Serious On Communism.

[Edgelord Freeman]

No that'd be hypocritical. And more people die under Captialism because the system inherently rewards people for making profits rather than letting people survive.

Also why should we support a society where a man can make a loaf of bread only to make enough money to buy a slice? That's just fucking ridiculous. Rich people don't trigger me, but people who profit off of labour that isn't their own somewhat do. If someone becomes rich because they are a famous sports-player or a singer or whatever the fuck, then good for them. If someone becomes rich because they essentially steal wages from people and can singlehandedly cause world-wide inflation, then they shouldn't have their wealth.

Does that make sense?



America had a very lively communist movement until the 1920s, where the government then deported Union leaders to Mexico and Russia. There was also the 60-70s where they'd actively kill movement leaders too.

The people of America are fine, but their government is a fucking monolithic monster.

I cant say this thread was a waste of time, you learn things from across the world and there are also some people who actually read my intro post

 

[Eli]

Hello friends, I believe I have already talked with you guys about this on another thread but I'm here for round 2. Obviously I didn't read the all the 15 pages of this thread so I am just gonna jump right in.

No that'd be hypocritical. And more people die under Captialism because the system inherently rewards people for making profits rather than letting people survive.

I have no idea where you got this idea, sure, some people kill themselves over debts and some people don't get the medical attention they need but the numbers are minuscule when compared to the amount of people killed in virtually any country that has ever tried communism due to the ruling parties' policies (Tito's Yugoslavia may be the one exception but they weren't really fully communist).

Also why should we support a society where a man can make a loaf of bread only to make enough money to buy a slice? That's just fucking ridiculous.

I am not sure if this is a general metaphor or you are actually referring to farmers and such. If it is farmers you are referring to than the answer is simple, they keep enough of the products that they mass produce and sell the rest, most of them are quite well off as far as I am aware. If it is a general statement I'll counter it with a question of my own, why should I doctor who has completed a very long education and works insane hours be rewarded the same way janitor in a school is rewarded even though he only works half the hours and didn't have to invest time into any sort of qualification.

Rich people don't trigger me, but people who profit off of labour that isn't their own somewhat do. If someone becomes rich because they are a famous sports-player or a singer or whatever the fuck, then good for them. If someone becomes rich because they essentially steal wages from people and can singlehandedly cause world-wide inflation, then they shouldn't have their wealth.

Does that make sense?

No, it doesn't really make sense, I am not sure who you mean by people who steal wages and are able to cause world wide inflation but that sounds like something a capitalist would say about the government.

America had a very lively communist movement until the 1920s, where the government then deported Union leaders to Mexico and Russia. There was also the 60-70s where they'd actively kill movement leaders too.

The people of America are fine, but their government is a fucking monolithic monster.

Not much to say about this, never heard of this but I tend to believe you, the american government doing questionable things is nothing new.

What i meant by limiting the view was that i can be a communist while knowing communism cant be estabilished so i instead try socialism but im still a communist

That just doesn't make any sense, if you don't believe communism and are not advocating for the implementation of communism you are not a communist.

Now, I do agree the capitalism is flawed and can at time be a ruthless and disgusting system it's really the only system that has so far withstood the test of time so far.

 

[GenericPlayer]

I have no idea where you got this idea, sure, some people kill themselves over debts and some people don't get the medical attention they need but the numbers are minuscule when compared to the amount of people killed in virtually any country that has ever tried communism due to the ruling parties' policies (Tito's Yugoslavia may be the one exception but they weren't really fully communist).

If you think I'm just talking about suicides and death by disease you're sorely mistaken. It accounts for war, famine and, well, disease too come to think of it. So around 7-9 million die of famine each year, 2-3 million die of disease and wars in the past year have claimed around 300k. That's only yearly, I could bring in the figures from both world wars, the colonial era, King Leopold's Congo, The Bengal Famine etc.

I am not sure if this is a general metaphor or you are actually referring to farmers and such. If it is farmers you are referring to than the answer is simple, they keep enough of the products that they mass produce and sell the rest, most of them are quite well off as far as I am aware. If it is a general statement I'll counter it with a question of my own, why should I doctor who has completed a very long education and works insane hours be rewarded the same way janitor in a school is rewarded even though he only works half the hours and didn't have to invest time into any sort of qualification.

