Why communism is wrong

[emprworm]

You own nothing. 

"Whats yours is mine!"

Have you invented something?  A new technology perhaps?  A new style of clothing?  A new type of music?  Be prepared to hand it over.  It isn't yours.  All inventions are for the benefit of humanity.  "Whats yours is mine!"  Remember?  Thats what the thief says.  So what happens if you invent something and all your friends come up to you and say "Hey!  What an awesome invention!  We will gladly, and with great joy, give you 10% of our monthly portion in exchange for one of your inventions." 

You say "Sure!"

A crime has been comitted.

Freedom hoped for, yet freedom lost.  Identity stolen.  That is the glory of communist exploitation.

Edit: Changed title in order to avoid confusion.

[TMA_1]

but this is purely a matter of opinion.

Many would gladly give something for the good of their nation or community. If you have a group that would feel the same, then you have many who freely give to eachother so that all enjoy what all made.

Some like to recieve things for what they make, or some like more power than others or to be elevated above the norm.

I cant say that either is "bad", it is simply a matter of opinion if you are dealing with this in a purely theoretical assumption.

Also I just want to make a suggestion, maybe you want to modify the title of this thread. It is a little confusing to see two threads with the same or nearly the same title. Also it is a little rude to do something that divisive to another thread, that is just my opinion though.

[emprworm]

but this is purely a matter of opinion.

Many would gladly give something for the good of their nation or community. If you have a group that would feel the same, then you have many who freely give to eachother so that all enjoy what all made.

you can do this in the US.

[TMA_1]

but you are going towards the side of optimism and trust of people. this is the problem that most people here on fed2k have. Though your opinions are well stated often, and are pretty decent in my book, it still suffers from that one point.

You trust people too much. You expect people to give up their money ot the government freely. There are many who do this, but it is still nonetheless a large minority.

People dont usually openly give to others, in fact if you let them, the people will let others be poor for their sake.

that is why Jesus said that "the poor you will have iwth you always".

If you let people choose to help or not, they wont. That is the whole point of a government! to help the people, to keep under control and order the people of that government. If you take the government out of the peoples affairs too much, they will not do what is right, so often the government msut step in to right the wrongs.

There is obviously a problem here too, as a government can be just as twisted as it's people, but since iti s one entity it tends to ahve better results when the government can work with the poor instead of the entire population, which rarely gives to others. It is a small minority who sacrifice to tohers.

[emprworm]

By and large you make good points.

[TMA_1]

the reason why little charities exist there in my opinion is because they are largely sociallist states, and believe (or hope) that they wont have to make charities because the government will take care of them. Again I cite what I said before in that governments can and do fail often in their outreach. Still though as weird as it sounds, I would rather trust the government than thep eople of the government.

though the idea you ahave of giving the people a chance is valid, as both parties often fail, both the people and the government, and what do I know? maybe it would work.

[GUNWOUNDS]

but you are going towards the side of optimism and trust of people. this is the problem that most people here on fed2k have. Though your opinions are well stated often, and are pretty decent in my book, it still suffers from that one point.

You trust people too much. You expect people to give up their money ot the government freely. There are many who do this, but it is still nonetheless a large minority.

People dont usually openly give to others, in fact if you let them, the people will let others be poor for their sake.

If you let people choose to help or not, they wont. That is the whole point of a government! to help the people, to keep under control and order the people of that government. If you take the government out of the peoples affairs too much, they will not do what is right, so often the government msut step in to right the wrongs.

wow lol what a nice endorsement for Big Brother....

grown adults are incapable of governing themselves.... so lets force them to do what is right ??

and emperworm.... people dont donate to charities and dont donate money to the government not because .... "its against their nature" like TMA claims... but because people feel the government and many charities are corrupt and that the money is not going where it is supposed to go.

If i see some bum on the street starving i will glady go and feed him cause i know the money is being used properly.... but i wont donate to the starving african fund when i dont know if my money is really paying to feed those people.... it might be going to buy the owner of the foundation a new porche.  Or it might be going to the corrupt warlord government (they often steal food aid and hijack trucks).

SO this issue is alot more complicated that you two are making it seem.

I would make the claim that people wouldnt mind re-distributing a small  portion of what they earn back to society...... but they want proof  that what is being done is being done.... which is best acheived by the money staying in your own hands and allocating it as you see fit.... and so that means people sure as hell dont want a communist government forcing them to do so .

[otheymzefedaykin]

Because there are private assurances in US ! That is an egocentrist politic ! In socialist countries, workers pay for the unemployment victims, hospitals, poors, etc...(in France in fact, I don't know how it is in the others countries)

[TMA_1]

lol, I have heard that argument before, that people dont give because the government already gives, or because they cant trust charities

well give it your damn self to those directly around you, duh.lol

people make excuses because people are inharently selfish, like I said before, you are making excuses gunwounds. You are an optimist too?

