Jump to content

Tell me how Communism is bad


Holton
 Share

Recommended Posts

What the?The Nazis were and are the most far-right people out there.

Edited by Vincent de Beer

"If a person is satisfied with everything,then he is a complete idiot.A normal person cannot be satisfied with everything."~Vladimir Putin

 

"Every human being makes mistakes."~Ian Smith

 

We do not know what tomorrow will bring. We are not prophets. This is a step in the dark. We can only proceed into the future with faith.~Pieter Wilhelm Botha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nazis were economically leftist.

 

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National-Socialist German Workers' Party // NSDAP)
 

But anyways, to avoid the >le Nazis arguments, take your pick:

 

-Gulags

-Suppression of free speech

-Political assassinations

-Malinvestment of productive assets

-Rampant corruption

-Forced labor

-Mass starvation

 

10/10 ideology, breh
 

misery03.26.jpg

 

article-1371768-00329A4100000190-823_634

 

gulag.gif

Edited by Spooner

☾☆


High Priest of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nazis were entirely right-wing. They kept the name of the party they took over, but that was the extent of their leftism. Like modern Russia Nazi Germany scores nearly perfectly on the checklist of features necessary to declare them fascist, which is just about as far right as you can go. Your list is probably trtying to imply the USSR as leftist (at the time more likely Stalinist than anything else), but it fits the Nazis much better.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, in the way Marx said it would. First the beginning needs an advanced capitalist economy rather like the current American one, then you turn it into a socialist country with excellent democratic features. Then eventually you start removing the government and move towards communism where there is no government. Have these examples you're considering had governments? If so, they're not communist., all past attempts were failures.

Also, it seems like Communism must not be a very good system if it requires a Capitalist system to first generate all the wealth.

"Your cattle will die, your friends will die, you will die. But your reputation, if it is good, will never die."  -excerpt from the Havamal

 

"We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one thing that can not be taken from a man."  -Oswald Spengler

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"wait, wat's so wrong about eugenics and euthanization? like, i know that you wouldn't want to kill a person yourself (since some people don't like that cause of personality differences) but it's logical and it makes a happier, better population (creating the most adapted humanity to their environment)???"

 

So you're a liberal,and you support this?

 

"and "negative" measures such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction. People deemed unfit to reproduce often included people with mental or physical disabilities, people who scored in the low ranges of different IQ tests, criminals and deviants, and members of disfavored minority groups"

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

 

wat's wrong with marriage prohibitions and sterilization? if you prohibit minority groups from reproducing, then you won't have racism since there's no other race to hate. if you prohibit people with mental or physical disabilities from reproducing, future children will have less of a chance from inheriting mental and physical disabilities? if you prohibit people with low IQ scores from reproducing, then you'll reduce the risk of inheritable mental retardation? What's wrong with not letting criminals and deviants to reproduce? They committed a crime so why should they be able to reproduce?

 

I'm not criticizing you or anything, I'm just generally confused as to why it would be bad? i confused ;(

tumblr_static_tumblr_maucq6syiy1r7y61oo1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wat's wrong with marriage prohibitions and sterilization? if you prohibit minority groups from reproducing, then you won't have racism since there's no other race to hate. if you prohibit people with mental or physical disabilities from reproducing, future children will have less of a chance from inheriting mental and physical disabilities? if you prohibit people with low IQ scores from reproducing, then you'll reduce the risk of inheritable mental retardation? What's wrong with not letting criminals and deviants to reproduce? They committed a crime so why should they be able to reproduce?

 

I'm not criticizing you or anything, I'm just generally confused as to why it would be bad? i confused ;(

Elimination through forced extinction presents pretty obvious ethical implications. I certainly have no issues with people that voluntarily choose to be sterilized or remain celibate, but enforcing that on someone else is wrong for the same reason that it would be wrong for me to do outright kill them or steal their things. Of course, if you don't accept the premise that it's wrong to murder or it's wrong to steal, you can draw internally consistent conclusions to the opposite.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elimination through forced extinction presents pretty obvious ethical implications. I certainly have no issues with people that voluntarily choose to be sterilized or remain celibate, but enforcing that on someone else is wrong for the same reason that it would be wrong for me to do outright kill them or steal their things. Of course, if you don't accept the premise that it's wrong to murder or it's wrong to steal, you can draw internally consistent conclusions to the opposite.

ooo, uhm, but why is it wrong? i don't understand everyone telling me that what i say is 'unethical' or 'immoral'. I just don't get why it's wrong to do? It's so confusing and I really want to understand ;(

tumblr_static_tumblr_maucq6syiy1r7y61oo1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ooo, uhm, but why is it wrong? i don't understand everyone telling me that what i say is 'unethical' or 'immoral'. I just don't get why it's wrong to do? It's so confusing and I really want to understand ;(

The simplest explanation is that you would not wish it to be done to yourself. If by some chance, you do wish it done to yourself, it eliminates your genes from future dialogue and renders the implication somewhat moot.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simplest explanation is that you would not wish it to be done to yourself. If by some chance, you do wish it done to yourself, it eliminates your genes from future dialogue and renders the implication somewhat moot.

