Is communism really bad? Watch

Emaemmaemily
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#261
Report 8 years ago
#261
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.
0
reply
Camlon
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#262
Report 8 years ago
#262
(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
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.
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 communism 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.
0
reply
D.R.E
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#263
Report 8 years ago
#263
(Original post by Oswy)
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.
'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!

(Original post by Aeolus)
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.
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'.
0
reply
Emaemmaemily
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#264
Report 8 years ago
#264
(Original post by Camlon)
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.
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.
0
reply
Emaemmaemily
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#265
Report 8 years ago
#265
(Original post by D.R.E)
'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'.
Really interesting ideas. I hadn't really thought of these before. Food for thought.
0
reply
ukr-nffc
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#266
Report 8 years ago
#266
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 ...
0
reply
Emaemmaemily
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#267
Report 8 years ago
#267
(Original post by ukr-nffc)
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 ...
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.
0
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#268
Report 8 years ago
#268
(Original post by D.R.E)
'Self-ownership' and 'property' (not private property), are not values as such - they are just facts of life...
:ahee:

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.
reply
gm15
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#269
Report 8 years ago
#269
(Original post by Nalced)
Communism was a perfect idea, just too bad humans who tried to implement it were, ironically imperfect themselves.
Perfect?
Fine it has its good points but it certainly isn't perfect.
People: There's no such thing as a perfect person so if communism requires perfect people then it can never work. And if these hypethetical perfect people existed surely that would be a sign of capitalism being good as the perfect people were created in a capitalist society.
1
reply
ukr-nffc
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#270
Report 8 years ago
#270
(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
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.
Even so, we are talking about an ideology (however *******ised) 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)
0
reply
Camlon
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#271
Report 8 years ago
#271
(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
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.
It's not rude to tell someone to shut up, and tell them that you have already answered everything, which is a clear lie. You must be from another planet! And I can tell you, the easiest way to stop me from answering is to stop answering yourself. And if you don't want email reminders, turn it off! God!

And no it's not true in communism that you can reward people for doing jobs people don't want. Because if you do so, then your society is not classless and you have pretty much adopted a semi-capitalistic society.

And also you are not following the expression "to each according to his ability, to each according to his need". To give people rewards (after how much you need to get enough workers) is to give them more than what they need.
0
reply
Emaemmaemily
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#272
Report 8 years ago
#272
(Original post by ukr-nffc)
Even so, we are talking about an ideology (however *******ised) 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.

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.
0
reply
ukr-nffc
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#273
Report 8 years ago
#273
(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
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)
0
reply
Emaemmaemily
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#274
Report 8 years ago
#274
(Original post by ukr-nffc)
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)
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.
0
reply
D.R.E
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#275
Report 8 years ago
#275
(Original post by Oswy)
:ahee:

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.
Perhaps, but capitalism was designed by someone before the 'creation' of humanity - it happened as consequence of natural human interaction, and recognition of self-ownership and personal property is a part of that.

I don't think it is necessary for one to make a 'claim' that they own themselves and their efforts, unless you are suggesting that society owns the individual and their efforts, and therefore they need to make a claim for things own by someone else - which is what you are doing. You are 'making a claim' for the ownership of the individual and his efforts, to benefit society.

You cannot justifiably make a claim for my liver, and I cannot justifiably make a claim for you arm or your time. Obviously, there is a question as how far one can own external, naturally occurring goods (land, oil etc), but not a completely unassailable one.
0
reply
ukr-nffc
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#276
Report 8 years ago
#276
(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
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.
In that case - an ideology that assumes a final end of us all living in a happy land of equality, exchanging goods and services based on need whilst being free to explore our artistic potential IS good. This particular one that is IMPOSSIBLE to implement (based on attempts in the past) is bad - communism as a concept is a contradiction in terms.

My original point: Communism as an ideology in practice (without using hypothetical constructs) is bad - whether close to its truest form or not.
0
reply
Camlon
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#277
Report 8 years ago
#277
(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
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!
0
reply
Emaemmaemily
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#278
Report 8 years ago
#278
(Original post by Camlon)
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.
0
reply
Camlon
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#279
Report 8 years ago
#279
(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
I have never lied. You just make stuff up so you can feel like you win the argument. Good bye.
Really? So you never said that you answered all of my arguments, when you answered pretty much none of them?

You didn't tell me that you answered my island example, when you haven't even mentioned anything about islands? Why do you even pretend like you didn't lie. Who are you trying to convince?

And also, you wrote clearly that you will let peope with non-visible sicknesses starve in your system if they don't perform after standard. I would say that is inhumane.
0
reply
Emaemmaemily
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#280
Report 8 years ago
#280
I did answer. You're making **** up. Bye
2
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (266)
38.61%
No - but I will (46)
6.68%
No - I don't want to (51)
7.4%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (326)
47.31%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed