Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

nature of reality · Oct 26, 2003, 11:08 pm

The sick pervsion that has tormented mankind (altruism) for all time takes on a almost singularity in the government comprised entirely of looters, the Statist Communistic one.

It Fails to Provide, in every inception of it. Systematic starvation and constant famine are its hallmarks. But its ineffiency is not enough to damn it. Its damnable on Objective moral grounds, for even if it did work, it would be the most miserable system ever devised.

How can a system that punishs those who innovate and rewards those who act without question (or reason) expect progress? it offers two answers: To the people, that somehow a "collective mind" will take over create the mental processies to keep a industrial economy moving. Unfortunately, the products of ones mind are the most private of all our possessions. To the intelligent, creative pariahs, they offer the same thing they offer every other laborer; a gun to their head. What they fail to realize is you can't force a man to think like you can force him work.

The morality of cannabils, look what it has already unleashed on the world. 2 world wars, decades of death in communist countries, the destruction of humanity for those who survive the harsh conditions in those countires, yet still young fools refuse to examine their own belief structure, and just blame it on the Captilists.

Or the Middle Class

Or the Jews.

The use of scapegoats to hide the actions of statist governments are used by all forms of the death-worshipers, the hate-filled mongrels who claim society as the unit.

Worship irrationality and you worship death, as rationality is our sole tool of survival.

RebelWithanAK · Oct 26, 2003, 11:40 pm

This is more rhetoric than arguement.

Section 8 · Oct 26, 2003, 11:47 pm

Well, as a communist it is quiet hard to argue your point. You see your argument is baseless and offers many facts proven numerous times to be incorrect, such as communism being responsible for countless deaths. More correct would be to say marx-lennism, or maosim is responsible.

I suggest that you reavise your argument so it offers more proof instead of assumptions and falsities.

nature of reality · Oct 26, 2003, 11:52 pm

Does communism hold the belief that the needy the right to club the able? then they are just as responsible.

Vercingetorix · Oct 26, 2003, 11:55 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
More correct would be to say marx-lennism, or maosim is responsible.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Think about it. These were the direct results of attempts at Communism. It was too easily hijacked, and any attempt to prove the perfection of Communism fails because of this ease.

Section 8 · Oct 26, 2003, 11:58 pm

Actually it was an attempt at socialism, not communism. Lennin unleashed the revolution to early when the land was dominated by peasents, not workers.

Mao was a brutal fascist who only claimed to be a communist.

RebelWithanAK · Oct 27, 2003, 12:13 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Vercingetorix,)
Think about it. These were the direct results of attempts at Communism. It was too easily hijacked, and any attempt to prove the perfection of Communism fails because of this ease.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>To be a pedant, that proves that the implementation was flawed, not the theory; tho I'm inclined to believe the theory was flawed, too (especially in the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' part). I'd have to say that the implementation was flawed in that it called for a very heightened state of nationalism as a driving force for the 'people,' and that in doing so dissent was crushed (as it always is in the face of patriotism). Such a system lent itself to iron-fisted rulers (which both Russia and China had a very long history of before Communism came in. It might be a Russo-Chinese thing) and downplayed what I believe to be the true method of leadership in a socialist state: Democracy.

This isn't to say that Communism called for a dictator or a tyrant. It most certainly didn't. But it didn't leave a strong enough base for defending representative committees, nor electable and accountable leaders. It was to be borne from Capitalis, and Capitalism lent itself to such leadership - albeit a corrupt form of it - because it came about as competition to the throne as a more permeable class system that fostered participation. The system would have been in place and a precedent established had Russia followed that route. You cannot go from a dictatorial empire to a system that is weak in the face of dictators.

G. Adams · Oct 27, 2003, 06:56 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Vercingetorix,)
Think about it. These were the direct results of attempts at Communism. It was too easily hijacked, and any attempt to prove the perfection of Communism fails because of this ease.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>To be a pedant, that proves that the implementation was flawed, not the theory; tho I'm inclined to believe the theory was flawed, too (especially in the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' part). I'd have to say that the implementation was flawed in that it called for a very heightened state of nationalism as a driving force for the 'people,' and that in doing so dissent was crushed (as it always is in the face of patriotism). Such a system lent itself to iron-fisted rulers (which both Russia and China had a very long history of before Communism came in. It might be a Russo-Chinese thing) and downplayed what I believe to be the true method of leadership in a socialist state: Democracy.

This isn't to say that Communism called for a dictator or a tyrant. It most certainly didn't. But it didn't leave a strong enough base for defending representative committees, nor electable and accountable leaders. It was to be borne from Capitalis, and Capitalism lent itself to such leadership - albeit a corrupt form of it - because it came about as competition to the throne as a more permeable class system that fostered participation. The system would have been in place and a precedent established had Russia followed that route. You cannot go from a dictatorial empire to a system that is weak in the face of dictators.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Dictatorship of the proleteriat...always a sticking point. 2 things here (i'm sure you've already heard them from me before rebel)

A dictator is someone (or a body of people in thoery) given emergency powers to look after the state during a crisis. Thats all it is.

In saying dictatorship of the proleteriat, Marx (it is claimed) was referring to a reversal, as he saw capitalism as the dictatorship of the bourgoisie. So instead of the minority in power, it would be the majority. Isn't that democratic? (unless of course your a marxist-leninist, who would argue the people don't know what they want and only the vanguard party does, so it is they who rule on behalf...)

castille · Oct 27, 2003, 08:19 am

Obviously, in theory, everything works.

In theory, I could make $179 trillion dollars in 1 year.

However, in reality, there has NEVER been a single real Communist leader.

Not Lenin, not Mao, not Stalin.

Somwhere along the path, thousands of opportunities lie for clever men to hijack Communism and twist it to their own purposes.

The question is not whether Communism can suceed.

The question is, are we going to risk another dictatorship and another 40 million deaths?

Section 8 · Oct 27, 2003, 09:46 am

No. Maybe it's because communism has never been tried.

Vercingetorix · Oct 27, 2003, 09:49 pm

I think you may have missed castille's point, being that there are so many opportunities along the way in communistic implimentation that the system is a failure. If it succeeds in implementing, then you have found a fluke, a rarity. And also, as was said above, EVERYTHING works in theory. In theory, I can find a beautiful girl who will love me as much as I love her, which would be greatly, and all that other stuff guys like me like in girls, but no...that also only works in theory.

Sorry, this world is not perfect; if it was, we wouldn't need any system for anything.

Bayou · Oct 31, 2003, 06:11 pm

In every inception?
Seems to me things like social security, universal healthcare are quite successful in their inceptions in most european nations and canada.
It's only when politicians think bussinesses can run public institutions when things start falling apart.
Look at Brazil, they have a socialist party in power right now and they are experiencing record growth.
Do you ignore Sweden, Norway and Finland just to prove your theories?
Stalinist/Lenin/maoist communist governments are only one representation of socialist theory.
In a true socialist eyes, they betray the idea of communism(like others here have already stated).

castille · Nov 1, 2003, 09:21 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Section 8,)
No. Maybe it's because communism has never been tried.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Oh, Communism has been tried.

Its just never worked.

Also, Brazil/Sweden/Norway/etc are completely dependent on American capitalist trade. Take the US capitalism away and lets see if those "socialist" countries can still survive, eh?

Section 8 · Nov 1, 2003, 09:55 pm

They would actually thrive, as a socialist USA would increase the supplement of goods.

castille · Nov 1, 2003, 10:32 pm

But what if the US doesn't want to become Communist?

Then those "grand socialist countries" will simply become poor once again.....

Also, you were wrong in saying Communism hasn't been tried.

Communism has been tried many times.

It has just never been succeeded.

G. Adams · Nov 2, 2003, 08:59 am

No, communism has never been tried. Damn this is hard to get through to people. Mao, Lenin and all others who you brand as communist tried to put their countries on paths to communism (if we ignore the fact they made nice littles niches for themselves that went against that path) As they never made it to the end of that path, which would be communism, it cannot be claimed that communism has been tried, as they never made it to communism to try.

nature of reality · Nov 2, 2003, 05:27 pm

That because the finality of communism , is the ZERO.

DEATH is the only end to the true altruist, because that is what they seek, their own death. If you are living rationally (ie with your mind, your SELF as the guiding purpose) you are living irrationally, riding a roller coaster to oblivion.

A whole nation of people dedicated to the achievement of human suffering as a ideal would be a nation of the dead. THAT, is why it hasn't never happened.

