Jump to content

What went wrong in Animal Farm?


Recommended Posts

Nothing went "wrong" in Animal Farm in the sense that there was no way it could go right.  The inevitable was simply fulfilled.  Marx himself stated that it would be necessary to establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat" to nationalize and redistribute wealth and that this dictatorship would fade itself out as it became needless.  This is so laughably niave it's surprising that people actually believe it.  The notion that a party with absolute power would voluntarily relinquish it is a joke.  Calling it a "combination of unpredictable historical circumstances," when it is such a blatantly predictable occurance, makes my head spin.  Communism (which is, IMO, an obsolete relic of the mid-nineteenth century that is incompatable with modern society) if ever achieved, must be done through democratic means.  A forceful revolution in which a period of martial law is incorporated into the plan is a recipe for a totalitarian autocracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
whether I want money or not from friends or family depends on the work. I think you are a bit naiv there. of course family and friends pay one another for work.

So when they really need your help with a really hard task, and they don't have any money to pay you, you'll refuse to help them? Your friends too?

I would find it really strange if one didn't receive money for work...

Of course one recieves money for his work, both in capitalist and Socialist economies. What I really wonder is how come Britney Spears can make 10 songs in a week and make millions, while John Doe who does physical work by carrying heavy garbage for 12 hours a day barely get money to live for the day.

and if you do it for free it is often that you think that you eventually will get such a service in return anyway.

Yes, but how often do you get this in return? How often have children in Africa recieved the same services they slave so much for?

family and society are to completely different things!

Are they?

and even though Bill Gates has money to spend in more than one liftime, shouldn't we respect him if he want to have this money, and give it to his children perhaps.

Which is the problem. His money can be used to save lives.

perhaps some africans don't have money but they don't live in the same country, so how could they have his money if they are not under the same government?

There are ways, but it's not just that Gates don't or can't, there are many ways of corruption along the way too.

if a person is better than others he doesn't directly have power over them.

Yes, not directly. But there are ways. It happens everyday in a society of classes.

but others would perhaps envy him for his skills, but so what.

As said before, power corrupts. One with power will be corrupt when he or she realizes that he/she can stop the envy through his or her money/power.

why can't we have  litttle competition...it is competition which brings the best in humans, it is what brings them forward.

Competition today requires enormous recources. Those recourses could be allocated to the people, to schools, healthcare - instead, it is used to make people by your product.

I do not think we would have had so many great inventions and such technological progress with a communist goverment.

On the contrary, we would probably be off much better. In this time, when you have an idea, you must also have money. For example, you want to test a new kind of spacecraft. It takes huge amount of money. If it fails, too bad! You'll have to wait another 20 years before your idea is ever thought of again, and you'll probably be the most hated man within your company for some time. And what happened? A little mistake, something that happened on launch, maybe you even got so unlucky that you never found a single bit of evidence of what had caused the accident.

In a Communist society, where no money exist, you could go on testing this spacecraft until there is a success, and no one will ever demand money of you. Of course, it will take material and science to figure out every problem, but isn't it the scientists' work to do so? The society will work because mankind has a vision, and that is to go to space as easy as possible.

In a capitalist society, they literally squeeze us into our seats on the airliners. You can't imagine what a nightmare it is for me everytime I have to fly 12 hours in the so called "economy class". This is called profit. They want to squeeze as many people as possible into as tiny space as possible. Why? So that they can earn more money. In a Communist society, people would sit as normal human beings.

In a Communist society, people would live much better, everybody would have equal homes, a bed to come home to, food and fresh water, there would be no fear of hurting yourself and be unable to heal that wound because you can't pay those who already have enough money. You would never have to fear that your children will grow up as junkies or criminals just because you are unable to pay for their education. In a Communist society, these problems would be long gone.

A forceful revolution in which a period of martial law is incorporated into the plan is a recipe for a totalitarian autocracy.

And what if no other choices are aviable? What if you already live under a totalitarian society?

Link to post
Share on other sites

acctually you misunderstood, all the four first quotes are regarding whether one should get payed from family and friends when one do something.

and if a friend asked you for example if you could help him to paint his house, you would of course naturally demand money for it. that is at least what is common where I live. I guess it might have something to do with culture.

it very much depends on the lenght of the work whether you would demand money or not.

yes family and society are two very different things, at least in capitalist countries.

yes bill gates money can save lives, but that would be in rare cases. it would rather be used to increase the luxury of people. most people don't die because they have to little money. his money would be used to give poor people increased living standard. and then you can ask yourself, is that fair that he should give up money just so that others could live better?

I find technological progress a bit more important than healthcare and schools. though schools are of course directly connected to technological progress.

and I don't see what you mean by not getting your wound healed, or not getting education because you don't have money. in my country hospitals are free, education is free, and there is a safety net which helps everyone who does not manage on their own. But we are not socialist. the most powerful party in the government is a rightwing party(which I am active member of)

and I do not agree with you on the matter of technological progress. believe whatever you want, but it has been proven that competition is the best way to make progress the fastest.

I value freedom, and communism will never cover the world, because God will prevent it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

''acctually you misunderstood, all the four first quotes are regarding whether one should get payed from family and friends when one do something.

and if a friend asked you for example if you could help him to paint his house, you would have course naturally demand money for it. that is at least what is common where I live. I guess it might have something to do with culture.

it very much depends on the lenght of the work whether you would demand money or not.''

As you said, it depends on many factors. As can be seen from previous debates regarding the matter, stateing that greed is a part of human nature is an absurd statement for reasons re-iterated to many times for me to care to re-iterate most of them once more. However, I will mention that the obvious generosity of some is a reason obvious enough to doubt such a statement

''yes family and society are two very different things, at least in capitalist countries.''

Well, as long as the two are similar enough to serve as examples involving either thing it does not matter much

''yes bill gates money can save lives, but that would be in rare cases. it would rather be used to increase the luxury of people. most people don't die because they have to little money. his money would be used to give poor people increased living standard. and then you can ask yourself, is that fair that he should give up money just so that others could live better?''

Considering the death rates of countries (and how third world countries generally have the highest), you would think that lack of money is atleast one of the leading causes of death. Of course, this could also due to other features typical of 3rd world countries, so I make no definitive statement regarding that. However, ''it should be clear that even if such money is not used to save lives, their are surely more useful purposes for it than wasting it on somebody whose lifestyle is already so lavish that it does not even provide him with anything other than waste.

You seem to consider the loss of one's wealth a great tragedy, as if it is indignant and dishonorable (almost taboo) to take a persons wealth. I can't help but wonder why, considering the magnitude of far greater tragedies that their are to be indignant about

''I find technological progress a bit more important than healthcare and schools. though schools are of course directly connected to technological progress. ''

You are suggesting that socialism allows for better healthcare/schools but lessens technological progress. That suggestion is null because of no accompanying reason.

On a less related note, I do not really believe that technological progress has much to do with schools due to the knowledge gathering nature of schools that dominates over any intellectualism that might otherwise be present in the schooling system (well, that's how it is in my country anyway)

''and I don't see what you mean by not getting your wound healed, or not getting education because you don't have money. in my country hospitals are free, education is free, and there is a safety net which helps everyone who does not manage on their own. But we are not socialist. the most powerful party in the government is a rightwing party(which I am active member of)''

Well, rightwing does not mean capitalist or anti-socialist. Besides, free healthcare and education are undeniably socialist elements.

''and I do not agree with you on the matter of technological progress. believe whatever you want, but it has been proven that competition is the best way to make progress the fastest.''

I would like to see this infallible proof, considering that their has never been a communist country and that even in the stalinist goverment production rose by 400% (or something like that), clearly showing that reward is not the only incentive for progress. If this is you're argument for capitalism then why not become a supporter of forced labour?; I am sure it is even more progressive economically.

In advance, I request that you do not cite recent technological advances as proof of you're above statement as it is probably impossible to quantify technological progress considering it's nature. And even if you can do this you must remember to take into account that technological progress accelerates (and it's acceleration accelerates) and only if capitalism still shows an unexpected boost in technological progress can you use such info as proof for you're statement. Since I seriously doubt that anyone here can even quantify technological advancements considering all the spheres that an invention affects, I see little reason to argue fo such evidence favouring the above statement.

''I value freedom, and communism will never cover the world, because God will prevent it!''

Did someone hack into you're post in order to discredit it by adding such absurd text to the end of it? Perhaps you did not add that text with the full understanding of it's meaning?