 

ooo, why would people not want it done? it's for a good cause, right? and your genes aren't really important anyway (it doesn't, like, make your child you in anyway; just how they look and their deficiencies). it's like giving blood at one of my school's blood-drives; you don't think about making babies or about the blood flowing through your veins every single day (it's not very important) and donating your blood is okay; why wouldn't sterlizing people be okay? we have too many people anyway (everyone always talks about too many orphans, or too many people like in china, or too many homeless or something) so wouldn't it be okay?

 

i hear about fertility clinics in the radio sometimes and i know about surrogate moms and stuff. why don't sterile people just adopt (i hear a lot about how infertile people can't have babies so they adopt and they're all happy or something, so genetics and blood relation isn't that important)? also, if morality is subjective, then why does everyone say 'it's right' or 'it's wrong' in a debate or something? wouldn't the answer be like schrodinger's cat: it's right and it's wrong at the same time??? oh god, my brain is confused. it hurts.

 

sorry i'm, like, asking so many questions. i really like learning stuff and learning about how people think!

Edited by Lyre

tumblr_static_tumblr_maucq6syiy1r7y61oo1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our biological imperative is to reproduce. We're biological entities. While I have a lot of respect for people who are willing to adopt, the outcomes for adopted children tend to be more negative than the ones for biological children raised by their own parents. There are certainly special efforts that can be made to manage that and to create more positive outcomes, but currently we don't have that on a wide scale. With the caveat that there are exceptions and these are general trends, the most positive system that is currently widely practiced for the best outcome psychologically and for success in the wider societal context seems to be a child being raised by its biological parents. This doesn't discount the suffering of those with unfit parents, but just as that is a less than ideal recipe for success, it seems to similar be a less ideal circumstance to raise children that are not yours. I suspect that forcibly sterilizing people and then telling them the best they can do is to raise other people's children won't do much for the psychological outcomes either.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're not. Nazi stopped the socialist aspects before even Hitler joined. They just kept the name. Then why did they enact the leftist policies I listed?

 

Yeah, it works well to end a Depression. We did the same stuff and had great results too. Yes, it did. Doesn't make it any more right-winged.

 

That's not on liberals, that's pure Republican shit. So Republicans want socialized healthcare? Source

 

If NYC actually does this, contact the ACLU. They'd love to get a precedent against that. It doesn't look legitimate, though. It appears to be a Republican blog. Reuters reported on it. 

 

The Nazis were far right. The only liberal thing about them is the name and they mainly kept that for recruiting purposes; it had no bearing on actual policies. Except for the ones I listed, right? 

Edited by WISD0MTREE

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our biological imperative is to reproduce. We're biological entities. While I have a lot of respect for people who are willing to adopt, the outcomes for adopted children tend to be more negative than the ones for biological children raised by their own parents. There are certainly special efforts that can be made to manage that and to create more positive outcomes, but currently we don't have that on a wide scale. With the caveat that there are exceptions and these are general trends, the most positive system that is currently widely practiced for the best outcome psychologically and for success in the wider societal context seems to be a child being raised by its biological parents. This doesn't discount the suffering of those with unfit parents, but just as that is a less than ideal recipe for success, it seems to similar be a less ideal circumstance to raise children that are not yours. I suspect that forcibly sterilizing people and then telling them the best they can do is to raise other people's children won't do much for the psychological outcomes either.

 

So people only want to raise their own biological children and are abusive / hate taking care of others? (I'm kind of paraphrasing here, please tell me if I got the wrong thing out of your words!) If it's biological (a psychological problem resulting from the environment / one's physicality) then it would definitely be influenced by genetics (right?)! I feel that this could be solved by eugenics too; just euthanize people who aren't able to keep up psychologically and, slowly, a stronger breed of humans would eventually grow!

 

Or maybe only qualified, interested people could apply to make a child and, if they die, the child would be reassigned to voluntary care-givers? The voluntary care-givers would be faced with punishment, heavy monitoring, and stuff! OHMIGOD, IMAGINE A CASTE SYSTEM! Everyone would have to do what they're best at to contribute to society and, if they fail, they get euthanized or made into breeding stock for better children. Every generation, the country will be more prosperous and the people more happy! Everyone wins! And, if there's a surplus, we can always just select the best and brightest to raise and euthanize the others. It's flawless (kind of)! 

tumblr_static_tumblr_maucq6syiy1r7y61oo1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Everyone would have to do what they're best at to contribute to society and, if they fail, they get euthanized or made into breeding stock for better children. Every generation, the country will be more prosperous and the people more happy! Everyone wins! And, if there's a surplus, we can always just select the best and brightest to raise and euthanize the others. It's flawless (kind of)!

