What Is Communist Socialism?

[aspen]

[font="tahoma] [/font]
[font="tahoma][color="#000080"]They are the same thing. Total depravity is fancy wording for "totally sinful". A sinful person is depraved, and a depraved person sins. They are the same.[/color][/font]
[font="tahoma][color="#000080"]If you support one you must support the other, and if you disagree with this then please provide your rationale for why they are different.[/color][/font]
[font="tahoma] [/font][font="tahoma] [/font]
[font="tahoma][color="#8B0000"]My support has nothing to do with anything - and you are giving me a false dichotomy. You can have a tendency to sin by being self-serving without being rotten to the core - the doctrine of total depravity is more than just a fancy way of saying sinful - it is a foundational doctrine in Calvinism and an ahboration from what was taught in the Christian Church for the first 1500 years of it's existence.[/color]
[/font][font="tahoma] [/font]
[font="tahoma][color="#000080"]But even if there is a difference, you do agree with David that we are all sinful from birth? If this is true, then my point is still clear, no man thinks for anything other than that which is sinful. Communism will 100% of the time fail.[/color][/font]
[font="tahoma] [/font]
[font="tahoma][color="#8B0000"]I agree with David that we have a tendency to be self-seeking from birth and if we do not submit to Jesus we will continue to fail to trust and therefore, love others, contributing to evil in the world. All governments are man-made doctrines - they will all fail - I am just wondering why you are singling out Communism.[/color]
[/font][font="tahoma] [/font][font="tahoma] [/font][color="#000080"][font="tahoma]
[/font][/color]
[color="#000080"][font="tahoma]In other words, you believe he gave them a will to do so. [/font][/color]
[color="#000080"][font="tahoma]
[/font][/color]
[font="tahoma][color="#8B0000"]Wrong - capacity and will are different words with different meanings. If you give your child a new toy for Christmas, does this mean they will have the Will to break it? No. There is a capacity to break it because we have the capacity to misuse creation. Why do some Christians feel it so necessary to add negative intentions to all human actions? Most people bumble through life on autopilot - with a tendency to satisfy their own needs before others; the majority is not plotting the ruin of humanity due to their total depravity.[/color][/font]
[font="tahoma]
[/font][/color][color="#000080"][font="tahoma]Like I said, this isn't about will, this is about the thought. Weather or not they had a will is really redundant here, where did the thought come from for them to disobey?[/font][/color]
[font="tahoma] [/font]
[font="tahoma][/font][font="tahoma][color="#8B0000"]Again, thought have many sources. Cognition may be our first tendency, but it is not the first motivator in other cultures. People are motivated by intuition all the time - the impulse never has time to become a thought before it is acted upon. Cognitive, Behavioral Therapy is a counseling technique that helps people curb their impulsive behavior by making it into thoughts and then deciding to act or not act.
[/font][font="tahoma]
[/font][/color][color="#000080"][font="tahoma][/font][/color][color="#000080"][font="tahoma]Nonsense. God told them, "you will surely die".[/font][/color]
[font="tahoma] [/font]
[font="tahoma][/font][font="tahoma][color="#8B0000"]You misunderstood my post. I was talking about the short term benefits that reinforce behavior, not the negative results. BTW, What makes you think A&E could imagine death? They had never seen it or experienced anything dying before.
[/font][font="tahoma][/font][/color][color="#000080"][font="tahoma][/font][/color]
[font="tahoma][color="#000080"]What behavior outside of God's will would gather attention? And who enabled and gave Satan the thought to do that behavior? You must think deeper than you currently are.[/font]
[font="tahoma] [/font]
[color="#8B0000"][font="tahoma][/font][font="tahoma]Ah, I am thinking too shallow.....[/font][/color]
[font="tahoma] [/font]
[font="tahoma][color="#8B0000"]Let's try this again. Lucifer is in heaven - he notices that when he sings a particularly beautiful song, many of the angels give him a lot of attention - it feels good - pretty soon, he starts expecting it and when it seems that he is not getting the same amount of attention, self-serving, narcissistic thoughts enter his mind. "I've never heard God sing as well as I can, why is He receiving my glory after my performances?" No one put those thoughts in his head - they germinated in his own heart, based on reinforcement - good feelings about angels noticing him.
[/color][/font][font="tahoma]
[/font][font="tahoma][/font][font="tahoma][color="#000080"]Again, nonsense. God told them.[/color][/font]
[font="tahoma] [/font]
[font="tahoma][/font][font="tahoma][color="#8B0000"]It is nonsense because you did not understand my point. God never told them they would be able to determine good and evil if they ate of the tree - he told them they would die - whatever that meant to two people who had never experienced death, let alone evil. My point was - they never had to know evil so they were not missing out on anything anyway. It was like tempting a kids with a wet willy everyday if they give you their lunch money.......[/color]
[/font][font="tahoma] [/font][font="tahoma] [/font][font="tahoma] [/font]
[font="tahoma][color="#000080"]So God's love wasn't as high as it gets? Prove "forgiveness is the highest form of love".[/color][/font]
[font="tahoma] [/font]
[font="tahoma][color="#8B0000"]Nope. There is something higher than God's love - a grander expression - God's forgiveness[/color]
[/font]

