Question for communists . . . .

[MrFun]

Ok -- so communists do not think it is unethical or hypocritical to enjoy the LUXURIES of capitalism?

And for the one or two people who made a fallicious assumption that I meant that communists need to carry out terrorists attacks -- no, I am not saying communists need to violently be consistent with their ideology.

I just thought they needed to boycott luxuries of capitalism, that's all.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by MrFun

,,,And for the one or two people who made a fallicious assumption that I meant that communists need to carry out terrorists attacks -- no, I am not saying communists need to violently be consistent with their ideology.

OK, fair enough. I looked too deeply into your question.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by MrFun
Ok -- so communists do not think it is unethical or hypocritical to enjoy the LUXURIES of capitalism?

And for the one or two people who made a fallicious assumption that I meant that communists need to carry out terrorists attacks -- no, I am not saying communists need to violently be consistent with their ideology.

I just thought they needed to boycott luxuries of capitalism, that's all.

It wholly depends of your definition of "luxury". If for you, luxury equates everything that is not vital (i.e a computer, a car, entertainment etc.), then yes, it is ethical for a communist to enjoy himself in the economic society he's forced to live in for now. Because these non-vital things still are very helpful to live correctly.

If for you, "luxury" are wholly superfluous things which have to do with showing your financial affluence (diamonds and the likes), indeed, it is hypocritical: How come you didn't give this money to the party !?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Spiffor

It wholly depends of your definition of "luxury". If for you, luxury equates everything that is not vital (i.e a computer, a car, entertainment etc.), then yes, it is ethical for a communist to enjoy himself in the economic society he's forced to live in for now. Because these non-vital things still are very helpful to live correctly.

If for you, "luxury" are wholly superfluous things which have to do with showing your financial affluence (diamonds and the likes), indeed, it is hypocritical: How come you didn't give this money to the party !?

You can live wihtout your own computer if you really believe in communism.

A car is a luxury too -- there's bikes and public transportation.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by MrFun
You can live wihtout your own computer if you really believe in communism.

I like not being a pain to people. And oh man, I am a pain when I'm browsing 'Poly on someone else's comp

A car is a luxury too -- there's bikes and public transportation.

Indeed, there's bike and public transportation. But if you live in a hill/mountain area, bike is simply unpracticable for daily trips, and many areas aren't well connected enough by public transportation.

Besides, I couldn't find a worker's job because I don't have a driver licence, and the guys at the company thought I could never reach the factory without it.
For many poeple, a car is essential to make a living.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Odin
Actually, Communism does not require a command economy, which the USSR has showed is way too inefficient, if a bussiness is a Co-op it would be communist and free market, the best of both worlds.

Odin, you are making the same mistake DinoDoc did (but in a more roundabout way). Communism (like capitalism) is an economic system not a political system. Communism assigns entitlements (ownership of resources) in a communal fashion as opposed to a private property system. There is no reason to think that democracy and capitalism go hand in hand. A captalist system would be an anti-democratic imposition when the vast majority of the people prefered communal ownership. Likewise, a democratic communist nation could allow for all sorts of political contention without questioning the basic system of ownership.

IMO, the fall of the Soviet Union was due not to a centrally controlled economy, but rather to the political failure of their totalitarian regime. The Soviets lacked any meaningful checks and balances on different agencies and branches of government. Thus, when things failed there was no branch to check the excesses. Starvation in the Ukraine? No judiciary to go to to plead for relief, no legislator to appeal to. Afghanistan invasion failing? No channels through which antiwar opposition could put pressure on the policymakers.

I would argue that the US has done well because the political system of checks and balances has allowed us to do well in spite of capitalism.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Templar
Odin, you are making the same mistake DinoDoc did (but in a more roundabout way).

How did I make a mistake?

[Velociryx]

Mr. Fun, I'm pretty far from being a Communist, but I'll give answering the question a go:

I think it's a simple matter of lacking the courage of their convictions.

It's easy to *say* you're a communist (though why you'd want to say as much is something of a mystery to me, given its dismal track record), while posting on the internet from your privately owned computer, just before jetting off to Disney Land next month. It's not nearly so easy to actually live it (especially in the face of the constant pressures of all the evil capitalist empires out there).

Of course, the Commies will be quick to say that it (Communism) never really got a fair shake, on account of all the dictators who co-opted their perfect little world (Stalin-ism, Mao-ism, insertyourfavoritetinpotdictatorhere-ism), without acknowledging that flaws in the system (or as they prefer to say, flaws in humanity) are what makes the dictator's rise to power not only possible, but also pre-determined! Even better, they'll tell you that the reason it hasn't worked so far is because it was designed to be a global system, and if we'd all just try it out, magically, everything would fall into place (nevermind the fact that if it doesn't work on a small scale there's ZERO reason to expect it to be scalable, but that's another matter).

So at the end of the day, who can blame you? How much conviction can you really PUT into something with the kind of track record that Communism has?

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

Vel.

-Arrian

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

Shall we get into a discussion about FACISM, Fez? Your hardly one to be critisizing another viewpoint about making people suffer when your own.....

You got one small problem, I am not a fascist. So be quiet you communist.

And yes, the cheney of europe is REALLY suffering from a massive dictatorship. Yep

The what?

Thats because you dont open your mind. AND before you say your open minded.....Just look at my sig. Basically: I listen to others, but won't consider their viewpoints at all.

I do listen and I do understand but I won't accept or consider. Communism is just plain wrong. It can't function.

Your worse than Ned, Fez....Well ok, maybe I'm stretching it there

And you are perhaps worse than anybody here..

[Velociryx]

'mornin' Arrian!

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Mr. Fun, I'm pretty far from being a Communist, but I'll give answering the question a go:

I think it's a simple matter of lacking the courage of their convictions.

It's easy to *say* you're a communist (though why you'd want to say as much is something of a mystery to me, given its dismal track record), while posting on the internet from your privately owned computer, just before jetting off to Disney Land next month. It's not nearly so easy to actually live it (especially in the face of the constant pressures of all the evil capitalist empires out there).

Of course, the Commies will be quick to say that it (Communism) never really got a fair shake, on account of all the dictators who co-opted their perfect little world (Stalin-ism, Mao-ism, insertyourfavoritetinpotdictatorhere-ism), without acknowledging that flaws in the system (or as they prefer to say, flaws in humanity) are what makes the dictator's rise to power not only possible, but also pre-determined! Even better, they'll tell you that the reason it hasn't worked so far is because it was designed to be a global system, and if we'd all just try it out, magically, everything would fall into place (nevermind the fact that if it doesn't work on a small scale there's ZERO reason to expect it to be scalable, but that's another matter).

So at the end of the day, who can blame you? How much conviction can you really PUT into something with the kind of track record that Communism has?

-=Vel=-

It's not about that at all. It's about living long enough to see the true reality, and knowing enough that there is no reason to punish yourself; capitalism will fall on it's own whether we go to disneyland or not. Oh, and if your not old enough to see that hey.... well, you know.

[Giancarlo]

Capitalism won't fall.. because there isn't a better system out there, kiddo. It is illogical for it to fall.

[mindseye]

How can you consistently claim to be communists if you enjoy various services and products provided by capitalist companies?

Given that, while living in a nation like the US, it would be darn hard to avoid doing business with capitalists, what are Communists supposed to do? Move to a Communist country?

Sounds suspiciously like "America, love it or leave it!"

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by mindseye
what are Communists supposed to do?

Realize that it is an absurd ideaology.