Communism?

[1. Luftballon]

:( I prefer the system without humans.

 

[Crazy Linoone]

I'm not going to rip you apart for this. I agree. Anybody who DOESN'T think that communism is the single best system ever in theory needs their head checked. The problem is, it's impossible for it to work.

Sorry, I must disagree with you here. Communism isn't the single best system ever in theory; I think that belongs to utopianism, which is like communism but without the uprising and killing people part.

 

[#1 bro]

Anybody who DOESN'T think that communism is the single best system ever in theory needs their head checked. The problem is, it's impossible for it to work.

Why is it impossible?

I'm necessarily not disagreeing with you, I just want to hear your logic. It's already been said that many socialist countries are doing alright.

 

[Pwnemon]

Socialist, not communist. All communist countries in practice have just been extreme forms of socialism.

Human nature prevents something as utopian as communism from actually happening. There will always be lust, and self-centeredness, and greed. And left unchecked, they will obviously lead to a ruling class. The only way to check them, a ruling class. Even Karl Marx realized this, and this is the stage he called socialism. However, he believed in communism humanity would perfect itself and no ruling class would be necessary because everyone would be all happy and fart rainbows. I just don't find it possible that humanity can grow out of its flaws.

 

[#1 bro]

Yeah this makes sense. Just

And left unchecked, they will obviously lead to a ruling class. The only way to check them, a ruling class.

You are using two definitions of "ruling class". You don't need to be greedy and rich to be able to enforce the rules that make it hard for others to be greedy and rich - you just need to hold a position of power, preferably in a representative government of and by the people.

 

[Ruby]

Everyone still seems to be conflating power corruption with a lack of altruism among ordinary people. These are two separate arguments.

 

[Pwnemon]

Yeah this makes sense. Just


You are using two definitions of "ruling class". You don't need to be greedy and rich to be able to enforce the rules that make it hard for others to be greedy and rich - you just need to hold a position of power, preferably in a representative government of and by the people.

Yeah, sorry if I didn't make that sentence clear enough. What I meant is that anybody who tries to hog it all for themselves will eventually amass power with no government to stop them. The only way to stop them would be a government, not necessarily of corrupt people, most likely of perfectly good people in fact, but it's still a ruling class.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

It's funny that you're STILL ignoring what I said. I mean seriously, I'm getting a kick out of it.

I'm not ignoring what you said, I'm not even part of the debate, I was just pointing out your hypocrisy.

I'm like a spectator in an open forum, I'm listening to the arguments, but not arguing, then commenting on specific points as I see fit.

Actually, I'm not like a spectator in an open forum, I am a spectator in an open forum.

 

[#1 bro]

The only way to stop them would be a government, not necessarily of corrupt people, most likely of perfectly good people in fact, but it's still a ruling class.

Um, of course? No one is arguing in favor of anarchy here. (Although it must be said that anarcho-communism is certainly a "thing")

 

[Dark Shocktail]

I like the theory of anarchy. Utter chaos, no ruling class...it's essentially communism but without the altruism.

 

[Aisling]

totally unrelated to debate whatever popping in here

You like utter chaos? Why? Am I misunderstanding what you mean by that? or are you being sarcastic and I'm being totally unable to detect internets sarcasm as usual
I've always found it ironic that most of those attention-craving anarchist type kids will probably be the first to go since they're unable to properly defend themselves or anything and are just saying it to be cool. They'd be fucked in an actual anarchy. (not saying you're one of those kids but this is one reason I don't really take the idea of anarchy seriously)

 

[Phantom]

Can I butt in and say holy crap and amazingly popular thread made by Turbo?


Works in theory, epic fail in life.

 

[Pwnemon]

Ironically, though made two months ago, it only had 28 posts until Wednesday.

 

[Dark Shocktail]

totally unrelated to debate whatever popping in here

You like utter chaos? Why? Am I misunderstanding what you mean by that? or are you being sarcastic and I'm being totally unable to detect internets sarcasm as usual
I've always found it ironic that most of those attention-craving anarchist type kids will probably be the first to go since they're unable to properly defend themselves or anything and are just saying it to be cool. They'd be fucked in an actual anarchy. (not saying you're one of those kids but this is one reason I don't really take the idea of anarchy seriously)

Eh, I meant it seriously. It's cool in theory. Unleash it upon the world and I know I'd be in a bit of a jam since I'm not very fit and I haven't seen much actual combat, combined with the fact that my local area is known for being a bit rough around the edges, as they say.

When you think about it, anarchy is where society started. Then people formed together to form small groups, such as villages or tribes. The tribes went to war and conquered each other/made treaties and so on and so forth, until you had communities bounded together by a common system of faith, language, arts and social norms. In all honestly, it'd be almost impossible to revert to that state, as it's almost a tabla rasa world - as the world starts now, people already seek individuals similar to themselves to form groups with (see any high school you like) based on social norms, what they see as positions in society based on material objects / family ancestry / belief systems, and purely on similarities.

From my point of view, it's merely a curiosity to see how things would develop and who would be the ones to carry on and shape the world.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Ironically, though made two months ago, it only had 28 posts until Wednesday.

> Rage about people ignoring you
> Ignore their responses

 

[Aisling]

From my point of view, it's merely a curiosity to see how things would develop and who would be the ones to carry on and shape the world.

Ah, I see. It would be interesting to see how things would play out if we started over with history. Not really worth throwing the world into anarchy just to see what happens, but would still be interesting, yeah. I was afraid you meant you'd actually want it to be in practice or something as opposed to what we have now or something. D: I gotcha.

 

[Dark Shocktail]

Ah, I see. It would be interesting to see how things would play out if we started over with history. Not really worth throwing the world into anarchy just to see what happens, but would still be interesting, yeah. I was afraid you meant you'd actually want it to be in practice or something as opposed to what we have now or something. D: I gotcha.

Pffft. That'd be fun for about a day, with the looting and general rioting that would ensue. But without people doing their jobs, we wouldn't have water, sewerage, electricity, gas, food... it'd basically be like trashing a hotel room with a huge rock party, then living in it afterwards.

And not forgetting that if you shouted to a country to go nuts, about half or maybe more would just settle back down into civilised routine anyway after figuring that hey, having heating and being able to get food from a reliable supply isn't such a bad deal.

So no. If I was given the chance to go back to when that was the norm, I wouldn't say no, but for nowadays it simply wouldn't be worth it given where society is now.

 

[Superbird]

Everyone here has to read The Giver, by Lois Lowry. That is communism at its pest and it is perfect. Unless you're the Receiver of Memory.

 

[#1 bro]

Everyone here has to read The Giver, by Lois Lowry. That is communism at its pest and it is perfect. Unless you're the Receiver of Memory.

Ummm, are you joking? The society in that book is meant to be portrayed as very, very, very bad.

Anyway I myself am kind of an anarchist. In a sense. Anyway, anarchy = chaos, riots, and killing people is a misconception because of people like GG Allin and Henry Rollins (although those are both good artists).

 

[Flora]

Ummm, are you joking? The society in that book is meant to be portrayed as very, very, very bad.

I dunno if he was joking, but, for the citizens of that society, except for the Receiver of Memory, the society was perfect. They didn't have to worry about a bad economy, or a war, or discrimination. It's kinda a case of ignorance is bliss; if you don't know what's going on behind the scenes, or what could have been, society, however dysfunctional, will seem perfect.