Why do we let people be millionaires or billionaires?

As opposed to all the millions slaughtered under communists (see: Pol Pot, Mao, Lenin, Kim, Stalin, Sendero Luminoso, etc.)

~String

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

BTW, have you ever tasted a Russian cigarette? They make western cigs taste like air.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

By any chance, have you noticed that many of the people who are challenging your assertions/assumptions are very far from right wing? It has been helpfully pointed out to you more than once. Yet you still immediately jump to the right wing capitalist abuse every time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When did I say communism was perfect? I am saying that there is a choice between the lesser of two evils, capitalism or communism.

If you add up the deaths due to the slave trade, imperialism, colonialism, lack of necessities, feudalism, etc, capitalism has created FAR more horror than communism.

A true egalitarian would not support a system of exploitation.

 

Cigarettes make me ill, I would never willingly smoke one. But I'm capable of realizing that freedom means freedom to make what I would consider the wrong choice. U of C, is so "helpful", that he's willing to take away the freedom to make the wrong choice. Because the only reason they make the wrong choice is that they've been mentally enslaved by, you guessed it, capitalism!

 

Why should you get to make irresponsible choices?

Think about it; you smoke and smoke, and then the health care system has to pay for your treatment. The same goes with everything you do: eat fast food, etc, it has a cost to SOCIETY.

So yes, you shouldn't be allowed to make stupid choices, because it DOES affect others.

 

Who gets to make the right choices for everybody then?

And more importantly, why are you so obsessed with the hivelike mentality.

The point of life is greater than advancing society. Living beings live for many disparate reasons, few of which can ultimately be satisfied by a centralized economy and limited personal liberty.

And the consequences of centralizing such power--which you've yet to acknowledge--are massive. We've seen those consequences in dilapidated industries, shared HIV infected needles (Romania), the slaughter of many, MANY millions by power-hungry dictators.

And what planet are you living on where the proletariat always acted in the interest of the larger society? You do realize that all human beings, ultimately, act on their own--or their family's--behalf. This is the root of corruption. Capitalists acknowledge this, it's why we prefer our dysfunctional system. It's not that capitalism and democracy are so grand, it's just that the alternatives have been tried in many varieties and with deadly consequences.

~String

 

Actually, like I said earlier, and like I outlined in the "atrocities" thread, the cumulative horrors of capitalism outweigh those of capitalism. This is a fact, and you can look at my other thread for the facts.

I'm not for a "hivelike" mentality. Serving the community is what should give us the greatest joy; it is better for the individual.

And fine, do what you want, but don't expect the rest of society to pick up the tab.

 

So, in your ideal world (which sounds increasingly like a hellish Orwellian dystopia to me) where exactly is the line drawn? Cigarettes and fast food are out; how about unsafe sex? Risky hobbies such as rock climbing and sky diving? Oh, but silly me, who would have time, or possess the audacity to waste energy on such silly diversions in your brave new world? These pointless hobbies are doubtless only needed now to escape the savage realities of the capitalist hell we have created here on Earth. But U of C will come and save the day!

Here's a hint; 1984 was a warning, not an instruction manual.

 

I'm not advocating a 1984; all I'm saying is that there is a social cost to the actions you do, especially if they are irresponsible.

Just be mindful of that when you do what you do.

 

Get lost you authoritarian dick.

 

You want the freedom to do irresponsible and reckless things and then have everyone else pay for your treatment.

 

UofC's point is why should you get to make ANY choices? The STATE will make them for you.

 

Specify.

Show me the deaths from 1920-1990. Line capitalist deaths up against communist deaths.

Let's see them.

And yet you specified a criteria for humans: "should give us the greatest joy". Should? Says who? You!

I see you like the idea of being the new Stalin yourself.

And what happens when humans disagree with you? Do you re-educate them in gulags? Do you imprison them? What if they refuse to work? What if they revolt against you?

Again, with placing personal demands on society. How big of you? Already sharpening your teeth as the new Mao?

~String

 

First of all, you can't restrict it to 1920-1990; that ignores centuries of capitalist abuse.
Second, I have already done so, in a different thread. I don't see the point in typing the whole thing out again; it is in my OP in the atrocities thread.

Serving the community isn't a good thing?

We force morals on people all the time. What's wrong with forcing people to be compassionate contributors?

We force morals on people all the time.

See above.

