|
|
Post by althechia on Aug 18, 2004 19:21:13 GMT -5
So, whaddaya folks think about socialism? Communism? Capitolism? Post-modern expressionism? Anygoshdarnedism? What's the ideal system here? I haven't done any research to make any deep points yet (Stal is an untrusting source-nazi  ), but I think it'd be a fun topic to discuss in a calm and civil manner. And when I say civil, I mean CIVIL TO THE EXTREME.  |
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Aug 18, 2004 19:37:03 GMT -5
While I, admittingly, don't know a whole lot on the subject, from what I do know, I always thought Communism got a bad rap. I mean, the idea in it of itself seems like a good one - that everything is evenly distributed among the people.
In theory, there should be no poverty or anyone with anything less than everybody else. Of course, this has never worked in practice...
Still, I think I'll stick with Democracy!
Truthfully, I don't really know a whole lot about these different kinds of governments...
|
|
|
|
Post by sollunaestrella on Aug 18, 2004 19:43:53 GMT -5
Call me crazy, but communism has always had a bit of an appeal to me. Obviously, the way that the concepts were enforced weren't good - but I agree with Buddy. The concepts were good - that no person is above any other.
Even so, the idea of capitalism appeals to me too - that you get what you earn, that you can reach a goal if you want it enough.
I don't know very much about anything else - or even that much about the two I just mentioned. Eh.
I guess you could say that communism appeals to the human sensitivity part of me and capitalism appeals to the human justice part of me. And capitalism seems to do a better job of keeping a country in check. But they both have their strengths and their weaknesses.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Wanderer on Aug 18, 2004 19:46:07 GMT -5
None.... But people need a means for control, otherwise our civilization will collapse. (Not that lack of control is needed for degenerating into anarchy...)
I favor capitalism, as it can separate those who care about money, from those who don't. (In other words, the people that strive for high-paying jobs, and people who can live with a simple life.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Aug 18, 2004 22:44:10 GMT -5
I haven't done any research to make any deep points yet (Stal is an untrusting source-nazi ), *bursts out laughing* That's great. XD Anyhow, I'll just say something. Communism, I dislike. One of the things off the top of my head? Destroys ambition. If you're going to be the same as everyone else anyway, why bother trying anything? Trying to excel in life and live a dream life...nah. It causes a stagnation of culture, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2004 22:58:18 GMT -5
There are both good and bad points to Communism. Many like the idea that everyone is equal and everyone gets the same thing and the same amount, but, as Stal said, it takes away ambition to succeed because you know if you work more and harder than someone else, you'd still make the same amount as them. But the leaders of Communism would change the rules to fit them and make them come out on top (Hehe...Animal Farm.) And the whole idea that the poor will become rich only means the rich will become poor, so you never completely overcome the class system.
And with Communism you don't have as much choice for things. Everything is decided for you, and there's not as much variety in products, even food. So yeah, I'm sticking with Captolism.
Post Modernism? I thought that was just the idea of rejecting stereotypes and definations, and doing the opposite of modern philosophy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2004 2:00:24 GMT -5
There are both good and bad points to Communism. Many like the idea that everyone is equal and everyone gets the same thing and the same amount, but, as Stal said, it takes away ambition to succeed because you know if you work more and harder than someone else, you'd still make the same amount as them. But the leaders of Communism would change the rules to fit them and make them come out on top (Hehe...Animal Farm.) And the whole idea that the poor will become rich only means the rich will become poor, so you never completely overcome the class system. And with Communism you don't have as much choice for things. Everything is decided for you, and there's not as much variety in products, even food. So yeah, I'm sticking with Captolism. Exactly. People would have no desire to do a great job at work because there would be no benifit or motivation. Therefore production of everything would decrease and so there would be less exports (less money), less food, and likely to be major health concerns. If somehow there was a reward or motivation there might not be a problem..but then it wouldn't be equal either. |
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Aug 19, 2004 6:21:11 GMT -5
Since I have no idea what all those cool long words mean, I'll just sit here and watch the geniuses debate in wide-eyed awe. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Tahu on Aug 19, 2004 9:38:19 GMT -5
I don't believe that Money should be used at all. I figure, if the driving force in our lives wasn't to make money, but was to better the human race, then the world would be a better place. (Yes, I still need to think about this more) Still, its a nice thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Aug 19, 2004 9:57:36 GMT -5
*bursts out laughing* That's great. XD Anyhow, I'll just say something. Communism, I dislike. One of the things off the top of my head? Destroys ambition. If you're going to be the same as everyone else anyway, why bother trying anything? Trying to excel in life and live a dream life...nah. It causes a stagnation of culture, IMO. Actually, you're really not all that far off the mark on that one. Which is probably one of the reasons why Communism has never succeeded in practice. |
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Aug 19, 2004 13:51:14 GMT -5
Communism is over-rated :/ Its fundamental principles have huge flaws in. We are not born equal - we are born inequal. Someone always has to be in power, and so be "above" someone else. Most people want better and better things in their life, never fully content with the norm. People with talent, or skill, or just a hard work ethic, should be able to shine. Capitalism isn't so bad - we have a social support system. In pure money-grabbing capitalist terms, it isn't at all necessary. But we are still human, and we support those on the bottom. And it can't be coincidence that all three Communist states (with slightly different forms of Communism, I believe) required/require a totalarian dictatorship and repression of people in order to function. (USSR had Stalin etc, China is still Communist and was under Mao, Cuba is under Fidel Castro. All have/had strict censorships and terrible poverty in parts.) What annoys me is all these stupid idealists hanging around going "Capitalism sucks, man. Communism rocks!" while wearing their branded t-shirts and drinking Coke. I would like to put them in the old USSR, and see how they liked Communism then... Yeah, one of the reasons for its failures in the USSR. At first, everyone pulled together, motivated to work by propaganda and a general feeling of optismism and "team spirit." And starving if they didn't But then people realised that you could work like stink or barely work at all and get the same. So a few bonuses were put in for really hard workers, but they were tied to quantity of goods produced, so the quality of good produced decreased and people weren't happy and bits of land were ruined etc etc. So, yeah, that was one of the reasons. I did Stalin and Communist Russia this year. I know it back to front, pretty much. |
|
|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Aug 19, 2004 14:02:01 GMT -5
The whole disaster of communism, I believe, was caused by trying to implement a dreamworld philosophy in the real world. In many ways, it was a nice idea, but Marx forgot to take into account one thing: human nature.
