Why is Communism So Opposed?

Part of the crazed anti-communistic mindset comes from the long held mindset that they're the "enemy"; that all things good come from capitalism and all things evil come from communism. The fact that communistic nations have ostensibly been horribly-repressive regimes (or just flat-out failures) hasn't helped the situation.

Personally, I think there's always worth in voters and administrators keeping an open mind - and that the best national structure is one that doesn't hang its hat on one economic set up; but picks and chooses the best - for different parts of the economy - to suit it's peoples needs and desires.

THanks

1 Reply

@xris,

You're oh so ignorant it's hopeless to even tell you where to start looking. Have you ever seen the DoD budget? You know about military contracts? Subcontractors? Secretary Gates' attempts to cut back costs? You don't have a phone book at home, I guess, because you never saw dozens of pages advertising "security services", hint: they're all private. Try a search for "gated communities".

You have opinions but your knowledge isn't even zero, it's negative. Or maybe like Thomas and other Obamacare supporters here you can't grasp what Merton wrote, read it, I just quoted it. Once again:

Quote:

....the late sociologist Robert K. Merton wrote that leaders get things wrong when their "paramount concern with the foreseen immediate consequences excludes the consideration of further or other consequences" of their proposals. This leads policy makers to assert things that are false, wishing them to be true.

Go ahead and make a fool of yourself on internet fora all you like, I've done all I could to educate you and I won't bother with you any longer.

1 Reply

@xris,

Quote:

No one would say a Kibbutz or a monastery was a restriction of freedom but they work on basically the same ideology, communism proclaims.

Right, except for one principal difference. A person is not FORCED to join a monastery, or live in a kibbutz. It is that person's choice, and, IMO, if that is what someone wants, so be it. With communism there is the specter of an all encompossing coercion.

3 Replies

@Phoenix32890,

Quote:

No one would say a Kibbutz or a monastery was a restriction of freedom but they work on basically the same ideology, communism proclaims.

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Right, except for one principal difference. A person is not FORCED to join a monastery, or live in a kibbutz.
It is that person's choice, and, IMO, if that is what someone wants, so be it.
With communism there is the specter of an all encompossing coercion.

YES; that 's the point !

David

0 Replies

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

Part of the crazed anti-communistic mindset comes from the long held mindset that they're the "enemy"; that all things good come from capitalism and all things evil come from communism. The fact that communistic nations have ostensibly been horribly-repressive regimes (or just flat-out failures) hasn't helped the situation.

Personally, I think there's always worth in voters and administrators keeping an open mind - and that the best national structure is one that doesn't hang its hat on one economic set up; but picks and chooses the best - for different parts of the economy - to suit it's peoples needs and desires.

THanks

The communists tried to conquer & enslave the world during the Third World War; that was very serious.

If thay coud have, thay woud have turned the world into an absolute despotism
more thoro than any in world history; something like the Borg,
or as much like it as newer technology permits -- the most perfect OPPOSITE of freedom and Individualism.

The commies sought to create hell on Earth
and thay succeeded, so far as thay were able.

David

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

Monopolies of state, so you don't agree with them? So whats the military? whats the police force? They are not restricting your freedom and why should a common health prescribed health service divorce you from choice?

The military and police force are monopolies. I'm not sure what your point is though, do you think private security forces would just vanish? Anything the government can provide, people can provide as well because after all, the government is just a bunch of people.

Socialized medicine is great and all, if you agree to it. The problem is, the minority never agreed to it. The 51% voted their way and the 49% gets the shaft. Of course, if it were just a vote that would be one thing. The 49% could simply ignore it. But no, that's not good enough. If you don't pay your taxes that you don't agree with, eventually the government will come and force you out of your home.

Imagine if AOL signed you up for their service and immediately started billing you without question. Whether you like ther service or not, use it or not, you will be billed and if you don't pay for it, you will lose your house. Why is it when private companies engage in criminal activities like that we can see it for what it is but when the government does it, nothing.

3 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

The communists tried to conquer & enslave the world during the Third World War; that was very serious.