Well, if it makes you feel better; communism is not supposed to have a goverment, so it theoretically more free than most, and many consider many communist priniciples to be very christian (Well, if you are christian. Of course, many original communistists wanted to abolish all religion, but presumably modern communists do not)

Link to post
Share on other sites
and if a friend asked you for example if you could help him to paint his house, you would have course naturally demand money for it. that is at least what is common where I live. I guess it might have something to do with culture.

I don't think it depends on the culture, but on what kind of person you are. I've helped my friends many times, I never demanded any money, and they never offered me any kind of payment.

it very much depends on the lenght of the work whether you would demand money or not.

But it also depends on how you regard your work/help. I may see it as improving and helping my friends, while you may see it as a waste of your time.

yes family and society are two very different things, at least in capitalist countries.

Indeed they may be. That is why we Socialist want to make the society more like a family than alien enteties.

yes bill gates money can save lives, but that would be in rare cases. it would rather be used to increase the luxury of people.

The whole Bill Gates question is starting to go off-rail. Even if he donates a lot of money, those kind of sums are going through customs and regulations, and there is probably a big chance that the money ends up in the hands of a warlord, who in turn controls food and health supplies for the ordinary people - in order to control those people.

most people don't die because they have to little money.

But many do. African countries are poor, as the result of struggle because of money and power. Money is a big player in all this. We, here in the West, can live happy because our contries are wealthier - most problems here are often cause by too much wealth, luxury drugs (as many people have access to drugs, tobacco and alcohol - i.e. cancer, drunk driving etc.) and a poor recycling system.

his money would be used to give poor people increased living standard. and then you can ask yourself, is that fair that he should give up money just so that others could live better?

Yes, in our current capitalist economies his money would probably, and are probably doing so now, going to those who already have power and wealth. But if the world would be a straight and clean capitalist system (which is pretty much impossible since power always gives way for corruption), only then would his money reach those in need.

And even if we only helped those who are poor, but can sustain a minimum living standard, yes - why not? Why do we have to have 5-10 TV's in our houses when we can donate the oldest TV to someone without one at all?

I find technological progress a bit more important than healthcare and schools.

How are technologic inventions more important than treating deadly deceases and giving an equal chance for everybody to learn whatever they want to learn without having to pay money for it? Information is a vital part in ANY democratic country that claims to be democratic. Restricting it our putting a price on it which everybody can't pay is considered anti-democratic.

believe whatever you want, but it has been proven that competition is the best way to make progress the fastest.

Best to this day yes, and that is because a Communist or Socialist development within technology, or even in society itself, have never been tried. What was tried in the former Soviet Union was called stalinism - very similar to fascism.

You are suggesting that socialism allows for better healthcare/schools but lessens technological progress. That suggestion is null because of no accompanying reason.

Actually, there is a somewhat reason for this. The reason for why everything seems to go so slow in Socialism depends on many factions. The first thing being one of the rules: every citizen will have food, clean water, free healthcare, free education and a place to live. This will take some time, and it will depend on the size of the population. On an island in the Pacific Ocean it would be very easy, considering that each house wouldn't have much need of a self-sustaining heat system. But it would be harder in parts of say northern Norway, Sweden or Finland.

Then there are the physical distances. The transportation would reach it's destination much sooner in Sweden than in Russia, thus fastening the progress of establishing the equal "Right to Life" for everyone.

As I said, except houses there are hospitals and schools (and libraries) to be built. Those are the most important things.

As it wouldn't be enough with these, there must ALWAYS be democracy. And democracy takes time. It's like in an action movie - the good guy always has to go throught the worst sewers, the worst traps and all that to reach his target, while the bad guy always has time and place to his advantage (fascism in other words) - thus the bad guy can get going with his plans for global domination while the good guy is still crawling in the sewers, trying to get past the next trap. 

I value freedom, and communism will never cover the world, because God will prevent it!

This is quite ironic since Jesus Christ himself taught Socialism at that time. I am a Christian myself, I too believe that man should be free. But I will never believe that I am free as long as any other humans are suffering. People who suffer, may it be on Earth or any other planet, goes against my Christian values.

I will never believe that some people just happens to be born in a place where they can not live like I do, where they can never learn as much as I have learned, never have the experience I have - the freedom to pursue their dreams without a wicked capitalist who is forcing them to pay him just because he want to buy a new car tomorrow.

I believe that only God, and Jesus Christ, have the power to change this. And because God created us EQUAL, we should live as so.

And I wonder, isn't it strange that Right Wing Christian Extremists in the USA, the richest country on the planet (at least one of), are the only ones who believe, in a majority, that Christendom is right-wing, while the majority elsewhere in the world believes in Christendom being left-wing?

There is more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_communism

(Well, if you are christian. Of course, many original communistists wanted to abolish all religion, but presumably modern communists do not)

Firstly, it was stalinism that never wanted religious involvement. Just like Nazi-Germany, just like any fascist state throughout time. Their goal was to make people believe that there was no God, that there was no luck, that faith was useless, that love never existed. There were only mathematical precision and the architecture of the atoms, that all things happens because they are programmed to do so. We had faith because we "didn't know the true workings of the universe", that we had love because we were stupid enough to believe that sex was something more than just reproducing ourselves.

As you can see, the more right you go on the political scale, the more material and cold it becomes. I wouldn't believe it for a second, if asked now, that Bush is a true Christian who believes in what Jesus Christ once said. He is simply using Christians for his own profit.

On the other hand, as you go left on the political scale, things will get closer, many things become spiritual, in a sence. That is why I think it is redicolous when we exchange pieces of paper in our daily lives. All these metal and trees that has been used to make the so called money. We have grown up believeing that we can find value in these things. Value doesn't come in a box with a note written on it, it comes through smiles, through faith, through love, through helping and supporting each other. That is what I consider as value.

And while it may or may not be true that Communists and Socialists despite religion, the cause of this is not strange. A couple of centuries ago, the Chruch was powerful, it dictated who could and couldn't get help from them. Only if paid would they teach you read and write. Those who we would consider Socialists at that time did not like it. Some still don't like it.

Now, the goal in Communism and Socialism is not to abolish religion and make people believe in a new kind of faith. Socialism and Communism have counted on that there will be many kinds of people, cultures and religions. In order for every man and woman to be equal we would have to follow common laws that apply to everyone. It is also used to abolish unequal treatment of homosexuals or satanists, for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

first of all, I do not believe that we should have a totally capitalist country. I believe in something in between as the party I am a member of does. It is a concervative party, and believes in the freedom of the individual. we value profit in front of enviroment!

what pisses me off is the socialist parties in Norway who want to erase the depth african countries have to us. and give like 50 % of all we earn to poor countries. and want to go out of nato, and make our country a pasifist state, without any military at all. They want to increase taxes so that the state can use money on all kind of stuff.

I believe in lower taxes, that the individuals better now what to use their money on better than the state.

and Christianity is neither right wing or left wing, it doesn't have something to do with politics. I am a christian and believe that the Christian Democrats should stay out of the politics. Even though I am christian, I hate almost everything christian democrats stand for. they are like lifestyle police... wanting to abolish alchohol, and don't want people to have any fun at all.

and God doesn't care what political system you have as long as you believe that he exists.

I think that we should have free education and hospitals. even though it is socialistic, I value some parts of socialism but not everything. I believe we should use much money on weapons and the military. and I believe that the individual should have as much rights as possible. I want to have my own property as well. I do not want the state to own it. Would you guys like that the state possessed your house and home, and you could do nothing about it if they said you had to move?

just wanted to make this stuff clear, because many of the subjects we are discussing are going a bit out of what I stand for.

but still good examples of the fact that competition makes better progress technologically is for example Germany during World War 2, when they during the war developed the Rocket and the Jet plane.

another example is as you say the Soviet Union because they were competing with the USA, and this made them build better and better weapons and better and better spaceships.

I can't believe that you don't see that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to know more about communism, don't read wikipedia but Rousseau, Marx, Lenin, Fromm, Adorno, Chomsky or anyone, who dedicated a significant time of his thinking to it. And if you want to know more about christianity, read rather Bible and theologists. These people talked about different problems, altough all tried to show, that their problem affects everything else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

first of all, I do not believe that we should have a totally capitalist country. I believe in something in between as the party I am a member of does. It is a concervative party, and believes in the freedom of the individual. we value profit in front of enviroment!

what pisses me off is the socialist parties in Norway who want to erase the depth african countries have to us. and give like 50 % of all we earn to poor countries. and want to go out of nato, and make our country a pasifist state, without any military at all. They want to increase taxes so that the state can use money on all kind of stuff.

