First I can 100% guarantee this to you and the whole world. "then it would be people like you and me who would be approving any legislation and official "rules"" This would never be me our any one that is like myself, no for a couple of reasons 1st. If socialism was to take over in the United States, then most likely I would have been killed in the brutal, and bloody civil war, with God knows who many more poor souls, our God I sure hope so, death being preferable over slavery. 2nd. If by some reason I did not die in the brutal struggleing for humanity's freedom, (like if I was missing both legs along with both arms, and could not hold a knife in my mouth, and wiggling my way towards the enamy at the same time.) The state would arrest me for being a thought criminal, and I would just never be seen agian. 3rd if nether of the above happen you would not catch me participating In a illegitimate, despotic, tyranny, government no matter how pleasant the propaganda makes it sound. Before you try to tell me that socialism is not a forum of tyranny, just know this where the LAW ends TYRANNY begans, and to be able to take the rightful property of others with out the due process of law, which is what the arbitrary decree and resentful covetness of a socialist demagogue our his victims represents. "Hes a exploiter" says the people who wish to steal my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, along with my labour, and feels that they have a right to my mind, our at least the thoughts, and feeling of it. You say. " I, for one, would certainly NOT approve of any complete, blanket, unqualified abolishment of freedom, justice, all religion, all morality, the family, property, jurisprudence, individually, independence, or free association as you objected" But comrade their is no I anymore, that went away with the abolishment of the individual, and do you still not understand comrade, that all these things listed above, are just the chains of your bondage, and exploitation. For it is these evils of freedom, justice, rule of law, morality, independence, and the family, which enabled your oppressor to justify his profit and private property. As for religion comrade reminder what Marx said "it is the opioid of the masses", to make them content in their bondage. You dont believe one has the right to impose this bondage into themselves do you? Are you an exploiter comrade?
Since you didn't quote me and since you seem to be saying what I did said, I cannot reply because of your non-specificity and confusing verbiage. I see some errors there but nothing worth commenting on, so for now and until I understand what you are trying to say, I'll let that stand. Since that is not a sentence, it is not understandable but let me guess what it says. I think it says that the establishment of Modern Industry (capitalized for some unknown reason) and the world market in the modern representative State, conquered exclusive political sway for itself. And that is confusing. I'm getting the feeling that you are copying and pasting portions of something you're finding online, and your choices are partial, unqualified, and incomplete. I wonder if I'm right. Ok, this really does look like what I said: a partial copy and paste. As such I'm having great difficulty following it and mostly I get nothing out of it, So I'm done.
This puts to rest my argument against these things, that is funny, I guess you mean I will realize you didn't know anything about socialism, history, political our social science, other then the effects of it propaganda they masterfully, and upon sound psychological gtounds create and engineer for the masses, and will just chose to not wast my time communicating with you. Never, for I happen to like you, and am already aware of the fact that what one learns with out reason, he can not unlearn with reason, so Im not ever trying to prove im right, because I already know I' am correct in these thing's. Plus I must say i am impressed with the level of your blind faith, and devotion, and the commies are lucky to have one such as your self. "I think it is obvious that morality will never be abolished! So also obviously he meant bourgeois morality." Very good that is true, it's not so much they will abolish morality, it just they will replace bourgeois morality, which is that judeo-Christian value system, along with other western ethics, and standards of right and wrong, with social morality, which is what ever the state needs it to be. It Like 2+2=4, which it does, but sometimes the state needs it to be 3, other times 5,( just ask interparty member o,Brian of Oceania, our Winston since he's been cured of mental illness.) The divine appointment of kings, claimed by monarchs during feudalism, a long with the kings clame to sovereignty and lordship over his subjects by virtue of this divine appontment, and upon which feudalism's whole power structure was built and maintained. This was, discredited, by this bourgeois-morality (judo-Christian, and western moral value systems) and also from this bourgeois morality was belief concerning equality of man in the order of creation, and theirfor eq "For what is good? No one knows unless it is he who creates" Friedrich Nietzsche. Remember Marx said religion is the opioid of the masses, thus he is amiting that he knows the importance of moral valuation fhumanity. Sure thing man, next time prehaps
Hey, listen, when people talk of socialism and/or communism, they usually indicate that the subject is Marxism. But even more important is the fact that every communist revolution in our lifetime, whether in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Albania, Laos, or any other country, was led by a communist party that called itself "Marxist-Leninist" in its literature. About 50 years ago I participated in a Marxist-Leninist organization for a few years and of course we were pretty well informed about the various communist struggles and revolutions. And all those facts add up to one relevant point: the idea of socialism is a Marxian idea. Marx is the authority according to what I just said. And so it is Marx who most of the world has in mind when they speak of "socialism". So what did Marx say about socialism? He said it is "the dictatorship of the proletariat" (over the capitalist class). And the "proletariat" means the working class. And Marx was all about the "liberation of the proletariat". His analysis revealed the principle of the overthrow of the capitalist class can only be accomplished by the working class seizing control so there may be "the dictatorship of the proletariat" (over the capitalist class). So rule by the working class is socialism. Rule by the capitalist class is capitalism. And rule by a dictator like Kim Jong Un is not socialism or communism. So no, I didn't make it up. But your opinion on this is poorly formed.
You consistently confuse things and write with so much difficulty that a discussion with you is impossible. I'm done. Believe what you want. Bye.
Well I'm trying to do my best to explain the complexity and true nature of this lie, to a follower, a political adherent. I am so far beyond slogans, sentament, and blind adherence, which only knows how to seek conformation, and Validation that I am not the mouth for your ears, for i refuse to use rhetoric, and psychologically deceptive dialectics. I am sorry I can't communicate on your level, their is nothen anyway that i could give to you I, could only take away. Also I will indeed believe what I want and do not need your our anyone's consent to do so, for I am a free and sovereign individual, not part of a collective like some mindless worker ant, which only know how to follow. Likewise you say I consistently confuse things, by which you no doubt mean it dont match up with your self imposed notions our subjective interpretations, then yes, you sir are indeed correct. Furthermore you are the one who makes clames, out of thin air like you know what your collectivist puppet masters mean by bourgeois-society and such all I did was disagree and unlike you at least make an attempt thow apparantly a poor one to build a case for my clames. I would like you to know this I do indeed like you and have enjoyed our exchanges, and in no way was I attempting to force into you anything, nor would I. For you as well are a free and sovereign individual and your mind is your own I would never become every thing I so bitterly hated and despise by trying to impose my belief our value system upon another. Plus if you and I thought the same you would suck as s sorce of external stimuli and, what fun would that be? By the way, you are the one who first engaged me, I am just reacting to a source of external stimuli. P.S. I personally would enjoy continuing to converse with you, but we should Indeed quit this pointless exchange we are like the cold war.
Reality is real...and so is morality. "The subjectivist theory holds that the good bears no relation to the facts of reality, that it is the product of a man’s consciousness, created by his feelings, desires, 'intuitions', or whims, and that it is merely an 'arbitrary postulate' or an 'emotional commitment.'"- "The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of “things in themselves” nor of man’s emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man—and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man. Fundamental to an objective theory of values is the question: Of value to whom and for what? An objective theory does not permit context-dropping or “concept-stealing”; it does not permit the separation of “value” from “purpose,” of the good from beneficiaries, and of man’s actions from reason."--Ayn Rand http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/good,_the.html Those who seek the destruction of morality, seek the destruction of their own life. So please, don't prattle on about the subjectivity of morality. The fact the jets fly, spaceships soar, and children laugh prove you wrong.
Yes I see you are right I never considered that morality exists because "jets fly", and "spaceships soar" sometimes I forget that that morality and physics are the same thing. Further more I dont seek the destruction of morality, my point was both sides of this discussion, came morality as a justification. One side is greedy The other a thief So enlighten me what is moral in this case according to you? know, also I really want to know and understand
Interesting post. I agree with your statement, "equity is fair - equality is not." I regard myself as a Democratic Socialist, and when I analyze the goals I'd like to endorse, they fit into "equity." Although every system has its flaws, I generally support the democratic process. I see it as a form of equity, in that it places the same value on each individual vote, and reflects in real time the voice of the individual who cast it. Those individuals may not--probably aren't--equal to each other in terms of their value to society, but democratic voting expresses the equity of their thoughts & opinions within society quite well. Thank you for your post & your insight.
Economics has little to do with morality. However the base concept of communism is beautiful. It just doesn't work in practice because people are greedy. Capitalism allows the greed to work to the benefit of all.
I wouldn't say that communism is immoral, but it only works on the small scale. The idea of everyone sharing wealth and getting equal shares, while doing equal work to create that wealth does really work when you get into bigger populations. There are more and more people needed to oversee the system and there is too much chance for corruption. And you almost always end up with an authoritarian system.
I think communism is more moral than capitalism, probably why capitalism works better for humans .. unfortunately communism is not practical because humans are inherently self serving...
