Collectivism is evil.

Author: BigPimpDaddy ,

Posts

Total: 43
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 129
0
1
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
1
6
I my eyes The act of a government making people share everything is evil.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,544
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @BigPimpDaddy
I don't feel like people need to share everything. Just food, shelter, medicine, public works and the means of production. 
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 129
0
1
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
1
6
--> @secularmerlin
What would happen if a person did not share the above?
Would there be punishment?
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,544
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @BigPimpDaddy
It would hurt other people who also need food, shelter, public works and produced goods.
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 129
0
1
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
1
6
--> @secularmerlin
I am aware, but Would there be punishment?
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,544
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @BigPimpDaddy
Do you think people should be punished for allowing others to die through greed and neglect?
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 129
0
1
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
1
6
--> @secularmerlin
I'm assuming that's a yes, now I ask how they would be punished and by who.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,544
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @BigPimpDaddy
Please don't put words in my mouth. I am using the socratic method. I am asking you questions to see where your truth lies
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 129
0
1
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
1
6
--> @secularmerlin
I am doing the same to you, my answer to your question is yes.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 355
Posts: 11,498
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @secularmerlin
As much of a troll as he is (I am still pretty sure the guy is actually left-wing) I actually think he has the upper hand here.

Do you think it's a coincidence that virtually every single attempt at Socialism involved violence and ruthlessness? Even the 'peaceful' Vietnam was such but it was the type of country that didn't keep official records so not much is known about how it became Socialist except that Mao's China influenced it.

As soon as it becomes ugly, it's branded 'Communism' (by both you and very right-wing Capitalists) and then your crew say 'that's fake Socialism'. The problem isn't that you're lying, it's that you're confused. Left-Wing politics only works if there's still the healthy meritocratic element of Capitalism in the society while safety nets are there for the poor. 

Capitalism without restrictions is ugly and prone to nepotism and corruption but Socialism, even with restrictions, is simply counter-human. We just do not work that way, our brains by and large are wired to want to work to gain capital that we are free to invest as we see fit, we aren't wired to gain any satisfaction from working in a job we're told to work relentlessly for as many hours as we can put in to give to those who most blatantly 'need' it.

'from those who are able to those who need it' is a good theory, ant colonies work by it and most elephant groups do too but ultimately who rules? There's a reason that socialistic creatures don't flourish even in the food chain, let alone amongst humans. The species that thrive are those who have fundamentally understood that competition is a part of progress and that no matter how benevolent you try to design society, there needs to be an element of 'losers' and 'winners' for anyone to 'win' and push for more 'winning' at all.

I don't just mean greed for money's sake alone, think about it for a second. Who is more motivated to do good science? One who knows the money they raise with said research can lead to more research and organisations to help young women get involved in STEM and generally increase motivation towards STEM field and not have it seen as 'nerdy' etc... or someone who knows all their work will barely get their name mentioned because 'everyone on the team is just as important' and the research will be owned by the government to do as it sees fit as well as 100% of the profits beyond the bare minimum that scientist needs to survive?

If you want 'true socialism' as in without any fiat money, that's also an issue. Where's the fun of having no rewards to use to further your cause or legacy? We aren't wired to be workhorses, we are quite literally a different species to them. Before you discuss animal rights, I don't mean abusing horses but I do note that horses genuinely enjoy doing as they are told and working relentlessly to impress their human companion (the human owner is similar to what a government is to its socialist populace).
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,544
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @BigPimpDaddy
Myself I am disinterested in punishing the guilty but in protecting the innocent. 
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,544
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @RationalMadman
The biggest potential problem with any political system is that there will be people involved and people exploit each other kind of a lot. Communism is a theoretical goal and so far as I know never achieved. You are correct that in every instance where a society called itself socialist or communist a stateless society was never achieved and in some cases very real totalitarianism infiltrated the system.
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 129
0
1
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
1
6

As soon as it becomes ugly, it's branded 'Communism' (by both you and very right-wing Capitalists) and then your crew say 'that's fake Socialism'. The problem isn't that you're lying, it's that you're confused.
somewhat disagree.

While I agree it is a form of socialism (in this case marxism-leninism) That doesn't speak for the entirety of socialism.
There has been plenty of anarcho socialist revolutions but most crushed by wars with capitalist countries, foreign intervention, etc, etc and they fall into totalitarianism and dictatorship.


949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 594
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
--> @secularmerlin
It would hurt other people who also need food, shelter, public works and produced goods.
Are people hurt because some must eat beans, while another has prime rib? That one rents a studio apartment, while another owns  30-room house on acreage? That one has a paved private road while another has an unimproved road? That one has limo while another a bicycle? Are the latter hurt because the lack the ambition to achieve that which the former have accomplished?

You ignore that ambition gets in the way of "sharing", even if that ambition leaves room for a former of each of the conditions noted above to be charitable to the latter of each condition, but does not equalize the commodities.

No one is "hurt," whatever you mean by that, but there is definitively a lack of equity. What is the justification for equity if the latter folks are not as ambitious, and do not plan and execute as the former folks? Is ambition, itself, an evil?
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,544
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @949havoc
Are people hurt because some must eat beans, while another has prime rib?
No they are hurt when both beans and prime rib are overproduced and thrown away without ever being eaten by anyone because they cannot afford to purchase it and then it rots in a land fill producing methane which contributes to the ongoing ecological disaster.
That one rents a studio apartment, while another owns  30-room house on acreage?
No they are hurt when a person who owns a thirty room house evict them from their studio apartment even though he owns many houses and apartments that he doesn't personally live in or need.
That one has a paved private road while another has an unimproved road? 
The roads as the currently exist hurt everyone. Public transportation would be far preferable along with city planning that does not shackle people to their cars or be effectively prevented from reaching most destinations. 
You ignore that ambition gets in the way of "sharing", even if that ambition leaves room for a former of each of the conditions noted above to be charitable to the latter of each condition, but does not equalize the commodities.
I'm not even asking for everyone to get equal everything. I'd be pretty happy with to each by their need and from each by their ability. That doesn't sound especially unfair to me and ambition doesn't have to be tied up in money. 
No one is "hurt," whatever you mean by that, but there is definitively a lack of equity. What is the justification for equity if the latter folks are not as ambitious, and do not plan and execute as the former folks? Is ambition, itself, an evil?
People are hurt by overproduction and withholding of products necessary to life from people because it is more profitable than letting them have whatever would be thrown away. People are hurt by starvation and homelessness. Specifically hurt by those who throw away food and withhold shelter empty of any occupation and design architecture that is specifically meant to prevent the homeless from seeking shelter and rest on or near public facilities. Ambition is not the enemy and capitalism isn't either. Not really. The enemy is the capitalist state where executive decisions are determined by profit. 
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 99
Posts: 6,311
7
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
10
11
It's such a fake concern.  When has any government ever tried honestly tried to make everybody share everything?  The answer is never.  Even Plains Indians and Anarcho-communist syndicates reserved class and wealth distinctions for the holders of power.   It's such an easy bugbear to cry alarms about because such a plan  runs contrary to human nature.  You'd spend your time just as productively worrying about dragon attacks.


secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,544
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @oromagi
It is true that humans are not known for willingly abdicating power. It is an unhealthy fixation.
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 594
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
--> @secularmerlin
in a land fill producing methane which contributes to the ongoing ecological disaster.
Methane, oh boo-hoo. Tell you what: more methane is produced by rice paddies, and all other wetlands, cultivated and natural, than was ever or will ever be produced by cows. Eat your rice, but leave my steak alone. Every stinking living thing produces methane. It's nature, bud, even from your butt. Your mouth, too, at times.

evict them from their studio apartment
Eviction, oh, boo-hoo. Pay your rent on time; be left alone. Better, earn more than min wage, buy your own house, but know that you still must pay the mortgage on time. Didn't you learn that when the bubble burst in 2008 because too many people took out home loans they could never afford? And many ofd them trashed their homes. Nice.

city planning that does not shackle people to their cars
Shackled to cars, oh, boo-hoo. Get a bicycle. Hop on a bus/trolley/train. Walk if you must. What did 19th century people do? Tired of bitching yet? Nope.

 ambition doesn't have to be tied up in money.
Money? Oh, boo-hoo. Make enough for your need, and invest the rest. Do that, you tend to avoid all your bitching.

People are hurt by overproduction and withholding of products necessary to life
Overproduction. oh, boo-hoo. Seems we are in a mode wherein overproduction is not the problem; it's delivery. The supply chain. That's what happens when your President decides to pat people for not working. You don't have a production problem; you have a distribution problem, and it started at the Oval. All he's distributing is horseshit.