I believe in lower taxes, that the individuals better now what to use their money on better than the state.

and Christianity is neither right wing or left wing, it doesn't have something to do with politics. I am a christian and believe that the Christian Democrats should stay out of the politics. Even though I am christian, I hate almost everything christian democrats stand for. they are like lifestyle police... wanting to abolish alchohol, and don't want people to have any fun at all.

and God doesn't care what political system you have as long as you believe that he exists.

I think that we should have free education and hospitals. even though it is socialistic, I value some parts of socialism but not everything. I believe we should use much money on weapons and the military. and I believe that the individual should have as much rights as possible. I want to have my own property as well. I do not want the state to own it. Would you guys like that the state possessed your house and home, and you could do nothing about it if they said you had to move?

just wanted to make this stuff clear, because many of the subjects we are discussing are going a bit out of what I stand for.

but still good examples of the fact that competition makes better progress technologically is for example Germany during World War 2, when they during the war developed the Rocket and the Jet plane.

another example is as you say the Soviet Union because they were competing with the USA, and this made them build better and better weapons and better and better spaceships.

I can't believe that you don't see that?

Harkonnen, I don't think that this is a demonstration of a thing or another. You cannot demonstrate all that much with isolated examples, since one can find isolated examples on the other side and it never ends. The point is the evaluation of the whole. I could mention, besides, that Germany produced few bombers that in fact were not as efficient as they should since people in lower ranks were afraid of reporting errors to higher ranks (source: some history book that I used for some essay... don't ask which :P). There are other belief system that try to encompass an understanding of all the elements of the whole, so if you come with a few pieces of your system, it shouldn't simply convince automatically someone that explains things better with all he already has as a complete web of ideas and concepts. He would need to see all webs to understand more, and still could be limited by less reliable data for some reason (like that he saw more some things than some others, had less reliable data collection methods...).

Link to post
Share on other sites
we value profit in front of enviroment!

And how is this good?

I believe in lower taxes, that the individuals better now what to use their money on better than the state.

The state will not dictate what you must do with your money, commercialism does. They want your money for their own personal profit. The taxes are, as of now, allocated to power-parties within the government. Yes, Sweden does also have a Social-Democratic government, and it all seems to be falling apart. The reason for this is that we still have a market economy, not a planned economy that is required in order for a true Socialist state to exist.

and Christianity is neither right wing or left wing, it doesn't have something to do with politics.

Not in politics we know of, but it's entire essence. Communism is almost exactly like Jesus Christ preached: all men to be equal, to help and support people, to respect all persons no matter what they believe, and so on.

It is quite interesting actually. Christianity tell us, for example, not to steal. There are thefth everywhere in the world today. Communism is the answer - because no one will own anything, everybody will own everything - it will be pointless to steal anything because you already own it.

I am a christian and believe that the Christian Democrats should stay out of the politics. Even though I am christian, I hate almost everything christian democrats stand for. they are like lifestyle police... wanting to abolish alchohol, and don't want people to have any fun at all.

That is why we Socialists believe in the separation of Church and State. No religion should influence the state's decisions, no special group of any other kind should have any influence on the state for that matter. The state is a tool, it is neutral to it's people.

and God doesn't care what political system you have as long as you believe that he exists.

I don't think God wants us to wage war and make redicolous huge profits on other men and womens work. I do, on the other hand, believe that Communism holds the answer to a huge number of problems that, when solved, would hugely improve everybody's living standard - thus making everybody happy and prosperous at the same time. I believe that God wants us to live in joy and happiness, not in war and crime.

I believe we should use much money on weapons and the military.

Now, using money on the military and on weapons research must mean that the research and the weapons developed should be used in a way. Why else produce them?

Making war makes money. The longer a war lasts, the better it is for the weapons industry. When there are no conflicts, no threats, the business goes down. That is why we will always have war and crime as long as the weapons industry makes money on it - making money through capitalism.

and I believe that the individual should have as much rights as possible.

Socialism and Communism offers this. You are free to learn and educate as much as you like, to do whatever you like to do - whithout anyone saying that you need money in order for it to work. If people don't like your idea, fine, make another one. It's free.

I want to have my own property as well. I do not want the state to own it.

A public property in Socialism doesn't mean an object that anyone can come and use, like your computer or your shoes. It means that there will be no copyright. Everything would be a copy of itself, just like a computer file. No one will be able to come to your house and demand that you "erase" your "copy" because the owner doesn't like you having it, or because it is too expensive for you to buy "legally". 

Would you guys like that the state possessed your house and home, and you could do nothing about it if they said you had to move?

The state is the people, remember that. Ask yourself: why do the people want you to move out od your house? A private owner, on the other hand, can do this. He can evict you just because you're black, or homosexual or a Moslem. It's his, he can do whatever he pleases with it. In a Socialist society, everybody would have a home. It's a Human Right in Socialism.

but still good examples of the fact that competition makes better progress technologically is for example Germany during World War 2, when they during the war developed the Rocket and the Jet plane.

Fascism is always the best system when it comes down to war. The Soviet Union also produced lots of war gadgets that were never used, which is why people were poor.

And you have to know that war itself is fascism. Hitler never meant to end World War 2. If the Nazis were still in power, in Germany, today, World War 2 would still be waged (with the exception that the atomic bomb never was invented). When there is an enemy, any kind of enemy, there is always a need for spies, secret weapons, and overall fascist rules within the civilian population (starting to sound like the Patriot Act now, doesn't it?).

Like I said before, we don't know if development will be much faster or slower in a Socialist society because it has never been tried. But I do know that, depending on the population and the size of the country, there would be a hard time in the beginning when the first Human Rights would be implented - that is, living space for everyone, food, healthcare etc.

another example is as you say the Soviet Union because they were competing with the USA, and this made them build better and better weapons and better and better spaceships.

I can't believe that you don't see that?

Besides the note that a Socialist system never has been tried - look at what it was they invented! Weapons of destruction. To kill each other! To end all life on this planet! Think about all good things that could have been invented to actually benefit the people.

If you want to know more about communism, don't read wikipedia but Rousseau, Marx, Lenin, Fromm, Adorno, Chomsky or anyone, who dedicated a significant time of his thinking to it.

Beside wikipedia, a totally free encyclopedia with just about everything written in it, there is also a site that explains Marxism:

http://www.marxists.org

Link to post
Share on other sites

If wikipedia contains "everything" (and that counts also nonsenses), http://www.marxists.org is your only available authority. There on http://www.marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm you can read this: "The theories of Marxism are based on a scientific method of thought called dialectal materialism; to be clear there is no one answer to a question -- theory is based on a particular set of conditions that are always finite, and thus, any theory is necessarily limited". If Jesus preached in your opinion "dialectic materialism", then you are member of a very weird church.

Link to post
Share on other sites

why can't it be good to value profit in front of enviroment? it doesn't have to be bad, it just depends upon your view. I think that we should save the enviroment in other ways than those which we use now. I believe that we are overreacting, and that global warming is natural.(we are not discussing that. that is my view, end of discussion) what we should focus upon saving, is animals and the rainforrest.

a good way to save the rainforest would be to attack militarily the countries which possesses them, if they do not agree to stop destroying it.

really do you have marked economy in sweden? here we have blandingseconomy. mixed plan and marked. I believe it works fine in a country such as Norway for the moment.

I do not agree with your point of view that christianity can be compared with communism. the Bible is all about compassion. and to be a christian all you have to do is to believe that Jesus died and was revived. that I have read in the bible, so there is not discussion about it.

perhaps you socialists believe in a seperated church and state, but that is not what I see in my country. socialist parties cooperate with christian parties. and to me christian parties are more on the left side than the right(note that this is not economy I am talking about)

I do not believe that the Christian God wants us to only live in joy and happines. and if you are a christian I think you can see that for yourself.

of course not war makes money. war costs money, but war is a part of the world we live in so therefore we need a strong military, and it would not be wise to let a socialist decide upon the military of a country.

the individual does not have the freedom to own something, to get a higher standard of living if he works hard. that is what you lack in the communist society.

and people are not better of in a socialist society. if the whole world was to be one communist country, then me who live in the country with the highest living standard in the world would be a lot worse off, and in addition since my parents have good jobs where they earn much, I think you fully understand that I do not want communism. I do not want to get a lower standard of living, I like to live in luxury compared to people in africa.

