Why don't we have a communist society yet? I mean we could.

Which is what makes this even more frightening when you think about it. Let us say someone would go back to 1920s Europe and explain someone in details the Holocaust and what happend to the Jews, without naming a country and then would ask the person where he would expect it to happen. A lot of people would probably answer, France. France was known for its high level of antisemitism among the higher ranks of the army and government but also the general population. Just look at the whole Dreyfus affair. And yet, it happend all in Germany which was in the late 1920s a pretty liberal society for its time. It has a constitution, a democracy, they even discussed homosexuality as maybe, eventually not being that punishable. Berlin was the cultural hot spot in Europe and very progressive. Same with art, literature and science. Probably no nation in Europe actually had Jews so well integrated in to the society either.

And most of it changed pretty much in just a few years when the Nazis started to take over.
 
There is a lot of evidence that the Nazis learned from the best, which includes the U.S. They saw how we treated our blacks and kicked it up a notch. They also got a lot of eugenics ideas from us as well.

The Russians were pretty ant-jewish going pretty far back. It was lile that with the monarchists and didn't change too much with the Soviets.
 
Last edited:
I guess my opinion is:

* Communism is against religion and a good half the Earth thinks religion is awesome.
* Communism gives the government absolute power and that's a stupid idea.
* Not everyone wants total equality in needs.
* Communism gets more of a pass than other ideologies for its nightmarish atrocities. Put a fork in it, it should be done.
 
CT Phipps said:
I guess my opinion is:

* Communism is against religion and a good half the Earth thinks religion is awesome.
* Communism gives the government absolute power and that's a stupid idea.
* Not everyone wants total equality in needs.
* Communism gets more of a pass than other ideologies for its nightmarish atrocities. Put a fork in it, it should be done.
Click to expand...

* Communism is against religion and a good half the Earth thinks religion is awesome.
Communism makes no remark about religion. What ever if you believe in it or not, doesn't matter. Don't confuse socialist dictatorships for communism.

* Communism gives the government absolute power and that's a stupid idea.
A communist society would have no government. So I am not sure how communism would give them absolute power. Besides, even in the United States the government already has absolute power. It's simply divided by the different branches and two of those branches are chosen by the people. A government, even if it's elected, makes laws and they have the means to enforce them, the government (in a broader sense) even has the power to change or suspend parts of the constitution - which they also did a few times during the history of the United States. See slavery, prohibition and interment camps for Japanese American citizens.

* Not everyone wants total equality in needs.
Communism isn't about equality in everything. Communism is about the meanns of production benefiting those that actually do the work. It doesn't mean that everyone and everything is equal.

* Communism gets more of a pass than other ideologies for its nightmarish atrocities. Put a fork in it, it should be done.
Not in this tread it seems. But you're confusing communism with a socialist dictatorship. I guess if we follow that thinking than ultra conservatives must be equal to Nazis. All the same shit, right?
 
Last edited:
I typed in Borg Hivemind and this came up:

iu
 
Wait, Democracy is Communism?


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Once again, in order for communism to work you'd have to solve human greed and sloth. Which means you'd have to solve two of humanity's biggest motivators to do literally anything
 
No system is resilient to poverty. Every single nation has poverty on some level.

The question is now not about poverty bur other terms.

Almost all discussions coming from the left these days almost inevitably use vague ass terms like 'a living wage'.

The question then becomes what is the definition of 'a living wage'? What is the definition of 'comfortable living'?

As I have spoken at length before, I kind of took apart Crnis video on poverty. How one guy made 6k per year is seriously not working enough. Or how utilities prices are actually reasonable, barring waste.
 
What is the definition of anything? What is the definition of health? Or safety? Asking for 15$ a hour isn't asking to make people rich. And when Unions used to be strong during the 50s and 60s they managed to achieve a lot of social achievements and improvements. Hell even FDR argued for living wages.

Also you didn't took apart "anything". You just gave your opinion. Poverty is growing in the US. And if you're denying it, then you're delusional.
 
Poverty is subjective. Laws allowing upward mobility and taking care of the sick are the issue.
 
Crni has a point, if you want to act like there's a strict definition of something like that, it's silly. Something like providing a wage that you can comfortably live on is always going to be contextual to the economic situations and society in question. There's no hard definition on such a thing. It's not how many electrons, neutrons, and protons does this atom have? Okay, cool it's hydrogen. It doesn't work like that.

There's definitely a problem with a divide in wealth in the USA. If you think any inclination of a communistic or socialistic solution or whatever it is Bernie is wanting to do is a bad idea, then that's your opinion. That doesn't change the state of the economy and how the average person has to live. You can disagree with the idea that something identified as a communistic or socialistic value would solve these problems. Saying "oooo well how can we define anything, that's just too vague" is silly and contributes nothing.
 
Squadcar said:
Crni has a point, if you want to act like there's a strict definition of something like that, it's silly.
Click to expand...
No, I'm pretty sure Health does have a strict definition of being of sound body and mind as opposed to having a large hole in your chest you can pass a baseball through, since that sounds like the total opposite of healthy. Unless Crni is one of those pro deathfats who think you can be healthy at 500 pounds because now THAT is silly. Same goes for safety, you know being in a secure situation that won't harm you as opposed to an environment filled with flying saw blades that will maim and kill you or acid sprays that melt your face or saw blades dipped in acid. These words have been easily defined so when one acts like a petulant child and pretends these words have no meaning, they look rather retarded, despite their attempts at existential introspect by asking if their eyes are real if mirrors are fake.
 
The part that was apparently too vague and undefinable was a livable wage but alright dude.

And being healthy isn't a strict definition either. Is being healthy the ability to run a certain distance without have your heart's beats per minute exceed a certain amount and/or heavy breathing? Is it being able to lift X amount of weight without straining or harming your body? Sure, we can say a person with a hole in their chest is reasonably not in a good state of health or that someone who has medical issues due to weight is not in a good state of health. Hell, being too rigorous with exercise and lifting can be harmful to you. Where does that line get drawn? It's contextual on a per person basis. Some people can be 200 pounds and healthy. Some can't.

The argument against livable wage should not be that it's too vague of a term because the same could be said about being healthy. The argument should be that 7.25/hour in the USA across the states is a comfortable wage to live at. Because we know what we're talking about here. There's no point in trying to meme on it or show the TRIGGERED left facts and logic because this is epic. So quit it. Have an actual fucking conversation. Quit acting like some things you don't want to discuss are not definable because you don't want to do it. Everything is definable at some level and some of it is a fact and some of it is an opinion. A lot of it is subjective. Like is making 10/hour with a rent of 800 a comfortable living? Argue that. There's no strict way to define that but you can still define parts of that and make an argument with it. Just like health doesn't have a strict definition. I already explained this. It isn't 4 x 4 = 16. It's a social and economic problem. It's not a specific math or science question. It's a question that brings in way more complexities than you seem to want to even bother lending to it. From economic structures and businesses to laws and economic theory to the employee's state of life, mental health, and the way they live. It's not a cut and dry thing but that doesn't mean it can't be discussed. Politics are here for those things.

No shit that we can tell when something is obviously horrible. That's like arguing that a livable wage on the salary of 200 dollars a year isn't livable. No shit. We know that. The argument is that making about 15,000 a year (before any of it is taken from income tax or spent on taxes when purchasing items mind you) is not livable nearly anywhere in the USA. If you think companies reserve the right to have employees who live in poverty then that's another thing. But the whole point of what I've said and been saying is that when you just toss something aside for it being too vague and apparently undefinable when it's not, is that it's fucking silly.

The annual income of a person working at 7.25/hour for 2,080 hours is 15,080. That's 40 hours a week, for 52 weeks which is a year. 40 x 52 = 2,080. 2,080 x 7.25 = 15,080. Once again, before taxes are even considered.
 
The thing that kicked off that conversation was that living wages weren't definable and Crni said that you can do that to a lot of things and used something such as health as an example.

Context matters.

You can definitely tell when something is unhealthy when it becomes an extreme. Same as safety. You'd say people are safe on a road but hell are they ever? They're piloting machines that can land them into a deadly situation in a moment's notice. Or maybe saying a moment's notice is too vague and undefinable. Is it two seconds? Half of one? A whole thirty seconds? Depends. Like I said, this isn't a math problem or the structure of matter or what type of rock is this? Igneous, metamorphic or sedimentary? This is a relative thing that requires a lot of context and so does the conversation we're having about it. But yes, nitpick instead at examples that were valid anyway. If you want to deconstruct most ideas we can conceptualize that can't be measured with units then a lot of things suddenly become "vague and undefinable." That's the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top