Tell me what you all think of communism REALISTICALLY

[Keke Le Cat]

That isn't always so. Most people would still stand by their morals even in a matter of survival. Take stranded plane crash victims for example. They usually band together.

Even if it comes down to your life, or theirs, it is still evil to take their life.

It is better to die than to commit murder. If it came down to personal survival I would still believe this. I would kill to protect my child, but who would want to hurt a child?

"But violence harms the one who does it as much as the one who receives it. You could cut down a tree with your axe. The axe does violence to the tree, and escapes unharmed. Is that how you see it? Wood is soft compared to steel, but the sharp steel is dulled as it chops, and the sap of the tree will rust and pit it. The mighty axe does violence to the helpless tree, and is harmed by it. So it is with men, though the harm is in the spirit."'

[The Editor]

Because you are more likely to be rescued if you stick together.

[Keke Le Cat]

Evil exists in all of us, when we deny that we give evil power.
Highlander, S6E3 - "Amageddon"

[The Editor]

Movie quotes are not evidence.

[Keke Le Cat]

I say nay! That quote! It is evidence.

[The Editor]

No.

[God]

The idea that humans are inherently selfish and therefore class inequality will always exist is one that has been propagated by the ruling class through exploitation of religion, race, social caste, etc. Humans are social creatures - we are genetically predisposed to passing on our genes, so what is best for the whole will be precieved as best for us. What 'the whole' is is dependent of circumstance, it could be a family, a community, a country, it COULD be the whole world. This is why people are willing to die to protect their family, or in some cases even a larger whole such as their country. People have the genetic and psychological predisposition to easily be able to care for every person in the world and to want them all to prosper, but the ruling class has always sought to divide the 'wholes' into smaller and smaller percieved units.

[Mario The Black Knight]

See? Blah blah blah.

Boring

[The Editor]

Don't be f***ing ridiculous, God. The only reason (genetically speaking) to look after another is because they are likely to carry the same genes as you, and this only applies to family members. Beyond that the probability that you share a high enough percentage of genes is too low to warrant such behaviour. Wide scale altruism increases competition and is detremental to your genes becoming dominant in the population. Now go read The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins and stop being daft.

[Nocturne]

It's old news.

It seems like these days what every kid under the age of 16 who knows what it is wants to talk about like it's the greatest thing ever when it's only pretty great but pretty impossible. It all comes down to lame philosophy about mankind's inherent nature and social norms and blah blah blah

I think people degrading an entire philosophy simply because they are not able to wrap their heads around how it works is far worse.

[Mario The Black Knight]

Kids *Rolls eyes*

If that were really the case then how did I just totally spur the last like 2 pages of debate with that single post? And all of it still being relevent to the original topic.

If it were still interesting, I'd hop all up into this debate and go all slam on this shit, but alas, I digress, and close with a

Yawn

[The Editor]

One man's fruit is another man's poison, Nocturne.

[Nocturne]

Kids *Rolls eyes*

If that were really the case then how did I just totally spur the last like 2 pages of debate with that single post? And all of it still being relevent to the original topic.

If it were still interesting, I'd hop all up into this debate and go all slam on this shit, but alas, I digress, and close with a

Yawn

It may have been relevant, but it hardly ended the intelligent debate that had existed beforehand. You made assumptions based on a highly rudimentary understanding of others' posts to try and look like you are above such debate.

[Mario The Black Knight]

No I didn't

For christ sakes I've been in Communism conversations in this forum before.

[God]

there is nothing boring about the the upper class holds the poo' man down

[Dash]

I think that pure Communism wouldn't last long. 1) No competition, which is often needed to push someone beyond their limits, sharply reducing advances and making your society primitive. 2) Frustrations from average level producers and above diverting hard earned supplies to non working citizens. 3) Lack of adaptability from rigid overhead government leading to difficulty in dealing with economic disasters. 4) Human nature.

I think the solution isn't pure Communism, but a chimera government that hasn't been invented yet that can combine the best of all worlds. Of course, such said government is still only a theory at this time....

[Mario The Black Knight]

there is nothing boring about the the upper class holds the poo' man down

I thought there would be no lower or upper class if everything belongs to everyone. Wouldn't everyone essencially be wealthy, or poor depending on how you looked at it?

[God]

well communism is boring if you just limit it to communism. whenever a discussion of communism comes up i just talk about general socialism and the state of capitalism.

[Mario The Black Knight]

Precisely.

A discussion about communism can only have any hope if it's not about communism. Only if it's about different types of economy in general.

[Nocturne]

Well it's kind of challenging to weight the advantages of one form of social formation when it has nothing to compare it to :/

[RedCheetah]

I'm inclined to agree with Dash, if we were to live in a world of communism life would be pretty damn dull. Personally I like the idea of there being an upper, middle, and lower class. Those who strive hard and educate themselves properly will get the fruits of their labors. In communism, you can work as much or as little as you want and the end result is pretty much the same. All I have to say though is in a capitalist society there should always be ways for lower and middle class people to move up.

[The Editor]

That is why capitaism is a more stable basis for society. It appeals to the need to do better than others.

[RedCheetah]

It appeals to the idea of natural law. That is, there are no rewards or punishments, just consequences. When you earn a lot of money because you went to college for 6 years you weren't "rewarded" for your effort, you earned that position by putting in hard work. If you lose money in the stock market you're not being punished you simply made bad decisions and suffered because of them. Communism rewards laziness and complacency and punishes hard work and diligence.

[tombos8]

Put simply; what justifies a man who earns £25,000 a year, works 7am-5pm 5 days a week whose occupation is a french furniture polisher. Compare this to a private steel works manager who works exactly the same hours and is earning £50,000 a year. In a capitalist society, i think it is bullshit to say that you earn based on how hard you work. The polisher could work ever so hard every day, trying to feed his family, and yet the manager could simply sign a few documents sitting in an office every day and yet earn twice as much. There is a complete lack of social mobility in society today once you are out of college etc.

[Keke Le Cat]

But the manager has worked hard to get to that position. People aren't born managers in the fields you mentioned. They know their work, they are educated. The manager put money into an education to further himself. And the polisher is an unskilled worker.

Unskilled workers are the undriven ones they were referring to.

However, that is assuming that everyone is born with the same opportunities to further themselves, which they aren't. You need the hybrid communism government to be born with the same opportunities as a wealthier individual.