Oct 26, 2003, 11:08 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
nature of reality Molten Ash Posts: 134	The sick pervsion that has tormented mankind (altruism) for all time takes on a almost singularity in the government comprised entirely of looters, the Statist Communistic one. It Fails to Provide, in every inception of it. Systematic starvation and constant famine are its hallmarks. But its ineffiency is not enough to damn it. Its damnable on Objective moral grounds, for even if it did work, it would be the most miserable system ever devised. How can a system that punishs those who innovate and rewards those who act without question (or reason) expect progress? it offers two answers: To the people, that somehow a "collective mind" will take over create the mental processies to keep a industrial economy moving. Unfortunately, the products of ones mind are the most private of all our possessions. To the intelligent, creative pariahs, they offer the same thing they offer every other laborer; a gun to their head. What they fail to realize is you can't force a man to think like you can force him work. The morality of cannabils, look what it has already unleashed on the world. 2 world wars, decades of death in communist countries, the destruction of humanity for those who survive the harsh conditions in those countires, yet still young fools refuse to examine their own belief structure, and just blame it on the Captilists. Or the Middle Class Or the Jews. The use of scapegoats to hide the actions of statist governments are used by all forms of the death-worshipers, the hate-filled mongrels who claim society as the unit. Worship irrationality and you worship death, as rationality is our sole tool of survival. Whats wrong with Liberty?

Oct 26, 2003, 11:40 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	This is more rhetoric than arguement. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 26, 2003, 11:52 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
nature of reality Molten Ash Posts: 134	Does communism hold the belief that the needy the right to club the able? then they are just as responsible. Whats wrong with Liberty?

Oct 26, 2003, 11:55 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Vercingetorix Sedimentary Rock Location: Everywhere. Yes, I see you. Posts: 23	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by More correct would be to say marx-lennism, or maosim is responsible. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Think about it. These were the direct results of attempts at Communism. It was too easily hijacked, and any attempt to prove the perfection of Communism fails because of this ease.

Oct 27, 2003, 12:13 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Vercingetorix,) Think about it. These were the direct results of attempts at Communism. It was too easily hijacked, and any attempt to prove the perfection of Communism fails because of this ease.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>To be a pedant, that proves that the implementation was flawed, not the theory; tho I'm inclined to believe the theory was flawed, too (especially in the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' part). I'd have to say that the implementation was flawed in that it called for a very heightened state of nationalism as a driving force for the 'people,' and that in doing so dissent was crushed (as it always is in the face of patriotism). Such a system lent itself to iron-fisted rulers (which both Russia and China had a very long history of before Communism came in. It might be a Russo-Chinese thing) and downplayed what I believe to be the true method of leadership in a socialist state: Democracy. This isn't to say that Communism called for a dictator or a tyrant. It most certainly didn't. But it didn't leave a strong enough base for defending representative committees, nor electable and accountable leaders. It was to be borne from Capitalis, and Capitalism lent itself to such leadership - albeit a corrupt form of it - because it came about as competition to the throne as a more permeable class system that fostered participation. The system would have been in place and a precedent established had Russia followed that route. You cannot go from a dictatorial empire to a system that is weak in the face of dictators. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 26, 2003, 11:47 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Well, as a communist it is quiet hard to argue your point. You see your argument is baseless and offers many facts proven numerous times to be incorrect, such as communism being responsible for countless deaths. More correct would be to say marx-lennism, or maosim is responsible. I suggest that you reavise your argument so it offers more proof instead of assumptions and falsities.

Oct 26, 2003, 11:58 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Actually it was an attempt at socialism, not communism. Lennin unleashed the revolution to early when the land was dominated by peasents, not workers. Mao was a brutal fascist who only claimed to be a communist.