"

 

Ok I don't see how turning people into sex slaves or killing them because they don't do "their best" makes anyone happy,explain your reasoning behind that because this is just sick.

 

"Or maybe only qualified, interested people could apply to make a child and, if they die, the child would be reassigned to voluntary care-givers? The voluntary care-givers would be faced with punishment, heavy monitoring, and stuff!"

 

What the hell?You basically sterilize people and then tell them to raise another person's child,meanwhile you put them under horrible conditions,do you have any idea how screwed up this is?

Edited by Vincent de Beer
  • Upvote 1

"If a person is satisfied with everything,then he is a complete idiot.A normal person cannot be satisfied with everything."~Vladimir Putin

 

"Every human being makes mistakes."~Ian Smith

 

We do not know what tomorrow will bring. We are not prophets. This is a step in the dark. We can only proceed into the future with faith.~Pieter Wilhelm Botha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skipping the proven evidence that you lied, Roz? Hitler was the bigger of the eugenics people and we all know his kill count. IMO he definitely comes out on top and was right wing as all hell. I see you have leveled up from simply responding to comments solely directed at others as if they were to you, to just treating another's post as coming from me.

Edited by Rozalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Skipping the proven evidence that you lied, Roz? Hitler was the bigger of the eugenics people and we all know his kill count. IMO he definitely comes out on top and was right wing as all hell. I see you have leveled up from simply responding to comments solely directed at others as if they were to you, to just treating another's post as coming from me.

 

 

I did not do that, fake quoting me again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So people only want to raise their own biological children and are abusive / hate taking care of others? (I'm kind of paraphrasing here, please tell me if I got the wrong thing out of your words!) If it's biological (a psychological problem resulting from the environment / one's physicality) then it would definitely be influenced by genetics (right?)! I feel that this could be solved by eugenics too; just euthanize people who aren't able to keep up psychologically and, slowly, a stronger breed of humans would eventually grow!

 

Or maybe only qualified, interested people could apply to make a child and, if they die, the child would be reassigned to voluntary care-givers? The voluntary care-givers would be faced with punishment, heavy monitoring, and stuff! OHMIGOD, IMAGINE A CASTE SYSTEM! Everyone would have to do what they're best at to contribute to society and, if they fail, they get euthanized or made into breeding stock for better children. Every generation, the country will be more prosperous and the people more happy! Everyone wins! And, if there's a surplus, we can always just select the best and brightest to raise and euthanize the others. It's flawless (kind of)!

The controls on who can raise other people's children already are pretty intense and there are still things it just doesn't catch. Even in cases where nothing is explicitly being done wrong, there are things that aren't being done right, so to speak.

 

The current state of affairs has a paradoxically dysgenic effect. Poorer single women that have children are given a lot of state support, whereas typically upper class people tend to have fewer children they invest a lot more resources into. Morality aside, the practical consideration is that subjectively "competent" people who might meet with this societal standard of being the creme de la creme of good parents already have incentives to raise fewer or no children(plenty of mating opportunities without attendant responsibilities, career advancement opportunities, etc) and the net effect of this would likely be to reduce the population entirely. Unless you're going to string this state up with some kind of advanced robot army, there's precious little that would maintain this proposed society into the future without accepting immigrants that would have a built in incentive to overthrow this oppressive system that could choose to sterilize them for whatever the subjective reasons might be.

 

There really just isn't any scientific way to do this either. We have some finite understanding of heritable traits and what can and can't be passed on, but we don't have a really good way of avoiding things like regression to the mean in future generations or accounting for what traits actually get utilized. The archetypes of the brilliant wastrel and the industrious halfwit seems to have some basis in observable human reality. There's a joke in engineering colleges that has parallels elsewhere that the A students end up being hired by the C students. Your best breeding "elite" might actually come from somewhere near the middle of the IQ deck and not the top. We just don't have enough research in this area to do this safely, and considering the only times human society has attempted to create this kind of thing it has generally isolated itself to the point of self defeat or inbred itself to the point of imbecility it's not one of the ideas I'd flip a coin on.

Edited by Auctor
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, not only are you lying, here's a screenshot to really emphasize it:

 

xoaGj8A.jpg

 

That is not Vincent in the screenshot who is who your post was directed at. Trying to lie as you usually do and attribute things to other people. Sad!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Everyone would have to do what they're best at to contribute to society and, if they fail, they get euthanized or made into breeding stock for better children. Every generation, the country will be more prosperous and the people more happy! Everyone wins! And, if there's a surplus, we can always just select the best and brightest to raise and euthanize the others. It's flawless (kind of)!