General metaphor, and as for the counter question, I take it that's a reference to Cuba? The answer is they shouldn't, but that's not really a fault of an entire economic system rather than an individual nations policy.

No, it doesn't really make sense, I am not sure who you mean by people who steal wages and are able to cause world wide inflation but that sounds like something a capitalist would say about the government.

Bankers, stock market investors, CEOs, etcetera.

 

[Megafreak]

General metaphor, and as for the counter question, I take it that's a reference to Cuba? The answer is they shouldn't, but that's not really a fault of an entire economic system rather than an individual nations policy.

Adding to this it doesn't make everyone go for the easiest job, people still choose something they're interested in rather than something as boring as cleaning. My mother was a chemical analyst in Cuba, aunt was a nurse and so on.

I don't agree with some of your other points nor do I think the whole world should follow one system or another. Different things work for different places.

What I am against is countries deliberately inhibiting other countries' growth because of how they choose to distribute wealth, it's pretty childish.

 

[Eli]

If you think I'm just talking about suicides and death by disease you're sorely mistaken. It accounts for war, famine and, well, disease too come to think of it. So around 7-9 million die of famine each year, 2-3 million die of disease and wars in the past year have claimed around 300k. That's only yearly, I could bring in the figures from both world wars, the colonial era, King Leopold's Congo, The Bengal Famine etc.

War's would still happen with communism, so will disease and most people who die of famine die in poor countries so incorporation communism in some wealthy countries or just in the poor ones wont help. It sounds like what you want is global government and whether that government is communist or the modern day capitalist with some socialism wont really matter since both with resolve those problems. But whether globalism is a good idea is another discussion entirely.

Bankers, stock market investors, CEOs, etcetera.

Lets talk about each of those individually. CEOs of most companies don't hold any real power over the world and most of them don't steal money for anyone, same applied to stock market investors and brokers. As for banks, I have to agree, banks are dishonest and very exploitative, they are given way too much leeway and that's something that should be dealt with in my opinion.

 

[GenericPlayer]

War's would still happen with communism, so will disease and most people who die of famine die in poor countries so incorporation communism in some wealthy countries or just in the poor ones wont help. It sounds like what you want is global government and whether that government is communist or the modern day capitalist with some socialism wont really matter since both with resolve those problems. But whether globalism is a good idea is another discussion entirely.

For what reason? Most wars in the modern era are fought over resources and power, but in a Socialist society the only reason wars would ever be fought are for political motives (For example, the Vietnamese-Cambodian war or the Sino-Soviet Split). This of course means that they would be far less often.

And of course, disease and famine would still exist, but currently famine is an easily solvable problem that could've been dealt with by now had it been profitable to do so. But no company sends food to the starving because, simply put, it's not profitable. We waste literal truck loads of food every few hours, if not minutes. If we had a system where this food was distributed fairly, according to people's ability and need, then this wouldn't be an issue.

As for disease, most deaths by disease are easily curable. They're not Ebola strains on steroids that massacre entire villages, they're common viruses treatable by basic antibiotics. But they (The diseased, usually living in sub-saharan africa, South East Asia or South America) don't receive the medication required because no one is willing to fund it. The ruling classes would rather spend their money on more cars, yachts and jets.

CEOs of most companies don't hold any real power over the world and most of them don't steal money for anyone

I disagree with this, considering the release of documents such as the Panama Papers and so on.

 

[Blackquill]

As for disease, most deaths by disease are easily curable. They're not Ebola strains on steroids that massacre entire villages, they're common viruses treatable by basic antibiotics. But they (The diseased, usually living in sub-saharan africa, South East Asia or South America) don't receive the medication required because no one is willing to fund it. The ruling classes would rather spend their money on more cars, yachts and jets.

To be honest, what little we agree on ideologically - I can kind of agree that I feel like we could've had major strides in driving out diseases and, in term, human aliments with a portion of the resources available to those with the wealth. Like the fact apple could pay off the debt of an entire country blows my mind.

 

[Megafreak]

To be honest, what little we agree on ideologically - I can kind of agree that I feel like we could've had major strides in driving out diseases and, in term, human aliments with a portion of the resources available to those with the wealth. Like the fact apple could pay off the debt of an entire country blows my mind.

Now imagine if the entire world worked together and human nature didn't cause us to fight each other for power

Sadly it's a pipe dream, but we could be doing so much better as a species

 

[GenericPlayer]

human nature didn't cause us to fight each other for power

Material conditions force us to fight each other for power, not human nature. Our nature is determined by our environment, but that's just my two cents.

