Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged has a theme of need over merit determining what people get. I'd think the problem with any communal arrangement is that while it elevates the mean, it also holds the more ambitious back. Capitalism, in my view, does the opposite - the mean is lower, but the ambitious can rise higher.
George Bush Show?
- Thread starter acdc554
- Start date
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged has a theme of need over merit determining what people get. I'd think the problem with any communal arrangement is that while it elevates the mean, it also holds the more ambitious back. Capitalism, in my view, does the opposite - the mean is lower, but the ambitious can rise higher.
I've been waiting for ever for someone to say that ><
Communism and socialism leads to only one thing. Prosperity. Two easy points:
Soviet Union - rapid industrialisation, WW2 victory, had 1/4 of the world's scientists/engineers (I forget which), pioneered space travel, always won summer&winter olympics, Russia to this day has by far the highest number of tertiary graduates in all of Europe).
People Republic of China - Fastest Growing Economy ever, $1 Trillion forex reserves, supplies the entire developed world with goods such as electronics, is on it's way to winning olympics [3rd-2000, 2nd-2004, 1st-2008)], and will continue coming 1st as long as state remains communist, is developing extremely innovative technologies - ie. Pebble bed reactor.
Whether communist or socialist countries are evil and the governments oppressive, depends entirely on the people in charge, just like it does in every single other political system.
Take USA for example. Very oppressive and brutal. The government has secret police or equivalent (eg. NSA, which was not publicly known about for a long time, an agency which spies on citizens).
How about innocent people being arrested as "terrorists" for doing trivial things like paintball shooting games and taking pictures of landmarks? They are taken to Guantanamo and torchered brutally until they confess to something they aren't guilty of, because it is their only ticket out of there. Sad, but true. Against international law, but true.
Things like these people class as "evil" and associate with "evil commies". But when a "democratic" country does them, no no - it''s all good!
Like it or not, communism offers a wider array of opportunities for people. A typical communist country offers:
- Free Healthcare - Entire population is healthy, and people are not discriminated on based on their financial state in regards to healthcare, as they are in basically every capitalist country.
- Free Education - Leads to a much higher number of tertiary graduates, much higher numbers of highly skilled professions such as engineers and scientists, as well as mechanics and other complex trades. Enables country to be ahead of everyone else in technology and innovative products
- Free Facilities - such as sports facilities, music schools, bus fares, etc. allow parents to send their children to do anything they want, learn to play any instrument, learn any sport, learn other things from a young age and all through schooling. This gives with youth much greater life opportunities than in capitalist countries, where a family's wealth almost certainly greatly limits the opportunities parents can offer to children. this is true for education also.
I think most people don't like communist either because;
- They have been brought up to hate it
- They are American or from another such country where they have been influenced by heavy government propaganda. This depends on the person's age.
- They have lived in a Warsaw Pact country, where living conditions may not have been adequate, and blame "communism" for that.
- They just plain don't get the idea behind communism, or possibly miss it altogether
Regardless, I don't think any of these are right.
Communism is not an evil ideology. Rather it is one which promotes social equality and common ownership of production. Nowhere in the communist manifesto does it say that people should be killed, oppressed, torchered or anything like that. It's very very simple - the kind of leaders a country has, determines whether that type of thing will happen or not.
Mmmkey?
No, because Nazism is an ideology of discrimination.
Yeah, thats one point of view. Another is that with communism the less fortunate can survive aswell. If your handicapped in a capitalistic system, your in troubble. Capitalism might hold the more ambitious back, but thats the cost of everyone being equals. Some might argue that capitalism is a bit too darwinistic. If your born in a wealthy family, you will stay wealthy, not because your smart and ambitious, but because your parents had money, and the poor people have no chanse to rise and take it, nomatter how ambitious they are, because they dont have the money for good schools, etc.
fact is, in a capitalistic system, you will have a wide gap between the poorest and the richest. While in a true capitalistic system, everyone will be pretty much at the same wealth, that level of wealth will be alot lower than the richest man in a capitalistic system, but also alot higher than the poorest man in a capitalistic system. Catch my drift?
Thought the problem with a communist country is that if the country is poor, the wealth level would be low, and everyone would be as poor as everyone. But if the country does well and is average wealthy, then the wealth level will be acceptable.
Problem with alot of the communist countries we have seen was that the leaders took all the money into military production, and the citizens got almost nothing.
And yes, Imagine follows an Atheist communist theme but it could also be Marxist.