I think you misunderstand fully on the whole competition thing. For example now there is little competition between countries, so we have not got much more technological breakthroughs. but 20 years ago there was a competition between soviet union and usa, and in that time we had many technological breakthroughs. I don't think I can but it much more simpler for you than this.

and I can tell you why non-communism is better than communism. look at different countries, western and northern european countries, northern America, Australia and Japan all are somewhat capitalists, not communists. they have high standard of living, and people live a good life.

North-Korea, China, former eastern europe under Soviet Union and Cuba all have low standard of living.

I think that pretty much concludes it

another example is Germany, Western germany without communism had high standard of living while Eastern germany with communism had low standard of living.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to wade in...

why can't it be good to value profit in front of enviroment? it doesn't have to be bad, it just depends upon your view. I think that we should save the enviroment in other ways than those which we use now. I believe that we are overreacting, and that global warming is natural.(we are not discussing that. that is my view, end of discussion) what we should focus upon saving, is animals and the rainforrest.

a good way to save the rainforest would be to attack militarily the countries which possesses them, if they do not agree to stop destroying it.

Geez, violence is the solution to everything, isn't it? Generally, it's not countries that take part in the logging, it's companies. Capitalist companies which value profit over the enviroment. Most of which are foreign to the country they are logging in anyway. And how exactly can you save the enviroment of a nation while throwing napalm at it?

Furthermore, most countries that possess rainforests make a lot of money from the logging, money that could not be gotten elsewhere. Stopping the logging would damage their economies, possibly for decades, and so would a war. A war would damage the attacking country's economy as well, as the current American budget deficit clearly shows. You can't support military action and the economy at the same time (military buildup yes, which was dealt with in another topic, but not military action).

Also, you should realise that it is not just rainforests that are in danger here, though their destruction is certainly one of the larger issues (and how exactly can you justify calling global warming natural anyway? I mean there's a theory that rising CO2 levels are natural, but that's only the tip of the iceberg...). There are also coral reefs, which are being damaged by harmful products being released into the seas as well as the atmosphere. There are lakes and rivers that become too acidic for life due to factory emissions in other countries. Then of course there's the hole in the ozone layer and the shifting of the gulf stream, and the extinction of speicies due to hunting, logging, fishing, housing, not to mention the chemical crap that's going into the enviroment.

So, how exactly would you propose we solve all of this? Through more expensive, polluting military action? Hmm?

I do not agree with your point of view that christianity can be compared with communism. the Bible is all about compassion. and to be a christian all you have to do is to believe that Jesus died and was revived. that I have read in the bible, so there is not discussion about it.

Oh there's plenty of discussion about what's in the bible. First there's the problem of whether someone was actually said or not, then there's the problem of how exactly what is in the bible should be interpreted. Communism is about sharing, Christianity is, in theory rather than in practice, about compassion; and sharing is compassionate, is it not?

perhaps you socialists believe in a seperated church and state, but that is not what I see in my country. socialist parties cooperate with christian parties. and to me christian parties are more on the left side than the right(note that this is not economy I am talking about)

Not just socialists. I firmly believe in seperation of church and state. And Christian parties may be right or left wing when it comes to political issues such as the economy, foreign relations, internal affairs, etc. But when it comes to 'moral' issues, especially civil rights and law, I have yet to see one that is not decidedly right wing.

I do not believe that the Christian God wants us to only live in joy and happines. and if you are a christian I think you can see that for yourself.

There are many different kinds of Christians. I, fortunately, am not one of them. But I know that there will always be disagreement.

of course not war makes money. war costs money, but war is a part of the world we live in so therefore we need a strong military, and it would not be wise to let a socialist decide upon the military of a country.
You're getting 'socialist' confused with 'pacifist.' Not every socialist is a pacifist, and not every pacifist is a socialist. I am neither, and I still disagree with you.

And just because war is currently 'a part of the world we live in,' does not mean that we should just accept it and start blowing each other up. Chaning for the better would be nice.

the individual does not have the freedom to own something, to get a higher standard of living if he works hard. that is what you lack in the communist society.

Edric, I believe, has discounted this more than once...

and people are not better of in a socialist society. if the whole world was to be one communist country, then me who live in the country with the highest living standard in the world would be a lot worse off, and in addition since my parents have good jobs where they earn much, I think you fully understand that I do not want communism. I do not want to get a lower standard of living, I like to live in luxury compared to people in africa.
You're taking it the wrong way. Just because everyone is nearly the same, doesn't mean that everyone is say, middle class. In theory, you could be living in luxury while everyone else is as well, in communism. Of course then nobody would work and the system would fall apart... meh. The principle is nice but the actuality is flawed.

I see where you're coming from, though. Selfish, but pragmatic. For once we agree.

I think you misunderstand fully on the whole competition thing. For example now there is little competition between countries, so we have not got much more technological breakthroughs. but 20 years ago there was a competition between soviet union and usa, and in that time we had many technological breakthroughs. I don't think I can but it much more simpler for you than this.
We're getting technological breakthroughs. There just isn't as much urgency. I'd rather have slow technological progress in peacetime than sped up and frantic research during war.
and I can tell you why non-communism is better than communism. look at different countries, western and northern european countries, northern America, Australia and Japan all are somewhat capitalists, not communists. they have high standard of living, and people live a good life.

North-Korea, China, former eastern europe under Soviet Union and Cuba all have low standard of living.

I think that pretty much concludes it

another example is Germany, Western germany without communism had high standard of living while Eastern germany with communism had low standard of living.

Well firstly, none of those countries was communist, so it's a pretty poor example. Also, 'non-communism' ? What kind of phrase is that?

Anyway, the Soviet Union was fascism masquerading as communism. Same goes for North Korea, all soviet bloc states, and to a lesser degree China. Cuba is a different kettle of fish, but it's not doing as badly as some people would like to believe.

There has never been, as Edric points out constantly, a true communist state. There have been attempts, yes, but none of them have succeeded. Yet. Personally I don't think they will. See I don't believe in communism either, or at least not past the theory stage, but the arguments you're using against it are not workable. You can't claim that communism has a low standard of living without any proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites
why can't it be good to value profit in front of enviroment?

The environment is an important thing on this planet, it affects us all. That is why we have to care for it, not let other generations battle with the mess we left when our lives are over.

I think that we should save the enviroment in other ways than those which we use now. I believe that we are overreacting, and that global warming is natural.

So you believe that we should continue to toxicate the environment until there is an effect that could be so devestating that we wouldn't be able to get out of it?

what we should focus upon saving, is animals and the rainforrest.

But they, too, are a part of the environment. People make money on endangered species, they make money on cutting down the rainforrest. They make personal profit, not something that benefits the people - and even if it would, it would still be questionable.

a good way to save the rainforest would be to attack militarily the countries which possesses them, if they do not agree to stop destroying it.

It is not the countries that possesses the rainforrests that cuts them down. It's called multinational corporations, they can own things outside the company's founding country. Nike, I think, owned slave-factories in the poorer countries, where children under 15 worked for almost nothing to make their shoes. Nobody knew till people who actually cared prooved it. Now the childlabour have stopped, but it's still a scary thought about how many other companies out there that used, or maybe still are using, this method.

So, in essence, if you would like to stop the logging of the rainforrest in Africa by your method, you'd have to attack the USA, because most logging companies originates from there.

really do you have marked economy in sweden? here we have blandingseconomy. mixed plan and marked. I believe it works fine in a country such as Norway for the moment.

I consider everything that is not totally a planned economy a market economy. Mixed economy, sure, we have it, but it will not work. Not for long.

I do not agree with your point of view that christianity can be compared with communism. the Bible is all about compassion.

Yes, compassion. To do the right thing. To care for the man or woman besides you. That is exactly Communism. If you have compassion for your society, for your friends and children, if you want to explore and to know, to develop without any boundaries - you are free to choose. You can show them the finger and do it your way, or you can help them and build a better world.

and to be a christian all you have to do is to believe that Jesus died and was revived.