 

[[email protected]]

Nobody has still been able to explain to me what's so morally wrong about sharing, giving what you can to those who are in need, and workers not being exploited by those above them who do not work. I'd really like to know.

There is nothing morally wrong about sharing and giving PROVIDED IT IS VOLUNTARY.
Let's try to make this simple.

Under Democratic Capitalism the sharing and giving are voluntary.
The government is restricted.
This is called liberty.

Under Communism the giving and receiving is determined by force of law and/or bureaucratic rule.
The government has no restriction.
This is called oppression and totalitarianism, a lack of liberty.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

"From each according to his ability to each according to his need."
- Karl Marx Critique of the Gotha Program (1875)

Theoretically this sounds like a noble attitude but in practice it justifies communal robbery.
A thief has no right to steal someone else's goods.
Marxist-Communism assumes the authority to do so in direct opposition to the moral law which says 'you shall not steal.'

It takes that in hand and goes even further by dictating WHO will share and WHO will receive the resources the government has stolen.
Human nature being what it is, those who really need usually don't get the resources either, since they are redirected to benefit those in power.
The greatest example of the consequences of such a corrupt policy was the collapse of Soviet Communism.

The Christian influence on the founding fathers of America taught them that human nature was depraved.
They therefore concluded that Government rather than citizens ought to be restricted.

Communism operates in reverse, falsely assuming that government is good and citizens need to have decisions made for them.
It isn't true and it doesn't work, but once the totalitarian state is in place it finds it necessary to squelch those who oppose its policies.
Since such a government has no restrictions, those who oppose its policies simply disappear in the middle of the night.

Democracy allows for opposition to government by restricting government not the people.

The democratic free market system is most popular with those who work hard for a living and expect to prosper from their honest labor.
Communism is most popular with idealistic cowardly thieves who yearn for the day when the government will do the stealing for them.

 

[deprofundis]

They don't perceive to GAIN anything by doing that so they don't. Once more, motivated by self.

Okay, but I could still getting what I want by beating up others, why didn't I do that? It certainly wasn't because I was afraid of punishment (I had no problem doing plenty of other things for which I punished), I didn't do it because I didn't like hurting people. Most people are the same. Look at the simple facts on a larger level; countries with much more severe penalties for any given crime don't see reduced incidence of it compared to countries with less. There's a misconception in America that "scaring" people into obedience by appealing to self-interest is really the only way to do anything.

It has nothing to do with "morals" in the traditional sense, I was describing a business situation. Step on people to get more money and higher rung on the ladder, and thus live with knowing people are now pissed at you and will be seeking your downfall, or don't make more money but live in fake "harmony" so to speak. You make your decision based on what YOU value more: reputation, or money.

Similarly, that would be true if people wouldn't seek your downfall either way.

Actually I don't really think Communism, in the traditional "Utopian" sense, is evil at all, I just think it's a stupid and pointless ambition that'll always fail, and there's no sense in attempting it.

So, again, if anything can't be done perfectly and with no problems, there's no sense in even trying? I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree.

The Bible says it's foolish to them. Who am I to believe, you or the Bible?

The exact system may be foolish to them, but it's not like everyone ever who isn't a believer thinks literally everything said in the Bible is foolish, and I think you know that that's a ridiculous interpretation to take.