"

 

Ok I don't see how turning people into sex slaves or killing them because they don't do "their best" makes anyone happy,explain your reasoning behind that because this is just sick.

 

"Or maybe only qualified, interested people could apply to make a child and, if they die, the child would be reassigned to voluntary care-givers? The voluntary care-givers would be faced with punishment, heavy monitoring, and stuff!"

 

What the hell?You basically sterilize people and then tell them to raise another person's child,meanwhile you put them under horrible conditions,do you have any idea how screwed up this is?

 

I dunno, if they're not contributing to society, then we have to make them contribute? Like, if we don't give them these incentives, then they won't do anything; pushing them to do good things like helping out the community, doing their best in work and productivity, etc... would really force them to do good! I don't understand how it's sick or screwed-up? I mean, it kinda makes sense and, in the end, the children get a home, people do what they need, and the community continues to thrive with a working labor force? I mean we wouldn't have to worry so much about inherited diseases anymore, there would be less crime, and the conditions are only for bad, bad people (like consequences for bad behavior --- everyone does it in any country!)

 

The controls on who can raise other people's children already are pretty intense and there are still things it just doesn't catch. Even in cases where nothing is explicitly being done wrong, there are things that aren't being done right, so to speak.

 

The current state of affairs has a paradoxically dysgenic effect. Poorer single women that have children are given a lot of state support, whereas typically upper class people tend to have fewer children they invest a lot more resources into. Morality aside, the practical consideration is that subjectively "competent" people who might meet with this societal standard of being the creme de la creme of good parents already have incentives to raise fewer or no children(plenty of mating opportunities without attendant responsibilities, career advancement opportunities, etc) and the net effect of this would likely be to reduce the population entirely. Unless you're going to string this state up with some kind of advanced robot army, there's precious little that would maintain this proposed society into the future without accepting immigrants that would have a built in incentive to overthrow this oppressive system that could choose to sterilize them for whatever the subjective reasons might be.

 

There really just isn't any scientific way to do this either. We have some finite understanding of heritable traits and what can and can't be passed on, but we don't have a really good way of avoiding things like regression to the mean in future generations or accounting for what traits actually get utilized. The archetypes of the brilliant wastrel and the industrious halfwit seems to have some basis in observable human reality. There's a joke in engineering colleges that has parallels elsewhere that the A students end up being hired by the C students. Your best breeding "elite" might actually come from somewhere near the middle of the IQ deck and not the top. We just don't have enough research in this area to do this safely, and considering the only times human society has attempted to create this kind of thing it has generally isolated itself to the point of self defeat or inbred itself to the point of imbecility it's not one of the ideas I'd flip a coin on.

 

ooo that makes sense! i guess we need a lot more research until we do something like this (although i still think a lower population is better since it's more manageable)! i kind of agree with you on the point that this isn't the best model to run a nation on considering the flaws that come from us not knowing enough and people acting in their own self-interest. thanks for your help in, like, explaining this to me Auctor! ur now promoted to 'good friend' in my notes! *hugs*

tumblr_static_tumblr_maucq6syiy1r7y61oo1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ooo that makes sense! i guess we need a lot more research until we do something like this (although i still think a lower population is better since it's more manageable)! i kind of agree with you on the point that this isn't the best model to run a nation on considering the flaws that come from us not knowing enough and people acting in their own self-interest. thanks for your help in, like, explaining this to me Auctor! ur now promoted to 'good friend' in my notes! *hugs*

Lower populations aren't necessarily a good thing. The example would be France before Napoleon. Going into the Napoleonic era, they had the strongest army in Europe. They were powerful enough to keep the nations around them relatively pacified. One of Napoleon's biggest changes was changing the inheritance laws to go from male preference primogeniture to inheritance between all heirs equally. This seems "fair" to some degree, but what this ended up causing was that the poorer people in the society couldn't afford to run the risk of a split inheritance that watered down their farms past the point where they could sustain a family unit. This had the effect of pushing them to engage in birth control strategies, infanticide, and the like. While this seems like it would create a society where the resources could be distributed more evenly, the net effect ended up being that the wider geopolitical context caught up with them. Between German Unification(and unified Germany's larger population and population growth) and British settler based colonialism that allowed Great Britain to utilize its population expansion to control a lot of strategic territory and resources, the French ran into severe issues just protecting their territorial integrity.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

get-rekt-o.gif

"If a person is satisfied with everything,then he is a complete idiot.A normal person cannot be satisfied with everything."~Vladimir Putin

 

"Every human being makes mistakes."~Ian Smith

 

We do not know what tomorrow will bring. We are not prophets. This is a step in the dark. We can only proceed into the future with faith.~Pieter Wilhelm Botha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.