[GUNWOUNDS]

lol, I have heard that argument before, that people dont give because the government already gives, or because they cant trust charities

well give it your damn self to those directly around you, duh.lol

people make excuses because people are inharently selfish, like I said before, you are making excuses gunwounds. You are an optimist too?

i have pulled off the side of the road many times and got out of my car and bought food for the guys with the "Will work for Food" sign...

I have donated cans of food to many food drives....

Atleast i know my money was being used properly....

[Edric O]

Emprworm, you never get tired of repeating the same old infantile emotional crap, do you? And you never get tired of pulling strawmen either, huh?

LEARN WHAT COMMUNISM IS ALL ABOUT before you open your mouth to talk about it.

Yes, we do say "what's yours is mine". But that goes together with another statement, which you will never hear from a "thief":

"What's mine is yours."

Do you understand? Are you able to comprehend what communism actually means? It's a system in which all property is put in common. Shared. "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need." And THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT.

[Edric O]

Have you invented something?  A new technology perhaps?  A new style of clothing?  A new type of music?  Be prepared to hand it over.  It isn't yours.  All inventions are for the benefit of humanity.  "Whats yours is mine!"  Remember?  Thats what the thief says.

Funny, I don't remember any thieves who give a just compensation to the people they "steal" from (as we intend to give a sizable reward to every inventor and innovator). I also don't remember any thieves who use all their stolen goods for the benefit of humanity, or who steal in order to give to the poor and to those in need.

Except one. Robin Hood.

Are you saying communists are like Robin Hood? Guilty as charged, your honour...

Freedom hoped for, yet freedom lost.  Identity stolen.  That is the glory of communist exploitation.

That's right, we evil communists want to take away people's "freedom" to experience unjust suffering, people's "freedom" to be miserable and poor, and most of all people's "freedom" to starve to death or die of easily preventable diseases.

Yes indeed, we're sooo evil, aren't we? ::)

[Dude_Doc]

But what are the guarantees that communism won't become stalinism again?

[Edric O]

Short answer: We won't repeat Lenin's mistakes.

Long answer:

Stalinism was a fluke of history. It was the result of a communist revolution happening in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and without the external support it needed.

Russia in 1917 wasn't even properly out of feudalism yet. It was lagging far behind the West in terms of technology and industrialization, the vast majority of its people still lived as peasants in the countryside, and it was the last absolute monarchy in Europe. In brief, Russia was in the process of moving from feudalism to capitalism, something that the more advanced Western countries had done over 100 years earlier. Socialism was out of the question. You can't simply "jump" over a stage of economic development. You can't "jump" from feudalism to socialism. You need to pass through capitalism first.

So if it was clear that Russia did not have anything even remotely close to the right conditions for socialism, then why did Lenin and the bolsheviks start their October Revolution, and why did they attempt to achieve the impossible? Because they decided that it wasn't worth waiting over 50 years for Russia to pass through capitalism. They wanted socialism right there and right then - and they devised a very risky plan to achieve it. In 1917, World War 1 had brought the peoples of Europe to breaking point. Discontent and revolutionary fervor swept over the war-torn continent. Protests turned into violent clashes and full-scale uprisings. It looked as if the World Revolution was near. So Lenin decided to gamble everything on one card: If the revolution was successful in one or two Western European countries in addition to Russia, then those countries would be able to use their powerful socialist economies and their technological experience to give the Russian economy a "shock therapy" that would catapult it from feudalism directly into socialism. In other words, the success of the Russian Revolution depended on the success of the European Revolutions.

But the European Revolutions were drowned in blood. Revolutionaries were massacred, governments took populist measures to appease the masses, and capitalism managed to survive. Soon, Russia found itself isolated as the world's single socialist country. By risking everything, the bolsheviks lost everything. Without support from more advanced countries, socialism in Russia was doomed. And so it came to pass that Stalin eventually took power, turned himself into an all-powerful dictator, and replaced Russian socialism (which was still in its infant stages) with stalinism.

History proves that the best (and in fact the only) defence against stalinism is democracy. The weak soviet democracy that emerged after 1917 wasn't given enough power to be able to prevent the emergence of stalinism. Lenin insisted on the idea of a one-party state because he thought it would be most efficient and it would ensure that Russia wouldn't leave the path to socialism. As it turned out, Lenin made the fatal mistake of forgetting that power corrupts.

It is impossible to reach socialism or communism without a strong democracy.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Emprworm, you never get tired of repeating the same old infantile emotional crap, do you? And you never get tired of pulling strawmen either, huh?

LEARN WHAT COMMUNISM IS ALL ABOUT before you open your mouth to talk about it.

Yes, we do say "what's yours is mine". But that goes together with another statement, which you will never hear from a "thief":

"What's mine is yours."