I doubt he would want to oppress or kill jews as he was one, Lol, Karl Marx was born Jewish, if you knew much about him you'd know that. Marx then became an Atheist before forming Marxism. So you have just provided me with the perfect example of his words being twisted. If you read his quote again you'll see that he dislikes the Jewish religeon and not the people who follow it. I share those exact same views but with regards to Catholicism; it doesn't mean I dislike Catholics.
Here are the comments of someone who put it better than I ever could
Was Marx an anti-Semite?
"World Without Jews" is not a call for the extermination of Jews, as the title might imply, but rather Marx's analysis of why most Jews were not interested in the working class movement of his day. He wanted Jews to cease identifying themselves as Jews first and foremost and instead adopt a more universalist outlook, which would aid their participation in the workers' movement. Marx saw Judaism, the religion, as a barrier to developing class consciousness, so he saw a "world without Jews" as the only way the European working classes would be able to unite. It is important to keep in mind that the translators of this work into English have largely been of the "Jews Against Communism" variety, and so the anti-Judaic tone of the work is not necessarily due to Marx alone. The fact that Jews are taught to identify themselves as a race, instead of merely as co-religionists, was what Marx was decrying in this pamphlet, not the fact that there are Jews at all. Marx's contempt for religion in general is well known, and as a Jew by birth (although his family converted to Christianity) he had an insider's perspective on the problems that identifying oneself as a Jew presented to the working class movement at the time that he wanted to share with non-Jews.
The language might seem excessively harsh to us today, but the book was a polemic, and must be viewed within its historical context.
(Maya O'Connor)
It hasn't escaped my attention that Communism and oppression have been intertwined in the past. That's because the Marx-Leninist ideals of Communism are very easy to sell to a poor population to gain support and justify a 'temporary' dictatorship. Then of course the dictatorship just carries on as long as it can.
As I said before, I don't agree with these principles because I don't think people would work hard without personal incentives. However Marx only spoke of a temporary government which would gradually disband and power would pass to the individual. This is how Marx is mis-understood, he never spoke of authoritarian rule which is widely attributed to him
Anyway, I think this topic has gone off topic for long enough now
Last edited:
The problem so far has been that the only prosperous people have been the ones in charge, it's the opposite of what was supposed to happen
Apparently you forgot what happens with some of the things you mention.
Who gets treated is decided by the government. Both in China and Russia, if you get sick, they may decide that you are not worth treating. (Or the UK for that matter. We have friends who have family there who fly to the states and pay out of pocket for anything major. So they do not have to wait months to over a year.)
Again the education is free if you test high enough as a child. The reason for so many high level graduates is that all of the other students are taken out and put into trade schools. They do not get the option to try for a higher education.
Again these facilities you have to be "invited to." If your athletic / music skills are not high enough as a child you do not get to attend. On the flip side, the reason for being good at sports is that children are tested at a young age and then placed in Sports Schools, if they do not make it to become elite athletes they become coaches, athletic trainers, researchers, or other support people.
The point here is that people do not have the choice to try. If they test well they get a higher education or sports training. If not, there is little opportunity.
That is not a fair and equal society. If you think there are not classes, or class discrimination you are crazy. If you think that their governments do not have secret police to watch their own people you are crazy. The difference in a communist country is that the media is controlled by the government. So people outside of these countries do not hear about everything that is going on. The people on the inside are likely to not know as well. That is how control is maintained.
Who gets treated is decided by the government. Both in China and Russia, if you get sick, they may decide that you are not worth treating. (Or the UK for that matter. We have friends who have family there who fly to the states and pay out of pocket for anything major. So they do not have to wait months to over a year.)
Again the education is free if you test high enough as a child. The reason for so many high level graduates is that all of the other students are taken out and put into trade schools. They do not get the option to try for a higher education.
Again these facilities you have to be "invited to." If your athletic / music skills are not high enough as a child you do not get to attend. On the flip side, the reason for being good at sports is that children are tested at a young age and then placed in Sports Schools, if they do not make it to become elite athletes they become coaches, athletic trainers, researchers, or other support people.
The point here is that people do not have the choice to try. If they test well they get a higher education or sports training. If not, there is little opportunity.
That is not a fair and equal society. If you think there are not classes, or class discrimination you are crazy. If you think that their governments do not have secret police to watch their own people you are crazy. The difference in a communist country is that the media is controlled by the government. So people outside of these countries do not hear about everything that is going on. The people on the inside are likely to not know as well. That is how control is maintained.