Of course we all have a basic set of morals. I believe God has given even the secular world the sense that "murder is wrong". They can't explain where this sense comes from, apart from the law of the land. But they feel PERSONALLY convicted by this, and not everyone is the same. Not everyone will feel the same convictions. You necessarily need all 6 Billion people on Earth to share these convictions and it just won't happen. Ever.

Why do I need everyone on Earth to share these convictions, again? It seems to me like I just need enough people to subsistence farm/otherwise survive together to share them.

I'm not. Not everyone shares these Christian principles and attempting to force it on everyone, is indeed evil.

You're the one who mentioned force. I never said anything about it.

There is nothing morally wrong about sharing and giving PROVIDED IT IS VOLUNTARY.
Let's try to make this simple.

What has to be "made" simple? That's already simple. Sharing and giving voluntarily is not wrong. This means that communism is not wrong. Statism of any kind is about forcing people to do things, and I've already decried in earlier posts. You can say that a democratic government provides liberty, but I know a lot of people in prison who'd disagree. There is no kind of government which offers any kind of liberty.

 

[veteran]

Well, see, that wasn't the question I asked. The question I asked was a very simple one, to which there were two answers ("yes" and "no"). Now, from those two answers, please answer the following question:
Is sharing evil?


I don't really see why you guys have so hard a time telling me whether or not you think sharing is evil. You have to type, at most, three letters. I'm not going to judge you for either answer, I just want to know your opinion.

I well covered the Biblical teaching of tithes and alms per the NT according to Apostle Paul, and contrasted that with the Communist Socialist view on sharing of property, and that well answers your loaded question. But you apparently are not interested in what Apostle Paul taught about doing alms, but are more interested in trying to support your erroneous conclusions that Communist Socialism is a good thing, when it is not.

 

[TexUs]

You can have a tendency to sin by being self-serving without being rotten to the core

I'm pretty sure that all sin leads to death, no? So please support how lying, for instance, doesn't make me rotten to the core?
You are applying a "severity of sins" in order to arrive at this conclusion.

I agree with David that we have a tendency to be self-seeking from birth

You are twisting and distorting what the Bible said. It did not say we have a "tendency", it says "Surely". It does not say we are "self-seeking", it says we are sinful.

Wrong - capacity and will are different words with different meanings. If you give your child a new toy for Christmas, does this mean they will have the Will to break it? No.

The child can exert their will to break the object.

Again, thought have many sources.

You are avoiding the topic. If you wish to drop this topic than so be it but you are talking about humans and not where the thought of Satan came from. I'm looking for thoughts and specific examples of what your opinion might be, not a generalization on how the human thought process works.

what makes you think A&E could imagine death? They had never seen it or experienced anything dying before.

Probably from the same source that gave them the ability to breathe, drink, eat, and know how to talk without being taught.

Let's try this again. Lucifer is in heaven - he notices that when he sings a particularly beautiful song, many of the angels give him a lot of attention

So the other angels began to idolize Lucifer? But I thought Lucifer was the one we see getting kicked out??? This logically does not follow as then the "other angels" were the ones who sinned by idolizing another.

Nope. There is something higher than God's love - a grander expression - God's forgiveness

I said prove it. IE, from Scripture.

Okay, but I could still getting what I want by beating up others, why didn't I do that?

Most people don't beat people up for fun.
And if you notice, the people that DO do that for fun don't give a darn about the consequences, because to them, physically harming someone is worth more to them than the consequences (Once more, they do what feels the best to SELF.)

So? What tells the secular world (again, law of man aside) hurting people is bad? Nothing. Thus, you have now created your own law and scale of right and wrong- and hurting people you have deemed to be something "bad" so you do what you feel is "good"... It has nothing to do with the other person but upon your self-generated sense of right and wrong.
Once more, the entire decision making process is self-centered.

If you have the option to embezzle $3 Million, and the sentence is only 3 months, if you get caught... Would you take a risk over say, if it carried a life sentence? Certainly that'd happen. Making $3 Million in exchange for prison for 3 months is actually a small price.

 

[deprofundis]

Response to Veteran:
I know what Paul taught about alms, but that doesn't answer the question I asked. In fact, when discussing alms, you specifically contrasted it with sharing "Under state Communism," (post #16), which I have clearly and repeatedly stated I do not advocate. You go on to say " The Biblical doctrine of giving is always UP TO THE PERSON, and not up to the State," when the question had nothing to do with the state. I did not ask "Is the state forcing people to share evil," because that's not what I'm advocating the morality of. I'm not advocating any state, as I have clearly said. I asked, very simply, and which can be answered with equal simplicity, "Is sharing evil?"

So, is sharing evil?

Responses to TexUs:

Most people don't beat people up for fun.
And if you notice, the people that DO do that for fun don't give a darn about the consequences, because to them, physically harming someone is worth more to them than the consequences (Once more, they do what feels the best to SELF.)

I refer to beating someone up to take their lunch money, etc; to harming others for personal gain. I don't see too many kids doing it once they understand that they hurt others in the process.

So? What tells the secular world (again, law of man aside) hurting people is bad? Nothing. Thus, you have now created your own law and scale of right and wrong- and hurting people you have deemed to be something "bad" so you do what you feel is "good"... It has nothing to do with the other person but upon your self-generated sense of right and wrong.
Once more, the entire decision making process is self-centered.

I don't see the point of arguing the impossibility of altruism in this situation; the point isn't necessarily that people are altruistic or what-have-you, but rather that most people don't like hurting others, even for their own profit, before society teaches them that it is acceptable.

Do you have any examples? I'd actually tend to disagree. Just because we don't lock anymore people up just means we aren't catching anymore people doing it.

What? I was referring to America as the harsher part of the equation; we have 5% of the world's total population, and 25% of its imprisoned population, so we certainly do lock up more people. We make up not only the largest percent of the world's imprisoned population, but also the largest percentage proportionally to our own population. We have more people in prison relative to our population than any other nation in the world. That aside, though, we have significantly harsher sentencing than, say, Norway, and yet we have a significantly higher crime rate. We have the death penalty and Norway does not, yet our murder rates are still higher. In fact, our crime rates (especially violent crime rates) in general are significantly higher. All drug use is decriminalized in Portugal, yet usage rates are higher in America. Moreover, drug use rates went down, not up, in Portugal when the criminal penalties for use were removed.

If you have the option to embezzle $3 Million, and the sentence is only 3 months, if you get caught... Would you take a risk over say, if it carried a life sentence? Certainly that'd happen. Making $3 Million in exchange for prison for 3 months is actually a small price.

I can't necessarily speak to the statistics of this exact situation, but countries with significantly less penalty for stealing (in general) than America don't necessarily have more incidents of theft, and I think many of them have less.

You can disagree but take into consideration Einstein's definition of insanity.

Einstein did the same thing over and over expecting different results, by your definition of "the same thing." Trying the same general principle with certain variables changed can result in a different outcome and it's entirely reasonable to believe that it will. Trying to invoke "communism" through a totalitarian state after a militant revolution is a lot different than trying to invoke communism through a democratic process with a democratic government (which may or may not have worked in Chile had the US not supported a fascist military coup shortly after the elections), which is in turn different from a small, purely voluntary commune.

Then when you spend all day farming but need, say, medical services... The medical professional, who doesn't share your convictions, will suddenly just "share" with you because you've "shared" with the community? It's quite honestly a laughable concept. The entire populous on earth needs to share in these convictions in order for communism to work.

Well, for one thing, there are plenty of medical professionals who do exactly that, but regardless, you miss the forest for the trees; the entire world does not need to share in the convictions, one small, self-sufficient community needs to share in the convictions.

 

[veteran]

Response to Veteran:
I know what Paul taught about alms, but that doesn't answer the question I asked. In fact, when discussing alms, you specifically contrasted it with sharing "Under state Communism," (post #16), which I have clearly and repeatedly stated I do not advocate. You go on to say " The Biblical doctrine of giving is always UP TO THE PERSON, and not up to the State," when the question had nothing to do with the state. I did not ask "Is the state forcing people to share evil," because that's not what I'm advocating the morality of. I'm not advocating any state, as I have clearly said. I asked, very simply, and which can be answered with equal simplicity, "Is sharing evil?"

So, is sharing evil?

People giving alms to the poor is sharing, not evil, and right, that has nothing to do with Communist Socialism nor any idea of Socialism.

So is the idea of the State forcing people to share against their will evil?

 

[veteran]

What has to be "made" simple? That's already simple. Sharing and giving voluntarily is not wrong. This means that communism is not wrong. Statism of any kind is about forcing people to do things, and I've already decried in earlier posts. You can say that a democratic government provides liberty, but I know a lot of people in prison who'd disagree. There is no kind of government which offers any kind of liberty.

Communism is wrong, simply because it demands the people give up their inalienable rights from God and let the State try to play God instead. It's principles are thus atheistic from the start.

Man's rights originate from God and His law, and not from man, that is of course unless one doesn't believe in God, then the unbelieving have no other recourse but to the State defining their rights for them.

That the endtimes is going to be about the working of World Socialism defining the rights and freedoms of all nations should be seen coming today, especially since Bible prophecy shows a system in the last days that will require all to receive a mark for buying and selling. That could only happen under a system where the people allow the State to define its rights and freedoms for them instead of God.

What's funny is that those who support world Socialism don't see how that philosophy is only being used in support of a more evil purpose, that of future false idol worship to a false king messiah which Satan's servants are preparing the whole world to worship (Rev.13; Rev.17; 2 Thess.2). It also reveals something else very sinister, that of using threat of execution by refusing to bow to that coming false messiah king in false worship (Rev.13).

What will the Communists do then when they are required to bow in worship to that false king, when all along they thought they were working for a system that didn't require them to practice religion? It's obvious since they deny God and understanding in His Word, He hasn't given them to fathom those coming events upon all the earth. Instead they're dreaming on the lies Christ's enemies have planted in their minds.

 

[aspen]

Communism is wrong, simply because it demands the people give up their inalienable rights from God and let the State try to play God instead. It's principles are thus atheistic from the start.

Man's rights originate from God and His law, and not from man, that is of course unless one doesn't believe in God, then the unbelieving have no other recourse but to the State defining their rights for them.

That the endtimes is going to be about the working of World Socialism defining the rights and freedoms of all nations should be seen coming today, especially since Bible prophecy shows a system in the last days that will require all to receive a mark for buying and selling. That could only happen under a system where the people allow the State to define its rights and freedoms for them instead of God.

What's funny is that those who support world Socialism don't see how that philosophy is only being used in support of a more evil purpose, that of future false idol worship to a false king messiah which Satan's servants are preparing the whole world to worship (Rev.13; Rev.17; 2 Thess.2). It also reveals something else very sinister, that of using threat of execution by refusing to bow to that coming false messiah king in false worship (Rev.13).

What will the Communists do then when they are required to bow in worship to that false king, when all along they thought they were working for a system that didn't require them to practice religion? It's obvious since they deny God and understanding in His Word, He hasn't given them to fathom those coming events upon all the earth. Instead they're dreaming on the lies Christ's enemies have planted in their minds.

Atheism is not married to communism.

 

[deprofundis]

People giving alms to the poor is sharing, not evil, and right, that has nothing to do with Communist Socialism nor any idea of Socialism.

So is the idea of the State forcing people to share against their will evil?

Well, that wasn't "Yes" or "no," but at this point, I feel as thought some aphasia prevents you from typing either word, and will drop the point at risk of wasting my time further than this discourse already seems to be. Giving to the poor has a lot to do with my idea of socialism (and the idea of socialism a lot of others I know hold), so I would disagree with your assessment, but I'm sure this simply means I'm an evil, heretical liar and at this point, I don't care anymore. I have been judged by people like you all my life, and I'm getting to the point that I simply lack the heart to try and convince them when they will not listen to reason. If you want to say I am evil, fine. You won't be the first who thinks that because I don't look and think like you do that I am evil, and I'm sure you won't be the last.

As for the second part, yes, it is. I recall saying I think having a state at all borders on idolatry, a state's force is certainly illegitmate. A state forcing anyone to do anything is evil. Then again, I recall you paying no respect or attention to anything I said in this entire conversation, so I suppose I shouldn't hold you responsible for remembering it. Even if I said it in the exact post you quoted.

The next post just shows you have read nothing I have said, or at least have ignored it. My very first posts challenged the idea of a state at all. I have been saying throughout that I do not support any state, communist or otherwise. I do not believe in statism or its supporters. I believe in equality, sharing, and fair treatment of workers. I have said this over-and-over again, but you repeatedly refuse to listen. States are fundamentally something which I cannot support. They exercise an illegitimate moral authority. My only King, my only government, is the Lord.

 

[[email protected]]

Atheism is not married to communism.

Another Communist lie.

I stated before on a different thread the historical precedent of Communist governments throughout history.
Any truthful examination of history reveals that repression of religious as well as artistic and political expression is generally the conduct of Communist regimes.
Actually anything which opposes the Communist state and/or philosophy is suppressed and its advocates jailed or ridiculed (as in evidence on these pages).

A typical Communist ploy is to deny oppression until they hold the reigns of power; then the horror starts.

Do you deny that this happens?
How deep down the rabbit hole have you gone that you do not see this?

 

[TexUs]

[quote name='De Profundis' timestamp='1292451819' post='94090']I refer to beating someone up to take their lunch money, etc; to harming others for personal gain. I don't see too many kids doing it once they understand that they hurt others in the process. [/quote]
So they weigh their own moral code vs the money. Self vs self. Who wins? Self.

[quote name='De Profundis' timestamp='1292451819' post='94090']but rather that most people don't like hurting others, even for their own profit, before society teaches them that it is acceptable. [/quote]
*Looks in my Bible to find the first family*
*Sees Cain and Able*
huh?

[quote name='De Profundis' timestamp='1292451819' post='94090]What? I was referring to America as the harsher part of the equation; we have 5% of the world's total population, and 25% of its imprisoned population, so we certainly do lock up more people.[/quote]
So we lock people in jail for more things, that doesn't disprove anything. To be accurate here you need to compare crime to crime.

[quote name='De Profundis' timestamp='1292451819' post='94090]We have the death penalty and Norway does not, yet our murder rates are still higher. [/quote]
[font="Arial]And yet there's also data to the contrary... An armed citizen makes for a "downside" of doing a particular crime, yes? A risk worth weighing, yes?[/font]
[font="Arial]If you look back at Washington DC gun law, an immediate 55% increase in crime happened originally. The recent (2008) Supreme Court decision that struck that down garnered an immediate swing in the other direction (I can't find the stat, but it was very significant as well). So while the "justice system" might not scare them away, a challenge to their criminal activities certainly does![/font]



[quote name='De Profundis' timestamp='1292451819' post='94090]the entire world does not need to share in the convictions, one small, self-sufficient community needs to share in the convictions.[/quote]
And by what principles do you suppose they'd trade goods with those outside the community...
Ca... Cap... Capitalism.

 

[veteran]

Well, that wasn't "Yes" or "no," but at this point, I feel as thought some aphasia prevents you from typing either word, and will drop the point at risk of wasting my time further than this discourse already seems to be. Giving to the poor has a lot to do with my idea of socialism (and the idea of socialism a lot of others I know hold), so I would disagree with your assessment, but I'm sure this simply means I'm an evil, heretical liar and at this point, I don't care anymore. I have been judged by people like you all my life, and I'm getting to the point that I simply lack the heart to try and convince them when they will not listen to reason. If you want to say I am evil, fine. You won't be the first who thinks that because I don't look and think like you do that I am evil, and I'm sure you won't be the last.

As for the second part, yes, it is. I recall saying I think having a state at all borders on idolatry, a state's force is certainly illegitmate. A state forcing anyone to do anything is evil. Then again, I recall you paying no respect or attention to anything I said in this entire conversation, so I suppose I shouldn't hold you responsible for remembering it. Even if I said it in the exact post you quoted.

The next post just shows you have read nothing I have said, or at least have ignored it. My very first posts challenged the idea of a state at all. I have been saying throughout that I do not support any state, communist or otherwise. I do not believe in statism or its supporters. I believe in equality, sharing, and fair treatment of workers. I have said this over-and-over again, but you repeatedly refuse to listen. States are fundamentally something which I cannot support. They exercise an illegitimate moral authority. My only King, my only government, is the Lord.

We'll simply have to disagree then, because the history of Socialism is one thing, and your imagination of it is another. Socialism has always involved power of the few over the majority. Even in a situation when the majority agree with it, its practices still don't work, which was revealed by what those at Jamestown followed their first year, which is a documented fact, especially since they changed to a if you don't work you don't eat and property rights philosophy the next year. It's also evidenced by the failure of Socialist states that exist today that had to seek economic help from the West.

