- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
20 Jun 06
Originally posted by RedmikeI think this is the case because it goes against human nature in that it is our nature to compete and strive to be better and more dominant than our fellow man. This is not only true in games like chess and sports but also in business and aquisition of wealth and property. I didn't say it is right and good just that it is our nature. The goal of Communism seems to be directly opposed to this nature and therefore oppression is required in order for it to force the end result which cannot be acheived naturally. Those that lead the charge to create Communism ultimately must gain control and dominance over their fellow man to acheive their goals and once they do human nature takes over and they will not relinquish it. Therefore the end result is Totalitarianism even though that was not the stated intent in the beginning.
We're getting off the topic, but I don't agree that it will always end up that way.
Why do you think this is the case?
20 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by UllrThanks for the reasoned reply (too often we just get rants about communism being evil....).
I think this is the case because it goes against human nature in that it is our nature to compete and strive to be better and more dominant than our fellow man. This is not only true in games like chess and sports but also in business and aquisition of wealth and property. I didn't say it is right and good just that it is our nature. The goal of Communism se ...[text shortened]... the end result is Totalitarianism even though that was not the stated intent in the beginning.
Firstly, I don't agree that it is against human nature. We have lived in co-operative, communal social structures succesfully in the past - the current setup, with family-based structures rather than community structures is all relatively new.
Capitalistic ways of viewing the world, where everyone must compete at the expense of everyone else, and the idea that we should strive to improve our personal material wealth, don't have to be the way - communities like kibbutzes already operate communal ways of doing things.
It will take a long time, not least because it will take generations for people to change how they view the economy and their role in it, but if it is done democratically, then there doesn't have to be a totalitarian state. Indeed, there should be no state at all.
In terms of the USSR and China, I think part of the problem there was that they never had the industrialised capitalism phase which we have in the 'West'. Maybe we have to have this stage in order to create the wealth before we can redistribute it.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
20 Jun 06
Originally posted by RedmikeI much prefer a reasonable debate rather than rants about communism being evil or America being evil for that matter. Besides I don't see Communism as evil I see it as an idea that has its merits, that has good intentions, but I believe it to be unobtainable (at least on a large, national scale), and perhaps undesirable to acheive.
Thanks for the reasoned reply (too often we just get rants about communism being evil....).
Firstly, I don't agree that it is against human nature. We have lived in co-operative, communal social structures succesfully in the past - the current setup, with family-based structures rather than community structures is all relatively new.
Capitalistic ways of ...[text shortened]... ybe we have to have this stage in order to create the wealth before we can redistribute it.
You mentioned family-based structures being relatively new. I would disagree with that. Read "Germania" by Tacitus. For those not familiar with Tacitus I guess you could call him a Roman journalist of sorts that wrote probably the most detailed account we have of the pre-Christian Germanic tribes. He discusses in this book their concepts of marriage, family, etc. I think by reading this you would find that the concept of the nuclear family and monogamous relationship and family inheritance much older than you think. At the very least they are pre-Christian traditions much like our common law.
Kibbutzes are an interesting example. I admit I don't know much about them but decided to do a little reading just on Wikipedia and it seems like Capitalism has creeped into their communal societies more recently. For example it mentions how there is now differences in pay scale between factory managers vs. workers vs. agricultural workers. Most people in a Kibbutz now pay directly for their own meals, electricity, etc. Some Kibbutzes are wealthy others are not, and so on. Could this be an example of human nature taking over and Capitalist concepts finding their way into the community? I don't know but its food for thought.
Personally I find the purely Capitalist view of the world, where everyone is on their own and aquisition of personal wealth is all that matters, is distasteful and unhealthy. I'm a believer in balance. There should be a certain amount of Socialism (i.e. shared responsibility) in society without taking away the individuals incentive to acheive, to own property, and to pass most of their wealth on to their children.