Then, what is the meaning of believeing and not acting? Why, then, does it matter to you if you believe in the Bible or in, say, the ancient Egyptian mythologies, or the Nordic mythologies for that matter?

socialist parties cooperate with christian parties. and to me christian parties are more on the left side than the right(note that this is not economy I am talking about)

Not all Socialists are exactly alike. I don't like my own government either, and that is because they think they can do whatever they like. One could say that we have our own Revolution Betrayed.

I do not believe that the Christian God wants us to only live in joy and happines. and if you are a christian I think you can see that for yourself.

Then, what does it matter at all if you believe in God or not? This have been discussed earlier, but I see it this way: That God gave us free choice. We brought this pain upon ourselves. Even if God made it impossible to sin, to be bad, would we still be free? Others may thing that the devil is already controlling the world, that there are aliens among us (or deamons, thus the evil).

The reason I believe in God, is that I believe He is good. He does not want us to suffer, but He has given us free choice to do so. It is we who have to realize what idiots we are for behaving as we do now.

of course not war makes money. war costs money, but war is a part of the world we live in so therefore we need a strong military,

Back to the old feudal days when people waged war against their neighbourhood, eh? What would a country like Norway or Sweden have a military for? If the US wanted us dead, we would probably already be dead.

and it would not be wise to let a socialist decide upon the military of a country.

When you live in a Socialist society, it is the people who decide if they even want weapons! They do so by democracy. A true Socialist wouldn't decide anything himself. He would ask those who will be affected by the choice. The military, affects who? The people. The security of the country, etc. He asks the people by democracy, and the majority will either say "yes" or "no".

Or would you rather let a fascist take command of your military? Or someone who want to profit from the war? Would you like to kill another man for the profit of your president? This, too, is fascism.

the individual does not have the freedom to own something, to get a higher standard of living if he works hard. that is what you lack in the communist society.

Those are all capitalist lies. You can make everybody equal and happy, eradicate all wars, racism, profit making. The children in such a society wouldn't be brought up fighting for food, taking drugs, working in poisioned factories for someone elses profit. You will never have to worry about surviving the day, or search for a place to sleep, because there will always be one. You will never have to worry about being unable to pay for medical healthcare, because that is all taken care of.

As progress follows, you too, will get a higher standard of living. It all depends on if you want to help the society. The more people work, the better the society will become. It is all up to the people in that society.

Much of it is about will.

if the whole world was to be one communist country,

If the whole world would be Communist, then you wouldn't answer to anyone. You would live in a society where democracy is limited to a size. A Community, thus Communism.

then me who live in the country with the highest living standard in the world would be a lot worse off,

No, because you would live in your community, not in a world state, as many believe Communism is. Your community would work for the best of itself, and have contacts with other communities, to share knowledge and products. No one will go to your house and take everything away to Africa if you believe that, as it is propagised in the capitalist media.

I do not want to get a lower standard of living, I like to live in luxury compared to people in africa.

NOW I wonder what Jesus would say about this.

For example now there is little competition between countries, so we have not got much more technological breakthroughs. but 20 years ago there was a competition between soviet union and usa, and in that time we had many technological breakthroughs. I don't think I can but it much more simpler for you than this.

And I ask you again: How do you know that the technological breakthrough would not be much more and better in a Communist world?

look at different countries, western and northern european countries, northern America, Australia and Japan all are somewhat capitalists, not communists. they have high standard of living, and people live a good life.

Have you missed everything I've said? I feels like I am repeating everything over and over and over again.

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ONE SINGLE COUNTRY, IN THIS WORLD, IN THE OCEANS OR ON LAND, THAT HAS EVEN TRIED COMMUNISM FOR ONE DAY.

But hey, Japan lost the war, and the USA won it. Australia is capitalist. While all other stalinist countries have been in either Europe or in Asia, Cuba was in Northern America. It doesn't depend on what or where. It could just as well have happened in America, or in Africa, and the Northern hemisphere would be the poor side.

North-Korea, China, former eastern europe under Soviet Union and Cuba all have low standard of living.

As I said before, all those countries are dictatorships. The people doesn't decide, the Party does - that is their policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

first I want to ask you if you are socialist or communist?

and the reason why there has never been any real communist state is because communism does not work practically. perhaps it will some day, but it does not work today, therefore I consider a more right wing ideology and policy to be the best for the people.

in my country socialists want to manage on their own, without any help from the outside world. they want to go out of world trade organization, nato and everything else which helps us to trade with other countries.

I though believe that we need to open up more for trade, so that we can help other countries, and so that the consumers get the best merchandises.

I think those are better arguments ;)

and by the way I do not think you believe in a christian god. for you god could be Allah or Jahve too. am I right? do you read the bible? It is the bible which is important in  christianity, not that you believe in a compassionate and good God, but in the Christian God.

Link to post
Share on other sites

first I want to ask you if you are socialist or communist?

Neither. I'm an oligarch, which is like a monarchist with friends.

and the reason why there has never been any real communist state is because communism does not work practically. perhaps it will some day, but it does not work today, therefore I consider a more right wing ideology and policy to be the best for the people.

Yes, that's true. Doesn't mean it's a bad system, per se, just an unworkable one.

in my country socialists want to manage on their own, without any help from the outside world. they want to go out of world trade organization, nato and everything else which helps us to trade with other countries.

I though believe that we need to open up more for trade, so that we can help other countries, and so that the consumers get the best merchandises.

I think those are better arguments ;)

Socialism does not inherently mean isolationism. Perhaps you can give some evidence of how the two might be linked?

and by the way I do not think you believe in a christian god. for you god could be Allah or Jahve too. am I right? do you read the bible? It is the bible which is important in
Link to post
Share on other sites
first I want to ask you if you are socialist or communist?

I am a Socialist - in essence, a Communist. But I strive for a Socialist future, one that can later bring us to Communism.

and the reason why there has never been any real communist state is because communism does not work practically.

Does it not work, or do we not want it to work? Look at our world today, there are no attempts by any government to even begin moving into that direction. The reason is that they want to keep their power, their control.

Beside this, people need to get informed. Most people think that Communism is equal to the Soviet Union which it is not. This is the problem. I'm not talking about building robots, or colonize Mars within 10-20 years, or make contact with an alien civilization. Socialism is real, it can be done. We don't need robots or aliens to make it work. We need people to be informed, to know and to think for themselves.

Another point besides this - Socialism is probably the hardest form of government because it is hard to implement. A dictatorship is always easy, a system built on the elite and on gaining score to climb up the ladder is also easy - because just like the dictatorship it can be maintained by those who can afford the information. Those with power.

Socialism do not follow the rules we know. It changes constantly - because the people that are practicizing it are changing. Music has changed, movies, how we dress ourselves, what we eat and drink, our very habbits - they have all changed just under one century. Socialism is built on the will of the people - what they want to do, what they want to know, what they want to explore and research, how they want to live - not how society forces them to live, or to be, or to do in order to live their lives.

perhaps it will some day, but it does not work today, therefore I consider a more right wing ideology and policy to be the best for the people.

Then why not start making that future a reality right now? Why not start helping the environment today, and not tomorrow when it may be too late?

in my country socialists want to manage on their own, without any help from the outside world.

This can be accurate in a way. Socialism will probably not happen at the same time globally, but induvidually, among the community - in the induvidual country. It is fully up to the people of the community to decide if they want to keep living as they are doing now, or if they want to progress like everybody else.

I though believe that we need to open up more for trade, so that we can help other countries, and so that the consumers get the best merchandises.

Merchandise is what the companies want you to buy, not what may help you. They'll listen to any idea that makes lots and lots of money, but never the idea that can benefit people the most.

Trade doesn't help other countries. It helps those who already are rich and powerful to get more money and power. After over a century of trade, what has it helped Africa? Or southern Asia?

No, trade is not the right way to do it. To help countries mean helping them, not expecting them to pay back. Africa has no food, for example, so we send them food - because look at us, don't we have enough food already? We have an excess of it. They barely get by today.

and by the way I do not think you believe in a christian god.

Yes I do. The only difference is that you apparently think that God is either evil, or not-caring for what is going on here.

for you god could be Allah or Jahve too.

Firstly, even if I did, would Islam or Judaism be a completely different religion? They still believe in God, they only believe in him in a different way.

Second, Christianity too have many ways of worshipping God. We have the Protestant Church, the Catholic, the Latter Day Saints, even Jehova's Witnesses. Would you consider all these as completely different religions too? 

It is the bible which is important in  christianity, not that you believe in a compassionate and good God, but in the Christian God.