Oct 27, 2003, 06:56 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Vercingetorix,) Think about it. These were the direct results of attempts at Communism. It was too easily hijacked, and any attempt to prove the perfection of Communism fails because of this ease.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>To be a pedant, that proves that the implementation was flawed, not the theory; tho I'm inclined to believe the theory was flawed, too (especially in the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' part). I'd have to say that the implementation was flawed in that it called for a very heightened state of nationalism as a driving force for the 'people,' and that in doing so dissent was crushed (as it always is in the face of patriotism). Such a system lent itself to iron-fisted rulers (which both Russia and China had a very long history of before Communism came in. It might be a Russo-Chinese thing) and downplayed what I believe to be the true method of leadership in a socialist state: Democracy. This isn't to say that Communism called for a dictator or a tyrant. It most certainly didn't. But it didn't leave a strong enough base for defending representative committees, nor electable and accountable leaders. It was to be borne from Capitalis, and Capitalism lent itself to such leadership - albeit a corrupt form of it - because it came about as competition to the throne as a more permeable class system that fostered participation. The system would have been in place and a precedent established had Russia followed that route. You cannot go from a dictatorial empire to a system that is weak in the face of dictators.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Dictatorship of the proleteriat...always a sticking point. 2 things here (i'm sure you've already heard them from me before rebel) A dictator is someone (or a body of people in thoery) given emergency powers to look after the state during a crisis. Thats all it is. In saying dictatorship of the proleteriat, Marx (it is claimed) was referring to a reversal, as he saw capitalism as the dictatorship of the bourgoisie. So instead of the minority in power, it would be the majority. Isn't that democratic? (unless of course your a marxist-leninist, who would argue the people don't know what they want and only the vanguard party does, so it is they who rule on behalf...) Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 27, 2003, 08:19 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Obviously, in theory, everything works. In theory, I could make $179 trillion dollars in 1 year. However, in reality, there has NEVER been a single real Communist leader. Not Lenin, not Mao, not Stalin. Somwhere along the path, thousands of opportunities lie for clever men to hijack Communism and twist it to their own purposes. The question is not whether Communism can suceed. The question is, are we going to risk another dictatorship and another 40 million deaths? Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Oct 27, 2003, 09:46 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	No. Maybe it's because communism has never been tried.

Oct 27, 2003, 09:49 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Vercingetorix Sedimentary Rock Location: Everywhere. Yes, I see you. Posts: 23	I think you may have missed castille's point, being that there are so many opportunities along the way in communistic implimentation that the system is a failure. If it succeeds in implementing, then you have found a fluke, a rarity. And also, as was said above, EVERYTHING works in theory. In theory, I can find a beautiful girl who will love me as much as I love her, which would be greatly, and all that other stuff guys like me like in girls, but no...that also only works in theory. Sorry, this world is not perfect; if it was, we wouldn't need any system for anything.

Oct 31, 2003, 06:11 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
Bayou Igneous Magma Location: Calgary Alberta Canada Posts: 154	In every inception? Seems to me things like social security, universal healthcare are quite successful in their inceptions in most european nations and canada. It's only when politicians think bussinesses can run public institutions when things start falling apart. Look at Brazil, they have a socialist party in power right now and they are experiencing record growth. Do you ignore Sweden, Norway and Finland just to prove your theories? Stalinist/Lenin/maoist communist governments are only one representation of socialist theory. In a true socialist eyes, they betray the idea of communism(like others here have already stated). <span style='font-size:16pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Impact'><span style='color:green'>Vote NDP "The independence of art for the revolution. "The revolution for the complete liberation of art!"</span></span></span>

Nov 1, 2003, 09:21 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Section 8,) No. Maybe it's because communism has never been tried.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Oh, Communism has been tried. Its just never worked. Also, Brazil/Sweden/Norway/etc are completely dependent on American capitalist trade. Take the US capitalism away and lets see if those "socialist" countries can still survive, eh? Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Nov 1, 2003, 09:55 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	They would actually thrive, as a socialist USA would increase the supplement of goods.

Nov 1, 2003, 10:32 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	But what if the US doesn't want to become Communist? Then those "grand socialist countries" will simply become poor once again..... Also, you were wrong in saying Communism hasn't been tried. Communism has been tried many times. It has just never been succeeded. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Nov 2, 2003, 08:59 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	No, communism has never been tried. Damn this is hard to get through to people. Mao, Lenin and all others who you brand as communist tried to put their countries on paths to communism (if we ignore the fact they made nice littles niches for themselves that went against that path) As they never made it to the end of that path, which would be communism, it cannot be claimed that communism has been tried, as they never made it to communism to try. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 2, 2003, 05:27 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
nature of reality Molten Ash Posts: 134	That because the finality of communism , is the ZERO. DEATH is the only end to the true altruist, because that is what they seek, their own death. If you are living rationally (ie with your mind, your SELF as the guiding purpose) you are living irrationally, riding a roller coaster to oblivion. A whole nation of people dedicated to the achievement of human suffering as a ideal would be a nation of the dead. THAT, is why it hasn't never happened. Whats wrong with Liberty?