View Poll Results: Does communism cause most of the population to live in poverty?

Voters
42. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, pretty much

    17 40.48%
  • Of course

    29 69.05%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 19 of 25 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 241

Thread: Does communism force a portion of the population to live in poverty?

  1. #181
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,301

    Re: Does communism force a portion of the population to live in poverty?

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    I think the human nature argument is absurd because it asserts that humans are "naturally greedy" without putting forward any evidence. Moreover, the converse can be proven true by examples of people that have sacrificed their lives for others. Proponents of the human nature argument would then say that they sacrificed their life because it was in their own interests to feel good about saving someone or some such bull****, at which point the human nature argument itself becomes completely meaningless.

    It disproves itself.

    Moreover, the idea that "people will naturally rise to the top" is absurd given that there would be no means to do so.



    Considering the fact that we don't even know what a "communist governing system" would look like I don't think it would be very productive for either of us to make any assertions regarding its pitfalls.
    Stop with the evidence crap. It's common knowledge that people naturally look out for their own interests. It doesn't need to be proven; and if it does have to be proven to you, then you are being disingenuous. Karl Marx was full of ****, and sold people a bill of goods. It's as simple as that. And it IS as simple as that. Karl Marx was a liar, and Engels was delusional.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  2. #182
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!

    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    33,873
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Does communism force a portion of the population to live in poverty?

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Stop with the evidence crap. It's common knowledge that people naturally look out for their own interests.
    It's also common knowledge the people regularly look beyond themselves as individuals and will help out people for no benefit to themselves, if a person you cared about was in trouble, you would help them, you wouldn't sit back and think "what's in it for me?", the argument can be made that as of this dual nature of humanity, a balance of altruism and greed, that communism and capitalism seek to promote one with the exception of the other, communism promotes altruism, capitalism promotes greed, but to say people are naturally greedy, without saying they are naturally altruistic as well is disingenuous, and ignorant of understanding of human emotion.
    So follow me into the desert
    As desperate as you are
    Where the moon is glued to a picture of heaven
    And all the little pigs have God

  3. #183
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:09 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,447
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Does communism force a portion of the population to live in poverty?

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    ... the argument can be made that as of this dual nature of humanity, a balance of altruism and greed, that communism and capitalism seek to promote one with the exception of the other, communism promotes altruism, capitalism promotes greed, but to say people are naturally greedy, without saying they are naturally altruistic as well is disingenuous, and ignorant of understanding of human emotion.
    NO, NO, NO... communism breads barbarism. It's evils, after a couple decades still foment it... and antisemitism. It will take a while for the populous to become civilized.

    Capitalism encourages philanthropy... just look at America, the most philanthropic nation mankind has ever seen... and the most prosperous.

    Capitalism certainly caters to our self interests, but Capitalist nations tend to be wealthy and able to assist the needy without government intervention. That's why Democrats would like to kill it. It doesn't serve their socialist interests.

    .
    Last edited by zimmer; 10-10-10 at 12:56 PM.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  4. #184
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,658

    Re: Does communism force a portion of the population to live in poverty?

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    It's also common knowledge the people regularly look beyond themselves as individuals and will help out people for no benefit to themselves, if a person you cared about was in trouble, you would help them, you wouldn't sit back and think "what's in it for me?", the argument can be made that as of this dual nature of humanity, a balance of altruism and greed, that communism and capitalism seek to promote one with the exception of the other, communism promotes altruism, capitalism promotes greed, but to say people are naturally greedy, without saying they are naturally altruistic as well is disingenuous, and ignorant of understanding of human emotion.
    communism promotes altruism

    what a crock of bull. communism promotes genocide and oppresssion. freedom promotes altruism



  5. #185
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!

    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    33,873
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Does communism force a portion of the population to live in poverty?

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    NO, NO, NO... communism breads barbarism. It's evils, after a couple decades still foment it... and antisemitism. It will take a while to cut the crap out of the populous.

