Results 21 to 40 of 121
How do you see Communism changing that--or is Communism just an easy fix so that no one will have to accept ANY responsibility?
Isn't the purpose of Communism to diminish personal responsibility and shift the weight of responsibility onto society as a whole?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ori..._and_the_State
We wouldn't want next-generation capitalists to not get any inheritance, nor would we want working class families to stop producing the next generation of working class to be exploited by the capitalist, would we?
I imagine more support will be given to ensuring kids grow up happily and into good happy people who contribuit to society. This is more likely to happen under Communism then now as those making the decisions will be the ones who live in the same communities as these kids as opposed to been those who read about them in the paper or in statistics.
No the purpose of Communism is to end economic exploitation and too raise the living standard. You will still get punished if you smash a window.
PETER
Human beings weren't meant to sit in little cubicles, starring at computer screens all day, filling out useless forms and listening to eight different bosses drone on about mission statements.
MICHAEL
I told those fudge-packers that I like Michael Bolton's music. God.
But with the coming of the future, things change, and not always for the better. Such changes can render contracts worthless or even detrimental to one or all parties.
A contract is (or rather, should be) a two-way street, a voluntary agreement between the parties concerned. There's a difference between not meeting the requirements of a contract and wanting out of a contract because things have changed.
The difference being that you don't have to live with the person you're supplying oil to. I think the rules should be slightly different when it comes to contracts such as marriage that involve interpersonal relationships.
The Human Progress Group
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker - Mikhail Bakunin
Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains - Karl Marx
Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value - R. Buckminster Fuller
The important thing is not to be human but to be humane - Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
Check out my speculative fiction project: NOVA MUNDI
Changing the marital situation? I really see no reason why Communism would take steps to alter such relationships. It's unlikely that Communism would be an 'easy fix' as you say in that nothing worthwhile ever comes easy. Moreover, the essential factor in Communist theory is that every individual must accept personal responsibility.
Again, the purpose of Communism is to advocate acceptance of personal responsibility, with society being responsible for the individual acts of the collective community in the sense of instituting forms of punishment as judicial retribution against those neglecting those responsibilities.
Last edited by Zolken; 31st August 2009 at 15:15.
No communism like any democracy is about spreading responsibility, the average person will have more placed on him. But at the same time fewer failure points for society since responsibility will be distributed.
But responsibility and lock ins are entirely different, marriage with consequences is a lock in. It's making a decision for you ten years from now, something you can't really do because your going to be different ten years from now.
-----------------------------------------------------
Marriage isn't something that needs to be fought, it was established for sexist reasons and as society evolves away from the conditions that created the institution it will become less and less relevant. Some might still practice it, but ultimately it's not a concern for a socialist society.
Communism has nothing to do with taking away responsibility, you have as much responsibility as you have in Capitalism, only everyone has more say.
Before the State instituted marriage as an official institution, people got married, families existed, its the natural way humans exist, you don't need a state to do that.
How did that work then?!
Libertarian socialist...
Economic left/right -8.00
Social libertarian/authoritarian -7.28
-7.5 moral order
4 moral rules
Socially-orientated, materialist, internationalist, protectionist, controlled-market kind of person, who also seems quite marxist
Marriage was origionally a religious thing.
I would argue it always was and always will be a 'religious thing', no matter how the 'godless' among us try to recliam it.
How, though, are you differentiating between 'the state' and 'religion' in terms of marriage? They seem to equate to the same thing to me.
Libertarian socialist...
Economic left/right -8.00
Social libertarian/authoritarian -7.28
-7.5 moral order
4 moral rules
Socially-orientated, materialist, internationalist, protectionist, controlled-market kind of person, who also seems quite marxist
Well, I don't the state has any buisiness in apointing priests, and marriage is similar, marriage is a purely religious thing.
Marriage is not a purely religious thing. You can get married without ever stepping inside a church or other place of worship.
Stop taking religionists' claims at face value. They have a motive for claiming marriage as something wholly religious.
The Human Progress Group
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker - Mikhail Bakunin
Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains - Karl Marx
Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value - R. Buckminster Fuller
The important thing is not to be human but to be humane - Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
Check out my speculative fiction project: NOVA MUNDI
Okay, I'll bite. What is our dastardly motive?
Oh, the usual. Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, that kind of thing.
The Human Progress Group
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker - Mikhail Bakunin
Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains - Karl Marx
Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value - R. Buckminster Fuller
The important thing is not to be human but to be humane - Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
Check out my speculative fiction project: NOVA MUNDI
To me, marriage is a beautiful thing. Two people intertwining their lives and facing the world together, offering each other affection in both good times and bad.
Or that's how it's supposed to be. That's not what a lot of marriages are like. I love the concept of marriage. However, it usually doesn't work out, due to a number of things...the influence of capitalism (money), in-laws, all sorts of retarded reasons. As the days go by it seems to work out less and less.
Less than every four seconds, someone dies from starvation. There's one. And another...and another, and another. Let's hear it for capitalism, everyone.
In solidarity. RED, for a better world!
Got to disagree there. Marriage IS a religious thing. You may get married and not have a religious aspect to it, you don't even have to get married in a church, but there's no getting away from the inescapable fact that marriage is a religious ceremony.
That isn't to say that if two people so wished, they can't make a commitment to one another. I'm not saying there should be no ties, no commitments, no love, even. All I'm saying is, is that the process, the institution, the understanding of the union that is marriage, is very much a religious entity.
If you managed to strip away all the religious bullshit from the 'meaning' of marriage, then you may be able to say it isn't religious, but why (if you are against religion) can you not find a non-religious way to show your commitment to a partner? Why base it on a religious ceremony?
Libertarian socialist...
Economic left/right -8.00
Social libertarian/authoritarian -7.28
-7.5 moral order
4 moral rules
Socially-orientated, materialist, internationalist, protectionist, controlled-market kind of person, who also seems quite marxist
Oh. Well, we can't have that.
But what does religion GET out of saying such a thing? Why does religion want marriage to be a sacred bond between a man and a woman?
If one can get married and not involve any religious institutions nor invoke God or any other religious aspect in the process, how on Earth can you say it's religious?
Because marriage isn't a religious ceremony, at least not any more. One can get married in a registry office as part of a secular ceremony.
No, we can't. Heterosexism is unacceptable.
I don't know, you tell me. My guess is that it's another form of social control, like most religious restrictions.
The Human Progress Group
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker - Mikhail Bakunin
Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains - Karl Marx
Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value - R. Buckminster Fuller
The important thing is not to be human but to be humane - Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
Check out my speculative fiction project: NOVA MUNDI
Not a good guess. Gays are welcome in my church and are even ordained in another religion that is close to mine. Singles aren't given the slightest pressure to marry, though obviously they are encouraged to marry in order to raise children in the church. Aren't there worse things to get worked up about in life?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_249647.html
