BF2S Forums Communism for the lazy and stupid?

AussieReaper wrote:

You do understand the concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." don't you?

Providing someone with their needs because they do not have the ability to do so themselves =/= rewarding laziness.

Unless you think the rewards given to the poor for the basic need to survive is unfair on the rich and it would be better for the poor to simply starve.

This isn't about European Socialism.


I'm talking about the communist thing of "take away private property, rich people aren't giving you a job to survive they are enslaving you, the reason why you didn't make anything of yourself is because of the rich people"

Seems like a bunch of excuses for weakness and failure.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

We all live in the west, our standard of living is far beyond just our needs.

Macbeth wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

We all live in the west, our standard of living is far beyond just our needs.

Exactly. So don't think that Marx was suggesting the standard of living you're now accustomed to because those that do are exploiting the system he was advocating, as forman points out.

Macbeth wrote:

it seems to me that communism is basically focused around making the lives of the lazy and stupid more beneficial at the cost of the rich and smart.

no, it's not quite like that. ultimately, communism is about removing categories like 'rich' and 'smart' from the picture alltogether. words 'making personal life more beneficial' wouldn't make any sence for a person living in perfect communism, simply because nobody would care about that stuff - the focus would be on the society as a whole.
of course, communism is simply not possible at this time, and i'm not sure that human race and society will ever develop enough for it to work at all. the idea's quite cool, though.

Shahter wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

it seems to me that communism is basically focused around making the lives of the lazy and stupid more beneficial at the cost of the rich and smart.

no, it's not quite like that. ultimately, communism is about removing categories like 'rich' and 'smart' from the picture alltogether. words 'making personal life more beneficial' wouldn't make any sence for a person living in perfect communism, simply because nobody would care about that stuff - the focus would be on the society as a whole.
of course, communism is simply not possible at this time, and i'm not sure that human race and society will ever develop enough for it to work at all. the idea's quite cool, though.

So basically it's trying to wish away reality so that people feel better about themselves? People aren't equal and it starts at birth. Some are smarter, some are fatter, some are faster, some are lazier etc. Unless you're going to start pumping out human clones there will always be that disparity.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

it seems to me that communism is basically focused around making the lives of the lazy and stupid more beneficial at the cost of the rich and smart.

no, it's not quite like that. ultimately, communism is about removing categories like 'rich' and 'smart' from the picture alltogether. words 'making personal life more beneficial' wouldn't make any sence for a person living in perfect communism, simply because nobody would care about that stuff - the focus would be on the society as a whole.
of course, communism is simply not possible at this time, and i'm not sure that human race and society will ever develop enough for it to work at all. the idea's quite cool, though.

So basically it's trying to wish away reality so that people feel better about themselves? People aren't equal and it starts at birth. Some are smarter, some are fatter, some are faster, some are lazier etc. Unless you're going to start pumping out human clones there will always be that disparity.

as i said, communism is sure as hell not possible today - our resources are too limited, we all live in fear of not having enough, and that's why we measure our well-being in happy-meals-per-day and can't really get past that. but that 'reality' you mentioned has a tendency to change - one day humans may discover a way to make recourses infinite and actually start working on the differences that set them apart.

Mekstizzle wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

So I had to read Trotsky's "Their Morals and Ours" and Engels "The Housing Question" for school. After reading it and looking up the lives Marx and Engels it seems to me that communism is basically focused around making the lives of the lazy and stupid more beneficial at the cost of the rich and smart.

I mean after reading through their bullshit It's amounts to "Rich people= bad, take advantage of poor to live nicely, take away their wealth, redistribute among poor." And since Marx was a pretty poor bastard in his life it makes sense he would believe in that bullshit.

Does anyone else just read communist stuff as justifying laziness, weakness and stupidity as being taken advantage of?

On a side note of the thread; Why the fuck do the children of rich people always turn out to go down that Marxist communist crap when in college. Do they not understand that Marxism well hates them and their parents?

Just asking.

Guilt. They're told their entire lives that they should feel guilty for being born into a wealthy family instead of grateful.

Edit - A lot of them have daddy issues too because daddy was out making money instead of wiping their snot for them.

Also it's sort of like them trying to help themselves, make themselves feel better about everything.

Make themselves feel like they are better than they actually are.

You know like how when people help, they don't just do it out of sheer generosity, they want to think, and want others to think; ''oh look at this guy, he's helping out other people, so not only is he a good person, but he's also better than that other guy, because that other guy needs his help''

You know what I mean by that last paragraph right, when people help others, there's also that feeling of "I'm also better than you cos you need my help" - Don't deny it's not sometimes like that, people. In certain situations.

Like how you get all this shit about Rich Countries and how its nice to give aid to poor countries. Let them eat cake, all that shit. They need our help because they're poor and useless and we're rich and smart and better

They call it altruism but altruism doesn't exist. There's no such thing as a completely selfless act.

oug wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I mean after reading through their bullshit

Two reasons why you would dare say that. Either you're a biased child, or you're a complete idiot. You're not a complete idiot now are you.