Do you understand? Are you able to comprehend what communism actually means? It's a system in which all property is put in common. Shared. "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need." And THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT.

If Bill Gates met a bum on the street... and the bum said "Hey Bill! whats yours is mine.. and whats mine is yours" .... i dont think Bill Gates would be thrilled.

And maybe that was the point Empworm was trying to get across.

In communism there could be a situation where one would say...... "whats yours is mine.... and whats mine

(but i have nothing) is yours"...

thus when Edrico says

"What's mine is yours."

it has no real meaning... as YOU may have NOTHING to give back.

:-

[Edric O]

If Bill Gates met a bum on the street... and the bum said "Hey Bill! whats yours is mine.. and whats mine is yours" .... i dont think Bill Gates would be thrilled.

And maybe that was the point Empworm was trying to get across.

In communism there could be a situation where one would say...... "whats yours is mine.... and whats mine (but i have nothing) is yours"...

You missed the point. I'm not talking about swapping property (your property becomes my property and my property becomes your property). That's stupid. I'm talking about sharing property. In other words, when I say "what's yours is mine and what's mine is yours", I mean "Let's abolish these unjust property distinctions: Let us pool our posessions together so that each item can be used where it is most needed".

it has no real meaning... as YOU may have NOTHING to give back.

As I said, this isn't about giving and taking. It's about sharing.

And I'll always have something to give back. Even if I don't own anything, I have my labour power. I can work. I can produce things.

[EWS]

r u saying that the poor guy who is starving on the street and the rich guy who has  made billions doing a job are equal?  That the poor guy deserves some of the rich guys money?

[Anathema]

Emprworm, you seem to be arguing that the only drive in peoples live is wealth, and that peoples lives become monotonous and grim without it.

I hope to be a lawyer someday, a profession that does pay well but that's not why I chose it. It's because the work itself appeals to me. If shoveling dirt paid twice as much as any legal profession I would still stick by my choice. Plus there will always be need of lawyers- even in communism.

You argued that when somebody invents a new technology he deserves to exploit all benefits of it.

Besides that, it's questionable wether or not this individual should get all credit for his invention. Before he invented something it was society that gave him the education required and paid for his research. You take some, you give some.

I don't think capitalism is a fair system. It has however proven itself to work. Communism is fair. I doubt it could be implemented however, particularily because I think no society can ever function without a state.

[Anathema]

Also to my knowledge czarist Russia wasn't a feudal society. The czars, like the Roman emperors who they considered to be their predecessors, were absolute rulers. Of course there was a privileged elite in czarist Russia but they weren't hostile to eachother.

[nemafakei]

"Are you saying communists are like Robin Hood? Guilty as charged, your honour..."

What, they're mostly fictional?

"what crap..... giving to the poor IMO is a christian duty... same as the duty i have to pray to God and worship him.... i dont see the government forcing me to pray to God everyday...... cause you know maybe its a small minority of people who actually pray everyday on their own.... so maybe we need the government to step in."

Uh, that makes no sense, gunwounds.

Not murdering people is also a christian duty, but that doesn't mean that government shouldn't ensure that you do it.

Alms and not murdering people are fundamentally moral necessities which we should all perform, whereas praying to your god is very much a subjective 'duty', unique to your religion and which only christians need to perform.

[GUNWOUNDS]

You missed the point. I'm not talking about swapping property (your property becomes my property and my property becomes your property). That's stupid. I'm talking about sharing property. In other words, when I say "what's yours is mine and what's mine is yours", I mean "Let's abolish these unjust property distinctions: Let us pool our posessions together so that each item can be used where it is most needed".

As I said, this isn't about giving and taking. It's about sharing.

And I'll always have something to give back. Even if I don't own anything, I have my labour power. I can work. I can produce things.

its possible to have nothing to share.... and if you have nothing to share then you have nothing to contribute... and if you cant contribute.. what good are you ?

:O

[nemafakei]

"its possible to have nothing to share.... and if you have nothing to share then you have nothing to contribute... and if you cant contribute.. what good are you ?"

An important distinction must be made between ability to contribute and existing wealth.

A hard-working but poor farmer has more to contribute than an incompetent white-collar worker - who may have large amounts of inherited money. By sharing resources are allocated to those who can benefit most from the money.

[SurlyPIG]

It's pretty hypocritical of you to change the title of this post, Edric...

[GUNWOUNDS]

It's pretty hypocritical of you to change the title of this post, Edric...

i noticed the title changed as well.. wasnt it called "communist exploitation?"

???

[Edric O]

Yes, but TMA pointed out that having two topics whose titles differ only by a word (capitalism/communism) could cause confusion. And this topic isn't really about any form of exploitation, but about the reason why Emprworm believes communism is wrong/evil/immoral/etc. So I don't see the problem. I changed the topic title to something relevant, didn't I?