Communism is like a coal power station. People nearby get cancer, people far away get cheap power. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14976448
Communism is like a coal power station. People nearby get cancer, people far away get cheap power.

No?

If not for Communism, probably there would not be any much of a National Health Service in UK and many other places.

Only after USSR, East Germany became communist and many countries in Asia followed the communist bandwagon (China, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia etc) did Europe and USA promulgate more welfare policies for citizens, if any, at least to minimize their hardships and so that they would not support the communist insurgency sweeping quickly down Asia from China.

Many people in USA and Europe thus have communism to thank for many of the welfare policies which they presently enjoy.

My take is that morally, communist core pillar of "from each his best, to each his needs" remains a very good tenate in life and in families to live by as it fosters fosters unity.

Unfortunately, the weak spot in communism: the totalitarian bent, is what caused the downfall and fragmentation of USSR because most of the leaders were corrupt, didn't give off their best, stole from national coffers and failed to satisfy even the basic needs of the poor. If not for authoratarianism and corruption, communism would have thrived in this world very well.

The lack of a democratic process, coupled with corruption and the lack of checks and balances (separation of powers) were what resulted in communism's downfall.

Besides the separation of powers, if communism were also to adopt the accountability and hatred for corruption evident in many developed countries, probably communism will do well.

Or maybe the world just need more moral guidance on how one can "love one's neighbor as one loves oneself", which is revealed by Jesus Christ in the Bible and in many other religions as well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Commandment

In summary, communist has severe local flaw as a coal power plant is often highly pollutive etc. However, it's far reaching and not insignificant benefits to society (moral reasoning) should not be under estimated either.

Latest update of the post is at: https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat- ... t118379092
#14989940
Some of the administrators and state coordinators in some former socialist states such as the Soviet Union were corrupt because they were not true socialists. They were vampires and traitors who took advantage of a road that was given to them by the revolting Red Army. Corruption exists everywhere, from family owned companies in the States, to global empires that existed in the 1800's, to extreme corruption in the Islamic world and Africa. Some of the most anti socialist countries were very corrupt. Some African monarchies in the 1950's-1980's were very corrupt and very anti socialist. Hence, some of these corrupt African monarchies were supported by the States, and by Zionists. Corruption has no connection to the liberation of the fakes of the world.

China today is hostile towards corruption. A state occupant in China who is found of corruption could be executed.

Religion prevents people from complaining about corruption, since it is shameful to rebel against corrupt leaders. Hence, religion prevents people from knowing that corruption is existing in the first place. The most secular nations, such as Sweden or Norway, are the least corrupt. While the most religious parts of the world, such as the Middle East or Africa, are the most corrupt.

The pollution that burning coal gives off is humanity knowing the realities of being controlled by shaming, and the dramatic family institution. Pollution is a symbol of strength and liberation.
#14990633
BicCherry wrote:Unfortunately, the weak spot in communism: the totalitarian bent, is what caused the downfall and fragmentation of USSR because most of the leaders were corrupt, didn't give off their best, stole from national coffers and failed to satisfy even the basic needs of the poor. If not for authoratarianism and corruption, communism would have thrived in this world very well.


Na, the weakness wasn't authoritarianism but socialism. Socialism deprives many people of an incentive to work hard or produce. China, which combines an authoritarian political system with a capitalist economic one, has been doing rather well.

Or maybe the world just need more moral guidance on how one can "love one's neighbor as one loves oneself", which is revealed by Jesus Christ in the Bible and in many other religions as well.


:lol: Look at all the looting, violence and torture of the Middle Ages, the heyday of holy joes.
#14990662
@starman2003, Socialism doesn't deprive many people of an incentive to work hard. It only deprives non socialists, selfish fucks, and ignorant people who support slavery. It is like saying "The abolition of slavery deprives many people of an incentive to work hard" which isn't fucking correct. The abolition of slavery only deprives people WHO SUPPORT SLAVERY from working hard because they need slave owners to motivate them to work because that is how they were raised and conditioned. And they were conditioned that way to think that they actually need that so that they never rebel, letting the owners stay rich.

Just like how many people in the West nowadays think that money is everything, that is because the capitalist elite are pushing society in a manipulative way into thinking that the masses actually need to love money in order to be truly happy, and that money should motivate people into going to school and working hard.

If one teaches a young child that money buys love, the young child will most likely believe that money buys love! In which it obviously isn't true of fucking course.
#14990753
SSDR wrote:@starman2003, Socialism doesn't deprive many people of an incentive to work hard. It only deprives non socialists, selfish fucks, and ignorant people who support slavery. It is like saying "The abolition of slavery deprives many people of an incentive to work hard" which isn't fucking correct. The abolition of slavery only deprives people WHO SUPPORT SLAVERY from working hard because they need slave owners to motivate them to work because that is how they were raised and conditioned. And they were conditioned that way to think that they actually need that so that they never rebel, letting the owners stay rich.



The abolition of slavery increases incentive because slaves, once free, can expect to get more from their efforts. Overall, a slave system works because the slave owners get a lot out of it hence have a strong incentive to make sure slaves work hard. Under socialism, state bureaucrats don't profit from the enterprises they run so don't have as much incentive as capitalists to run things efficiently and make use of innovations.
I think you place too much emphasis on the environment or conditioning. Slave owners always tried to condition their slaves to be obedient but it often didn't work out, hence slave revolts from Spartacus to Tubman.



