Is communism really bad?

I'm not replying to an ignorant, rude person like yourself.
When you've done some actual research, and read back on what me (and other people) have told you properly, feel free to contact me.

Libertarians promote things like 'self ownership' and 'private property' as some kind of universal 'values', or at least universally applicable, in the very same terms; as if their universal adoption generates a 'fair' society etc.

I think most of us are interested in the idea of a 'fair' society, we just don't agree on what constitutes that fairness.

I agree. But is that not why we each subscribe to our own ethical standards, philosophical and political beliefs? The opression of certain groups and 'rights' is just another one of these.

It's really hard for you. I though you said you weren't going to reply. And I actually I would rather reccomend you to read some books about what marxism is. Because you wrote this not me

"For example, the exact reward to doing a job everyone hates. But communism as a theory allows it, it just depends."

And do you think I'm going to be nice to someone who just keeps lying to me and then deny that she has lied. You are pretty rude yourself. It was you, not me who started with "I have already answered all your arguments, so I don't feel the need to answer". When you clearly hadn't.

'Self-ownership' and 'property' (not private property), are not values as such - they are just facts of life. I'm not expecting you to draw any moral conclusions though, that would be silly. But, to clarify, 'self-ownership' is there, if only in the prescriptive sense - one has exclusive control of one's body/mind, which is what ownership is. And from that we can draw the conclusion that 'property' exists, even if it only relates to one's own body/mind.

However, I would also say (and since you're a socialist, I'm sure you agree) that one can own anything which one has created through the labour and creativity of one's own body and mind.

So, the only moral standpoint I make on this front is, actions only become immoral when they infringe on another's 'self-ownership' (offences against the person) and 'property' (theft, vandalism, taxation ). And in my opinion, this is the only moral standpoint that can be objectively applied, since I believe self-ownership to be an objective prescriptive fact, and similarly property.

Obviously, you are free to contradict this; I'm rather curious what you think actually, so please do!



Maybe, but I question how far each's ethical standards can be applied to everyone. You can also comment on my musings about 'morals' up there, I'd like to know what you guys think, and how you create your own moral 'codes'.

I'll be frank to the OP - yes. In the name of "Communism" i had many family members murdered (by which i mean, shot in the middle of the night and left by the side of the road). More balanced forms of left-wing/progressive politics is much preferable, Social Democracy for example ...

'Self-ownership' and 'property' (not private property), are not values as such - they are just facts of life...

Communism was a perfect idea, just too bad humans who tried to implement it were, ironically imperfect themselves.

I think the point is though, that it wasn't actual communism that killed your family members. In fact, which ever country you're talking about WASN'T practising true communism.
Of course what dictators and governments have done to force people into "communism" is terrible... But it's not because there's something wrong with the theory.

I did answer... saying that isn't rude. I've only been rude in return.

What I wrote there is true of communism. Do you're research. Stop sending me posts cos I'm fed up of the damn email reminders when I've said I'm fed up of arguing with someone who's ignorant and doesn't even understand the theory properly.

Even so, we are talking about an ideology (however bastardised) that prompted those individuals to act in a certain way. (I was talking about the Ukrainian SSR by the way)

I suppose a less emotively-charged answer from myself would be that in my opinion, Communism can never be good because the truest form of the above is impossible to achieve. As a concept, it is inherently flawed by a reliance on a particular view of the human condition that is debatable at best. As i said in the above post, moderate "spin-offs" are preferable as they are possible to truly implement (even then, they have their own problems and issues)

Those people really didn't believe in the ideology. It was an excuse.
I do think it's more achievable than you seem to, but that's personal opinion/understanding of how much the society we are brought up in can change human behaviour.

You're being quite dismissive of the Soviet Union - i don't think it's a particularly good argument to say that no-one believed in the ideology - if they didn't why did it have such a wide-reaching impact? It's as if you're saying "...is it really that bad, but you can't use any examples of where it has explicitly been referred to/implemented as it's 'not proper' and the people didn't really believe it"

Also, a bit of a red herring BUT - why is it ok to wear a t-shirt with a hammer and sickle, but not a swastika??? (not that i wish to wear a swastika, both represent the very worst of human nature and reprehensible regimes)

Facts of life in the philosophical and material framework of the libertarian/capitalist maybe. And it's not as if I am free to ignore your claim to private property because I don't believe in it, is it? Hence the double-standard.

But it WASN'T proper communism at all, that's my main point. No where near. So it's not the ideology that was wrong or hurt anyone.

Camlon, I didn't tell you to shut up... and if I ever did, it was AFTER you were rude to me.
I'm not arguing the rest of you points again, as I've said. I refuse to talk to you now. You're not worth the effort.

Sure you did, but why should I stop just because you tell me so. Why should I listen to your demands? If you don't want a response, then don't answer. It's not that hard!

And I don't want you to start arguing again, because you add nothing to the debate. You lie all the time. When caught, you can never admit that you did in fact lie. And you can not keep yourself to the topic and you ignore half of my arguments.

Then you tell me that I'm rude, but it was you not me that told me to shut up and lied about that you have answered all of my arguments when you had answered pretty much none of them. Later you lied about which of my arguments you had answered. People like you make me sick!

I have never lied. You just make stuff up so you can feel like you win the argument. Good bye.