Remember that the Bible is written by humans like you and me. They, too, could have their conceptions of truth and experience. If you think all Christians read the Bible and strictly follow what is said in it - well, the I believe that there aren't as many Christians as I believed there were.

It is true that God is the creator of this universe, I believe. I believe that He has an enormous power - even beyond our comprehension. His mercy can be the ultimate good, and His anger can be the ultimate hell, as we know it. After all, He is God.

But since many good things have happened during the ages, for example, we defeated Hitler, we developed democracy, we have developed amazing science and so on, I believe that He has let the good survive and the bad to rot away. He sent His saviour, and we crucified him - only to find out that he was sacrificed for something better - our survival - to let us live. He put himself under our control. That, I believe, is a sign for both compassion and good.

And if God was evil - would we even exist? Would we have the chance to think by ourselves? Wouldn't we just be animals - or mindless trolls, constantly waging endless wars? 

Neither. I'm an oligarch, which is like a monarchist with friends.

That's new - I though everybody lived in fear of being killed in the feudal ages?

Yes, that's true. Doesn't mean it's a bad system, per se, just an unworkable one.

How do we know that? We haven't even tried it.

Socialism does not inherently mean isolationism. Perhaps you can give some evidence of how the two might be linked?

As I said above, Socialism will probably work best if all communities cooperated. The people of the communities will decide if they want to make contact with the outside world, or if they thrive by living as they are now. There won't be tiny governments, ruling over giant bodies of land that decides everything, as they are now.

I'm guessing this was aimed at American Cyborg but while I'm here I'll just add in that I don't believe in god, I don't believe in Christianity, and I think the bible is a load of codswallop

Oh, boy. I wonder what would happen if George Wolf Bush saw this. You'd probably spend the rest of your life at Guanantanamo Base ;) .

Link to post
Share on other sites
why can't it be good to value profit in front of enviroment? it doesn't have to be bad, it just depends upon your view. I think that we should save the enviroment in other ways than those which we use now. I believe that we are overreacting, and that global warming is natural.(we are not discussing that. that is my view, end of discussion) what we should focus upon saving, is animals and the rainforrest.

a good way to save the rainforest would be to attack militarily the countries which possesses them, if they do not agree to stop destroying it.

Actually, if you look at it long-term, you're really destroying yourself. From what I understand in "profit in front of environment", owning businesses, exploiting workers, being filthy rich like Bill Gates is definitely more progressive than saving the rainforest, which obviously means you're contradicting yourself, since you cannot have (immediate) profit and yet spend resources on saving the rainforest (which is not equivalent to economical profit, no matter which way you look at it). Hope you see my point (I'm a newbie at this forum, so take this is just my two cents' worth. I'd like to learn more so I'm participating :))

really do you have marked economy in sweden? here we have blandingseconomy. mixed plan and marked. I believe it works fine in a country such as Norway for the moment.

No comment, I don't study history or anything so I'll keep quiet here.

I do not agree with your point of view that christianity can be compared with communism. the Bible is all about compassion. and to be a christian all you have to do is to believe that Jesus died and was revived. that I have read in the bible, so there is not discussion about it.

I cannot link being filthy rich and keeping that wealth to yourself instead of distributing it to the people who need it more than you do with compassion. Socialism achieves this and that is compassion. I make this stand though I don't really have any idea on how this can be achieved if Bill Gates has no compassion whatsoever. Hope someone can help me on this. *sighs*

perhaps you socialists believe in a seperated church and state, but that is not what I see in my country. socialist parties cooperate with christian parties. and to me christian parties are more on the left side than the right(note that this is not economy I am talking about)

What does this mean? I don't see your point here. On the shallow side, what's going on in your country is good obviously, since they share similar views (so a question to hardcore socialists here, why a separated church and state?)

I do not believe that the Christian God wants us to only live in joy and happines. and if you are a christian I think you can see that for yourself.

How would the Christian God (my God, for that matter) want us to live our lives then? Joy and happiness? Heh, but seriously, why not? God doesn't exactly put us in this world to suffer (I believe so, although I think this isn't happening at the moment, it is supposed to)? Well, we could help God achieve this (don't talk to me about whether we have the right to assist God since he is all-powerful, I'm a weakling at Religion) with charity. Well, Compassion and Charity definitely see eye-to-eye, don't they? And if Bill Gates was a Christian... Well, Bill Gates can still live in joy and happiness if he gave away 99.99% of his wealth. He will still be richer than the large majority of us.

of course not war makes money. war costs money, but war is a part of the world we live in so therefore we need a strong military, and it would not be wise to let a socialist decide upon the military of a country.

Like others have said, war makes money for the weapons industry, which obviously is a major catalyst for war. It's a two-way kind of thing, or a chicken and egg problem. But that means if you remove one link the whole thing stops (no weapons --> no war).

And war is caused by differences. It could be over resources, over ideological conflicts, over land, over security... but won't all these differences be nullified if everything (not to the extent of really private things like computers. I'm saying wealth, food, etc. You won't share your handphone with everybody else in a socialist state I guess) is shared, something I believe IS communism/socialism (they have this same idea about sharing, right?)

the individual does not have the freedom to own something,

I don't think you'll lose the freedom to own a handphone or a TV set or even a toy or a discman in a socialist country (socialists correct me if I'm wrong.)

to get a higher standard of living if he works hard. that is what you lack in the communist society.

I don't see how you lack that in a communist country. If everybody works hard, society progresses as a whole, and doesn't that still ultimately raises your standard of living? On the other hand, in capitalism, exploitation is possible (remember the whole hulabaloo about some economical loophole that allows others to get rich almost instantly?). Also, think the stock market. The rich exploit the stock market and become filthy rich very quickly while others become bankrupt and such. In fact, I thing working hard to achieve a higher standard of living is what's lacking in a capitalist country (to a certain extent. This is much less so in a socialist country).

and people are not better of in a socialist society. if the whole world was to be one communist country, then me who live in the country with the highest living standard in the world would be a lot worse off, and in addition since my parents have good jobs where they earn much, I think you fully understand that I do not want communism. I do not want to get a lower standard of living, I like to live in luxury compared to people in africa.

Which is obviously not compassion. I kinda share your views on that. Of course I like to live in luxury compared to those poor fellows in third world countries. But you really need to look at the other side. Is the world really that fair in capitalism? What if YOU were born in Africa? I remember this ideology about a group of people in a room creating a world for themselves. They can design society in any way they want, but what kind of person you'll be born as in that society is totally random. Which means you can try to create a totally unfair society where the rich are damn rich and the poor search for supplies in garbage dumps and such, and then try your luck to be born with a silver spoon.

Theoretically, the society created would be much much more equal, and the less privileged (born handicapped, for example) would receive more aid so that they will still have a more equal standing with others who do not suffer such debilitating disabilities.

I think you misunderstand fully on the whole competition thing. For example now there is little competition between countries, so we have not got much more technological breakthroughs. but 20 years ago there was a competition between soviet union and usa, and in that time we had many technological breakthroughs. I don't think I can but it much more simpler for you than this.

I'll see if I can arrive at a conclusion on this point, since I'm not sure if globalisation is as good as we make it to be. For now, I have no stand here.

and I can tell you why non-communism is better than communism. look at different countries, western and northern european countries, northern America, Australia and Japan all are somewhat capitalists, not communists. they have high standard of living, and people live a good life.

North-Korea, China, former eastern europe under Soviet Union and Cuba all have low standard of living.

I think that pretty much concludes it

another example is Germany, Western germany without communism had high standard of living while Eastern germany with communism had low standard of living.

I guess many others have already refuted this point. We don't have any true communist countries. We only have stalinism. I read an article recently about how familes were brutally killed in North Korea which is labelled a communist country, although it is really a dictatorship - Stalinism, which makes your argument totally absurd.