Here's what I mean:
Communism in the dreamworld:
As the stresses of capitalism fade, people no longer feel the need to money grub. Instead, they work for the joy of productivity, and the knowledge that they are being of service to their community. Everyone works to the best of their abilities, doing what they do best because they ENJOY doing it, and gets whatever they need in return. Because people gradually learn to do their job without being told, the government, which had to be souped up in order to get things on the right track, gradually fades away, due to the fact that it is now obsolete. Everyone relives a quaint but pleasant life. Happily ever after.
Communism in the REAL world:
When people realize they don't NEED money, they start to slack off. Why work when you get a free ride either way? Sure, there are plenty of virtuous people who will do what they do well simply because they enjoy it and/or have a sense of responsibility to the community, but they're in the minority. More power needs to be given to the government to keep the slackers in order. SOMEONE in the government is inevitably lacking in moral stamina and realizes how this could work to his advantage. A few schemes, manipulations, and military attacks later, the utopian community has deteriorated into a dictatorship.
I think Thomas Paine put it best despite the fact that communism was long after his time. "If men were angels..."
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Aug 19, 2004 16:32:12 GMT -5
Ember: Actually, communism has been around for a long long time. Jamestown was a community-based environment for the longest time. All the food produced by everyone went into a communal food store and so forth. It was communistic. And they nearly destroyed themselves during it. There's been other communistic approaches to things in our country throughout the hundreds of years we've been on it. None of 'em have succeeded.
There's something else about widespread Communism/Marxism...Karl Marx was a very unhappy person. Extremely unhappy. And because he was unhappy, he had this desire to make everyone else the same way as him, just about. He figured he was a "normal" person, while everyone else were morons living in a blissful ignorance. So Marxism has many many flaws in it, as it doesn't do much to create happiness at all. Religion is totally done away with ("Drug for the masses" as Marx put it) and so forth...
Yeah.
Wow, and I expected a huge rush of red-flag waving people to layeth the smack down on me. XD
|
|
|
|
Post by althechia on Aug 19, 2004 16:45:54 GMT -5
*walks in with the red flag* ;D Mwa. But anyways. What about socialism? Isn't it somewhat different from communism? I read in a textbook somewhere that it took ideas from both to make a...super ism of sorts. And technically, under capitolism, someone always has to be poor.  Personally, I'm fond of anarchy. Can't wait for the world to nuke each other until there's nothing left but three people, to rule the tattered ruins of world as they please! |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Aug 19, 2004 20:59:23 GMT -5
*walks in with the red flag* ;D Mwa. But anyways. What about socialism? Isn't it somewhat different from communism? I read in a textbook somewhere that it took ideas from both to make a...super ism of sorts. And technically, under capitolism, someone always has to be poor. Personally, I'm fond of anarchy. Can't wait for the world to nuke each other until there's nothing left but three people, to rule the tattered ruins of world as they please! Actually, under capitalism, nobody has to be poor. Sure, there will be people on the low-end, but they should all have the ability to work and at least live life and anyone can take hold of that dream. But they need to strive for it more than anything. I'm a big fan of Personal Responsibility. And I think a lot of the problems in the US with the bad communities could be taken care of if there was more personal responsibility involved. Anyway, Al, if you like Anarchy...read Jennifer Government by Max Berry (or was it Max Barry?). Great book about Capitolism to the extreme...but it begins to move towards anarchy. I loved it. Oh, and those three people will have to content with three species of animals: Cockroaches, Pigeons, and Sewer Rats. NOTHING kills them.  |
|
), but I think it'd be a fun topic to discuss in a calm and civil manner. And when I say civil, I mean CIVIL TO THE EXTREME. 
