Jump to content

Photo

Why is communism a bad word?


  • Please log in to reply
172 replies to this topic

#31
PkSanTi

PkSanTi

    Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 94 posts

"A poor man's child has the same opportunity for betterment (which includes education) as a rich mans child. There is no legal or social impediment (in modern western cultures at least) to anyone willing to put the effort in. Some of the wealthiest people alive today, started with nothing, and some of the children of past generations of "rich" people have ended up with nothing, because the didn't work for it."

 

Oh, come on! You seriously think that the fact that they are legally, constitutionally and formally allowed to receive education denies the fact that poor kids, or poor people in general, have to work earlier and stop going to school and stop many many many things?? There are no legal or social impediments: there are material impediments: do they live away from school? Do they have money to buy books and pay the bus to the institution? Can they do their homework when they have to work with their fathers? Are they father's educated and capable of providing them the same cultural education? There are so many material things that make it so different for a poor man's child than a wealthy man's child that this list could go on forever. Are you seriously gonna deny this? Did you never see or talk to a poor man, or a poor child? Perhaps some people live in a bubble or something, and never saw true poverty. And that's okay, if it works for you it's fine. But how far can you get into denial? Put yourself in the position of a boy who lives 2 km from school, his father has no job and can't afford even a good pair of shoes to use, and tell me if you'd had the same opportunities than those who live in a nice neighbourhood, near to a decent school, and have money to afford the books and school-uniforms. Please... that was just too much, man. 

 

I may sound rude, but I did see poverty as a reality very close from mine, and that statement of your's was just too much. What's next? Are we gonna say that poor boys don't finish their education because they are lazy or don't want to? Because hey, they had the same chances, didn't they! And the fact that some people came out of nothing and became big personalities or rich doesn't change any of the facts I mentioned. 

 

Argh. Now we are very far from Marx. I'll just pull myself back from this argument; there's no point of me getting so far away of the topic I myself insisted that was the one to discuss, only because I can't hold my temper. 



#32
Perraine

Perraine

    Oh hoho hooohhh, Oh hoho hoohhh

  • Premium Member
  • 2,842 posts

So it's just easier to blame the rich people or blame the government, is that it?

 

And to be clear ... My father was a Boilermaker with an average income, which he spent almost entirely on my older sister. The A$$hole would insult me in front of friends and guests and tell people that I was a mistake and an unwanted child.

My primary school, was a little over 4 miles from where I lived, and was only a single building (one room, with one teacher) for all classes and grades, and I walked there every day. I didn't even own a pair of shoes until I was 7 years old, and when the school insisted that I had to have a pair, my a$$hole father gave me an old pair of my sisters shoes (with pink love hearts drawn all over them) So i started doing a paper route in my local area to buy my own. My high school was over 15 miles from my house, and I had to ride a bicycle to get there (which I bought myself second hand).

 

I left school (and my piss poor family) when I was fifteen, and I've been working ever since. I now have a net worth in the six digit range, I own 6 properties (houses and units) outright and have nearly paid off my seventh. I have 2 university degrees and am working on my third, by doing classes and studies at night after work. It wasn't "easy" but there were no physical impediments to me succeeding as I have, only laziness and self entitlement could have stopped me, but I didn't let them.

 

That is the opportunity Capitalism gave me and others (that, and a refusal to just give up and whine about how bad my life was), which Communism ( or Marxism) wouldn't have given me.

 

So yes, I DO deny that poor people (however you want to define that term) "have" to work and as such preclude there being anything they can do to improve their situation, with no recourse whatsoever, but then, I'm in "denial" apparently ...

 

Plus, you castigate others for using the term "human nature" as an excuse for them not to even try and change things and as such they aren't "good" people, but then you turn around and claim that poor people can't help themselves, and rich people are the root of all evils, and we can't change that, because that's just how the world is. You don't see the double standard there?

 

Take your SJW nonsense and proselytizing out on someone else please.