Hope this helps (not exactly a clear-headed me saying all this. I was listening to AC/DC and Guns N' Roses while typing this. :))

Link to post
Share on other sites

First the most important: ACDC and guns'n' roses sucks! :P

I am not going to reply to every comment you guys have, since there is obviously more socialist than conservative people here.

there is obviously a connection between how much you earn in money and where you stand politically. poor people will be better off with socialism, while rich(compared to the world BNP) people will be better

American Cyborg: You claim that communism have never been tried. I think you are wrong there. it has been tried several places, among those the soviet union. and it seems that it doesn't work at all, anywhere it has been tried. it ends up in a dictator getting in charge of the country, and this is the only way communism will end up. this proves the fact that it does not work. and if it doesn't work in any of those countries where it has been tried it will never work world wide.

of course God is good. but he does not want us to only live in happiness and joy. But to me it seems that it is the christian countries which has done the best in the world. and it is, and the fact that we are christians is one of the reason why we are so rich.

gunner154:

I can give you examples of how I value profit in front of enviroment. for example when my political party had written a resolution on drilling for oil in the ocean, those greenpeace people demonstarted against it, and I cannot see why they can't focus upon larger issues. oil is needed in todays society... can't they see the reality.

another thing is that we need factories, even though they polute I do not think they should be closed just because they let out some CO2.

I do not find it very interesting to discuss the subject about God with ateists or muslims, since I am totally convinsed that the Christian God is the right god, and there are noone but him.

you are saying that in a capitalist society you cannot achieve high standard of living by working hard? this is totally wrong. you cannot achieve this with physical labour, but in todays society you need to be mentally strong to earn wealth. in other words you need to be smart! but as I mentioned before I am conservative not capitalist.

Dante:

Yes I can give you an example that socialists don't want to be in internasjonal organisations, on the partypage of a socialistic party in norway. (no need to give you the link because it is in norwegian)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well guys what do you think went wrong in 1984?

To use Ace's wording, I don't think anything went wrong in 1984 because there was no way it could have gone right. Winston was doomed from the moment he had heretical thoughts. The party sees all, and controlls all, it's not almost a god, it's fully god: it's omnicient, because nothing goes past without them knowing it, and they're omnipotent, because they can do whatever they want. Remember the scene where Winston's interogater (I forgot his name) said that they could do anything, because all people would double think it so. In Orwell's book, the state had become a creature capable of sustaining itself indefinitely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not going to reply to every comment you guys have, since there is obviously more socialist than conservative people here.

Makes things more interesting. Besides, I'm right-wing myself.

there is obviously a connection between how much you earn in money and where you stand politically. poor people will be better off with socialism, while rich(compared to the world BNP) people will be better

Well there are some socialists who think there should be no poor/rich distinction. I'm not one of them... But there will always be more poor than rich, so they have the majority. It's not so much that the right wing favours the rich, but it favours a minority; be they rich, religious, born to a throne, or whatever.

American Cyborg: You claim that communism have never been tried. I think you are wrong there. it has been tried several places, among those the soviet union. and it seems that it doesn't work at all, anywhere it has been tried. it ends up in a dictator getting in charge of the country, and this is the only way communism will end up. this proves the fact that it does not work. and if it doesn't work in any of those countries where it has been tried it will never work world wide.
It doesn't prove that it will never work, it proves that it hasn't worked so far.
of course God is good. but he does not want us to only live in happiness and joy. But to me it seems that it is the christian countries which has done the best in the world. and it is, and the fact that we are christians is one of the reason why we are so rich.

I think not. For a start, most European countries made (and keep) their wealth by exploiting other nations. Non European countries that are doing well (Canada, USA, Australia), you will notice have at some point in history been heavily hit with European immigrants. It's not that the majority were Christians, but Europe happened to get there first.

Furthermore, Africa now has nearly as high a percentage of Christians as Europe. Where's the happiness there?

Besides which, it seems a bit bizarre for an all good and all loving deity to deny happiness to vast numbers of people just because they're a bit different... Conversely, why should we in Europe continue to recieve all this nicety when atheism is becoming more and more popular, and most 'Christians' only pay lip service anyway?

gunner154:

I can give you examples of how I value profit in front of enviroment. for example when my political party had written a resolution on drilling for oil in the ocean, those greenpeace people demonstarted against it, and I cannot see why they can't focus upon larger issues. oil is needed in todays society... can't they see the reality.

Oil will not last forever, and drilling for it could have devastating effects. You think you're seeing the larger issues, but you're still concentrating on getting oil for plastics, petrols, etc, when it's going to run out anyway. Some things are more important.

another thing is that we need factories, even though they polute I do not think they should be closed just because they let out some CO2.
A lot of CO2, and not just that. SO2, for example. Sulphur dioxide, one of the primary components of acid rain. Various factories release all sorts of harmful chemicals. Now they need not necessarily be shut down, but they should dispose of their waste in a non-harmful manner. If this means a drop in profits, so be it.
I do not find it very interesting to discuss the subject about God with ateists or muslims, since I am totally convinsed that the Christian God is the right god, and there are noone but him.
Which is the argumentative equivalent of sticking your head in the sand. Close-minded much?
you are saying that in a capitalist society you cannot achieve high standard of living by working hard? this is totally wrong. you cannot achieve this with physical labour, but in todays society you need to be mentally strong to earn wealth. in other words you need to be smart! but as I mentioned before I am conservative not capitalist.
Working hard does not necessarily mean physical labour.
Dante:

Yes I can give you an example that socialists don't want to be in internasjonal organisations, on the partypage of a socialistic party in norway. (no need to give you the link because it is in norwegian)

I meant in theory, not in practice. What part of socialism, rather than socialists, advocates isolationism?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot link being filthy rich and keeping that wealth to yourself instead of distributing it to the people who need it more than you do with compassion. Socialism achieves this and that is compassion. I make this stand though I don't really have any idea on how this can be achieved if Bill Gates has no compassion whatsoever.

Bill Gates doesn't have anything to do with it. Achieving Socialism, however, is difficult - just like establishing Christianity, or democracy, or fighting for human rights (blacks rights, women's rights etc). For now I only see two ways of doing it, and the first one is of course a revolution. But, the revolution need to have a ground, for example, going against an oppressive dictator/regime.

The other way is a long and slow process, and it involves everyone. It is about every person doing his or her best to keep human rights up, to inform people of what Socialism is, demonstrate against injustice and corporate takeover/privatization, and supporting groups who work for justice and peace. Because if we don't do this, the corporate takeover will make progress and we will sooner or later end up at another revolution.

And revolutions are risky - in almost all cases there are killing and the revolution risks ending up like another Castro regime.

Like I said, this future is hard and long - but once it is achieved, humans will at last enjoy a just and equal system where we all benefit from.

(so a question to hardcore socialists here, why a separated church and state?)

The thing with the separation of Church and State is that the Church is a belief, just like Judaism, Islam, Freemasonry - whatever. In order for a Socialist state to work we need it to be neutral to all people - Jews, Moslems, Freemasons and so on - even if a Christian state is sound and good.

Remember that some Christians are opposed to abortion, to cloning of humans, gay and lesbian marriages and so on. Now, in the system we now live in, those views affect all of us, even if it's only a party that supports those views (if that party has been elected as the governing body of a country). Bush, for example, forbade some - if not all - of those things. How does this benefit the people? What if a girl want to have an abortion, and not being a Christian? What if cloning and other science projects concerning (and involving) humans could save the lives of millions worldwide? All this is erased just because of one man's personal views.

These views, however, could be implemented in a society where all people are Christians - if everybody accepts it. But do remember that a socialist Society is not static - it is dynamic, it constantly changes because it's people also change. As a Christian I do not believe that I have the right to judge, based on my personal moralities and beliefs, other people - I have to respect them, to treat them just as I wish them to treat me if I were to live in a society where the majority believed in for example Islam.

God doesn't exactly put us in this world to suffer (I believe so, although I think this isn't happening at the moment, it is supposed to)?

If God would put us on this world to suffer - then how come that some humans make other humans suffer? All wars and killings, all injustices and inequalities, everything about getting as much money as possible and screw everything else - that's all human. We made ourselves suffer. Now we have to get us out of the mess we created.

Well, we could help God achieve this (don't talk to me about whether we have the right to assist God since he is all-powerful, I'm a weakling at Religion) with charity.

Charity has only given way for corruption. Charity is just another piece of the pussle in an already defunct global cabal.

Well, Bill Gates can still live in joy and happiness if he gave away 99.99% of his wealth. He will still be richer than the large majority of us.

And where would his money go? To other corrupt and filthy rich parties. How come that we have donated billions to those in need in Africa, and after decades of donation - they haven't gotten any better in their situation?

But that means if you remove one link the whole thing stops (no weapons --> no war).

Which is why it takes information and will to stop it, not ignorance as it seems. People need to stand up and say "no - I won't go and kill other humans". What do you think the majority of the US military thought when they went to Iraq? Well, Saddam probably had weapons and just because Bush said so it must be true - I mean, how would a president of our great nation lie? To his own people? For his own benefit? Unthinkable - isn't it?

And war is caused by differences. It could be over resources, over ideological conflicts, over land, over security...

All capitalist benefits - who has the most resources, who has the dominating ideology, the best land and so on - not what people need, but what makes most money for private persons.

not to the extent of really private things like computers.

This is also a big misunderstanding by most people. Material stuff isn't owned by a corporation - it isn't private like say Toyota or Microsoft - it is owned by the public. This means that it is produced by the people - to benefit themselves. If computers are what the people need - then computers will be produced - for the people to take. And it will be very effective - imagine both Machintoch and PC being combined - the perfect computer - having the benefits from one another - and no legal troubles or copyrights.

I don't think you'll lose the freedom to own a handphone or a TV set or even a toy or a discman in a socialist country (socialists correct me if I'm wrong.)

As I said - all things are public. They are made by the people for the people. TVs will be distributed to everybody who wish to have a TV (and I suppose those will be many). Cellphones will also be distributed to everybody who needs them, and so on. But it will be efficency. When a new invention is invented it will be shared by the best possible way. For example, in a society where all people have super cable and can download stuff in 10 minutes - we no longer have the need for discs - well, of course depending on the will of the public.

I don't see how you lack that in a communist country. If everybody works hard, society progresses as a whole, and doesn't that still ultimately raises your standard of living?

It does - because as I said, all new inventions will be shared in the best way it can be shared - and it will be distributed to those who need it. Society will always develop in the fastest way when everybody cooperates.

On the other hand, in capitalism, exploitation is possible (remember the whole hulabaloo about some economical loophole that allows others to get rich almost instantly?).

Exploitation is necessary in order for a capitalist system to work.

Also, think the stock market. The rich exploit the stock market and become filthy rich very quickly while others become bankrupt and such.

Another device to exploit as much as possible - invented to benefit the inventors.

In fact, I thing working hard to achieve a higher standard of living is what's lacking in a capitalist country (to a certain extent. This is much less so in a socialist country).

This is true. (Again) Bill Gates, for example, don't have to work a single day and he still can buy his private country, boats, planes and so on. The local janitor, who physically works each day and doesn't even get mentioned in the staff list, gets nothing - barely to live for. For Britney Spears it is very easy to look good and sing correctly, all it takes is to be born with a voice and a body - and there you have it, a few albums and you're in heaven. Now, how many houses has she constructed? How many medicines has she invented? How many children has she teached? And she still can live her life happy ever after with the best houses, the best medicines when she needs them, the best private school aviable for her children, if she ever has one.

Now, don't misunderstand this. Artists are also needed in Socialism, this isn't 1984 we're talking about. We need them because the people want them - but they won't get to live like kings and queens - they won't be able to get rewarded for showing their bodies. Socialism also has richer people - but they are not as rich as they are today - having billions more money than the average man and woman. But they will only get rich when they do more work - because progress is judged by the society and is also rewarded.

I kinda share your views on that. Of course I like to live in luxury compared to those poor fellows in third world countries.

Don't we all have personal wishes and dreams? The reason we can't continue living life like this and not caring for everybody else is because other people suffer out of our joy - and I will NEVER be able to live my life as I wish as long as any other human soul lives in pain and suffering - as long as the environment is getting trashed by giant corporations, and as long war and weaponry exist - because I believe those are evil, the real Axis of Evil. We are born in a time when we have a chance to change this for the future, for our children - because they too are the people, and just as we are living on a system fought to be justified and equal by other men and women who believed, people like Martin Luther King Jr, Karl Marx, John Lennon and many other, I think we should do the same.

We live off their deaths, for what they fought and believed in to be right and justice so that we don't have to live in a world not unlike 1984.

I am not going to reply to every comment you guys have, since there is obviously more socialist than conservative people here.

Isn't the point of this topic to argue about capitalism and Communism? On the other hand, what topics are not meant to be an argument about capitalism and Communism?

there is obviously a connection between how much you earn in money and where you stand politically. poor people will be better off with socialism, while rich(compared to the world BNP) people will be better

The rich is not the majority, because the majority is suffering from the rich. In Socialism, there would still be differences, but those differences would be very small, if not non-existant. All people there would be able to live and achieve their goals, and nobody would have to worry about surviving the next day. So, you could still be rich if you work more.

American Cyborg: You claim that communism have never been tried. I think you are wrong there. it has been tried several places, among those the soviet union.

The Soviet Union never even claimed that it was a Communist state. Communism simply doesn't have a state - but Socialism does, and even that a state based on it's people. Except that, it is true that Lenin tried to hold together the Soviet Union as a Socialist state, but when Stalin came into power, and later World War 2, all those plans were trashed and spitted on.

and it seems that it doesn't work at all, anywhere it has been tried. it ends up in a dictator getting in charge of the country, and this is the only way communism will end up.

At those times - yes, when induviduals see their benefits from revolutions. To try Communism is to let the people decide - now, how many countries have done that? To implement Communism is the decision of the people, it's their laws, their will that builds the society, not one revolutionary who knows while others don't. Democracy is also a part of the process, a very important one. Besides this, revolutions are risky - yes.

Today, we have the internet, and I believe most people are thankful of it - because through it, people have been able to learn about Communism and what it truly is. They have been able to understand what the system we are living under now does to them.

this proves the fact that it does not work. and if it doesn't work in any of those countries where it has been tried it will never work world wide.

It hasn't proven anything. Communism is hard because it's hard to believe in, it's much easier to grow up with money and power and turn one's back against those in need.

of course God is good. but he does not want us to only live in happiness and joy.

How do you know? Does this belief justify exploiting other people who maybe believe that God is good, and that He want us to live in happiness?

But to me it seems that it is the christian countries which has done the best in the world. and it is, and the fact that we are christians is one of the reason why we are so rich.

Not all Christians are rich. There are Christians in the Middle East, in Africa and Asia who live in inhuman conditions. And even if we all were, would this justify killing and exploiting other people who don't share our views? Does this justify dumping all our garbage in the environment and hoping that just because we are Christians we haven't commited any crimes? 

those greenpeace people demonstarted against it, and I cannot see why they can't focus upon larger issues.

Destroying the environment just because oil makes lots of money, isn't that a large issue?

oil is needed in todays society... can't they see the reality.

Oil is another imagination webbed in into our minds. There are many other proven ways that are much effective, and sparing to the environment. Now, then why don't we use them? Because oil makes money, money that are worth killing for.

another thing is that we need factories, even though they polute I do not think they should be closed just because they let out some CO2.

That some CO2 makes my Christmas look like a day in Thailand - that is, no snow. Those factories have destroyed the earth, and they are still treathening us. Global warming is dangerous, and should not be taken lightly.

you cannot achieve this with physical labour, but in todays society you need to be mentally strong to earn wealth. in other words you need to be smart! but as I mentioned before I am conservative not capitalist.

And you call this equal and just? What if you was the person unfortunate to have a lower level of intelligence? Would you like society to let you die on the streets like garbage? To be smart is the system we are living in is to find ways to survive, to fool and cross your friends, to lie and go around other people's backs to achieve your own goals. One day, you may very well be forced to kill someone in order to make your own life confortable. Another day, your company may very well kill hundreds of people, and you being powerless to do anything about it.

And not enough with that - those with a lower level of intelligence may find themselves as criminals and drug dealers due to the capitalist system, who one day may come in contact with your children, your girlfriend or someone in your family who happens to be not so very well informed, but want to try out the "new ride". All it takes is one pill and your life could turn into a real hell.

We are building the drugs and crime ourselves. We ignore.

To use Ace's wording, I don't think anything went wrong in 1984 because there was no way it could have gone right. Winston was doomed from the moment he had heretical thoughts. The party sees all, and controlls all, it's not almost a god, it's fully god: it's omnicient, because nothing goes past without them knowing it, and they're omnipotent, because they can do whatever they want. Remember the scene where Winston's interogater (I forgot his name) said that they could do anything, because all people would double think it so. In Orwell's book, the state had become a creature capable of sustaining itself indefinitely.

Luckily, Winston believes until the brainwashing moment that there will be change, that there is the human spirit that the party will never be able to control.

I still didn't get the final scene, when he is in the caffeteria and cries at the end, when we see him in the TV screen accusing himself of all kind of stuff. What was all that about?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...