    Capitalism encourages philanthropy... just look at America, the most philanthropic nation mankind has ever seen... and the most prosperous.

    Capitalism certainly caters to our self interests, but Capitalist nations tend to be wealthy and able to assist the needy without government intervention. That's why Democrats would like to kill it. It doesn't serve their socialist interests.

    .
    Communism, the philosophy, not the failed implementation thereof, does encourage altruism, it is the epitome of societal selflessness, regardless of how crap it turns out in actuality.

    But on this point.

    just look at America, the most philanthropic nation mankind has ever seen
    It is only if you look at it in purely dollars and cents, however, as a percentage of GNI, America gives **** all compared to what it could give, if it was as generous as the rest of the developed world.

    So follow me into the desert
    As desperate as you are
    Where the moon is glued to a picture of heaven
    And all the little pigs have God

  6. #186
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: Does communism force a portion of the population to live in poverty?

    If communism is not against human nature, how do you get enough accountants? In communism, you are not allowed to pay more because they are in demand, so there will be a severe shortage of accountants. What about other professions, such as the ones working in sewers. In capitalism they are paid more, hence we can get the right amount of workers.

    Also, how do you get people to invent new ideas, when they will never benefit. There is no incentive for someone to create new technology, because only the government can create companies, and you won't be able to get rich. There is also no market mechanism to test if this product is in demand. Communism always end up with the government deciding what to produce.

    In theory communism won't work at all, and in practice it has failed every single time it has been tried. And communism has been tried in nearly every poor country. What I think is funny is that china was considered communistic back in the 70s under Mao. But then when people realized how terrible the system was, and how people starved to death, then they are not communists anymore. If communism is such a great system, why does it never work in practice?

  7. #187
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,887

    Re: Does communism force a portion of the population to live in poverty?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark
    So, what is your argument here? That this poll is pointless, and all the arguments are things people pulled out of their ass? We're all groping blindly and running into each other?
    Yes and no. Most people are going to respond to this thread from the perspective that the Soviet Union was some kind of communist state, and abstract a definition out from that (see Tashah's post as a great example of this). So there are other reasons than what I was referring to.

    But we can't have a discussion on anything that will happen in the future outside of abstractions based on an investigation of the development of history. There is a reason that whenever Marx (or any other serious Marxist theoretician) spoke of a future communist society he always spoke in abstractions. He wasn't interested in painting a picture of how he thought it would work in a concrete way but rather made conclusions on its general development based on historical investigation.

    So to say that "these would cause some issues" leads into a discussion based on what kind of various laws or systems would be set up to deal with such issues, which would lead us into the realm of blind speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark
    I was arguing neither of those things.

    Simply that, in any given group of humans, it seems likely that some percentage will be greedy bastards, some percentage will be murdering psychopaths, and some percentage will be selfless, kind-hearted souls. Among other labels, and the like…

    My understanding of the idea of communism is that, basically, whatever it is that everyone in the group collectively produces is divided up equally among the group, with allowances for specific needs and the like.

    Assuming that is correct, it would seem likely that some people are not going to fit that framework very well, since (as far as I am aware)humans do not respond in exactly the same way to a given stimuli.

    That’s the “human nature” I was referring to.

    But perhaps I have something wrong in there…
    "But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

    But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

    In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! "
    Critique of the Gotha Programme

    Quote Originally Posted by Tashah
    Your brand of communism is strictly intellectual and abstract. In practice, communist governance is an abject and utter failure.
    LOL this is just the Tasha way of saying "it sounds good on paper!" Why don't you start quoting from the Black Book next?

    Quote Originally Posted by American
    Stop with the evidence crap. It's common knowledge that people naturally look out for their own interests.
    And the soldier that throws himself on top of the hand grenade and gets blown to smithereens is "look[ing] out for [his] own interests"? I don't think I've ever seen you make a post that was more than a few lines long that actually contained a real argument.

