• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Left Party leader sparks communism controversy (1 Viewer)

alexa said:
People are more individual than you may think. There is a difference between being in touch with your genuine self and 'individualism'. Not everyone has 'self satisfaction' as the most prominent part of their nature. Paul's link does give one way of looking at how that may be created. Myself I would prefer a free society where people can be creative and conscious of who they are rather than having a life addicted to the grind with little time to share with children and being so out of touch with myself through overwork that I cannot give so much to them anyway ...and like it or not that is a big symptom of our societies at the current time.



I'm not making a personal point about you. ;)

The statement you quoted of Adam Smith is a stereotype of humans and one that certainly suits the rich and powerful far more than Joe Blogs. I don't think it works. We have only been trying it for a few years in the UK and look what it did to us. Greed is good did not work.

Friedman saw humans as lonely. People who are like Robinson Crusoe's. People basically out of touch with their inner feeling selves so that all the can do is be selfish. It is a horrific concept of the potential of human beings and one that sees possibly the lowest type existence as the one to strive for.
Click to expand...

Very well said madam! Thus, my acknowledgement of human action and selflessness in the case of tragedy and chaos. Men will die for eachother in war, people will work hard and sacrifice in times such as Katrina, however the trick to moving society forward and elevating man from something more than just another animal is to have people act and think in such ways during the mundane and everyday life.

I agree that we can strive for more, however our tendency to prefer routines and to fall into step makes this a hard venture indeed.
 
gunner said:
Republic_Of_Public said:
Indeed, so brutal is Communism that Kruschev is given credit for reform which 'softened' the USSR so much that he had the reputation of being the first deposed leader not to be murdered!
QUOTE]

I wasn't aware the USSR actually reached Communism rather, it languished with the dictatorship of the proletariat so true communism was never experienced .

Paul
Click to expand...

It was never experienced according to your theories and satisfaction perhaps but that never prevented the Left from supporting the Communism that existed during the Cold War.

Communism will exist only in the minds of those who want power over others or power over themselves. It is not designed, no matter how it's imagined by those who fancy themselves to be 'intellectuals', for free men. And, quite apart from that, it is pointless, unnecessary and always brutal.
Click to expand...
 
alexa said:
The statement you quoted of Adam Smith is a stereotype of humans and one that certainly suits the rich and powerful far more than Joe Blogs.
Click to expand...

And therein lies another sterotype of both the rich and powerful and poor 'Joe Blogs'.

The fact is that the rich and powerful can be very caring and helpful to others and Joe Blogs can enjoy his life a great deal despite having less cash. Only when we indulge in terms of stereotypes will we feel the need of a system to turn these stereotypes around, and that's when the troubles begin.
Click to expand...
 
And Lefties also gloss over the thought that if Communism's good for Britain then it's odd that Communist MPs haven't flooded Westminster.

A bigoted Public, perhaps?


The Left's darling prize fighter against extremism, Gerry Gable, stood as a Communist candidate and was trounced. He has remained good friends with the Soviet-hugging far-Left anyway, including the entire Labour Party. So much for left wing purity.


And the holocaust deniers of the modern far Left are so dense (or wilfully blinkered) that they ignore the benefits of retrospection. It was bad enough for another of their darlings, Paul Robeson, to glorify Stalin's Russia. But for modern Reds to dismiss all the horrors of their politics for expediency means they mark themselves only as dangerous subversive trash, not intellectuals.


 
tlmorg02 said:
Very well said madam! Thus, my acknowledgement of human action and selflessness in the case of tragedy and chaos. Men will die for eachother in war, people will work hard and sacrifice in times such as Katrina, however the trick to moving society forward and elevating man from something more than just another animal is to have people act and think in such ways during the mundane and everyday life.

I agree that we can strive for more, however our tendency to prefer routines and to fall into step makes this a hard venture indeed.
Click to expand...

I would argue that how we are is very much a part of our conditioning. That is our socialisation and our environment.

On a psychological level I agree with Carl Rogers that we create a false self because of the experiences we have had in life. We don't know it is a false self but it is. It is created to suppress hurts and fears or to act in ways in which we will be accepted. Our real self, our genuine self is our inner feeling self. Most of us have contact with this to varying degrees though a surprising number of people are totally out of touch with it and hence are living basically on the level of the psychopath even if they have strongly accepted the conditioning of good and bad. A feeling person does not need to think of good and bad, they would never harm another because they feel and so realise the other will also feel and by this have natural empathy. The psychopath unable to feel (from their inner feeling self) does not understand others feel and so has no empathy.

In my opinion the problem is of the nature of society, of the choices we have taken, of how we socialise our children.

We began from a position of the poor not having enough to eat. Then representative democracies worked to improve the finances of the poor. That unfortunately became the one goal or the main goal. In the UK since Thatcherism we have moved to a great extent to people considering who a person is by there material possessions rather than their being. Obviously this just makes people want more money at the cost of the quality of other parts of their lives.

Alan Watts a now dead philosopher once said that making sure people had enough money alone would not be enough to create a good society...and I believe he was right. He was a Christian priest turned Zen Buddhist so he obviously saw things from the spiritual perspective. I think Carl Rogers also does, though in his instance that is simply healthy psychology.

At base it comes down to our conditioning and the cost to our humanity, to our potential is enormous.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
The fact that you cannot respond intelligently strongly suggests you lack the wherewithal to do so.
Click to expand...

Including Pol Pot and Lenin in the same list is ridiculous enough to where one can't even consider seriously responding to such idiocy. It's like if I said Obama was the next Hitler or something, it's just dumb.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Including Pol Pot and Lenin in the same list is ridiculous enough to where one can't even consider seriously responding to such idiocy. It's like if I said Obama was the next Hitler or something, it's just dumb.
Click to expand...

Actually it's not.

Dumb, silly, whatever. You apparently have no idea of the destruction caused by either of these psychopaths.
 
Grant said:
Dumb, silly, whatever. You apparently have no idea of the destruction caused by either of these psychopaths.
Click to expand...

Grover Cleveland and Hitler both had moustaches let's throw them into a list together eh?
 
Moderator's Warning:
This thread needs to get back on track. Please discuss the topic of the thread. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom