Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

The Communist Utopia


  • 13 months ago · #41

    TheBigDecline

    Umberto_Unity wrote:

    Tell us please why you think National Socialism is less inherently evil than Communism.

    I go by the higher number of victims. Also, maybe National Socialism can be considered less radical than perfect (by the book) Communism, which aims at reshaping Man itself. Hmm... just different excuses for exerting power and oppressing the enemy, really.

  • 13 months ago · #42

    Lou-for-you

    @gambitking, i hope you are a democrat and asked the students what they prefer to eat. Often they are at an age where healthy food is not yet on the agenda. Taking away fries from belgian students looks to me as a something you will never achieve..

  • 13 months ago · #43

    owltuna

    I am Spartacus!

  • 13 months ago · #44

    LongIslandMark

    TheGambitKing wrote:

    I hope you all realise that man needs to be reshaped--in scripture [...]

    The root of many well-meaning but fruitless efforts.

  • 13 months ago · #45

    Lou-for-you

    And because Marx came to brussels, you come to LLN ? Just remember that life is too complicated to understand. The war against french fries has started in belgium! The state security is looking for an alien from....??

  • 13 months ago · #46

    DrSpudnik

    Your waffles will be assimilated!

  • 13 months ago · #47

    Lou-for-you

    No society based on equality will ever accomplish something important. You need leadership, sacrifice, priorities and the will of the visionary to achieve something. Democracies are incapable of this.. This is why our planet is not solving its challenges. It would require the acceptance of global leadership.

  • 13 months ago · #48

    DrFrank124c

    The utopia turned into a dystopia under comrade Stalin!

  • 13 months ago · #49

    DrFrank124c

    TheGambitKing wrote:
    DrFrank124c wrote:

    The utopia turned into a dystopia under comrade Stalin!

    As I have said before many times, Stalin was not a true Communist; he was a Statist. He was the 'pig who wore man's clothing'; if the pigs looked out for the other animals just like the other animals looked out for them, then the farm could have been run successfully.

    We must never forget to abide by 'four legs good, two legs bad'--we must always remember who the enemy is--not a specific nationality, race, or individual (this is the fatal flaw in something like National Socialism), but the corporate interest that seeks to enslave the masses.

    I am not trying to be Napoleon, or even Snowball--why can't we all strive to be the next Boxer?

    The interesting thing, ironically enough, is that for all his evils, under Stalin, Russia's economic output (and therefore the living conditions for many individuals) actually vastly improved. Central planning is not evil in and of itself. Why do we ignore all the war crimes that the U. S. and Israel have committed and continue to commit?

    The problem with communists is that they tend to ignore simple biology. Man is an animal and his basic psychology is that of an animal. If you look at most animal packs--such as chimpanzees, wolves, lions and so forth--you will see there is an alpha male who is the leader of the pack and gets the most meat and the most females. Humans are like that, instead of sharing equally there are the alpha males who get the most and best of everything and the rest of us have to grovel at their feet. You cannot change human nature. Men are nasty, selfish and evil and are always trying to get the upper hand over everyone else. Just look at world history and you will see this is true.

    The second problem is Malthus' law which states that populations increase geometrically while food production increases arithmetically. So if you come up with an economic system that works, no matter how altruistic, it will fail as have all other economic systems in the past. Look at the Roman Empire, the medieval feudalism of Europe, the Soviet Union and so forth. In fact the more successful an economy is the more the poplulation increases and the faster it will collapse.

    I am aware that Marx and Lenin poo pooed Malthus's theories but Darwin agreed with them. If we look at the world today we see that even though we have seemed to overcome Malthus' law with technology the vast increase of the world's population has resulted in global warming that will ultimately result in the rise of the sea level, earthquakes and intense weather phenomena causing the deaths of countless people.

    "In the end we are all dead."--Keynes.  

     

    PS: I am not ignoring the terrible things the US and Israel do throughout the world. Obama, Bush,  and their friends are just as evil as Hitler and Stalin ever were. They do their evil deeds in order to maintain themselves as alpha males.

  • 13 months ago · #50

    CanIPlayWithMadness

    DrFrank124c ha scritto:

    The problem with communists is that they tend to ignore simple biology.

    The problem with liberists is that they tend to ignore system dynamics.
    Who grants that a time dependent system, such as an economic one, is stable (or has another desired property) in his free evolution if there's no external control?
    I'm not saying communism is THE solution, but science shows that many more common economic models currently used are wrong as well.

    You cannot change human nature. Men are nasty, selfish and evil and are always trying to get the upper hand over everyone else.

    Of course, but any species has its internal rules. A smart community who wants to face the matter of survival should prevent the most of the group from death rather than a few individuals.

    The second problem is Malthus' law which states that populations increase geometrically while food production increases arithmetically. So if you come up with an economic system that works, no matter how altruistic, it will fail as have all other economic systems in the past.

    Ok. Does it show that capitalism or imperialism or anything else works better than communism?

    Look at the Roman Empire, the medieval feudalism of Europe, the Soviet Union and so forth. In fact the more successful an economy is the more the poplulation increases and the faster it will collapse.

    I've never heard that the Soviet Union collapsed beause of an excess of its demographic growth.

    If we look at the world today we see that even though we have seemed to overcome Malthus' law with technology the vast increase of the world's population has resulted in global warming that will ultimately result in the rise of the sea level, earthquakes and intense weather phenomena causing the deaths of countless people.

    "In the end we are all dead."--Keynes.  

