Communism - good or bad?

[xinryr]

China doing pretty well atm with a Capitalist-like economic system.

I'm talking about something that happened a hundred years ago, silly nindel

 

[nindel]

I'm talking about something that happened a hundred years ago, silly nindel

Okay then.

If you're referring to the Opium wars then I'd say that was a +ve for Capitalism. Capitalism helped to mess up a communist country (China) and let a capitalist country(s) (Europe ect.) have free reign.

Therefore, in that context Capitalism > Communism D:

 

[DeletedUser]

China wasn't Communist at that time. It was thoroughly imperial.

 

[nindel]

China wasn't Communist at that time. It was thoroughly imperial.

In that case Capitalism > Imperialism.

+1 Capitalism :3

 

[DeletedUser]

Britain was a capitalist imperialist country at that approximate time.
...

 

[DeletedUser4596]

That's a very personal question. The answer is mid-40's. And no, I tend not to thing before I shovel out garbage and insanity, assuming you are referring too the household waste?

All of it.

More point to point:

Logically, there must be a dip at the beginning stages of communism. People will have less, unless they are the working class, in which case they will gain slightly. However, after the people begin to work together, then there will be a sudden abundance of resources. Truly, there will be. With adequate distribution of resources, without such wastage as in a capitalist society.

-In all revolutions, even communism ones, the initial developments/stages come at an immense cost to everyone.
-I agree that capitalism is wasteful. Capitalism is like the kid who works the front counter at McDonald's. He wastes so much time but he doesn't get fired because he gets the job done.
-Distribution is almost as consumptive as the waste of capitalism.

And we will work within our means. It is essential that within the next century that we begin colonisation of Mars and the Moon, otherwise humanity is probably doomed. We must become a spacefaring civilisation. Even with your draconian methods, we'll still run out of resources eventually, if we stay here.

-I know there have been enough studies in renewable resources and agriculture research that show that, with reducing energy consumption, we will have enough food and energy if we start positive development now.
-If we are "living within are means", why would we waste our time, our brilliant minds, and physical resources for pipe-dreams.

Then you are basically wantonly killing people. Someone who lives in a poor family who is unable to support them might be more able to contribute to society than Mr and Mrs Lord's retarted son that they can afford to support. Also, that is a very very weak Social Darwinistic argument. More right-wing than Social Darwinistic.

Jesus said that we are too look after those who are weak and in need. I believe he explicitly says there times that if you turn away those more vulnerable, you turn away himself. So I do, very much agree with the above point. I think the destruction, even passivity counts, is one of the cruelest activities one could commit.

(comments about smoking)

-The amount of smokers globally is rising. Smoking is getting "cooler".

In a Communist society, of course you're responsible for your actions. The people will decide what happens to you if you act in a way not in their interests. That seems to me to be a very good incentive not to commit acts which are not in the peoples' interests. If they're in the peoples' interests, you'll be responsible for your actions as well, but in a good way this time.

-I'll pull some Aye Rand. What happens if what negatives people are doing cannot be noticed? If a person isn't working to their full potential or is taking a bit more than their fair share, who can tell? If a fair percentage of the population, or all of it, do a negative activity, who can stop them? What if the best of one group is negative to another? What if the better of the majority is terrible to a minority? What if something that greatly helps a minority will hinder slightly the majority?

-And corruptability. What is stopping corruption? People becoming corrupt, a person being a corruptor, or a region from being self-centred? Unless you had infinite checks-and-balances, you could never control that. Those checks-and-balances would be very taxing on a system that is anarchist in hope and would cost the population greatly.

Everyone will be given equal opportunities. It is up to them what they do with it.

-I will tell you the many faults in this is you'd like.

And there'll always be a lower class in capitalist societies, as someone will always be at the bottom. You can't change it, it's wrong to penalise it for their misfortunes,

-Totally agree.

and after a generation or two, the environment will ensure that they can't rise above working class. With you punishing them, safe in your upper class background and your money which you have gained by your environment as you grew up.

-In the U.S. it has been shown that most wealth is not hereditary (in the U.S.). In other words, if someone in the U.S. is "rich", they most likely didn't start "rich". While this doesn't contradict your point, it does show a flaw in it.

As you grow up, if you're from a rich family, you'll get better education and be better financially supported, meaning that you'll be better at getting money. If you come from a poor family, you won't get this, which means you'll almost always stay poor, as you won't have what the richer family has. You seem to think it's in the genes. It's not. The vast majority is environment.

When I as young, my mother made 15,000$ a year, worked 70 hours a week, and lived in a city with an average family income of 65,000$. Last year, in first year university, my mother was able to put exactly 110$ towards my education (90$ for student fees and 20$ for a few small school supples). My total school costs were 20,000$. The government gave me only 2116$ because my mother didn't make enough for me to qualify for a larger student loan.

The rest I got from scholarships through grades,bursaries through people I knew, and making connections at the university to get extra bursaries. All that I earned through being myself, making friends, and my scholastic skills.
I can bet from your words that you've been through similar or worst.
While I admit it could, possibly, have been better if the world was freer and equal, that part of my story does show that it is possibly to go from the bottom of the latter to climbing up.