If thay coud have, thay woud have turned the world into an absolute despotism
more thoro than any in world history; something like the Borg,
or as much like it as newer technology permits -- the most perfect OPPOSITE of freedom and Individualism.

The commies sought to create hell on Earth
and thay succeeded, so far as thay were able.

Yes, they did try, and could have and would have; absolutely. That's conceded, and not the point.

We tend to see Communism (which, by the way, I'm not a huge fan of) as only what commies did in the past; it's a philosophy. Some components of it - to my mind - have almost no worth to the human race, others seem doomed to result in great suffering no matter how implemented while still others look like they hold great promise. My wife picks through her salad; discarding what she doesn't like and eating what she does - as do we all while wandering through life's choices. Why shouldn't we acknowledge that we do the same for our social, economic and political systems?

I think it makes good sense to draw some distinctions: If you look at any culture, any society and examine their various social, political and economic factors you'll find - everywhere - aspects of socialism, capitalism and communism; you'll even likely find some parts that smell of facism. Each society is an amalgamation of various methods and ideals. There is no PURE communistic society, or capitalist for that matter that has ever existed. Diversity in human affairs prevents this. Secondly, while we can draw important lessons from the past about how various types of societies have been implemented, we must remember that at best they're only loose associations and our knowledge about what really happened or really caused any result is spurious at best. It's the ideal we can learn from, not ascription to some inescapable "doom will follow" that best comes from history.

In any case, my point was that while we must keep in mind the mistakes of the past, let us not stereotype all attempts at "X" as leading to "Y". For one, we're already a mix of some of those factors anyway and no single solution - no single philosophy - can satisfy all social needs for all people nor can they always lead to the same result. National success takes its best purchase via prudence with an open mind; such can't take place where we pigeon hole all aspects of anything to one result.

Sorry about the length, and I hope this makes sense - it made sense when I thought it.

Thanks

2 Replies

@Khethil,

Just speaking for myself,
garbage picking thru the debris of communism
is not how I intend to spend any part of my day.

70 years of communism was too much already; abhorent n sickening.

Have u done the same for the nazis ?

David

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

xris wrote:

Monopolies of state, so you don't agree with them? So whats the military? whats the police force? They are not restricting your freedom and why should a common health prescribed health service divorce you from choice?

Night Ripper wrote:

The military and police force are monopolies. I'm not sure what your point is though, do you think private security forces would just vanish? Anything the government can provide, people can provide as well because after all, the government is just a bunch of people.

Socialized medicine is great and all, if you agree to it. The problem is, the minority never agreed to it. The 51% voted their way and the 49% gets the shaft. Of course, if it were just a vote that would be one thing. The 49% could simply ignore it. But no, that's not good enough. If you don't pay your taxes that you don't agree with, eventually the government will come and force you out of your home.

Imagine if AOL signed you up for their service and immediately started billing you without question. Whether you like ther service or not, use it or not, you will be billed and if you don't pay for it, you will lose your house. Why is it when private companies engage in criminal activities like that we can see it for what it is but when the government does it, nothing.

BEAUTIFULLY and most deftly set forth.

Thank u and
WELCOME to the forum!

David

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

Imagine if AOL signed you up for their service and immediately started billing you without question. Whether you like ther service or not, use it or not, you will be billed and if you don't pay for it, you will lose your house. Why is it when private companies engage in criminal activities like that we can see it for what it is but when the government does it, nothing.

This is pure gold.

The problem is a majority of people have been duped. The government has done a great job planting the seed of ignorance into people through lack of education. People believe that only government can solve the problems of society and any time there is a failure it is always because there wasn't enough government. Government loves it that people point figures at everything bug government. Politicians are great at deflecting the blame at others or even the person watching as being the problem and people accept it. They carry around the same mottoes and rehash it every chance they get. Government can do no wrong, it can provide everything because everyone deserves everything regardless if they work for it or not.