Don't be a retard, you can read something and form an opinion on it. My opinion is that it's bullshit.

oug wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

oug wrote:

Two reasons why you would dare say that. Either you're a biased child, or you're a complete idiot. You're not a complete idiot now are you.

Don't be a retard, you can read something and form an opinion on it. My opinion is that it's bullshit.

You might read something in Cosmopolitan and say it's bullshit. You may read something in Time magazine and say it's bullshit. You CANNOT read the Communist Manifesto and say it's bullshit. Do you see the difference?

Why? They're all words on a piece of paper expressing ideas. There is no difference among them. The communist manifesto is right up there with the Bible as a work of art in that it gets otherwise rational people to believe in the tooth fairy.

oug wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It's not rewarding laziness because some needs are disproportionate to and in many cases mutually exclusive to ability.

It is punishing the able because they are able.

It is a basic premise of any society that all its members survive. That is why we form societies in the first place. In that respect, within any society the able cater for the unable. It is not punishment. Also consider that our definition of "able" changes in time. Different sets of skills are appreciated and therefore paid for in different societies and in different times. So who are those able you speak of that are being punished today? Able to do what? And why is that which they are able to do worthy of anything? And why are other abilities not appreciated as much in monetary terms?

So the 'able' are enslaved by the 'unable'. Nice system.

oug wrote:

The alternative is that the unable die. Nice non-system. It's been done before. Ancient Sparta, if a child was deemed "flawed" at birth it was thrown down the Ceadas canyon.

Hitler also tried cleansing the populace from the unable. I suppose you wouldn't have a problem with that... Just bear in mind that if that were the case, probably all of us trolling in these gaming forums would be lying at the bottom of a ditch.

No, I'm just suggesting we shouldn't do anything more than the bare minimum to ensure their survival. To set them up as an equal of our most successful people doesn't do anyone any good and in fact, does a lot more harm to society.

Don't forget about Stalin who killed way more people than Hitler or the Spartans combined in order to achieve communist utopia.

JohnG@lt wrote:

oug wrote:

The alternative is that the unable die. Nice non-system. It's been done before. Ancient Sparta, if a child was deemed "flawed" at birth it was thrown down the Ceadas canyon.

Hitler also tried cleansing the populace from the unable. I suppose you wouldn't have a problem with that... Just bear in mind that if that were the case, probably all of us trolling in these gaming forums would be lying at the bottom of a ditch.

No, I'm just suggesting we shouldn't do anything more than the bare minimum to ensure their survival. To set them up as an equal of our most successful people doesn't do anyone any good and in fact, does a lot more harm to society.

Don't forget about Stalin who killed way more people than Hitler or the Spartans combined in order to achieve communist utopia.

What is the bare minimum?
Are you suggesting that successful people have more rights than unsuccessful ones? Are not all people equal?
And finally, the Stalinist regime had nothing to do with what Marx advocates in his Manifesto. One cannot use Stalin's actions against Marx's ideology. They are two separate things.

oug wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

oug wrote:

The alternative is that the unable die. Nice non-system. It's been done before. Ancient Sparta, if a child was deemed "flawed" at birth it was thrown down the Ceadas canyon.

Hitler also tried cleansing the populace from the unable. I suppose you wouldn't have a problem with that... Just bear in mind that if that were the case, probably all of us trolling in these gaming forums would be lying at the bottom of a ditch.

No, I'm just suggesting we shouldn't do anything more than the bare minimum to ensure their survival. To set them up as an equal of our most successful people doesn't do anyone any good and in fact, does a lot more harm to society.

Don't forget about Stalin who killed way more people than Hitler or the Spartans combined in order to achieve communist utopia.

What is the bare minimum?
Are you suggesting that successful people have more rights than unsuccessful ones? Are not all people equal?
And finally, the Stalinist regime had nothing to do with what Marx advocates in his Manifesto. One cannot use Stalin's actions against Marx's ideology. They are two separate things.

Not all people are equal. Yes, in places like America they all have the same basic rights that allow them to live their lives reasonably well. They all have the right to vote and they are all granted the rights granted in the Bill of Rights but to say all people are born equal is a falicy. It's also not something that can regulated or controlled. Now, if you want to talk about value to society then yes, more successful people are more valuable to a society than it's failures.

You can take two kids, give them parents of similar wealth and education (or even two brothers for that matter) and they will more than likely turn out vastly different. Not everyone is born with the same personality type or the same level of intelligence. These are disparities based on the genetics and environment the child is raised in. Some are more jealous than others, some are more passive, some are more aggressive and some are more greedy. These are all human traits and they are what make us different from each other.

All a system like communism tries to do is destroy these individual traits, or mask them, so that those born with better traits, or raised in better environments don't have an advantage over those that don't. In fact, they are burdened with other peoples wants, needs and desires just because they happen to be able to be more productive people. In the end you end up with a system based completely on mediocrity and the only happy people are those at the very very bottom. By attempting to mask the traits that make these people human it instead brings them forth with gusto and you end up in a society where everyone is grasping and clawing at each other instead of living in harmony.

The entire system of communism is one big flaw dreamed up by an angry idiot.