Is it ok to be a communist?
- Thread starter Angstrom
- Start date
Communism is clearly the opposite of natural survival. There must be negative effects too completely changing our life experience.
The only ones against communism are the ones called the elite and they prefer to have it as the elite being a small group that live off the sweat of the much bigger group that are called 'surfs'. Obviously that is the only group that has ever been against the concept of 'share the wealth'.
All of those places still have an elite that tries to make the rest do with as little as possible. They do not like the concept of them cutting back even if they cannot spend all the money they collect every year. Nor can you judge how well they are doing if they are under sanctions from the freedom loving west.
Yes, there are no structures in the natural world of cooperative societies or species.
If there 'must be negative effects', then you should be able to list them.
So light Communism is ok. Not hard Communist?
Yet nature achieves perfect balance. How is that possible?
If a light communist can sleep lightly with a light on, can a hard communist sleep hardly with a hard on?
So killing rich people to take their money and give to the poor is cruel, but stealing 70% of rich people’s money and letting them live is ok?
I have Vol 1. of Capital (the only volume authored by Karl Marx, the other two were cobbled together by Friedrich Engels from notes left by Marx) and the Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels (150th Anniversary Edition in hardcover) in my bookcase. It's had some influence on my social philosophy but does not define it. I'd recommend both as a dialectical contributor to developing your own.
I have Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, Freidrich List's The National System of Political Economy, and, Alexander Hamilton's Essays and Federalist Papers on Political Economy as well.
The only thing for sure is that the Global Free Market Capitalism promoted by both NeoConservatives and Economic Libertarians over the last 40 years has been an absolute disaster.
I have Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, Freidrich List's The National System of Political Economy, and, Alexander Hamilton's Essays and Federalist Papers on Political Economy as well.
The only thing for sure is that the Global Free Market Capitalism promoted by both NeoConservatives and Economic Libertarians over the last 40 years has been an absolute disaster.
If someone truly deserves to be poor, to live in difficulties because of choices. How will he learn he is making bad choices if there are no natural consequences because we steal from the rich to give to the poor who deserve to be the way they are?
Will the benefits to society from helping the poor who don’t deserve to be poor outweigh, the negative consequences of helping the poor who deserve to be poor? And will the growing population of people who stop making good decisions for themselves because of the hard work it takes to do so not eventually compromise the whole system?
Or is it the whole universe and how it works with consequences that push living things to make intelligent decisions that is wrong and communism will solve the huge failing disaster that is known as the universe and nature?
Last edited:
Too bad about them not being able to be used side by side with getting a lot of giggles.