nothing else.

I don&#39;t make much money at all and have more debt than I should; yet I know for a fact that I am much happier than many of my wealthier friends. I&#39;d not trade my situation for theirs just to gain their money in a million years.

Lots and lots of other people feel the same way.

So, consider your assertion debunked.

I don&#39;t particularly "care" with what the affluent "possess"... I concern myself with what the poor don&#39;t and how the "well-heeled" come to have what they have.

Through the labor-power of others&#33;

I&#39;m actually quite astonished that you declare as one to be blissful -- while claiming to be on the "bottom of the ladder".

Your dismal assertion that "many don&#39;t care" about being dispossessed and penniless -- is quite frankly fallacious&#33;

Experience has taught we, that many, if not all, people who are the wage-slaves of others -- are constantly worrying about their "financial position" and are therefore are despondent and forlorn.

But we shall see&#33;

[Taiga]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 06:59 PM
The toy is not a need.
The toy is a need for babies. They learn to interact with the world through the play.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

What "Right Is Right" is basicly saying is that the rich will exterminate anybody who wishes to create change in society.
Ironicly, this is the reason most of us wish to change society.

[encephalon]

What "Right Is Right" is basicly saying is that the rich will exterminate anybody who wishes to create change in society.
Ironicly, this is the reason most of us wish to change society.

It&#39;s all about the dialectics, baby.