Socialism will do nothing but make society lazy and unproductive. Technology will slump and everyone will be wearing and using crappy products that fall apart in the slightest wind. The laziest person will have the exact same things as a person who works hard. No one will want to become a doctor if they can get paid the same as a person washing dishes. Less schooling and easier job with the same benefits. No one is going to want to do a dangerous job if the person sitting behind a desk gets the same pay. Why take the risk? Everyone neglects to take into consideration these other factors, they just assume everyone will be productive and inventors will want to event for the hell of it and won't care that they get nothing for spending their time and creativity without any pay off.

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Quote:

I hope this makes sense - it made sense when I thought it

Sure it made sense, but it made sense only in your tiny mind.

Why harass everyone else by not editing whatever tiny thoughts you come up with, so then maybe they ALSO MAKE SENSE when you WRITE them?

Only my 2 Cents

0 Replies

@electronicmail,

electronicmail wrote:

Quote:
No economist believes that the free market always corrects itself.

ALL economists believe that. Marx didn't but then he was no economist any more than you are.

Earlier in this thread, I linked to two economics textbooks, one by a liberal, one by a conservative. (The liberal is a Nobel Prize winner in economics, the conservative was President Bush's chief economic advisor.) Both of them acknowledge that free markets sometimes fail, and dedicate numerous chapters to various forms of market failure. What more can I do to confront you with reality? You can lead a horse to the trough, but you can't make it drink. Likewise, you can point a pretend-economist to books by real economists, but you can't make him read. Since I have no interest in repeating myself, this is all I care to say on this particular question.

electronicmail wrote:

I guess you can't answer my question from the previous page but I'm not surprised you don't have an answer.

I am assuming that the question you mean is this:

electronicmail wrote:

would you invest in Medicare or Medicaid if they were private companies?

It depends on what you mean by "invest in Medicare or Medicaid". If you mean, "would I buy shares in privatized Medicare or Medicaid companies rather than shares in some other companies?", my answer is that I don't know. It would depend on the stock price, and on the details of the privatization. If you mean, "would I buy Medicare / Medicate policies rather than buying comparable policies offered by private companies on the free market?", the answer is absolutely---Medicare/Medicaid as they are offer much more attractive terms than private companies would.

electronicmail wrote:

I guess you can't answer my question from the previous page but I'm not surprised you don't have an answer.

A2K is a free forum, where you have a right to adolescent posturing. But it won't conceal the weakness of your argument, and won't strengthen it one bit.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Socialism will do nothing but make society lazy and unproductive. Technology will slump and everyone will be wearing and using crappy products that fall apart in the slightest wind.

"Socialism" is one of those words that mean all kinds of things to all kinds of people. If by "socialism" you mean the kind of system they had in Eastern Europe before 1989, I agree with you. But if by "socialism" you mean the social democracy they have in continental Western and Northern Europe, you are empirically mistaken: Volvos, Renaults, and Daimlers fall apart less frequently than GMs, Fords and Chryslers.

More generally, labor productivity in social-democratic places like France, Germany, and Sweden is about the same as in the US. It's just that continental Europeans work shorter hours and have longer holidays. But that's just another consumer preference: Leisure is a valuable good just like houses and stereos are. Hence, if Europeans want more leisur where Americans would prefer bigger cars, that's their choice, not yours. In fact it's none of your business how long other people want to work.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Volvos, Renaults, and Daimlers fall apart less frequently than GMs, Fords and Chryslers.

Ford has owned Volvo Cars for over a decade. Bad example.

Anyways, we should all refuse to get into an argument over which system is better because only one system is legitimate, anarchy. It's a waste of time debating the benefits of illegitimate activities exactly because it would be a waste of time debating the benefits of rape. Rape is wrong. It doesn't matter if we get better cars from it. Taking money from people by force is wrong. Again, it doesn't matter if we get better cars from it.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

Ford has owned Volvo Cars for over a decade. Bad example.

Good example. Ford bought Volvo for its technology---yet Fords continue to honor their acronym, Found On Roadside Dead. Volvos, on the other hand, continue to shine as beacons of robustness.

