Jump to content

Photo

Why is communism a bad word?


  • Please log in to reply
268 replies to this topic

#251
Striker879

Striker879

    YAOF ... just what the world needed

  • Premium Member
  • 11,861 posts

Yet neither system actually works on a large scale. Not with humans involved at any rate. The folks at the top, regardless of how powers are 'separated', STILL have all the power, make all the rules, and give themselves all the benefits thereof, and the lifestyles to match.

 

Of course, the same could be said for the US government.... and it would be equally true. :smile:

 

In reality, I am not entirely sure there IS a 'best' form of government, but, I gotta admit, I like capitalism a whole lot better than communism.

 

I completely agree that power will always result in creating the situation where those in power don't feel the rules apply to them (at least to the same extent as they apply to the masses) and that they 'deserve' more because of the 'sacrifices' they are making to 'govern' (a massive blindspot situation). I've even read of a study using college students that demonstatrated how pervasive the problem is (reported in Science daily quite a few years back).

 

One of the biggest hurtles to overcome when assessing whether 'this form' of government is better than 'that form' is taking self interest out of the assessment process.

 

For example you and I share a fairly common background, both working stiffs landing somewhere in the middle of the middle class. A system that allows us to better our situation (even if only by a little) will naturally be the one that is 'best' to us from our perspective. A person who is at the lower end of the lower class will consider that a system that offers them a safety net for times when no jobs are available to them as 'best'. Each case is correct with one simple proviso ... the correct way to state it is 'best for me'.

 

Best for me has never equated best for everybody, and therein lies the insurmountable problem.



#252
HeyYou

HeyYou

    Resident poster

  • Supporter
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,862 posts

 

Yet neither system actually works on a large scale. Not with humans involved at any rate. The folks at the top, regardless of how powers are 'separated', STILL have all the power, make all the rules, and give themselves all the benefits thereof, and the lifestyles to match.

 

Of course, the same could be said for the US government.... and it would be equally true. :smile:

 

In reality, I am not entirely sure there IS a 'best' form of government, but, I gotta admit, I like capitalism a whole lot better than communism.

 

I completely agree that power will always result in creating the situation where those in power don't feel the rules apply to them (at least to the same extent as they apply to the masses) and that they 'deserve' more because of the 'sacrifices' they are making to 'govern' (a massive blindspot situation). I've even read of a study using college students that demonstatrated how pervasive the problem is (reported in Science daily quite a few years back).

 

One of the biggest hurtles to overcome when assessing whether 'this form' of government is better than 'that form' is taking self interest out of the assessment process.

 

For example you and I share a fairly common background, both working stiffs landing somewhere in the middle of the middle class. A system that allows us to better our situation (even if only by a little) will naturally be the one that is 'best' to us from our perspective. A person who is at the lower end of the lower class will consider that a system that offers them a safety net for times when no jobs are available to them as 'best'. Each case is correct with one simple proviso ... the correct way to state it is 'best for me'.

 

Best for me has never equated best for everybody, and therein lies the insurmountable problem.

 

I suspect that getting everyone, or even a majority... to agree on what is 'best', simply wouldn't happen. :D



#253
Striker879

Striker879

    YAOF ... just what the world needed

  • Premium Member
  • 11,861 posts

 

 

Yet neither system actually works on a large scale. Not with humans involved at any rate. The folks at the top, regardless of how powers are 'separated', STILL have all the power, make all the rules, and give themselves all the benefits thereof, and the lifestyles to match.

 

Of course, the same could be said for the US government.... and it would be equally true. :smile:

 

In reality, I am not entirely sure there IS a 'best' form of government, but, I gotta admit, I like capitalism a whole lot better than communism.

 

I completely agree that power will always result in creating the situation where those in power don't feel the rules apply to them (at least to the same extent as they apply to the masses) and that they 'deserve' more because of the 'sacrifices' they are making to 'govern' (a massive blindspot situation). I've even read of a study using college students that demonstatrated how pervasive the problem is (reported in Science daily quite a few years back).

 

One of the biggest hurtles to overcome when assessing whether 'this form' of government is better than 'that form' is taking self interest out of the assessment process.

 

For example you and I share a fairly common background, both working stiffs landing somewhere in the middle of the middle class. A system that allows us to better our situation (even if only by a little) will naturally be the one that is 'best' to us from our perspective. A person who is at the lower end of the lower class will consider that a system that offers them a safety net for times when no jobs are available to them as 'best'. Each case is correct with one simple proviso ... the correct way to state it is 'best for me'.

 

Best for me has never equated best for everybody, and therein lies the insurmountable problem.

 

I suspect that getting everyone, or even a majority... to agree on what is 'best', simply wouldn't happen. :D

 

 

That's because 'best' is a concept that doesn't fit well with politics. Best for whom can be defined but just best alone is as undefineable as divided by zero.



#254
HeyYou

HeyYou

    Resident poster

  • Supporter
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,862 posts

 

 

 

Yet neither system actually works on a large scale. Not with humans involved at any rate. The folks at the top, regardless of how powers are 'separated', STILL have all the power, make all the rules, and give themselves all the benefits thereof, and the lifestyles to match.

 

Of course, the same could be said for the US government.... and it would be equally true. :smile:

 

In reality, I am not entirely sure there IS a 'best' form of government, but, I gotta admit, I like capitalism a whole lot better than communism.

 

I completely agree that power will always result in creating the situation where those in power don't feel the rules apply to them (at least to the same extent as they apply to the masses) and that they 'deserve' more because of the 'sacrifices' they are making to 'govern' (a massive blindspot situation). I've even read of a study using college students that demonstatrated how pervasive the problem is (reported in Science daily quite a few years back).

 

One of the biggest hurtles to overcome when assessing whether 'this form' of government is better than 'that form' is taking self interest out of the assessment process.

 

For example you and I share a fairly common background, both working stiffs landing somewhere in the middle of the middle class. A system that allows us to better our situation (even if only by a little) will naturally be the one that is 'best' to us from our perspective. A person who is at the lower end of the lower class will consider that a system that offers them a safety net for times when no jobs are available to them as 'best'. Each case is correct with one simple proviso ... the correct way to state it is 'best for me'.

 

Best for me has never equated best for everybody, and therein lies the insurmountable problem.

 

I suspect that getting everyone, or even a majority... to agree on what is 'best', simply wouldn't happen. :D

 

 

That's because 'best' is a concept that doesn't fit well with politics. Best for whom can be defined but just best alone is as undefineable as divided by zero.

 

True that. I generally look at it as the lesser of a choice of evils. We need to have one, but, that doesn't necessarily imply we are going to like it.



#255
xrayy

xrayy

    stop hate & conspiracy!

  • Premium Member
  • 7,443 posts

the topic says probably more about about the topic creator than any debate can say about the topic. a discussion about trumpism and why this word exists even in wikipedia would make much more sense to debate but i know how it would end here in this forum. and so i do not raise such a topic.



#256
HeyYou

HeyYou

    Resident poster

  • Supporter
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,862 posts

the topic says probably more about about the topic creator than any debate can say about the topic. a discussion about trumpism and why this word exists even in wikipedia would make much more sense to debate but i know how it would end here in this forum. and so i do not raise such a topic.

Really? How so? (about the topic title) Seems to me, that here in the US, "communist" is indeed used as an insulting term. Label something 'communist', or even 'socialist', and it immediately lends negative connotations...... And why is that? Simply because..... communism on a large scale simply does not work.



#257
xrayy

xrayy

    stop hate & conspiracy!

  • Premium Member
  • 7,443 posts

commmunism as a word is just a conglomeration of letters. why are letters bad ? recognizing a word as "bad" is more an individual impression or just some (mis)use or (mis)interpretation of the meaning of the word - my opinion. but this is not just happening to the word communism but it happens to many words, always depending on context, the language, the country, the background of the one who uses it and many other factors. so what is the secret or the goal of this kind of debate ? the insight that someone in china or in this debate may have a different understanding of the meaning of the word or receives it simply not as bad ? well...

the more interesting question is what the goal of this topic is and why is it presented as a question, assuming for whatever reason that the word is already widely accepted as a bad word even before this point was discussed.



#258
HeyYou

HeyYou

    Resident poster

  • Supporter
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,862 posts

commmunism as a word is just a conglomeration of letters. why are letters bad ? recognizing a word as "bad" is more an individual impression or just some (mis)use or (mis)interpretation of the meaning of the word - my opinion. but this is not just happening to the word communism but it happens to many words, always depending on context, the language, the country, the background of the one who uses it and many other factors. so what is the secret or the goal of this kind of debate ? the insight that someone in china or in this debate may have a different understanding of the meaning of the word or receives it simply not as bad ? well...

the more interesting question is what the goal of this topic is and why is it presented as a question, assuming for whatever reason that the word is already widely accepted as a bad word even before this point was discussed.

Interesting semantic gymnastics there.

 

Letters make up words. Words represent concepts. (in this instance) Some folks take issue with those concepts. You are correct though, not everyone will agree. I am sure the folks running the communist party in China would find the very notion someone would post this question as offensive. So far as they are concerned, communism is the next best thing since sliced bread.

 

And yep, word meaning/usage changes over time. Folks adopt words, and use them for their own purposes. Take "lame" for instance. It originally meant difficulty, or inability to walk. However, it was usurped by some folks, and is now used as a denigrating term for anything they don't like/find distasteful. Whether it was ever able to walk, or not..... :D



#259
xrayy

xrayy

    stop hate & conspiracy!

  • Premium Member
  • 7,443 posts

many people do not have free access  to a free encyclopedia like wikipedia to study the meaning and the history of a word. another group is not interested or too lazy to study the background at all - for different reasons. one interesting thing is that we don't know the background and motivation of the topic creator to present the topic as it exists. i found no serious discussion if this topic as a suggestive question makes sense at all.

but at least the creator found some subjects including me discussing it - or at least to make them curious.



#260
HeyYou

HeyYou

    Resident poster

  • Supporter
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,862 posts

many people do not have free access  to a free encyclopedia like wikipedia to study the meaning and the history of a word. another group is not interested or too lazy to study the background at all - for different reasons. one interesting thing is that we don't know the background and motivation of the topic creator to present the topic as it exists. i found no serious discussion if this topic as a suggestive question makes sense at all.

but at least the creator found some subjects including me discussing it - or at least to make them curious.

It might be as simple as it appears. Why does the word have a bad rep? :) Maybe he comes from a communist country, or likes that political system. :D Who knows? (aside from the OP. :) )






IPB skins by Skinbox
Page loaded in: 0.859 seconds