 

[Blackquill]

Sadly it's a pipe dream, but we could be doing so much better as a species

I often wonder what kind of universe we live in

One where we're not alone, or one where we're the only sentient beings. The saying says both are equally as scary but personally I'd be more terrified of the latter if our species ended up wiping itself out.

 

[TarzanTheJungler]

To be honest, what little we agree on ideologically - I can kind of agree that I feel like we could've had major strides in driving out diseases and, in term, human aliments with a portion of the resources available to those with the wealth. Like the fact apple could pay off the debt of an entire country blows my mind.

Charities man.

Bill Gates alone donated 28$ billion to the Bill & Melinda foundation. Then there's a whole site dedicated to multi-millionaire celebrities who donate on a regular basis to charities of their choice. Charities are the closest thing we'll get to human cooperation on global matters.

 

[Blackquill]

Charities man.

Bill Gates alone donated 28$ billion to the Bill & Melinda foundation. Then there's a whole site dedicated to multi-millionaire celebrities who donate on a regular basis. Charities are the closest thing we'll get to human cooperation on global matters.

I am fine with charities and I'm glad that people with access to those resources are putting them to good use. If I had the resources I would too.

But then again, there are always going to people who aren't, or don't want to rather. As much as I heavily disagree with the ideology itself- I feel like more could actually be done by everyone, not just those who are 'qualified' to do things.

 

[Eli]

For what reason? Most wars in the modern era are fought over resources and power, but in a Socialist society the only reason wars would ever be fought are for political motives (For example, the Vietnamese-Cambodian war or the Sino-Soviet Split). This of course means that they would be far less often.

To be honest I do not think that is true since countries, even socialist countries would still want those resources to better their own well being.

I disagree with this, considering the release of documents such as the Panama Papers and so on.

I am not aware of the Panama Papers thing, there are a lot of corrupt buisnesmen but the point is you only hear about them because they are corrupt, there are many legitimate, good people running businesses who you don't hear about because the are not assholes.

 

[GenericPlayer]

To be honest I do not think that is true since countries, even two socialist countries would still want those resources to better their own well being.

More often than not they tend to trade in a mutual agreement in order to fulfill each countries needs. Essentially a Socialist EU. See the Warsaw Pact, Korea and even Soviet/Indian relations pre-1980s.

am not aware of the Panama Papers thing, there are a lot of corrupt buisnesmen but the point is you only hear about them because they are corrupt, there are many legitimate, good people running businesses who you don't hear about because the are not assholes.

Of course there are, but more often than not they aren't owners of massive corporations. Even when they are, it doesn't prevent the fundamental exploitation of the working class (I refer to those with jobs, not just a pre-determined class defined by a specific salary), with their labour being sold off for much lower than should really be given (Though of course, this is coming from a guy who doesn't believe in private property as a concept so take this all with a pinch of salt if you must).

 

[TarzanTheJungler]

I am fine with charities and I'm glad that people with access to those resources are putting them to good use. If I had the resources I would too.

But then again, there are always going to people who aren't, or don't want to rather. As much as I heavily disagree with the ideology itself- I feel like more could actually be done by everyone, not just those who are 'qualified' to do things.

As I see it you're swaying to the side where mutual help is given out by everyone - to everyone, regardless of social status? It's a fair, albeit a bit naive look on it. Let me explain:

The way I see it is that in order to help out someone, you must be a bit prosperous. Not just socially and economically secure, but preferably wealthy. I find that giving your last to the needy will not solve anything, but put the situation back to square one, having changed variables where now you swapped places with the needy(Perhaps not entirely, but to some extent, it might've hurt your standings).

Now, say you've gotten rich through capitalistic ways and somehow still stayed kind-hearted(Much like the aforementioned Bill). You can now help x10000 more poor folk than you could before, without even scratching the surface of your wealth.

I'm not saying "Stop donating u poor slobs" nor that it's not effective, however I'm just accenting the fact that maybe, just maybe, people should first develop themselves and then begin donating much more effeciantly.

 

[Blackquill]

As I see it you're swaying to the side where mutual help is given out by everyone - to everyone, regardless of social status? It's a fair, albeit a bit naive look on it.