As far as America is concerned, if I may go off on a tangent, I'm not happy with the way things have turned out. I think the federal government has become way to big and powerful and has expanded way beyond its original intended reach. This not only affects state and individual rights here within our borders in a negative way but has also made the US far too intrusive internationally. If I had my way I severely reduce the size of the US Federal Goverment and put more control back with the individual states and individual citizens for that matter and the rest will take care of itself.
However, that won't solve the original problem that started this thread and that is the power, influence, and intrusion of multi-national corporations. What Yahoo did in China in the example given is disgusting and I wish that would be all over the news in the United States. They should be taken to task for it. Sadly this won't happen because its a media company and they watch each others backs. But I'd like to see the son of a bitches shot.
20 Jun 06
Originally posted by UllrI'll add Tacitus to my list of books to read.
I much prefer a reasonable debate rather than rants about communism being evil or America being evil for that matter. Besides I don't see Communism as evil I see it as an idea that has its merits, that has good intentions, but I believe it to be unobtainable (at least on a large, national scale), and perhaps undesirable to acheive.
You mentioned family-base ...[text shortened]... pany and they watch each others backs. But I'd like to see the son of a bitches shot.
Im not necessarily arguing that things like kibbutzes are sustainable, because they are small scale it is inevitable that capitalism will encroach. Just that there are alternatives. If there were communities like kibbutzes everywhere, they might be able to trade with each other and exist without relying on the capitalist world.
Indeed that is one view (not one I think likely, but I'd support it if happened) of how we will progress - people will opt out of the current mainstream society and create small self-sufficient communes. As these grow and more appear, they will effectively become a parrallel economy, and a challenge to capitalism.
In terms of Yahoo, it will be interesting to see how it develops - the internet is a powerful tool, and it wouldn't take much for Yahoo to suffer financially.
20 Jun 06
Originally posted by UllrAnd capitalism leads to slave labour and terrorists.
Agree that this is despicable on the part of Yahoo.
But while we're at it let us also not forget that Totalitarian China is a perfect example of where the drive towards Communism really leads to.
21 Jun 06
Yahoo! is required to comply with the laws of whatever countries they're operating in. I think this article is very demonising in using such terms as "Nazi-esque" to describe a corporation. Of course Yahoo! is motivated by profit, it's a business!
The focus here should be on the actions of the Chinese government, not Yahoo!
21 Jun 06
Originally posted by NargagunaI was paid on a per hour basis. I took about 2 days per week off work to protest leading up to the last federal election. It's all about balance.
The only way fit people can live without working is either to indulge in criminal activities or to scrounge off those who do work.
21 Jun 06
Originally posted by Positional PlayerYes, but we can't do too much as individuals about the actions of the Chinese government, whereas we can about the actions of Yahoo.
Yahoo! is required to comply with the laws of whatever countries they're operating in. I think this article is very demonising in using such terms as "Nazi-esque" to describe a corporation. Of course Yahoo! is motivated by profit, it's a business!
The focus here should be on the actions of the Chinese government, not Yahoo!
And, while they may be required to comply with local laws, they appear to have been a bit too co-operative. If the acions of the Chinese government are so represensible, Yahoo shouldn't have complied.
21 Jun 06
Originally posted by RedmikeIt's interesting that people claim that America was justified in invading Iraq because of Saddam's actions but hesitate to boycott Yahoo for assisting China's actions.
Yes, but we can't do too much as individuals about the actions of the Chinese government, whereas we can about the actions of Yahoo.
And, while they may be required to comply with local laws, they appear to have been a bit too co-operative. If the acions of the Chinese government are so represensible, Yahoo shouldn't have complied.
Two faced capitalist pigs.
21 Jun 06
Originally posted by NargagunaThis is a debates forum.
The only posible reason for supporting Yahoo in this dispute is the fact that Sambo69 and Redmike are in opposition; both layabouts from opposite geographical sides of the planet.
You need to be able to make more of a case than 'I am opposed to this idea because he is in favour of it.'
Otherwise we would call it the 'Playground argument' forum.
Do you approve of the actions of the Chinese government?
Do you approve of Yahoo's complicity in these actions?