Turn on thread page Beta

Socialists and Communists, some questions... watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fallen_acorns)
    2 things:

    Spoiler:
    Show

    1, on china - yes the quality of life is not great for many, but largely its far far better then it was 40 years ago. A western person would walk around in the town I live in, and see a lot of people and the jobs they do and say 'this is awful, this is exploitation!' --

    the people here say:
    'thank god I am not starving and freezing in the fields like my parents were. I have a heated flat with running water, free education, routes to prosperity for my children, and enough food to not starve'

    I have seen both sides. I have family here who still live in rural china, its poor. very poor, and there is no optimism that things will get better, its just a grind to survive. In the cities people may work awful jobs, but they have hope. They have seen their lives improve, and they now see their kids lives improve further.

    Whats happened in China has been one of the largest and most rapid increases in a populations average quality of life in human history. Its a spectacular achievement.


    ----

    As for the debate overall, its stupid and pointless.

    Why? Because both sides have a fundamental difference. One view is based on logic, ideals and reasoning.. the other is based on evidence.

    The hard left will never except the evidence, because it goes against their ideals, and will proclaim that the implementation was wrong, and it could still work if done properly.

    The right will never except that actually there is a lot we can learn from socialism/communism, even if the evidence for its absolute implementation is catastrophic.

    It seems to me, looking around the world at different countries, that the balance between capatilst structures and socilaist structures within a society provides the optimum outcome.. with both extremes leading to disaster/rebellion (communism has already been through this, capitalism is still getting their in my view).

    We always need to balance reality a - that inequality will always exist, and people will always suffer in comparison to others

    with reality b - to much inequality leads to societal revolution/collapse.

    Eh.

    I mean, I don't see how logic and evidence are not linked. You'd have to be illogical to not consider evidence do you not?

    Also, were discussing socialism and communism in their fullest forms. Nobody has brought the discussion to social democracies such as Sweden or Norway. We can talk about that if you're want. They have their own problems.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Eh.

    I mean, I don't see how logic and evidence are not linked. You'd have to be illogical to not consider evidence do you not?

    Also, were discussing socialism and communism in their fullest forms. Nobody has brought the discussion to social democracies such as Sweden or Norway. We can talk about that if you're want. They have their own problems.
    not necessarily. Its very easy to talk hypothetically about a scenario that has never existed, or would never exist and draw seemingly proven conclusions based on logic/reason, without any evidence being provided from outside of the scenario.

    But that's the problem, it is entirely hypothetical, it has to be removed from reality for evidence-based reason not to be applicable, and for it to be purely in the realms of reason. What the left don't quite acknowledge yet is that their utopia is just that, entirely hypothetical. So take your conversation earlier with the poster who was using homelessness as an example of a flaw in capitalism. He would find it impossible to provide any evidence of a communist system that cures homelessness, but it is perfectly logical that a communist system could cure homelessness if you suspend a few accepted principles and enter into a hypothetical discussion. Specifically you need to suspend the idea that power corrupts, the idea that we are inherently selfish, and the idea that true equality is unobtainable. All three of those ideas have very strong evidence to support them, but if you can remove them - sure, communism logically would cure homelessness.

    ---

    My point was that this is why these discussions become futile, because exactly as you have just experienced on this thread, you - like me - coming from the capitalist side will draw arguments that look to whats happened, whereas the ardent communists/anarchists will draw arguments that at what could be. The cries of 'show me where its worked!' and 'Look at all the good capitalism has done' - do not counter the claims that the communist supporters on this thread are making, because they are essentially having a different conversation using a different set of principles to determine what works and what doesn't.

    Now, I think their set of principles is stupid personally, but that it exists and frames the central question differently, makes discussions of this nature almost pointless.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Yes, but you know exactly what I mean when I say, Communist countries. We call Russia and China and Cuba etc. Communist because that was their final goal
    In the past priests told that they were chosen by god, but it does not mean that they were really chosen...

    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Why would you want people to live equally good? Why should someone hardworking, intelligent and compassionate live as well (or as badly) as someone who bullied people in school, has a heroin addiction and doesn't work?
    Why people often assume that those who bullied at school has bad lives in the future? It is not necessarily true. Though people love to believe that. It's just with the religion - "I suffer now, then I'll be happy in the future". Whatever.

    The problem equality allows keeping balance and peace more or less. (I don't like equality and don't believe in it). Disparity leads to conflict because people are jealous and greedy by nature. "They got this - we should take it" and so on and so on. Though it is more complex but basically until everybody is equal - like zombies - conflicts will exist.

    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Why must you cut something from another person to have something better?
    Because resources are not limitless - either everybody has the equal amount or somebody will have more.

    If you have 10 apples and another person has only two it will lead to disparity and thus to conflict - "why he has more than me?" and a person will find multiple reasons to blame him for having more apples. Then "morally superior brigade" who is not affected in a slightest will come and tell that you should give him 4 apples so everybody will be content with it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    One of my favourite memes:

    Name:  lenin apples.png
Views: 16
Size:  172.1 KB
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fallen_acorns)
    not necessarily. Its very easy to talk hypothetically about a scenario that has never existed, or would never exist and draw seemingly proven conclusions based on logic/reason, without any evidence being provided from outside of the scenario.

    But that's the problem, it is entirely hypothetical, it has to be removed from reality for evidence-based reason not to be applicable, and for it to be purely in the realms of reason. What the left don't quite acknowledge yet is that their utopia is just that, entirely hypothetical. So take your conversation earlier with the poster who was using homelessness as an example of a flaw in capitalism. He would find it impossible to provide any evidence of a communist system that cures homelessness, but it is perfectly logical that a communist system could cure homelessness if you suspend a few accepted principles and enter into a hypothetical discussion. Specifically you need to suspend the idea that power corrupts, the idea that we are inherently selfish, and the idea that true equality is unobtainable. All three of those ideas have very strong evidence to support them, but if you can remove them - sure, communism logically would cure homelessness.

    ---

    My point was that this is why these discussions become futile, because exactly as you have just experienced on this thread, you - like me - coming from the capitalist side will draw arguments that look to whats happened, whereas the ardent communists/anarchists will draw arguments that at what could be. The cries of 'show me where its worked!' and 'Look at all the good capitalism has done' - do not counter the claims that the communist supporters on this thread are making, because they are essentially having a different conversation using a different set of principles to determine what works and what doesn't.

    Now, I think their set of principles is stupid personally, but that it exists and frames the central question differently, makes discussions of this nature almost pointless.
    Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks for the comment, well explained.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    One of my favourite memes:

    Name:  lenin apples.png
Views: 16
Size:  172.1 KB
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.