Humans being self serving is why both systems eventually fail unless regulated. Human greed is always the corrupting factor.
self serving capitalism: https://leaksource.wordpress.com/20...-war-cheneys-halliburton-1-with-39-5-billion/ Start a war, then let the profiteering begin ...
I recently read the Communist Manifesto and I was surprised by how much I agree with what is written in it. Ironically, a lot of it sounds good and even makes sense to a certain degree. Obviously results prove it not to work which is why people say communism looks good on paper, but just is not practical or realistic. The takeaway for me is to adopt some ideas from the manifesto partially or even fully, but not strive for some kind of nation free, money free and class free utopia. My motive is only some protections for the working class from some of the worst abuses and effects of capitalism. I've said this before, but I think it's worth mentioning again; I do not seek to overthrow the system in a violent revolution. I merely seek to work within the system to reform it and make it work better.
Yes, communism is inherently immoral. Let me count the ways... 1. It makes slaves of the able-bodied, the intelligent, and the talented. Communism by its nature requires those who are able to do more, build more, and create more work, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of those who cannot. 2. It makes slave drivers of the crippled, the stupid, and the talentless. One of the arguments against slavery in the 19th century was that it corrupted the owners of slaves as much as it degraded the slaves. Abigail Adams, wife of the founding father, observed that two Yankees (northerners) could do the work of twelve slaves in the same time, while rich Southerners were so used to not working, they couldn't do squat. The same thing happens in communism by design. In order to force the able-bodied, the intelligent, and the talented to work for the benefit of others, at least some of the remainder must become slave drivers. These are typically people for whom no existing job classification is suitable, but being political opportunists works fine. 3. It destroys private property rights. The right to own property is the first, most basic freedom. Without it, no other freedom is possible, not even the possession of one's own body. Any system that destroys this most basic freedom is inherently immoral. 4. It destroys individual worth. In order for communism to work, no one can value his own life above that of the state's existence. The individual is the first, greatest, highest good. Any system that denies that is inherently immoral. 5. It destroys the family. Any organization that places itself above the state must be destroyed for communism to work, and that includes the family. Destroying the family is inherently immoral. 6. It destroys religion. Religion in general is a mixed bag of good and bad effects, but I believe Christianity on the whole is good for society, and most of the moral tenets that motivate communism actually originate in Christianity itself. Communism did not arise as an economic theory in any other religious system, not Judaism, not Islam, not Buddhism, not Shintoism. But in order to achieve communism's moral ends, it would have to destroy the system that gave rise to those moral tenets. Why? Because communism makes the state God. And any system that represses the freedom of religion and makes the state God is inherently immoral. 7. It destroys economic incentive. The most basic reason people get up in the morning and go to work is to make money. Communism by design takes away that incentive. Without it, very few people would go to work at all. The only way communism can make people go to work is by force or the threat of force. The use of force or the threat of force is inherently immoral. Since communism cannot work without it, communism is therefore inherently immoral. 8. It destroys the incentive to innovate. Since making something new has no value in and of itself, it's only value is if it can do something for the innovator. And while an innovation might make the inventor's life a little easier on its own, its greatest value is if it can be sold to others for a profit. Communism eliminates that possibility. Therefore, communism suppresses innovation. Therefore, communism is inherently immoral. (It's worth noting that the Soviet Union won no Nobel Prizes in science or medicine between 1917 and 1956.) 9. It destroys the incentive to create. Again, those who create literature, art, architecture, music, etc., may get some pleasure out of doing so for themselves, but the greatest possible advantage of doing so would be to get paid for it by others. Communism eliminates that possibility. Therefore, communism suppresses artistic achievement. Therefore, communism is inherently immoral. 10. It destroys freedom. All of the above are part and parcel of freedom, but let's get right down to basics... communism as a system must suppress the freedom of the individual in order to elevate the "rights" of the state or society. You as an individual don't count, only "society" counts or the state system required to enforce the rights of the society. And as an individual that doesn't count, your "rights" or your "freedom" don't exist. They would only get in the way of the communist utopia. Even if it didn't automatically therefore lead to the deaths of millions of people, it would nevertheless be inherently immoral for that reason. But it does automatically lead to the deaths of millions of people. So there you go, ten reasons why communism as a system is inherently immoral. I could probably come up with ten more if I tried hard.
Is it moral to consign all members of the collective to the lowest common denominator of suck? Really?
Perhaps the reason that it only exists in the fantasy world. It's like ranting against science. People are self aware. Going against the very nature of our species seems to be one of the most excellent examples of denial of science I can think of...