Just like how many people in the West nowadays think that money is everything, that is because the capitalist elite are pushing society in a manipulative way into thinking that the masses actually need to love money in order to be truly happy, and that money should motivate people into going to school and working hard.


I think people are naturally greedy and selfish, and capitalists are only catering to them.
#14990756
SSDR wrote:starman2003, Socialism doesn't deprive many people of an incentive to work hard. It only deprives non socialists, selfish fucks, and ignorant people who support slavery. It is like saying "The abolition of slavery deprives many people of an incentive to work hard" which isn't fucking correct. The abolition of slavery only deprives people WHO SUPPORT SLAVERY from working hard because they need slave owners to motivate them to work because that is how they were raised and conditioned. And they were conditioned that way to think that they actually need that so that they never rebel, letting the owners stay rich.

Just like how many people in the West nowadays think that money is everything, that is because the capitalist elite are pushing society in a manipulative way into thinking that the masses actually need to love money in order to be truly happy, and that money should motivate people into going to school and working hard.

If one teaches a young child that money buys love, the young child will most likely believe that money buys love! In which it obviously isn't true of fucking course.


You reject Darwinism then?

I wish I was a blank slate then I would program myself to be less lazy and more ingenious so that I could become richer and happier, sadly that is not the case.
#14990758
SolarCross wrote:I wish I was a blank slate then I would program myself to be less lazy and more ingenious so that I could become richer and happier, sadly that is not the case.

If you were a blank state you wouldn't program yourself to be anything. You seem to be presuming some sort of a priori utility function.
#14990822
BicCherry wrote:Communism is like a coal power station. People nearby get cancer, people far away get cheap power.

No?

If not for Communism, probably there would not be any much of a National Health Service in UK and many other places.

Only after USSR, East Germany became communist and many countries in Asia followed the communist bandwagon (China, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia etc) did Europe and USA promulgate more welfare policies for citizens, if any, at least to minimize their hardships and so that they would not support the communist insurgency sweeping quickly down Asia from China.

Many people in USA and Europe thus have communism to thank for many of the welfare policies which they presently enjoy.

My take is that morally, communist core pillar of "from each his best, to each his needs" remains a very good tenate in life and in families to live by as it fosters fosters unity.

Unfortunately, the weak spot in communism: the totalitarian bent, is what caused the downfall and fragmentation of USSR because most of the leaders were corrupt, didn't give off their best, stole from national coffers and failed to satisfy even the basic needs of the poor. If not for authoratarianism and corruption, communism would have thrived in this world very well.

The lack of a democratic process, coupled with corruption and the lack of checks and balances (separation of powers) were what resulted in communism's downfall.

Besides the separation of powers, if communism were also to adopt the accountability and hatred for corruption evident in many developed countries, probably communism will do well.

Or maybe the world just need more moral guidance on how one can "love one's neighbor as one loves oneself", which is revealed by Jesus Christ in the Bible and in many other religions as well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Commandment

In summary, communist has severe local flaw as a coal power plant is often highly pollutive etc. However, it's far reaching and not insignificant benefits to society (moral reasoning) should not be under estimated either.

Latest update of the post is at: https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat- ... t118379092

Actually, I might be a bit wrong in over attributing social benefits to communism.

Maybe the single source was liberalism, John Locke, positive rights etc.

Positive rights means some sort of leveling up so the poor/deprived/ handicapped can have a fighting chance to thrive in life (e.g. vz universal basic healthcare, free basic education etc etc).

Spoke to a historian and he says that Labour government took over UK parliament after WW2 because conservatives (Chamberlain, Churchill etc) were blamed for allowing Hitler to become so powerful that Britain almost lost WW2. Also, people felt a new sense of solidarity after WW2 and the free healthcare for all, welfarism etc as advocated by Labour party after WW2 resonated much better with the electorate post WW2 than the business as usual policy that the Conservatives were offering.

So whilst the respect for human rights (/ serving of human needs) is the similar promise made by British Labour party and communist political parties, they were probably both sourced from the similar beginnings of liberal thought.
#14990853
@starman2003, You don't need profit incentives to inspire people to work hard. If one wants to work hard so they can have a lot of stuff, then there is nothing harmful about that.

It depends on what definition of "greed" you're using. Right wingers say it's "greedy" to want to increase wages for workers so that no human has to rely on their families, it's "greedy" to have more welfare for the poor so that the poor can be independent, and even some of the more radical right wingers say that it is "greedy" for a slave to want to be free and not owned. What definition of greed are you fucking using?

My definition of greed is when one wants power over another. And when rich capitalists have lots of power over other people's destinies, that is what makes the capitalist corrupt. Another example of greed that I am defining is when one wants to make things to be sold, rather than people actually wanting it or needing it, because wanting to sell things for your own interests, and supporting a system that conditions people to think that this is normal via using religion to cope with economic uncertainty, IS greedy.

Judging from the one incident: Charlottesville, at[…]

Yeah, he was 30 years old when he did that stupid […]

The Next UK PM everybody...

Forgot the past. She intends to call off Brexit, w[…]

EU-BREXIT

@Kaiserschmarrn is a wannabe Anglo from down-un[…]