    Karl Marx was full of ****, and sold people a bill of goods. It's as simple as that. And it IS as simple as that. Karl Marx was a liar, and Engels was delusional.
    Ah, so he was trying to profit off his writings?

    Quote Originally Posted by spud meister
    It's also common knowledge the people regularly look beyond themselves as individuals and will help out people for no benefit to themselves, if a person you cared about was in trouble, you would help them, you wouldn't sit back and think "what's in it for me?", the argument can be made that as of this dual nature of humanity, a balance of altruism and greed, that communism and capitalism seek to promote one with the exception of the other, communism promotes altruism, capitalism promotes greed, but to say people are naturally greedy, without saying they are naturally altruistic as well is disingenuous, and ignorant of understanding of human emotion.
    I'm arguing that such a "dualism" doesn't even exist.

    Human consciousness is not built around solely altruism and greed.

    Moreover, I don't see how communism is based solely on altruism, or capitalism solely on greed. I think your argument is based on a few presumptions that are completely wrong.

    Communism, the philosophy, not the failed implementation thereof, does encourage altruism, it is the epitome of societal selflessness, regardless of how crap it turns out in actuality.
    I don't see how it's "selfless" at all. You're setting up quite the Manichean dichotomy here.

    Any socio-economico-political system that develops is a result of humans gathering together in a society. The point of such gathering has its roots in the idea that group living is much more beneficial than individuals on their own, not only in terms of security but also in terms of productivity.

    Group survival does not mean that the individual doesn't matter; quite the opposite, actually. Individuals join into groups in order to protect themselves and to improve their conditions so that they can thrive. Communism is a culmination of this.

    Through the development to communism, the productive forces will be raised and resources will be utilized to such an extent that people will have more resources, more free time and more freedom of occupation (as "occupation" in the strict sense wouldn't exist) to realize their true potential (i.e. "from each according to his ability...")

    It is not the subversion of the individual to the group but rather the emancipation of the individual through providing them with the conditions to thrive creatively by participating in a society that is organized around the direct interests of the population as a whole as opposed to being subject to the whims of this or that class/party/section of society or to economic limitations as happens in capitalist society. It is the fusion of supply and demand by giving consumers direct control over the productive forces, thereby giving them the ability to produce as needed (i.e. "to each according to his need").
    Last edited by Khayembii Communique; 10-10-10 at 02:11 PM.
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

  8. #188
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In your dreams...
    Last Seen
    05-29-12 @ 02:53 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,621

    Re: Does communism force a portion of the population to live in poverty?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tashah View Post
    Your brand of communism is strictly intellectual and abstract. In practice, communist governance is an abject and utter failure.
    Its not his 'brand' of communism. hes the only one in this thread actually referring to communism. Communism and governance can even be seen as negating eachother since communism directly states that the state withers away when it is achieved. So wtf are people talking about?

    Indeed. I have been to numerous nations that had suffered under the communist yoke. The dreary communist imprimatur still casts its shadow in these places... a full twenty years after liberation.
    And there are some places where there is a democratic will to work towards communism.

  9. #189
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: Does communism force a portion of the population to live in poverty?

    Quote Originally Posted by SE102 View Post
    And there are some places where there is a democratic will to work towards communism.
    Yep, for instance Zimbabwe in the 1980s. We saw how that turned out.

    What I don't get is the argument "Communism works in theory, but not in practice". In fact it works neither in theory or in reality. No communist I have ever talked to has been able to explain how we get enough workers when you are not allowed to pay more. They just assume that all jobs will be filled.

    And is anyone going to answer my post from yesterday?
    Last edited by Camlon; 10-11-10 at 04:55 PM.

  10. #190
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,887

    Re: Does communism force a portion of the population to live in poverty?

    And is anyone going to answer my post from yesterday?
    Considering the quality of your posts and your obvious arrogance, I don't see the point.
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

Page 19 of 25 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •