prove to me that communism isn't immoral as heck

[Japher]

[Tiberius]

Communism isn't immoral. Nor is capitalism. People are.

[Whaleboy]

Morality is subjective and useless in this question.

Very bad troll. If you want to critique communism (economic), use an economic argument, i.e. planned vs libertarian.

[Az]

wtf does an 'economic arguement' mean?

[Whaleboy]

The major gripe I have against communism (or rather, stalinism, communism is too broad and even can encompass right wing liberalism), is economic. Which system gives the better economy? Economic argument is born thus.

[Curiosity]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: prove to me that capitalism isn't immoral as heck

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Curiousity is wrong.

You're right. It should be Curiosity. :P

Mark Twain captured it best when he said the morals of capitalism were "To get rich, illegally if we can, legally if we must." At no point have capitalists has any qualms about using coerced labor.

It's a little unfair to criticise capitalism because not everyone behaves as they ought to under the law, while turning a blind eye to the admittedly viscous history of communism. If communists look to an ideal version of their system, then so may capitalists.

People go out of business because they make moer than they can sell.... And that's just insane.

True.

Of course the small farmer in most developed countries has been supported on the verge of collapse by government grants. If they hadn't been then by now the agricultural industry would probably be controlled by corporations, who would have the sense to do some sort of forecasting of supply and demand, and choose the best land for exploitation rather than using it because that's the way daddy did it.

Oversupply is also a relatively minor problem in most industries outside farming and logging. Marx's predictions here are false, IMHO.

Ultimately, the question isn't do we want socialism or capitalism. Capitalism will eventually be replaced. The question is, with what, socialism or barbarism?

Sorry, I don't see capitalism collapsing into a state of barbarism. In theory it should even be able to outgrow the emerging environmental problems.

[Az]

Originally posted by elijah
The major gripe I have against communism (or rather, stalinism, communism is too broad and even can encompass right wing liberalism), is economic. Which system gives the better economy? Economic argument is born thus.

'better'? what do mean by that? The one that serves your goals? what are your goals?

[Whaleboy]

World domination. Was that not obvious?

[Az]

and you want to do that with a market system?


now, seriously.

[Whaleboy]

Ah, I'd leave the markets to themselves. My only real concern is cannabis.

[SKILORD]

Maybe a good Idea would be to limit the amount of Property and Money which Parents can leave for their Offspring.

Is it not the parent's money? And therefore isn't it the parent's right to bequeath it upon whom they will? There will be fortunate people in any form of government and no amount of bloodletting will alleviate this. Could the parent's not also give it to the poor? They could. The offspring are in no way entitled to this money and unless they were you cannot hold up the 'freedom to give aaway your money after your demise' as a problem with capitalism.

There's nothing moral about capitalism.

Oh my freind how you are wrong! Capitalism is not a central ideology, as Communism is. You can criticise business leaders but can you honestly prove that they represent capitalism? Capitalism leaves it to them to make their policies, and does not dictate that we should do this or that.

So do not hold up Businessmen as the failures of Capitalism. Have you ever heard of someone being a Capitalist?

-

An interesting side note, you Communists make an interesting double standard, declaring that to view the realistic Communism that emerged in Eastern Europe is unfair to Communism, while also declaring that we should judge phenomenal (as opposed to noumenal) Capitalism.

You are saying they are not working?

My point is that they are.

No, we oppose capitalism because it is extremely wasteful, bot of resources and of lives

I can't see what you mean? How could a system dedicated to profit, cutting corners and so forth, be seen as wasteful?

Morality is subjective.

You can't possibly have any sort of order when you adhere to such a philosophy. Any form of government has it's own morals (decided upon and made into laws) and therefore it is unfair to judge different governments from the same scale (From a non-Christian perspective of course) but you still cannot declare that Morality is always subjective.

thats why u have capitalism w/ rules.

Capitalism with rules is just as bad. The problem is that the workers won't stand up for themselves, and so they abuse the powers of government by abusing the system of popular government into coercing the businessmen. However, as recent history proves, not all workers have decided to do so and there are still workers who ill not defend themselves; even in the cowardly and statist way.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SKILORD
I can't see what you mean? How could a system dedicated to profit, cutting corners and so forth, be seen as wasteful?

Because what is wasteful from a profit point of view isn't necessarily wasteful from an: environmental, social, or resource point of view. For example, the market only needed certain parts of the buffalo, and so millions of buffalo were slaughtered for their hides, select peices of meat, and for entertainment. Most of the carcass was left to rot. That was an extreme example, but today, natural gas is burned off as a by-product of petroleum extraction. And so on. It just depends on what you consider important.

The problem is that the workers won't stand up for themselves, and so they abuse the powers of government by abusing the system of popular government into coercing the businessmen. However, as recent history proves, not all workers have decided to do so and there are still workers who ill not defend themselves; even in the cowardly and statist way.

Bosses do a hell of a lot to make sure workers won't defend themselves. In the 3rd world, they'll have them beaten and killed (here too if they can get away with it). They threaten to move plants out of the state or country. They threaten to fire organizers. They hire strike breaking firms. They use propaganda. They use the state to outlaw most effective methods of workers defense. And they call us traitors or loonies, so workers won't even listen to alternative points of view on winning the class struggle.

[SKILORD]

Because what is wasteful from a profit point of view isn't necessarily wasteful from an: environmental, social, or resource point of view.

So your support of Communism is based upon your support of the ideal that, if I understand correctly, Your values are the highest and they should be enforced on others through violent revolution.

And they call us traitors or loonies, so workers won't even listen to alternative points of view on winning the class struggle.

By alternate point of view you are, of course, referring to the wanton slaughter of the burgoise.

[SKILORD]

Originally posted by Curiosity


I didn't say it was. I said that that's a problem with capitalism.

In theory one ought to be able to design a form of government where it's not such a problem, and since it would involve a planned economy it would probably be classed as communism. But, clearly, nothing like past experiments would be any better.

Lasseiz Faire Capitalism is the only system I know of where there are no entrenched figures with sufficient authority to stagnate progress (or idle change, which may masquerade as progress). If you want to complain about government institutions and laws which use the government's holier than thou outlook (which we all take too seriously) to impose it's own views on others then you agree with me, though you do not realise it yet.

[Ned]

It is interesting that the communists primarily defend communism by attacking capitalism and the capitalists defend capitalism by attacking prior examples of communism. But, with few exceptions, even communists do not defend the prior examples of communism, while all capitilists point with pride to the success of capitalist systems.

The only successful communist society is that portrayed in the Star Trek series which presupposes that all essentials are supplied by machines. I used to like Star Trek for its "realism." However, I now think that it is extremely unreal in its protrayal of a future society.