#33
HeyYou

HeyYou

    Resident poster

  • Supporter
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,159 posts

Rich people have more opportunities, that is true, however, it does not imply that poor people have none. Anyone can get ahead, if the expend the time, and effort to do so. in a communist system, there are two layers, the rich leadership, and everyone else. Pure communism simply cannot work, simply due to human nature. Everybody wants more than what they currently have. Some folks are willing to step on others to get it.....



#34
PkSanTi

PkSanTi

    Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 94 posts
I don't think those that don't want to change things aren't good people, the same way i don't think people who want to change things are necessarilly good. I never implied you weren't good people.

I don't blame the rich. The rich people are usually folks who tried to make the best of it. I don't think they are evil and all evils are their fault. They are humans, most of them full of fears, passions and frustrations, just like all of us. So I wouldn't demonize them.

All I do is recognize the system works in favor of the rich and against the poor. That's how the system works, not because of evilness, but because of its structure.

I am sorry for your personal story, but I don't think that the fact that sone people overcame adversities changes the fact that it is so much harder and unfair for the poor. I would say that you, more than anybody, would know that. I mean, don't you hope that no other kids should have to live a situation like yours? Everyone diserves education; a little kid shouldn't have to work to get it.

Anyway, I congratulate you, but a subjective experience does not change an objective reality. And I'll just insist on the fact that I don't believe rich are evil. Manny communist do, though. I just think they are people. I wont demonize them nor will I think poor are good people just because they are poor. I am talking about a system. People just live in it the best they can.

Edited by PkSanTi, 28 January 2018 - 07:44 AM.


#35
Perraine

Perraine

    Oh hoho hooohhh, Oh hoho hoohhh

  • Premium Member
  • 2,842 posts

Again with the absolutes - If it's not good it must be bad. If its for the rich it must be against the poor.

 

NO!!!

 

As stated by myself and others, yes, the system will grant an advantage to wealthy people, but that DOES NOT automatically equate to the system DIS-advantaging the poor! In some countries, and/or "cultures", there may well be social and political impediments for the poor, and sometimes having corrupt individuals in positions of authority will also cause a "social divide" but, that is not the case in general for modern "Western" cultures.

 

I live in Australia, and as a British Colony, we were heavily influenced by the social and political standards of the British Empire as it was several centuries ago ( concepts of "Gentlemanly" behavior for instance), and the fact that the bulk of our population where originally from the "lower class" ... and even though I was born in the UK, I was raised from infancy in Australia, so I recognize and partake of the "social contracts" we have here, that no-one should ever be restricted due to social or financial status, and anyone can improve their own status by getting off their a$$es and working i.e a 'fair go' for any and all. That's not to say our current culture is "perfect" in any way, but it's pretty even handed and fair for all.

 

-  "toughen the furk up princess" is a favoured admonition here, meaning that if something is bothering you or something is difficult, stop just whining about it and try fixing it yourself.

 

Now I recognize that other countries aren't as forgiving of social status as Australia is, but again "in general" western cultures with "Democratic" and/or "Capitalist" cultures and governments are very similar. the same cannot be said for ANY culture, either historically or currently that labels itself "Communist" or "Socialist" - Even an Absolute Monarchy would be preferable.



#36
PkSanTi

PkSanTi

    Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 94 posts

I didn't say the system functioned against the poor because it functions in favour of the rich. I said it works against the poor because it does, regardless of its functionality for the rich. The fact that the rich get better when the poor get worst is incidental, though part of the system; but that doesn't mean I say that "if it is for the rich it must be against the poor". That would be weak reasoning.

 

To my eyes, what you mean by "western world" is quite an eurocentric concept: Europe and its good sons (the USA, Australia, and some other). What about, just to state an example, Latin America? It is part of the western world, geographically and culturally speaking, and yet doesn't benefit at all by capitalism. It is, actually, the most unequal region of the entire world!! So the statement "capitalism works fine for western cultures" is just ignoring half of the countries of the western world. I know that you said that it works in the western world "in general", but it is a whole continent you were just putting out of the picture, not a few isolated countries. That's not generality! 

