BF2S Forums Would you give up your luxuries so all....

Absofuckinglutely

no. mine are mine because i started a business and earned that shit......not giving it away because they made poor decisions.......isnt this one of the principles of communism?? you know that politicol system thats fallen like 30 times in the last century.

I nulled vote because there would have to be a zillion conditions on it like birth control and school curriculum that the people better off now could never agree on let alone convince the worse off to accept.

No!

No.

Yes.

And, no this isn't communism. Well, that is to say, communism has similar ideals at its core. But this, in and of itself, is not communism.

ATG wrote:

I nulled vote because there would have to be a zillion conditions on it like birth control and school curriculum that the people better off now could never agree on let alone convince the worse off to accept.

Why so?

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2006-11-10 18:48:30)

I don't know. I did work hard for it but for everybody in the world to be happy, I think I would give it all up... not that I have much to give up.

Last edited by FrankieSpankie3388 (2006-11-10 19:00:44)

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Yes.

And, no this isn't communism. Well, that is to say, communism has similar ideals at its core. But this, in and of itself, is not communism.


Why so?

why don't enlighten us by telling us HOW thisisn't communism? Ya know, something more substantial than you saying so.

wikipedia.com wrote:

Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Based upon common ownership of the means of production.

What the OP/Poll is about is redistribution of wealth, not common ownership of the means of production - two very different things.

Uhhhhhhhhhh yeah, soooooooo, if we all have the same shit then we pretty much fall into that definition do we not??

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

why don't enlighten us by telling us HOW thisisn't communism? Ya know, something more substantial than you saying so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Based upon common ownership of the means of production.

What the OP/Poll is about is redistribution of wealth, not common ownership of the means of production - two very different things.

Uhhhhhhhhhh yeah, soooooooo, if we all have the same shit then we pretty much fall into that definition do we not??

No, you misunderstand. - common ownership of the means of production - that is, that the factories, farms, etc, are owned by the people, not that everyone has the same stuff/level of wealth.

but if the means for such ownership is for the common good to make sure none has any more than the other..................???????????

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

No, you misunderstand. - common ownership of the means of production - that is, that the factories, farms, etc, are owned by the people, not that everyone has the same stuff/level of wealth.

but if the means for such ownership is for the common good to make sure none has any more than the other..................???????????

But it's not. Communism isn't about redistribution of wealth, it's about the people controlling the means of production. Sorry, to just repeat what I've already said, but this is actually pretty simple. One does not imply the other.

Kinda hard t ohave a "classless" society if some have more than others.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

But it's not. Communism isn't about redistribution of wealth, it's about the people controlling the means of production. Sorry, to just repeat what I've already said, but this is actually pretty simple. One does not imply the other.

Kinda hard t ohave a "classless" society if some have more than others.

'Class' is not a measure of wealth and 'wealth' is not a measure of class.

You can be a working-class millionaire and you can be an upper-class destitute.

no actually a CEO could be clasified as "working class" by your difinition, he is after all working to run a company.

Class is meant to be divided by wealth, not by work ethic

lower class---poverty poor, low income

middle class--- majority of America, modest to very comfortable living.

upper class----- extremely comfortable living up to being  rich

just admit it, when you are talking about no one having more than anyone else, and classless societies, you are talking about communism

don't try and tell me that a person making 12,000 a year could be considered upper class. You can't re-difine class to suit your argument. Either find another approach to convince me or admit you want communism t oprevail.

Last edited by lowing (2006-11-10 19:44:04)

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kinda hard t ohave a "classless" society if some have more than others.

'Class' is not a measure of wealth and 'wealth' is not a measure of class.

You can be a working-class millionaire and you can be an upper-class destitute.

no actually a CEO could be clasified as "working class" by your difinition, he is after all working to run a company.

Class is meant to be divided by wealth, not by work ethic

lower class---poverty poor, low income

middle class--- majority of America, modest to very comfortable living.

upper class----- extremely comfortable living up to being  rich

No. Class is a measure social standing. I.e. a measure of the 'power' one has within society.

Whilst it is correct to say that 'power' and 'wealth' usually go hand-in-hand, they are not the same thing.