Nor has anyone here (that I know of) judged you. Don't confuse disagreement with the philosophy of Communist Socialism and your support of it with the idea you're being personally judged. We all are allowed discernment of what a person believes and follows, which is still not judgment unto condemnation.

 

[aspen]

Another Communist lie.

I stated before on a different thread the historical precedent of Communist governments throughout history.
Any truthful examination of history reveals that repression of religious as well as artistic and political expression is generally the conduct of Communist regimes.
Actually anything which opposes the Communist state and/or philosophy is suppressed and its advocates jailed or ridiculed (as in evidence on these pages).

A typical Communist ploy is to deny oppression until they hold the reigns of power; then the horror starts.

Do you deny that this happens?
How deep down the rabbit hole have you gone that you do not see this?

There has never been a communist government on earth, except successful ones in monasteries

All the so-called communist governments you are thinking of were despots - so it makes sense that the dictator would promote atheism because he wanted to take the place of God.

Monasteries are communistic and they also believe in God.

But thanks for calling me a liar - it makes your post so much more dramatic - just not correct.

 

[deprofundis]

We'll simply have to disagree then, because the history of Socialism is one thing, and your imagination of it is another. Socialism has always involved power of the few over the majority. Even in a situation when the majority agree with it, its practices still don't work, which was revealed by what those at Jamestown followed their first year, which is a documented fact, especially since they changed to a if you don't work you don't eat and property rights philosophy the next year. It's also evidenced by the failure of Socialist states that exist today that had to seek economic help from the West.

Well, I mean, the history of a lot of things is pretty bleak, but it doesn't mean that the idea is necessarily a completely bankrupt one. Capitalist countries have histories of tyranny and economic failure, as well; I think it comes down less to the type of leadership than the people involved in it, and, unfortunately, most examples of (supposedly) communist countries are run either by militant revolutionaries (the kind of people who think shooting enough people will save the world are never the kind of people I would trust to lead a country) who exploit their people as much or more than whatever system they replaced. The democratically elected "socialists" typical in Europe (the Labour Party in England, for instance) are usually incompetent bureaucrats, just like democratically elected capitalists (or anyone else), and do a whole lot more talking about socialism than doing it; the problem with democracy is that it leads to skilled politicians, who know how politics work but not much about how running a country works, being in charge of running a country. The few exceptions have gotten caught in the wrong place and the wrong time and struck down by external forces before they had a chance; Allende's government in Chile may or may not have worked, we'll never really know.

I still think a lot more factors need to be considered in the Jamestown example before it could be seen as any definitive sort of proof, especially since self-sufficient communes exist successfully on a small scale to this very day. It's certainly a credible argument, but there's a lot of other variables involved and one example isn't proof of much of anything.

Nor has anyone here (that I know of) judged you. Don't confuse disagreement with the philosophy of Communist Socialism and your support of it with the idea you're being personally judged. We all are allowed discernment of what a person believes and follows, which is still not judgment unto condemnation.

I suppose I feel judged because of the people who repeatedly said I was a liar, or my words were "lies." If this wasn't your intent, I'm sorry for misinterpreting, it just felt as though I, personally, was being addressed more than my thoughts on the subject were. I'm also a little cranky from being up too late studying around finals, so maybe I'm just a little on edge.

So they weigh their own moral code vs the money. Self vs self. Who wins? Self.

As I said, the denial of altruism is not really relevant; personal moral code beating money is.

*Looks in my Bible to find the first family*
*Sees Cain and Able*
huh?

I don't think I understand the point you're trying to make.

So we lock people in jail for more things, that doesn't disprove anything. To be accurate here you need to compare crime to crime.

We lock people in jail for a longer period of time for the same things, which is what I meant when I said we had "harsher penalties." These penalties do not decrease the crime rates. There is no correlation between more severe penalties and lower crime rates, except at perhaps the furthest extremes of the spectrum.