I mean it's not naive to think everyone should help each other out, but it's not how individuals work as most regular people stick to their family and social circles which is fine as we're social creatures. I think you meant it's unrealistic (which it is, I'm a realist in principle).

The way I see it is that in order to help out someone, you must be prosperous. Not just socially and economically secure, but wealthy. I find that giving your last to the needy will not solve anything

I wasn't talking about Rich giving to Poor, I was talking about Rich giving resources to people who can fix things such as diseases.

I'm not saying "Stop donating u poor slobs" nor that it's not effective, however I'm just accenting the fact that maybe, just maybe, people should first develop themselves and then begin donating much more efficiently.

In countries like ours, yeah - I'm still highly against communism as an ideology, and of course people deserve to get what they work and put in the time for. Idk part of me thinks it'd be beneficial to incentivise doing stuff like charities more which may sound weird but, yeah.

 

[Edgelord Freeman]

That just doesn't make any sense, if you don't believe communism and are not advocating for the implementation of communism you are not a communist.

It does, I am a communist because Id like to have a certain type of communism estabilished, but theres lots of people disagreeing both with communism and socialism therefore i am only able to estabilish socialism, not world-wide communism. There was a reason why USSR was called USSR and not USCR.

 

[Eli]

It does, I am a communist because Id like to have a certain type of communism estabilished, but theres lots of people disagreeing both with communism and socialism therefore i am only able to estabilish socialism, not world-wide communism. There was a reason why USSR was called USSR and not USCR.

Welp fair enough, thought you ment you don't believe that it could be established due to human nature.

 

[Megafreak]

As I see it you're swaying to the side where mutual help is given out by everyone - to everyone, regardless of social status? It's a fair, albeit a bit naive look on it. Let me explain:

The way I see it is that in order to help out someone, you must be a bit prosperous. Not just socially and economically secure, but preferably wealthy. I find that giving your last to the needy will not solve anything, but put the situation back to square one, having changed variables where now you swapped places with the needy(Perhaps not entirely, but to some extent, it might've hurt your standings).

Now, say you've gotten rich through capitalistic ways and somehow still stayed kind-hearted(Much like the aforementioned Bill). You can now help x10000 more poor folk than you could before, without even scratching the surface of your wealth.

I'm not saying "Stop donating u poor slobs" nor that it's not effective, however I'm just accenting the fact that maybe, just maybe, people should first develop themselves and then begin donating much more effeciantly.

If you have 2 fish and a man is starving you shouldn't hold on to both if you have good morals. Giving one fish to the man will impact you, but it's the cost of your morals to your greed. Developing yourself and letting people go hungry or die in order to help people down the line doesn't make you a better person because you've helped more people eventually, it's not moral either because you let those people starve/die/whatever while you 'developed' yourself, so unless you're giving aid constantly when given the opportunity whilst getting rich you aren't going to ever be doing it for good morals, just for the 'good feeling' of helping someone.

TL;DR: The delayed path for helping more people is less altruistic than giving when you have less

I'm more proud of a working class citizen giving a sandwich to a homeless guy than a millionaire giving him a restaurant meal because it impacts the poor guy more - he has to give a reasonable portion of his wealth to help the guy. In the same boat are people who work for charities for free and foreign aid workers. These are the true kind people on Earth because they don't expect anything back, they don't do it for the thanks or the good feeling but truly to make the world a better place.

 

[TarzanTheJungler]

@Blackquill

Pardon my wrong use of words, I indeed intended to say unrealistic so thank you on the correction.

I wasn't talking about Rich giving to Poor, I was talking about Rich giving resources to people who can fix things such as diseases.

"As much as I heavily disagree with the ideology itself- I feel like more could actually be done by everyone, not just those who are 'qualified' to do things."

I understood that by "everyone" you meant literally anyone, like the lower-mid-class, which I wanted to point out should first develop themselves in order to bring more benefit. However, I want to make it clear, I'm not against donation by the lower class nonetheless. Whilst they're on their way to higher ends, they can donate, but so much till it begins interfering with progress.

And yeah, I was speaking of the first to second world countries. Anywhere else it's every man for... every other man.

TL;DR: The delayed path for helping more people is less altruistic than giving when you have less

I've got an even better old story for your side. I like it more, personally, up to the point where I ask myself:What does the boy do when he grows up? Will he be still on that same beach, throwing back a star-fish at a time? Or will he become a strong figure that prevents starfish from coming onto the shore in the first place.