Night Ripper wrote:

Anyways, we should all refuse to get into an argument over which system is better because only one system is legitimate, anarchy.

To my knowledge, there currently is only one place on the landmasses of Earth that might be called an anarchy. It's called Somalia. You tell me how Somalis have it better than the people who live in places with governments.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:
Ford has owned Volvo Cars for over a decade. Bad example.

Good example. Ford bought Volvo for its technology---yet Fords continue to honor their acronym, Found On Roadside Dead. Volvos, on the other hand, continue to shine as beacons of robustness.

Night Ripper wrote:
Anyways, we should all refuse to get into an argument over which system is better because only one system is legitimate, anarchy.

To my knowledge, there currently is only one place on the landmasses of Earth that might be called an anarchy. It's called Somalia. You tell me how Somalis have it better than the people who live in places with governments.

Again, you're appealing to consequences instead of addressing the core criticism, which is, initiating force against people that don't want to pay their taxes is morally wrong. It doesn't matter if you think it can provide them better cars or better health care. They are still individuals and get to make that choice freely rather than have it forced upon them.

What's the difference between a mortgage and property taxes? After all, if you don't pay your mortgage, someone eventually shows up with a gun and forces you out of the house. Likewise, if you don't pay your property taxes, someone eventually shows up with a gun and forces you out of the house. Violence is violence, right? What's the difference?

The difference is that mortgages are entered into VOLUNTARILY. It's the difference between rough consensual sex and rape. They may look the same, leave the same mess but only one is EVIL and I'll leave that as an exercise for you to figure out which is which.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

Again, you're appealing to consequences instead of addressing the core criticism,

You're damn right I'm appealing to consequences. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of a political system is in the governing.

PS: I'm a Utilitarian. To me, appealing to consequences is the core criticism.

Night Ripper wrote:

The difference is that mortgages are entered into VOLUNTARILY. It's the difference between rough consensual sex and rape.

See, that doesn't work for me, even under your system of ethics. Born in Germany, I chose to live in the United States and consented to following American laws as a condition of being here. That includes American tax laws. So to me there really isn't any meaningful difference between paying a mortage to an American bank and paying taxes to an American government.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

You're damn right I'm appealing to consequences. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of a political system is in the governing.

Not that I agree with that kind of thinking but even according to your own reasoning there hasn't been a decent experiment done to demonstrate anarchy can't work. Your example of Somalia is grossly unfair and I'm sure you already know why. Complete poverty isn't going to produce good results for any system of government. That's like testing a new bridge design using unsound building materials and then claiming that the design is flawed. Come on, let's be reasonable. I'll give you more credit than that.

Thomas wrote:

See, that doesn't work for me, even under your system of ethics. Born in Germany, I chose to live in the United States and consented to following American laws as a condition of being here. That includes American tax laws.

That's wonderful for you. What about me? I didn't sign any social contract. Do you think I should have to abandon my home and leave the country if I don't like the government? Why is that? It's my home. It only exists because I paid for it to be built with money from my own labor. Are you saying I don't own the fruits of my labor? Where would I even go? The middle of the ocean? The south pole? It once was possible to "leave it" if you didn't "love it" but I can't reasonably be expected to abandon my home and property and live somewhere that's inhospitable just to escape the different forms of illigetimate government.

0 Replies

Fine. Break the tax law then. I have no moral problem with it---unless you ever plan to drive on a government-build road, be defended by America's armed forces, send your children to a public school, or apply for Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Fine. Break the tax law then. I have no moral problem with it---unless you ever plan to drive on a government-build road, be defended by America's armed forces, send your children to a public school, or apply for Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.

The government built roads are built on land stolen from individuals in the first place. I've had the opportunity to drive on several privately owned roads. They have their own police and everything. They are invariably cleaner, safer and less crowded. I would love it if there were only private roads based on my experiences.

The same goes for everything else. I'd rather enjoy my own private security, attend private schools, have my own private retirement plan, private health insurance, etc.

0 Replies

Why is Communism So Opposed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know