ask Santa.
Since this is interesting…
-
exactly, communism cannot exist most effectively next to capitalism. capitalism is currently working to an extent, so why change our system of living if it does long term economic damage? I would like to believe I am a realist, and the reason I oppose Communism is because it simply would not work in the real world. When it comes down to it, political systems don’t have to change, people on the whole do. Man is the problem, not the governing system he creates (most of the time.)
-
I totally agree HFW.
-
Well before Communism (or any revolutionary movement can take ground) it must be supported by the majority of the masses. It doesn’t have to be the majority movement though (the American Revolution, War 1812 were two examples of minority movements). Right now things are going pretty good, but what’s to say this movement will last forever? As we speak the upper class is consolidating more of the economies wealth and power, meaning we might be setting ourself for another depression.
-
Communism is crap!
K, take a sales business that offers a team reward for overall sales. Everyone in the company receives a equal commission, regardless of how much each individual actually sells.
Then take a other sales company thats has individual commission based on that persons sales. The more on person sells the more commission they receive.
Which Company is going to succeed, over a extended period of time?
What Companys empolyees are motivated to sell more?
What inspires the working person most?
Communism is crap!
-
which business is going to rip off its customers? you see, greed is the problem, and i’m sorry i repeat that so much.
Moses, this might do nothing with communism, but i want to comment on the American Revolution and War of 1812. The American Revolution was crap, and i hate to say it, i love america, but our revolution isn’t so glorious. Americans had the highest standard of living, ate the most food, and had the lowest taxes on Earth (i guess that is because they could get free money by stealing indian land.) Rich people did not want to pay taxes, some people wanted to seize more political power, and they rallied the masses saying they weren’t being represented for a tax that paid for judges in the colonies! I wonder why things turned out the way they did, the best i can come up with is that America is endowed with much land and natural resources. Even today, America has 14% of the worlds oil production. I guess the system American revolutionaires put in place went hand and hand with capitalism, giving the americans great prosperity for their time to today. Well, the end justifies the means and this time that applies.
So if a communist revolution occurred, you could say that communism is the wanted end, but the truth is that (In My Opinion) it would only cause more problems.
now i’m just ranting! I’ll shut up now :smile:
-
Rip off the customer???
I think your iusses lie with Human nature, not greed or Communism -
yes, that is true. i have a friend that works in circuit city, and he sees people that do that. in a “communist” store, the people would be as lazy as a waitress in friendly’s.
-
Whether you like the American Revolution or not, there’s not discrediting that the Revolution was actually fought on a minority basis. A lot of Americans fled or deserted after they were defeated by the British on several occassions or just left due to the fact that they had to tend their farms.
As for capitalism providing an immediate benefit to the laborer, that’s mostly lies. If you compare real wages and working conditions during the industrial revolution, then capitalism was far worse then any existing government system. Same thing goes with communism. It won’t immediately take capitalism right away but will be accomplished in several generations.
-
Greed is part of human nature, not a seperate entity. There are other parts of human nature that are actually good, but this is really only evident in individuals. The human race as a whole is immoral, greedy, and just plain mean.
I’ve seen so many examples of customers being screwed over in many different types of business. And it is the people who have no problem with screwing them over who usually get ahead. I’ve also seen some decent people have some success but more of the former. -
Q: Aren’t people greedy by nature?
A: No. For example, in capitalist countries, little children quickly learn to share and cooperate, but they are later taught to take more than they need to compete viciously in “the real world.”
An alternate view has also emerged, both from religious and secular sources. For the former it holds that having original sin doesn’t mean we are all base or lowly, only that we are capable of going bad, of getting corrupted. Young ones aren’t evil but they can become such, as well as good – it is a matter of our God-given free will. St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas taught roughly this idea, as did Aristotle in ancient Greece.
For the secularists it is a similar story: we are born innocent enough, by no means inclined toward evil or good, but as we grow up our choices can guide us toward one or the other, more or less. It is up to us but we aren’t hard wired either way.
-
Let me just say something… There is no such thing as Evil or Good, its all perspective.