See above. We force things on people all the time; why not force community contribution?

 

Duh.

We're doing an apples-to-apples comparison.

You don't get to include the history prior, because there WAS no communism back then. You don't have a crystal ball into alternate realities where we could view "what ifs" should communism have existed for several millennia.

All we have is a comparison of the Communist era between communism and capitalism.

You don't get to stretch the goal posts on one end to give you numbers that add up to your desired solution.

I asked you, and I will ask you again IN THIS THREAD (I'm not sifting through other threads) to post the death totals for communist nations versus capitalist nations between 1920 and 1990.

You created this thread, so YOU bear the burden of proof.

Don't care. WE aren't in other threads.

That wasn't the question, and you're not going to try to reverse the question status.

I asked you, "WHO?" Who gets to decide these things? Who gets to make the decision as to what is best for humanity?

This is the second time I've asked you.

No we don't, UfC. We do nothing of the sort. We force certain absolutely necessary BEHAVIORS on people. WE don't care about the mechanics of why. If they do it because of fear: Good. If they do it because it's the right thing to do: Good. If they do it because they are hoping that someone dies: Good. Free societies don't meddle in the internal affairs of human morality until it spills over into overt behavior that has directly harmed another human being.

Absolutely nothing, if you could be certain that the power to force people to behave in a certain way would not be abused by those with the power to make those decisions. Since neither you nor I have such power; since no society in history has ever exercised such control over the watchers, we've made the painful decision that it's better to live with human imperfection at this level than to amplify it by granting it massive amounts of power over entire societies.

No. I asked you specifically: "And what happens when humans disagree with you? Do you re-educate them in gulags? Do you imprison them? What if they refuse to work? What if they revolt against you? "

I didn't talk about making people obey laws to respect eachother's person and eachother's property. I asked you what you do when a sizable portion of that society disagrees with you, disobeys your premise and refuses to work.

I'd like an answer.

Look. This is getting tiring.

Again, what do we do when people refuse to contribute. What if they refuse to work? What if they refuse to give up their religions? What if they refuse to give up their private property?

~String

 

We're not equal, and we never will be here in the US. We all have the same rights and the same opportunities. But you cannot turn a cripple into an Olympic champion, and you cannot turn someone with an IQ of 80 into a Nobel laureate. We are all different - and no amount of government tyranny will ever make us the same.

But YOU get the same amount no matter what you do. Your contribution is miniscule (averaged over everyone) and the benefit you reap from relying on others is large. The person who does no work, and who spends his energy hoarding all he can, and accumulating all the power he can, wins over the person who works himself hard and hoards nothing.

(Which, BTW, is how pigs become more equal than others even in communist society.)

Not at all. It's just the best method we have of keeping track.

You keep talking about how people should give up what they earn for others. Now for the third time - how much have you contributed to the poor?

 

Communism is irresponsible and reckless, so I assume you will happily let yourself receive punishment for making poor choices? Or is it that only *you* get to decide what is irresponsible and reckless?

That is exactly why communism so often ends with people in death camps. Power corrupts and in the end when idealists see people not behaving ideally, the idealists want the power to force the issue...or else.

 

I'm pretty sure there are a lot more than 2 evils to choose from, in this world.

You seem to be confusing "capitalism" with "western civilization" or something.

Capitalism and communism are political ideologies dealing with the organization of industrialized states. They did not exist prior to the industrial revolution. Slavery, feudalism, etc. are pre-industrial phenomena, not "capitalism."

Imperialism is hardly unique to capitalist societies, or absent from communist ones. The USSR was one of the most rapacious imperial powers in human history.

As to lack of necessities... well, that one's just a facepalm.

A tautology, obviously.

But the only "system" that lacks exploitation as a fundamental feature (at least, at the social level) is prehistoric-style anarchy. Once you're into states - let alone, industrialized states - systemic exploitation is a necessary feature. It's down to choosing which system of exploitation is the least evil - as you said at the start of your post there.

Which is to say that a true egalitarian wouldn't support communism any more than any other brand of industrialized statism. True egalitarians tend to be anarchists - anarchism, not communism, being the political ideology defined by the rejection of hierarchy. Communism is about class warfare, not the dismantling of hierarchy as such.

 

i am confused, quad
shouldn't there be some temporal order to those events?
thru class warfare the hierarchy is dismantled and communism is established

what am i missing?