When people in the 19th didn't have goods necessary for life, oh, what did they do? They learned how to make stuff, grow stuff, repair stuff themselves. In other words, they educated themselves; the solution to virtually every bitch you've offered. Or, continue to be entitled, which, you observe, doesn't work so well when the chips are down.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 355
Posts: 11,498
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @secularmerlin
The biggest potential problem with any political system is that there will be people involved and people exploit each other kind of a lot. Communism is a theoretical goal and so far as I know never achieved. You are correct that in every instance where a society called itself socialist or communist a stateless society was never achieved and in some cases very real totalitarianism infiltrated the system.
very weird way to dodge my point entirely,

You're one of the first socialists I've met who actually says communism is the goal... Communism is the totalitarian form with the tyranny attached but clearly you are working on different lexical scaling so I am assuming for you Communism is 'pure socialism' whatever that may be.

I also find it odd that you say 'infiltrate' because this excuse really is where I side with the right-wing entirely in terms of noticing it as complete left-wing bullcrap excuse.

Lenin was a prick even before Stalin was a bigger prick, nothing was inflitrated at all, it was Lenin that exiled Trotsky, not just Stalin. Nothing about Stalin was 'infiltrating' Lenin anyway, Lenin knew what kind of guy Stalin was, every godfather likes that ruthless enforcer type but what was unique was that Lenin happened to die of a disease exactly at a prime time for Stalin to take over (this happens too in other regimes, not just Socialist ones) the idea of a sidekick usurping the former leader isn't always done via backstabbing, it can be genuine especially when disease onset causes it. Lenin was a gangster from start to end, Stalin was just a more blatant one.

As for Mao, nothing was infiltrated, Pol Pot? Pol Pot was seen as a hero, he took over entirely democratically as an extremely well-liked Populist candidate, then he ruined his nation with severe zeal to achieve the equality and 'everyone's a worker' outcome that Socialism seeks.

You can keep saying it was hijacked but where? Cuba wasn't a hijack, the only aspect of it that had backstabbing was Che Guevara's crew were ditched later on so that Castro could lead Cuba without US interfering too much. Castro was a genuine Socialist, Guevara was too.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 355
Posts: 11,498
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @secularmerlin
You ignored a huge portion of my post by the way, you barely replied to a single sentence in it.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 355
Posts: 11,498
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @BigPimpDaddy
I my eyes The act of a government making people share everything is evil.
I agree with you. It should make them share some things, not everything.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 355
Posts: 11,498
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @oromagi
  When has any government ever tried honestly tried to make everybody share everything?  The answer is never.  
Easy scapegoat. Pol Pot's Cambodia was perhaps the most severely fervent example of genuinely seeking this outcome (he really believed in the cause). The problem is that we are just not wired that way, you can't terrorise people into sharing everything for a collective (not in the long-term unless you have a complete North-Korea-like chokehold on them) and by god did he try to do just that.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 17
Posts: 5,496
3
3
4
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
4
--> @949havoc
Trouble is.

You make some good points.

But it often descends into abusive chaos.


Your conditioned political bias and intolerance dictates that:

Democrat  always bad, even though they might actually sometimes get things right.

Republican always good, even though they might actually sometimes get things wrong.


If the Orange Man had said goosestep, would you have goosestepped?
Rendered231
Rendered231's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1
0
0
0
Rendered231's avatar
Rendered231
0
0
0
--> @RationalMadman
I think you have a more or less biased few of the terms socialism and communism.  Communism will almost never be used by a socialist as, "when socialism goes to far."  Here are the definitions, as socialists and communists will tell you.

Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production.  This might include government ownership, depending on who you ask, but some believe that the fact government officials serve as a middle man means workers no longer own the means of production.  Compare this to worker cooperatives, where every worker owns the firm, and every worker has one vote to run the company. 

Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society.  Some people believe that this will take the form of a gift economy and free association, along with socialism as we've defined it.  Some believe that gift economies themselves were to flawed to use in the future.  Even communists dont believe you should share everything, because they divide private property into private and personal property, the former being used for the intent of profit and the latter simply being something you use.

State capitalism is what socialists and communists groups use whenever socialism goes to far.  State capitalism is a state taking the role of a capitalist to invest in creating socialism or communism in the future.  This means extracting surplus values from workers and owning the means of production, for the most part.  Some socialists and communists support it because they think state capitalism is necessary to reach communism or socialism.  The rest of the left calls them tankies as a derogatory term in reference to these regimes use of tanks.  

There's a common meme in leftist circles.  "Socialism is when the government does stuff.  And it's more socialism, the more stuff it does.  And if it does a real lot of stuff, its communism."  Its making fun of people who think that socialism and communism is specifically about the government.  If someone says that communism is totalitarian, you can be very sure that person is neither a socialist or communist. 
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 943
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
--> @oromagi
When has any government ever tried honestly tried to make everybody share everything?
  Soviet union probably came the closest.