-
I’ve seen plenty of children willing to share. Many of them after being asked by a parent “what did I tell you about sharing?” People are not automatically going to share barring an outside influence, both sharing and hoarding are learned behaviors. The fact that a human baby cannot live without assistance means that they are influenced by those that care for them. So how can it be proven that humans will by nature be generous, giving, and generally what we would call good? Besides that I was refering to human nature as an average if it is easier we can refer to it as the nature of society.
I don’t believe that children in capitalist countries would be any more inclined to learn at an early age to share and cooperate than any others. At least not on their own. Perhaps in some situations they are more likely to be taught to share than others, but I have a hard time believing that we as capitalists are that much better than any other classification of people.[ This Message was edited by: Tal on 2002-04-05 19:42 ]
-
Well that’s the problem. We’re all born in capitalistic societies. Heck we all know that communism has never existing in this world. Nowhere. Communism, in the scientific sense of a classless society, that has no being with the USSR or China. And socialism has only existed in the Paris Commune of 1871 or the early period of the 1917 revolution in Russia.
As for the story of right and wrong. I agree. People from different cultures believe in different moral and ethical values. However we all agree that there are such things as absolute truths?
-
ha, absolute truths! I think that’s perposterous. To quote a very wise man from a groovy film, “many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of veiw.” I think this can be applied to just about everything, including so called absolute truths. We each veiw the world through the filters of our various experiences, simply because many people have had similar experiences, relatively speaking, doesn’t make any sort of truth existant.
-
So in your opinion it is all right for another culture to enjoy to throwing babbies up in the air and then catching them with bayonets?
I think if you buy into the whole relativism ideals then you would be forced to accept the German defense for the War Crimes committed during WWII. For instance let me give you an example:
During the prosecutions of German doctors involved in the death of millions of Jews and other ethnic races, one of the main defences was cultural relativism.
As impossible as it might seem, the Holocaust and the final solution were legal. According to Browder, this mass murder of millions was sanctioned by the government under Hitler’s rule. However, when the Allies broke the Nazi regime, they declared that there was a higher law: to murder, to maim, and to torture is criminal under all modern systems of law (an absolute truth?).
These defendants did not kill in hot blood, nor for personal enrichment. Some of them may be sadists who killed and tortured for sport, but they are not all perverts. They are not ignorant men. Most of them are trained physicians and some of them are distinguished scientists. Yet these defendants, all of whom were fully able to comprehend the nature of their acts, and most of whom were exceptionally qualified to form a moral and professional judgment in this respect, are responsible for wholesale murder and unspeakably cruel tortures.The Nuremberg trials set an international precedent: War criminals, such as Hermann Goering and Rudolf Hess, were held accountable for crimes against humanity. Now do you refute or agree with his arguement?
-
I admit that there are certain things that we as humans that were raised under relatively similar circumstances consider right. This is not to say that all things that people tend to consider right are. Humans have developed in such a way that we have morals and most of them are fairly similar; there is a differance between what seem to be basic human morals and absolute truth.
-
"–------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Aren’t people greedy by nature?A: No. For example, in capitalist countries, little children quickly learn to share and cooperate, but they are later taught to take more than they need to compete viciously in “the real world.”
"People are greedy in any society. there is no good or evil by birth, but there is a will to survive and live. man has to eat, he doesn’t share apples with the apple tree. greed is learned…babies are some of the greediest things out there, behind cats.
-
Does the lone caveman have a better chance of surviving by himself? No. Of course not. Even in ancient cultures you see tribes banding together for the common good to survive and prosper.
Also in the world today, babies are supported by their family. You don’t see babies gunning it out on their own, it’s impossible.
-
On 2002-04-07 11:47, TG Moses VI wrote:
Does the lone caveman have a better chance of surviving by himself? No. Of course not. Even in ancient cultures you see tribes banding together for the common good to survive and prosper.Also in the world today, babies are supported by their family. You don’t see babies gunning it out on their own, it’s impossible.
Yes, but the family exist in order to nurture more generations of even more families. Don’t use this as an example of communism, because the roles in the family are far from equal.
-
Well even in communism you need a leader (or in better yet a set of different leaders). Plus, I’m talking about a tribe, not a just family, two different words. I challenge anybody to find examples of anicent civilizations prospering more using scattered persons rather than binding together as a whole.
Suggested Topics