Last edited:
You shouldn't bunch Russia in there anymore, they've been democratic for 15 years
Last edited:
All Communist countries have been bad. I am sorry to burst your bubble.
If you cannot provide the context, you have no basis for claiming the quote is out of context.
Norway, in general, is a inoffensive and inconsequential country that I cannot be bothered to learn about. Don't feel too bad about that, though. I have the same attitude about Canada.
I was unprovoked, and you have missed my point.
Wow, thanks for setting the record straight.
Actually, you have not shown how words have been twisted. If you had bothered to read On The Jewish Question before opening your mouth, you would have realized that the entire essay is about how the revolution requires that the Jews be removed from society. It does not take much imagination to figure out how society will be "liberated" from Jews in Marx's mind.
Again, if you think the quote was out of context, provide the context.
*clip*
In other words, "I cannot bother to be informed, so I am going to copy and paste the first thing I found after a Google search". Please do not be intellectually lazy.
Tanizaki - I have read it and he is clearly talking about the removal of the Jewish religion and not the removal of the followers of that religion, as I did succeed in showing. It's because of people like you that make peoples words fit your pre-concieved idea of what they meant that extremism exists in this world.
And your inability to talk rationally about the issue without insulting others shows you up to be an immature forum troll
And your inability to talk rationally about the issue without insulting others shows you up to be an immature forum troll
CCR - I have not read it, so I am not in any way challenging you or Tanizaki.
My question is this..
I understand that he may not have been referring to genocide. The removal of the Jewish religion - I don't understand how that would not be classified as religious oppression, even if it didn't involve the murder of the members. Or is that the point?
My question is this..
I understand that he may not have been referring to genocide. The removal of the Jewish religion - I don't understand how that would not be classified as religious oppression, even if it didn't involve the murder of the members. Or is that the point?
You showed nothing of the sort. You simply gave a conclusory statement rather than show how the statements were taken out of context.
For the sake of argument, I will pretend that you are correct. How do you propose the removal of a religion without removal of its adherents? Marx said in After The Revolution that those who stand in the way of the revolution, "must be forcibly removed or transformed". What do you think will happen to the Jews who do not want to be "transformed"?
It's because of people like you that I get dumber every time I read the Internet.
Whom have I insulted?
Who have you insulted?
I found this pretty insulting, the kind of arguement I'd expect from a passive-aggresive teenager than a legal proffessional.
You also said
Norway, in general, is a inoffensive and inconsequential country that I cannot be bothered to learn about. Don't feel too bad about that, though. I have the same attitude about Canada.
That's pretty insulting too
I found this pretty insulting, the kind of arguement I'd expect from a passive-aggresive teenager than a legal proffessional.
You also said
Norway, in general, is a inoffensive and inconsequential country that I cannot be bothered to learn about. Don't feel too bad about that, though. I have the same attitude about Canada.
That's pretty insulting too
Last edited:
Marx wanted the supression of all religion because it seperated people from society and made them form their own groups. He never spoke of killing anyone. Because of the social climate at the time the Jewish were used to illustrate his point that a small group of people controled a lot of money and they kept it within that group because of a religion. Many founders of the Soviet Union were Jewish and you'll also find many anti-semitic groups blaming jews for the formation of communism because of this (that's a load of BS though IMO). Jewish people lived in Russia for the duration of communism and never suffered physical harm although they were of course banned from being outwardly religious in public, this did of course affect all religions and was worse under Stalin than anyone else. Communism is oppressive in nature; almost by definition, it didn't just affect Jews, people were forced into being part of a community when many would have loved to have a property portofolio, a 4x4 and the occasional McDonalds.
People like Marx thought that these sacrifices are the only way to make everyone equal, equally oppressed maybe but still equal. Our society has more freedom but we also have a large number of people without any money or even homeless because others hord wealth.
The question is do you think equality is worth the sacrific of a large amount of freedom? My opinion is no but I respect the opinions of the people who think it is
Trying to make people integrate within society rather than their religious groups is something that is happening now in the UK with politicians telling Muslim women that they shouldn't wear veils when they speak to people and to stop identifying themselves as Muslim and call themselves British Muslim instead.
You can call that oppression but it in no way compares to the type of oppression he is being accused of by Tanizaki
Last edited:
Prosperity applies to the state as a whole, not the individuals in charge.