[font="Arial]And yet there's also data to the contrary... An armed citizen makes for a "downside" of doing a particular crime, yes? A risk worth weighing, yes?[/font]
[font="Arial]If you look back at Washington DC gun law, an immediate 55% increase in crime happened originally. The recent (2008) Supreme Court decision that struck that down garnered an immediate swing in the other direction (I can't find the stat, but it was very significant as well). So while the "justice system" might not scare them away, a challenge to their criminal activities certainly does![/font][/quote]
That's not really effective data to the contrary, though. It still doesn't address the countries with significantly lower gun ownership and less severe "justice system" penalties (i.e. most of Europe), yet considerably lower crime rates (also, most of Europe). While an armed citizen perhaps provides some deterrent, it doesn't correlate as strongly as societal differences seem to. Self-interest certainly factors into the decision, but a fear of consequences has much less correlation than a social climate. Basically, consequence-based deterrents may be somewhat effective, but the culture in which one is raised seems to have significantly more effect.


[quote="TexUs, post: 97452"]And by what principles do you suppose they'd trade goods with those outside the community...
Ca... Cap... Capitalism.

I think you perhaps missed the phrase "self-sufficient." Even if the community has to interact with capitalism, I'd still rather be in a commune which had to deal with capitalism only on occasion than simply be fully immersed in the capitalist phantasmagoria. A little bit is better than nothing, you know? You seem to have this "all or nothing" schema set up, where if communism isn't Absolutely Completely 100% Perfect and/or doesn't last Forever Until the End of Time, it is a complete and dismal failure, a logic which you do not apply to capitalism.

 

[TexUs]

I don't think I understand the point you're trying to make.

You said people don't usually harm people for their own benefit- and I pointed out it's been going on since the beginning of time.

That's not really effective data to the contrary, though. It still doesn't address the countries with significantly lower gun ownership and less severe "justice system" penalties (i.e. most of Europe), yet considerably lower crime rates (also, most of Europe).

Nonsense, now you're just making stuff up. Europe generally has worse crime rates and they don't own guns:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

Look at any gun statistics in the US, any time gun regulations are relaxed or say, Conceal and Carry is introduce, crime always plummets because there is now a huge element of risk for criminals doing crimes.

I think you perhaps missed the phrase "self-sufficient."

Name me any of these utopias that've succeeded for any amount of time.

 

[deprofundis]

You said people don't usually harm people for their own benefit- and I pointed out it's been going on since the beginning of time.

Sure, it has happened, but has the majority done it? I didn't ever say it never happened.

Nonsense, now you're just making stuff up. Europe generally has worse crime rates and they don't own guns:
http://www.nationmas...imes-per-capita

Looking at specific crimes, however:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob_percap-crime-robberies-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sof_pir_rat-crime-software-piracy-rate

Murder, rape, and robbery are both significantly more common in America than in the vast majority of European nations, especially if you look at the nations with less "deterrents" to crime. Robbery is more evenly distributed, somewhat, but the United States still far outstrips Scandinavia, whose legal penalties are less strict and gun ownership lower. Essentially, some countries with lower rates of gun ownership and less severe penalties may have more robberies than us, but many nations with lower gun ownership and significantly less strict penalties also have significantly lower rates of robbery than the US does. My claim is not that lower penalties and less gun ownership necessarily prevent robberies, simply that there is no little to no correlation between them; national cultures, rather than severity and prevalence of deterrents, seem to influence robbery (and, generally, crime) rates. Also, look at our software piracy rates, which are the lowest in the world, and vastly skew the statistics. Suicide rates are also included in crime statistics, and skew them further from the perspective of our discussion, since suicide is obviously rather divorced from the possible penalties.

Name me any of these utopias that've succeeded for any amount of time.

This list includes the more well known, but there are also many smaller examples set up around the world which aren't famous because they don't interact too much with the outside world. To a large degree, many abbeys, monasteries, etc. would also count.

 

[TexUs]

Fine, be a commie.
Me and the majority of the other 6 Billion people on earth will fight you on it.

 

[deprofundis]

Well, you're welcome to stay a capitalist, but I don't have any intention or desire to fight you on it.

 

[Foreigner]

There are countries that have or do call themselves a Communist nation, but they have never succeeded in true communism.
But it is not for lack of trying. Eventually it required the creation of a despot at the top in order to keep the whole system running and ensure that the little minions caught up in the system don't bring it down by selfishly wanting freedom.

Why? Because it involves the willful surrendering of freedom and then force being applied to keep you subjected once you realize that the surrending of that freedom actually made your life worse instead of better.

There is absolutely no way that true Communism could work. It is a Utopian idea that actually expects that all humans can be selfless and work towards the good of the collective, even if that means they have to do without.

Not gonna happen.