-Another counter example. In some native reserves in Canada that average teenager used to graduate with hundreds of thousands of dollars to their name (the reserves with oil deposits or lots of other resources). The adult native population in Canada I believe is the poorest and amount the least educated in Canada.

Linkies , plox.

Google "Twin studies", "Behavior genetics", "development gene","signaling gene" or "hereditary sin"

http://freewill.typepad.com/genetics/genes_and_personality/
http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep02/genes.aspx
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/behavior.shtml
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20030413/ai_n12863703/
http://social.jrank.org/pages/666/Twin-Studies.html <-Kinda a weak one, I know. I like a few of the references

 

[DeletedUser]

All of it.



Jesus said that we are too look after those who are weak and in need. I believe he explicitly says there times that if you turn away those more vulnerable, you turn away himself. So I do, very much agree with the above point. I think the destruction, even passivity counts, is one of the cruelest activities one could commit.


-

Was good till you said this

 

[DeletedUser]

What?
Religions are the greatest form of meme and are meant to give what the creators think is the best way to live.
That seems pretty logical to me.
Also, countering now

 

[DeletedUser]

I personally believe religion does not exist.

I'll just leave this here:
The aim of my system of government is to create a competitive and free market without much help from the state. It aims to ensure people are given to do whatever they wish with what they own, but understand that it has consequences. The ideal model would be a constant competitive battle between classes to move up/down in the world through people working hard and being driven to ensure they do not meet financial ruin, because they know financial ruin will lead to getting into a cycle they cannot escape easily.

In the short term, it may briefly take a more totalitarian control to ensure important infrastructure projects are delivered quickly and assign the unemployed these jobs. PPPs (Private Public Partnerships) or government funding will be used to ensure infrastructure is built quickly. Taxes may increase in this time briefly.

 

[xinryr]

That is unrealistic. You can't give people the equal right to do whatever they want, people aren't born equal!

How does that system give more benifits to people than a leftist system?

 

[DeletedUser]

I personally believe religion does not exist.

I'll casually ignore the rest and just eat this point:
It is an undeniable fact that religion exists, whether you believe in it or not. The question lies on whether it actually has any basis in fact.
People believe in it, or say they believe in it, and whether they do or they don't the propagate the meme either way. It doesn't matter which one. The religion will still spread, and the belief will still be there, at least in children or older people.
Is this what you meant?

 

[DeletedUser4596]

What?
Religions are the greatest form of meme and are meant to give what the creators think is the best way to live.
That seems pretty logical to me.
Also, countering now

Ok, don't be bothered with hurrying; take whatever time you need. I may not be on tomorrow until late or Monday.

 

[DeletedUser]

Doing it, doing it...
'tis complex, though.

 

[DeletedUser4596]

Alright. Thanks for taking time out of your day for me. I appreciate it. Sorry for my earlier, harsher comments. I was having a "bad" day.

 

[DeletedUser]

That is unrealistic. You can't give people the equal right to do whatever they want, people aren't born equal!

How does that system give more benifits to people than a leftist system?

It depends which person you are talking about. Leftist systems do not benefit the rich at all, my system benefits them far more.

People aren't born equal, but by making everyone 'equal' it allows the lesser people to faulter while the better people succeed. I'm talking about making everyone equal. What I'm doing won't make everyone equal.

I'll casually ignore the rest and just eat this point:
It is an undeniable fact that religion exists, whether you believe in it or not. The question lies on whether it actually has any basis in fact.
People believe in it, or say they believe in it, and whether they do or they don't the propagate the meme either way. It doesn't matter which one. The religion will still spread, and the belief will still be there, at least in children or older people.
Is this what you meant?

I should have phrased that better. I don't believe in any religion.

 

[xinryr]

It depends which person you are talking about. Leftist systems do not benefit the rich at all, my system benefits them far more.

People aren't born equal, but by making everyone 'equal' it allows the lesser people to faulter while the better people succeed. I'm talking about making everyone equal. What I'm doing won't make everyone equal.



I should have phrased that better. I don't believe in any religion.

I'm not rich. By all of your arguments I shouldn't care about them, only myself. So how does it help me more?

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm not rich. By all of your arguments I shouldn't care about them, only myself. So how does it help me more?

It helps you more because it means you get rewarded for your hard work while others don't get rewarded. You therefore do better than them and reap the benefits. If everyone reaps the benefits it's kind of pointless isn't it?

 

[DeletedUser]

Genes are the minority, along with Environmental factors. But the big drive is the will to work hard.

Weird, you left that out before.

 

[DeletedUser]

In the short term, it may briefly take a more totalitarian control to ensure important infrastructure projects are delivered quickly and assign the unemployed these jobs. PPPs (Private Public Partnerships) or government funding will be used to ensure infrastructure is built quickly. Taxes may increase in this time briefly.

Stop contradicting your own system- won't the jobs you create with infrastructure projects be stolen from the private sector?

 

[DeletedUser]

Stop contradicting your own system- won't the jobs you create with infrastructure projects be stolen from the private sector?

How is he contradicting his own system? :icon_eek: