• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Communism Inherently Toxic?

MARCELLO

Transitioning from male to female
And in America you see one announcement after another concerning law suits against medications because pharmaceutical companies buy, encourage, and pay for doctors to prescribe their medications. And they've been known to encourage their pills be used to treat things they aren't intended for (which is illegal as it is using the medication in an unintended way), or may even be dangerous, or even if there is no science to back up their claims. When Mitch Daniels was a top guy in Eli Lilly, he said he was going to make Prozac profitable, and studies would later find it doesn't work nearly as good as claimed. Or we just let our doctors give us opiates, meth, or stuff that can mess with the mind in dangerous ways, but we'll demonize anything illegal even though several illegal drugs have great promise for treating certain conditions. Mozart and Shakespeare have little appreciation, but we love watching over sized ogres get beat up, seriously injured, and often dying early. Our police are a danger to the general public, and they violating your rights on a regular basis. And we also allow dangerous additives into our food, and allow cruel treatment of farm animals.
Cause you have money as a nation,I am not talking about individual moneylessness . Canada is more socialist than USA just because they have a small population with vast amounts of income mine ,land, and sources,etc. In Canada they almost only give citizenship to the best of India and other best of 3rd world. Don't you think this is elitism?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
In the engineering world, I recall that where they really excelled was at making do with limited resources.
Militarily they built more powerful bombs, better guns, and were ahead in the Space Race until America put a human on the moon. And America has always had more resources than other places as it was it one of the last masses of land with fewer permanent settlements and smaller densities in population and to have the land ravaged and squandered.
 

MARCELLO

Transitioning from male to female
And in America you see one announcement after another concerning law suits against medications because pharmaceutical companies buy, encourage, and pay for doctors to prescribe their medications. And they've been known to encourage their pills be used to treat things they aren't intended for (which is illegal as it is using the medication in an unintended way), or may even be dangerous, or even if there is no science to back up their claims. When Mitch Daniels was a top guy in Eli Lilly, he said he was going to make Prozac profitable, and studies would later find it doesn't work nearly as good as claimed. Or we just let our doctors give us opiates, meth, or stuff that can mess with the mind in dangerous ways, but we'll demonize anything illegal even though several illegal drugs have great promise for treating certain conditions. Mozart and Shakespeare have little appreciation, but we love watching over sized ogres get beat up, seriously injured, and often dying early. Our police are a danger to the general public, and they violating your rights on a regular basis. And we also allow dangerous additives into our food, and allow cruel treatment of farm animals.
This is called being advanced. You direct the way to consume. Just think about the prozac consumed & sold and then think about E.Lilly . His company did a fortune. Is there any doctor who could have resisted against E.Lilly? My father was a pharmacist, a real one to make medicines,and many of the pharmacists today say that prozac is a lie. Where is the money then? Just a few millions of usd contributed to Africa? Hahaaaaaaa nobody needs prozac in real Africa. When I was in Congo,it was called as a white drug. Believe me.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Militarily they built more powerful bombs, better guns, and were ahead in the Space Race until America put a human on the moon. And America has always had more resources than other places as it was it one of the last masses of land with fewer permanent settlements and smaller densities in population and to have the land ravaged and squandered.
They had the jump on us in the space race, but they quickly lost this initial lead.
Things you mention aren't necessarily being more technologically advanced.

One example....
They had less sophisticated rockets, which burned oxygen & kerosene, but they were simple, big & reliable.
Think of it as good design instead of advanced technology.

Silly analogy time....
If your car won't start this morning, does this mean that your Amish neighbor's horse is more technologically advanced?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
In Canada they almost only give citizenship to the best of India and other best of 3rd world. Don't you think this is elitism?
Actually, as long as you can get enough points on their test, you are allowed in. They even are more open to immigrants than America, as they realize immigration helps wages for everybody else. And they are more likely to take you in if you are going to school or looking for work as a professional. I don't know their policy regarding India, but Canada doesn't seem to live up to it's reputation of difficulty for getting into. Certainly not like America where the system is clogged, backed up, and not working for anyone.
Cause you have money as a nation,I am not talking about individual moneylessness .
I was addressing that as well as societal problems. In some cases pharmaceutical companies have legal protection in law suits against bad drugs. Oil companies that ignore safety and face environmental disasters never receive more than a slap on the wrist. America didn't learn from the Depression or Recession, and many who caused it never faced any jail time and they've been doing the same things that caused the economy to crumble in the first place.
This is called being advanced.
It has nothing to do with being advanced. It's called being corrupt.
Just think about the prozac consumed & sold and then think about E.Lilly . His company did a fortune.
It's making a fortune from the woes and suffering of human beings, it's putting profit above human well being, and studies showed it was only effective for certain types of depression, but it was pushed as a generalized treatment for depression, something studies showed it was ineffective for.
One example....
They had less sophisticated rockets, which burned oxygen & kerosene, but they were simple, big & reliable.
Think of it as good design instead of advanced technology.

No one except Nazi Germany had good rockets until Nazi Scientists (Wernher von Braun mainly) showed them what they were doing wrong. But they did have the Czar Bomb, and it could have been much more powerful.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Silly analogy time....
If your car won't start this morning, does this mean that your Amish neighbor's horse is more technologically advanced?
The technological differences weren't great enough for that to be a valid analogy. Operating systems would be a much better analogy, given it's the same technology, but different things going on.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The technological differences weren't great enough for that to be a valid analogy. Operating systems would be a much better analogy, given it's the same technology, but different things going on.
It's a perfect analogy.
You tout things like being bigger & better as technological superiority.
But this doesn't address relative advancement.
They managed to make fell weapons using vacuum tubes when we used solid state.

No one except Nazi Germany had good rockets until Nazi Scientists (Wernher von Braun mainly) showed them what they were doing wrong. But they did have the Czar Bomb, and it could have been much more powerful.
This doesn't signify general technological superiority.

No one seems to consider the USSR to be communist, so what does the claim of technological superiority mean?
 
Last edited:

MARCELLO

Transitioning from male to female
Actually, as long as you can get enough points on their test, you are allowed in. They even are more open to immigrants than America, as they realize immigration helps wages for everybody else. And they are more likely to take you in if you are going to school or looking for work as a professional. I don't know their policy regarding India, but Canada doesn't seem to live up to it's reputation of difficulty for getting into. Certainly not like America where the system is clogged, backed up, and not working for anyone.

I was addressing that as well as societal problems. In some cases pharmaceutical companies have legal protection in law suits against bad drugs. Oil companies that ignore safety and face environmental disasters never receive more than a slap on the wrist. America didn't learn from the Depression or Recession, and many who caused it never faced any jail time and they've been doing the same things that caused the economy to crumble in the first place.

It has nothing to do with being advanced. It's called being corrupt.

It's making a fortune from the woes and suffering of human beings, it's putting profit above human well being, and studies showed it was only effective for certain types of depression, but it was pushed as a generalized treatment for depression, something studies showed it was ineffective for.
No one except Nazi Germany had good rockets until Nazi Scientists (Wernher von Braun mainly) showed them what they were doing wrong. But they did have the Czar Bomb, and it could have been much more powerful.
Even in Pakistan, you can have some sort of lawsuits and you can win,I am sure that's not what you are wiling for.

Do you know that there is no doctor who can explain for heart attacks? Because a heart does not attack ? Do you know that there is no virus explained?
It happens and it does happen frequently .
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
No one seems to consider the USSR to be communist, so what does the claim of technological superiority mean?
There are many members here who use socialist and communist to describe the USSR.
Even in Pakistan, you can have some sort of lawsuits and you can win,I am sure that's not what you are wiling for.
In America, in a growing number of situations, you cannot even bring up a lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company over bad drugs because of existing legal protections. Large corporations like Wal Mart are notoriously difficult to sue, and they too get away with a lot of stuff they shouldn't be able to. Monsanto made Agent Orange, they began as a chemical company, they have been shown to not be responsible, and they are still very much involved with chemicals, and they make a lot of food in America today.
Do you know that there is no doctor who can explain for heart attacks? Because a heart does not attack ?
Because a heart does not attack? The non-laymans term is myocardial infarction, which does explain what is going on.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Do you believe the USSR should be characterized as either?
No. If we look at how the state was structured, how power was distributed, the policies of the state, what was going on, and things that were happening, it doesn't fit the description of either, but of paranoid totalitarian regimes that were concerned only for themselves.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
But they're typically opponents of socialism & communism.
Do you believe the USSR should be characterized as either?

Using Marxist terminology, there are five economic systems; Primitive Communism, Ancient/Slave, Feudal, Capitalist and Communist. The economic systems are "modes of production", by which it means the most common pattern of ownership within the system.

Primitive Communism refers to hunter-gatherer societies, in which the level of technological development is very primitve and therefore people have very simple tools which are easy to make. the ease with which these tools are made, means they can be treated as common property. the simplicity of tools means there is ittle or no division of labour, and so society is not divided into social classes.

The Ancient or Slave mode of production refers to those which are built primarily on slavery; Ancient, Egypt, Rome and Greece would be examples. The reason behind the development of this new mode of production was the relationship between technology and economic organisation; as the technology became more sophisticaed, so it became harder to reproduce. more time and effort was invoved in producing tools. societies evolved from hunter-gatherer societies to more settled patterns of agriculture, slowly you start to develop more fixed practices of land ownership as "private" property. the use of slaves was primarily a result of conquering other populations and then "owning" them so they worked the land, creating a class society.

The Feudal mode of production was based on Serfdom, as labour/peasants being legally tied to the land, which the land is owned by the lord. There was a minor controversy amongst Marxists as to how appropriate the "feudal" mode of production was an adequate description of China, India and Russia because the latter were much more centralised than their european counterparts and whether there was another "asiatic" mode of production, but this idea fell out of favour very quickly.

Capitalism, is one where physical capital, such as machines and factories as sophisticated tools and instruments for production, are owned by a "capitalist". This can start off with one person using their tools to create products which they sell to others. Slowly, as the tools become more complex the "owner" hires other people to use them in return for a wage. This is how you end up with one person "owning" the means of production, whilst others work it.

All this trade however leads further and further away from a society where a person who uses the tools actually owns them. The wage-workers or "proletariat"/working class are the ones who do the work. production which is built on workers co-operating with one another and by exchanging goods and services eventually form the basis for a new society characterised by common ownership, communism.

Now, the tricky bit is that these are "modes" of production, so it is dependent on which pattern of ownership is most common, and therefore which class is infact in control. So for example, in late 19th century Germany there were Feudal landowners, and Capitalists who owned the capital- but it was capitalist because the capitalists were in control. In the United States before the civil war, there were Slave Owners, but it was still Capitalist because the capitalists were in charge.

Defining "socialism" has proven a bit tricky. If you were to take the example of China as it is today, the "workers and peasants" are (nominally) in control of the state through the rule of the Communist Party. China is therefore part of the communist mode of production. This is because the "vanguard" of the workers and peasants is in control, even though the market economy is very dominant since the changes. This would also include Cuba, Vietnam, Laos and (most alarmingly) North Korea.

Socialism, as understood by Lenin is the "lower" phase of communist society- it therefore continues to have many aspects of capitalism, such as a market economy. However he would have said that the United Kingdom in 1945 and Sweden more recently were "capitalist" because the communist party, as the vanguard of the worker and peasant classes was not in control. A rule of thumb is that if a government is run by a communist party as a one-party state, it is "communist". So, the USSR was communist, even if it was in the lower stage of socialism.

If you have a government with competitive elections, in which political parties are effectively corporations "selling"their product to the people, and treating the political arena as a "marketplace of ideas", where people have the "freedom to exchange" ideas as commodities, you have a capitalist state. What distinguishes communism is the monopolistic character of the government as ruled by a single party (or coalition as was the case in eastern europe).

Obviously the terms are very elastic, but this is generally the way they have been used amongst Marxists since Lenin. There was somewhat more ambiguity before then and this is where the multiple usage of the word "socialism" comes from. A certian group of Marxists suggested that universal sufferage and "democracy" meant that the state was class neutral and therefore there was no need to overthrow it- capitalism could therefore peacefully and gradully evolve into socialism through reforms. Lenin argued against this view, institing that the state was not neutral and had a "class" character and that "bourgeois democracy" of multiple parties had to be overthrown in a revolution, to be replaced with a one-party "dictatorship of the proletariat", with the communist party as the "vanguard" of the proletariat.

The usage of "socialism" in the US to refers to all forms of government ownership, in contrast to private ownership, based on the assumption that government is coercive and private property is the basis for personal liberty through self-ownership. It is a peculiar one which blurs the distinction between the slave systems of ancient Greece and Rome, Medieval Fedualism, Capitalist systems with large public sectors (including the Nazis, Fascists and "democratic socialists") and the "socialist"/Communist variety. This is why, when talking about Nazis,Communists and Democratic Socialists, Hayek called it the "Road to Serfdom" because it completely blurs any and all forms of property that are publicly owned or have some relation to the government.

I'm trying to keep it as short as possible, but I hope I've covered everything. :)

[edit: so yes, the USSR was socialist/communist using Lenin's definition.]
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
Only the communists/far left members in this thread have probably read anything that could be considered "communist literature."
I'm neither. I have read communist literature including what sounded incredibly religious biographies of Lenin and Marx produced by Soviet writers. Most of it I read in the 90s. I admit to happily forgetting most of the contents. I now have two books that deal with Soviet ideas of science in my bookshelf. Considering how they were written they were obviously an attempt to recruit scientists and atheists to communism.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I've read Marx'es manifesto and I still don't feel like I can properly debate for or against Marxism.
The Communist Manifesto is a good introductory in Marx and Engel's works. Granted, they both wrote a lot and it would take a considerable amount of time to put in a proper study of them, but The Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, and The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State are good starting points to get a good feel for communism and the communism that Marx and Engels promoted. Simply put, it is very much unlike what we have seen, and the total opposite in many ways.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
To read communist literary works might interest some of its fans & critics, but not me.
And it's not necessary in discussing economic systems. We have dictionaries &
encyclopedias to sufficiently describe the various systems.
By analogy, I needn't read the Bible or Koran in order to criticize those systems either.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
North Korea, China, and the USSR—all totalitarian states, the common factor between which is their communist foundations. There are prosperous socialist countries like Canada, Sweden, and France, and there are capitalist countries like the U.S. and England that have thrived for a long time despite struggling in certain areas. But what about communist countries? Why do you think almost all of the major communist states have either devolved into dictatorships or lent themselves to fascist, bloodthirsty regimes?

Put differently, do you think communism as an ideology is inherently toxic, or has it only been misunderstood or misused this whole time?
I would say yes, as it seems to expect too much. There is a lack of monetary motivation to be successful and produce. Stagnation is death to any economy.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
By analogy, I needn't read the Bible or Koran in order to criticize those systems either.
If you don't read them, you have no understanding of them, and you are highly prone to having erroneous criticisms, or you look like an *** you brazenly criticize them and it turns out you really don't know anything about them. It's the same thing with anything really. Even something like Young Earth Creationism can't be effectively debated unless you have some sort of understanding of their positions, and are familiar with their language and concepts.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
If you don't read them, you have no understanding of them, and you are highly prone to having erroneous criticisms, or you look like an *** you brazenly criticize them and it turns out you really don't know anything about them. It's the same thing with anything really. Even something like Young Earth Creationism can't be effectively debated unless you have some sort of understanding of their positions, and are familiar with their language and concepts.
I understand enuf about systems by reading about their essential traits.
To know all their myths, histories, details, personalities, etc, etc just isn't necessary.
I know that YEC is bunk by knowing only its basics, & by knowing much more about science.

But let's turn the tables......
To criticize capitalism should require having played the game, ie, start & run a successful company.
If one has only read about it....this is not to know it.
Seem fair?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
To criticize capitalism should require having played the game, ie, start & run a successful company.
Capitalism makes promises to all (i.e. Trickle Down economics), not just those who start a successful company. Many capitalist authors assume that the wealthy will make wise investments in the community and their employees, and that everyone who is a part of it will be blessed when the capitalist class is wealthy. But what they don't mentioned are the nations that are stuck in poverty because they play a peripheral role in global capitalism, the poverty that exists here, the poor qualities and standards that have been introduced to enhance the profit side of capitalism, the pillage of the earth for profit, or the wealthy neglecting social responsibility and leaving many with sub-standard livings such as lacking access to health care and higher education (and often times even a half-way decent public education). Without regulations (and even often with) capitalism leaves society too vulnerable to the worst of people taking over and having power in a system that allows the transfer of power to easily bypass the political system, and has even lead many to stating the state should be ran like a business, even though the state is not a business.
 
Top