For example, better & free tertiary education = more doctors = better healthcare services.
You can't make that statement, because we (or at least I, referring to healthcare) was not talking about a specific country, rather a general communist country, ran by communist ideologies.
Same thing.
Same thing.
Though whatever implementation SOV/CHI had/has obviously works for them, as they are doing (or did in SOV's case) better than everyone else.
Seems to me people are tested for what they are best at, and are given the chance to peruse that path.
Is that such a bad thing?
Regardless, I'm really not really aware of people being denied the opportunity to train and try to be good at something. If they just can't do it, then I don't see why they should continue anyway
That's exactly what communism is. No class or discrimination. This you cannot dispute, because this IS communism.
Errr, I'm not talking about specific countries - just communism in general. Again, people think communism is bad because of some things that some counties did. Bull**** - this is no relevance to communism, and can occur anywhere.
As it is in other countries. Case and point, the way US media treats the Israel vs Palestine conflict, eg. CNN reporters never allowed to refer to Israeli settlements in the west bank as "settlements" and must refer to them as "neighbourhoods".
Most countries do bad things. It's brutally unfair to pick on certain countries just because they are communist and blame any wrong doings on communism itself, when in fact communism has nothing to do with the actions of the governments of these countries.
I really could go on and on about the US government, but it would be unfair to say that anything bad they do is because of democracy. The fact that they are or are not in some cases democratically elected doesn't make a difference, it's the fact that they are corrupt, seek wealth, are sick, twisted, etc - the same as with certain countries and certain actions of communist governments.
I don't know when people will understand that ><
That right there is the folly of Marx. No nation of people will make these sacrifices willingly, over the course of time. Human ambition will always work its way out.
In our society are you speaking of the US and the UK, or in terms of the world? If you are speaking in terms of the world then I can partially agree with this statement.
I cannot speak for the UK. But this is not how it is in the US. Our freedom brings the people of the US the opportunity to better their position in life. Regardless of their current position. That people choose not to take advantage of this opportunity is not the fault of society.
I am not going to get involved with you and T's discussion.
Yea, communist ideologies that have never worked in practice. (and have never even been able to be properly applied)
That being the case you have to take into account the real life examples.
The SOV government crumbled. Of course you know that. CHI has a free business economy, that private business is allowed and that is a major reason for their prosperity.
So people who are not athletic as a child cannot train and become great as they become an adult? The government decided that they can't do it. The individual can become just about anything they want. If they are given the freedom to try.
People who do not have good scores in school as a child cannot study and become more than was expected of them?
To my best recollection about half of the wealthiest people on earth are college dropouts. Yet they must be smart, right? There is always the all to true statement "The A students will work for the C students."
Then communism is more of an impossibility than ever. The idea that a nation of people will not have groups and classes is crazy. Even in athletics there are classes. There is no way around it. No matter how much people want to try, taking the pride and self worth out of a person and making them think that they are only as good as everyone else is impossible.
Great people are great simply because they believe that they can accomplish things that others can not or will not do.
The other fact is that people need to be led. Sometimes there are good leaders and sometimes there are bad leaders. Just the same. A society is dead without leaders.
I guess the real definition of communism is a collective group settling for mediocrity.
I guess this is my other point. When government is allowed to grow too large and is given too much power. The things you stated above are all true. In every form of government. Real or not.
The difference is that with communism the government has all of the power to begin with, so corruption happens faster. If it is truly a classless society, who is going to enforce the tax needed for your "free healthcare" or "free education." So the control is never with the people but the "ruling class" that has to be in place to enforce what people will not choose to do on their own.
Nobody is going to willingly give up what they worked for so that someone who did not do the work can have the same benefit. It is in this respect that there are inevitable classes, created when groups of people are together.
The US has its problems, and we are headed for a revolution of sorts. Wether it is political or a forced revolution, many things are going to change.
Large governments take freedoms, we are losing freedom every day here in the US, more and more people are starting to realize it.
All that being said, I am done posting in this thread. If you are arguing for communism, have fun in your fantasy world. If you are arguing against it, welcome to the real world.
I totally agree, it's an ideal based in fantasy, human nature would never allow it to work
Some people always miss out though, in the US and UK, we are both lacking in adequate support for the worst off in society. Of course there are those who could do more to help themselves though but a homeless person will always find it difficult to get legal employment
Good idea, I'm making no further comment on that either, it's getting a bit silly
Last edited: