Discussion in 'Political Science' started by sxane, Sep 3, 2016.
Capitalism is immoral and benefits only a few 'fat cats"
Slams capitalism and claims it only benefits a few while typing on a computer which was only made possible by capitalism and which he was able to own because of capitalism.
Pretty much a snap shot of the disconnect from reality which all defenders of communism suffer from.
It cannot be a curse because you continue to enjoy using it.
No one harassed you and your comment was not so meaningful as to be immune to the blatantly obvious criticism I made/
True, but capitalism also gives a chance for others to get in on that. Communism always ends up like Animal Farm where some animals are more equal than others. Look at what's happening in Venezuela--all the top "socialists" are filthy rich--Hugo Chavez' daughter reportedly has around $4 billion in foreign accounts--and she was a government civil servant...
Not inherently immoral, but as has been mentioned is multifaceted and can't be identified as one single system. In small pockets, holding things in common can certainly work amongst consenting groups; consenting being the key word here. As soon as force and compulsion come into play I'd say it steps into the realms of immorality. Therein lies one of the many problems, you couldn't have a majority vote in favour of Communism justifying the appropriation of land/property from a bunch of unwilling individuals. Where's the morality in that?
The other obvious issue is simply the centralisation of power which is naturally required in order to supposedly 'manage' commonly owned resources and their allocation in accordance with everyone's need. Whoever inhabits this centre would have to be perfectly altruistic not to abuse this power; and people just aren't like that. States, by virtue of this power, are the most violent entities on the planet, by far. For me it's difficult to argue that the increase of such power would lead to a more morally sound milieu.
I would say that communism is immoral. I would argue that a moral form of rule would promote individual freedom. Collectivism is the absolute opposite of this. Obviously there needs to be some structure to prevent anarchy, but I firmly believe individual freedom the highest goal of any institution. People have already argued what communism is, or if it is possible, but I can't see any ideal form of collectivism that does not enslave the individual.
You can't know because communism has never existed, has it. Socialism is the highest form of democracy. It eliminates enslavement to being reduced to a pair of hands for the private profit of others with no say in the matter. Karl Marx said “Democracy is the road to socialism” because democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people." The individual has a greater voice and one that makes a difference in socialism than in capitalism. If you're against individual freedoms being suppressed and the enslavement it engenders, you would be against capitalism and in favor of socialism, . . . . --IF you were to actually understand socialism in spite of the 80 years of anti-Marxist BS propaganda we have been fed.
No. Communism is the probably the most moral system. Collectives (self-sufficient, village-based group living where produce/monies are shared, everyone is expected to work, and everyone is cared for) are as 'civilised' as we're ever likely to get. But that's ideal world stuff, not reality.
PS: I've stayed in communes for short periods. The best ones, and it pains me to say this, are farming based ones built on some metaphysical ideology (religion or similar). Because ideologies usually come with rules and regulations, it keeps things running smoothly and consistently. Even when that obligation is just a work ethic, it's enough.
The worst ones are those where a bunch of misfits who don't want to work too hard just build chaotic shacks and do drugs etc. There is no common purpose, no cohesion, no shared labour, and no ownership.
So you support individual freedom while at the same time rejecting individual freedom, great stand. You have but two choices, freedom or slavery, there is no middle ground.
I hope he doesn't learn from you as you haven't a clue. Democracy is the rule of the mob and involves socialism wherein the mob votes itself benefits stolen from others, normally the minority. Collectivism be it either fascism or communism (same thing different elite) is where the majority thinking they are getting on the elevator instead get the shaft and are led by a group of elites, oligarchy.
Now capitalism is something to be feared because that is where the little socialist can either be responsible for themselves or starve. Now this capitalism that you fear comes about after the collectivism fails, like Russia, and degrades into anarchy resurrected from chaos.
If you doubt this, then I suggest you visit Venezuela, the darling little socialist empire in South America that has passed through oligarchy and is now in chaos. There will be a revolution and the people will be free until some psychopath convinces them they need government and the merry-go-round starts all over again.
Socialism is the enslavement of those that produce.
Everyone is expected to work? How is that enforced? If I am going to be cared for regardless why should I work? isn't that a utopian view of human nature?
It has already been mentioned, but people are not ants or bees. Trying to force individuals into a hive structure is horrific.
Right, so the workers at Arizmendi Bakery in San Francisco enslave themselves. The same for all of these: https://usworker.coop/member-directory/
Coop is short for cooperative which derives from cooperation which by definition is voluntary. Even if they do not often succeed and typically fail.
Communism is by design and practice involuntary hence enslavement on a massive scale making it the most immoral of systems as history has proven time and time again by those who attempt to institute it.
Wrong it benefits all.
I don't personally know any of those bakers. Is there a wall around San Francisco keeping them there? Freedom is hard for those of you bent on government control. only strong individuals, I guess can appreciate it.
It has also been equated to a "herd mentality". The weak and sick are culled from the herd for the betterment of all. They do that through government controlled healthcare.
As I said, reality doesn't support it. The closest we get is in ideology-based communes. Of course there will always be a few who work a bit less than everyone else, but given a 'voluntary entry' establishment, only those who understand the requirements will be involved. Any children born to the commune will grow up knowing that work isn't optional. If they are genuinely incapable of work (physical limitations), they will be supported.
A good example of a functional, work-based, productive commune is any of the Twelve Tribes establishments. They farm and run small businesses ... and just about everyone pitches in. The pointless communes (pointless other than "I want to escape society") are always the least successful.
Voluntary communism, or majority agreed communism, is not 'force'. Almost all communism in the west (communes ... obviously) are voluntary .. ergo no force involved. They're no more forced than you are to remain with your family (a small commune), or a dog is to remain with its pack (another kind of small commune).
Separate names with a comma.