Discussion in 'Political Science' started by sxane, Sep 3, 2016.
if They can't do it, why should we believe the right wing?
Communism existed by default because there were no systems in the past to legalize private ownership of land. It was only when those who were armed enclosed plots of land and established authorities to legalize enclosures did modern capitalism evolve, thus making communism immoral.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would allow her land to be taken by other people by force.
Communism is predicated on the holding of private property. The collective requires fully owned property upon which to practice their alternative economic model, undisturbed by the vagaries of external climate or landlord whim. It's virtually impossible to practice collectivism without private property.
First, it’s not a matter of belief. So, second, stopping believing in anything and start seeing reality. For example, I don't believe socialism is evil, looking at reality aptly demonstrates that it is fiendish, murderous and evil. And, lastly, I don't have faith that capitalism, produces prosperity and wealth, 200 plus years of American achievement proves it.
If the religious cannot do it, why should we believe the right wing?
It's the other way round.
Bottom line: YES, communism is immoral.
only in nexus six with Zardoz and the incorrigibles.
Sigh .. really? Is the ignorance of collectivism complete, here?
Let me attempt to simplify it for you: A collective is a small group - up to about 1000 maximum - of people who VOLUNTEER to live collectively via common purse (look it up). That can be an extended family, a farming cooperative, a religious group, a bunch of hippies, or a business. None of which can happen without absolute control of the property in or upon which it's practiced. Debt free control. Anything else imposes external pressures upon the system. As collectives are necessarily carefully balanced at a point just above self-sufficiency, external pressures can wipe them out in an instant. Also, some Govts do not like common purse when practiced privately (other than in the usual family setting), so absolute autonomy and privacy is essential.
I think you need to let those who volunteer for it decide whether it's immoral or not.
Perhaps you should learn what "immoral" means.
One of the many problems with communism is that most of those subjected to it do NOT "volunteer," and violence is an inherent component of enforced 'participation.'
You're talking about statism and politics, not collectivism. Collectivism is entirely voluntary.
It's immoral to dictate the terms of the random stranger's life. If a group of people want to abscond to 1000 acres to live together on the land, it's none of your beeswax. You do you, they'll do them.
Never for most, and never for long for any.
That has nothing to do with what “immoral” means.
You're getting confused. Private property does not refer to all members of a group having "absolute control of" property. Rather, it refers to one or more members owning property.
Is the Pope Catholic?
Of course Communism is immoral to my norms and values, my morals and standards of liberty from tyranny and democracy. Go Magna Carta! Woot!
Somebody ought to unionise the Chinese.
If China cared about the worker, why don't workers have rights?
They care about the work, not the worker.
Again, your lack of knowledge of collectivism prevents you understanding. A collective must have outright ownership of the land/property upon which they practice common purse. If they don't, there is too much risk of disturbance to the carefully balanced economic model.
If you can get your head out of state 'socialism', you'll be in a position to understand collectivism. They two have very little to do with each other. A collective is a small group of volunteers (no more than about a 1000) practicing Common Purse.
The idea of individual rights is superseded by collectivism itself. Since members volunteer to receive equal compensation, what would they be 'fighting' for? It's not as though they can be exploited in some way which their fellows are not. And even then, it's voluntary. If they don't like that much equality, they can leave.
Immoral means different things to different people.
Then you are NOT talking about morality. Moral relativism is NOT morality. You may want to argue that humans are incapable of accurately perceiving the universality of true morality, but do not disguise morality for "whatever the hell I want whenever I change my mind."
No idea what this is supposed to mean, sorry.
Separate names with a comma.