 

I believe that is quite an English conception (I do not say this contemptuously, I really love England, its personalities and literature) that of trusting the social contracts and formal statements. The poorer the country, the more you notice that those have no match with reality. To legally and formally state equality wont create material, factual equality. That's like the Golem's jewish legend: you wont create a man by just pronouncing some words to a bunch of mud, as god did. All you get is a nasty, not human creature that can barely speak or think. I don't know if my analogy is precise, but it is eloquent. Words, formal statement's and enunciation have a limited power when dealing with reality. I could name hundred of countries in which equality is formally declared and materially denied.    



#37
Beriallord

Beriallord

    Old hand

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 766 posts

Most people in the west who call themselves "Communists", like these kids wearing Che T-shirts, are just liberals.  Old school Communists, like Marx and Che were not liberals at all. 

 

Communism and Nazism have a lot of similarities.  A lot of the recruits for the Nazi Party in Germany, in the beginning, came from Communists.  One of the symbols of the Nazi movement was a hammer & sword, whereas the symbol for Communism is a hammer & sickle.  I think they're 2 peas from the same pod.  Whereas the Nazis chose to emphasize that they were more militaristic than their Communist counterparts.  Both Nazis and Communists (real ones) are very right wing when it comes to social policy.  


Edited by Beriallord, 28 January 2018 - 07:12 PM.


#38
TheMastersSon

TheMastersSon

    Old hand

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 939 posts
Well, if the two had anything in common, you'll need to explain it to the 20+ million Soviets who were slaughtered by the Nazis. Although I agree with your larger claim, that both are simply forms of popular control without any direct popular accountability. Not that representative democracies like ours and the UK etc are much better, in most of these countries what is advertised as political choice really isn't. Both of our major parties are controlled by the same sets of people and special interests, and the only chance we have of really draining the swamp is to forcibly replace the lot of them, abolish both major parties and allow the American people to reenfranchise themselves to their own federal government.

#39
Perraine

Perraine

    Oh hoho hooohhh, Oh hoho hoohhh

  • Premium Member
  • 2,842 posts

Well, if the two had anything in common, you'll need to explain it to the 20+ million Soviets who were slaughtered by the Nazis. Although I agree with your larger claim, that both are simply forms of popular control without any direct popular accountability. Not that representative democracies like ours and the UK etc are much better, in most of these countries what is advertised as political choice really isn't. Both of our major parties are controlled by the same sets of people and special interests, and the only chance we have of really draining the swamp is to forcibly replace the lot of them, abolish both major parties and allow the American people to reenfranchise themselves to their own federal government.

That's a tough nut to crack these days. Although I agree, from what I've seen (from the media, both 'old' and 'new') The U.S. is in need of a major political shakeup. We tried it (and are still trying it) Here in Australia with the "One Nation" party, they push few sometimes pretty radical agenda's, but like Trump did, they also do say some stuff that's hard to hear, but needs to be said. Sadly the "establishment" will probably never let them get any 'real' power, and I fear neither will Trump ... at least not without what would essentially be a "revolution".



#40
HeyYou

HeyYou

    Resident poster

  • Supporter
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,159 posts

 

Well, if the two had anything in common, you'll need to explain it to the 20+ million Soviets who were slaughtered by the Nazis. Although I agree with your larger claim, that both are simply forms of popular control without any direct popular accountability. Not that representative democracies like ours and the UK etc are much better, in most of these countries what is advertised as political choice really isn't. Both of our major parties are controlled by the same sets of people and special interests, and the only chance we have of really draining the swamp is to forcibly replace the lot of them, abolish both major parties and allow the American people to reenfranchise themselves to their own federal government.

That's a tough nut to crack these days. Although I agree, from what I've seen (from the media, both 'old' and 'new') The U.S. is in need of a major political shakeup. We tried it (and are still trying it) Here in Australia with the "One Nation" party, they push few sometimes pretty radical agenda's, but like Trump did, they also do say some stuff that's hard to hear, but needs to be said. Sadly the "establishment" will probably never let them get any 'real' power, and I fear neither will Trump ... at least not without what would essentially be a "revolution".

 

I suspect that is the ONLY way things are going to change here....... as the changes we need can only be implemented by the very same folks that benefit the most from NOT changing anything.......






Page loaded in: 0.948 seconds