    Again. It's clear nothing is eternal, but that's not a reason not to improve the way we're dealing with social problems.
  • 13 months ago · #51

    bigpoison

    TheGambitKing wrote:

    I am currently organising culinary reform in Louvain-la-Neuve, trying to encourage government regulation of fried food among the shops in town, so as to improve the overall public health. Maybe this isn't 'radical' enough for you, but I never claimed to be a 'radical'. All I support is the common good of the people, which in most circumstances involves labour throwing off the shackles of corporate industry, and proclaiming their independence from an existence of wage slavery.

    Awesome!  I love it when people tell me what to do.  Especially when it's for my own good.

  • 13 months ago · #52

    DrSpudnik

    First they came for the donuts, and I did nothing...

  • 13 months ago · #53

    CanIPlayWithMadness

    Lou-for-you ha scritto:

    No society based on equality will ever accomplish something important.

    Ok, let's start with inequality to be one step forward to a better world.

    You need leadership,

    Leadership is nothing without competence. Given that there's nobody on earth who's fully competent in every aspect required by a good policy, leadership has to be shared, in some way.

    sacrifice,

    Again, if more people make an effort at their best, they have more chances to get the result rather than the solitary genius. For example, all modern science currently works on equipes, isolated expert are normally unproductive.

    priorities

    Great. Who should decide them?

    and the will of the visionary

    I've seen to many visionary "all solvers" leaders in the early 20th century.

    Democracies are incapable of this.. This is why our planet is not solving its challenges.

    I thought it was a matter of economic interests and lack of common will by national governments, in comparison to the complexity of the problems, for instance.

    It would require the acceptance of global leadership.

    Who should be the leader?

    P.S: Sorry, I had problems with my browser and had to send this message without finishing it.

  • 13 months ago · #54

    bigpoison

    DrSpudnik wrote:

    First they came for the donuts, and I did nothing...

    Then they hauled Boxer away to turn him into glue...

    We should all strive to be like Boxer!  Must work harder.

  • 13 months ago · #55

    DrFrank124c

    TheGambitKing wrote:
    bigpoison wrote:

    Awesome!  I love it when people tell me what to do.  Especially when it's for my own good.

    How ironic it is for an American to say this... get out of that den of iniquity first before you talk about 'telling others what to do'!

    Oh, and leaving American in charge of public health in any form (diet, healthcare, hospital, etc.) is also not that great of an idea either, is it? You lot talk a lot about how 'Socialist Europe will fall', 'the Euro will collapse, etc.'... you may be right! HOWEVER, whose government was it that was recently SHUT DOWN for two whole weeks?

    It was amusing, as I was unable to access my molecular simulations from the nist.gov WebBook for that period in time.

    However, it was probably a lot less amusing for all the 'unnecessary' government employees who are now struggling to get by on 'contingency plans'...

    The shutdown of the USGOV proves my point. Here we had Mr. Boner and Mr. Alabama both trying to be the alpha male. Billions of dollars were lost and the world was shown how disfunctional the capitalist dystopia  really is. This also puts to the question whether or not Obamacare is any good since what will happen if you are in need of emergency medical care and the  government shuts down again? 

  • 13 months ago · #56

    bigpoison

    Boxer should have wized up.  He should have listened more closely to Benjamin.

    If I gotta' pick one of the characters in that book to emulate I'll have to go with the ass.

    Rather fitting.

  • 13 months ago · #57

    electricpawn

    Communism developed as a reaction to the abuses of the early idustrial revolution. Unfortunately, abuses still exist. No system on earth is perfect, but I think Capitalism is superior to Communism for a few simple reasons.

    Competition breeds innovation and efficiency. We need more competition and less of a monopolistic or even Fascist model for our economy in the US. That being said, a planned economy does not provide incentives for productivity or innovation.

    The availability and free flow of capital is essential for start up businesses and for business expansion. Capitalist economies are best at this.

    Finally, I think Communism fails to understand the true motivation for people to work. People aren't motivated by the prospect of living in an egalatarian utopia. They work to live in a nicer house or to save money to send their kids to school. Ambition is not greed and should be encouraged. People should be allowed to distinguish themselves and excel as a result of the quality of work they do.

    I had a discussion with a guy in the maintenance dept. of a factory where I used to work. He argued that everyone in a company shouls be paid the same amount of money. I disagreed because everyone does not contribute equally. I asked him where the incentive to work harder or come up with new ways of doing things would come from if everyone were paid the same regardless of performance. He didn't have an answer.

  • 13 months ago · #58

    trysts

    electricpawn wrote:

    I had a discussion with a guy in the maintenance dept. of a factory where I used to work. He argued that everyone in a company shouls be paid the same amount of money. I disagreed because everyone does not contribute equally. I asked him where the incentive to work harder or come up with new ways of doing things would come from if everyone were paid the same regardless of performance. He didn't have an answer.

    I don't know if money is an incentive to work harder or to be creative, for many people? I don't know if a monetary reward for hard work or creativity is necessary?

    Edited to add: Perhaps if people are taught the ideal of a greater good when they are young then the reward for hard work and creativity would be communal appreciation?

  • 13 months ago · #59

    zborg

    There is no Left remaining in America, even Alan Blinder can tell you that.

  • 13 months ago · #60

    bigpoison

    As much as I like electricity, I gotta' agree with trysts on this one.  I do so much unpaid work it isn't even funny.

    Why do I do it?  Because it needs to get done.


Back to Top
This forum topic has been locked.