Teach me Communism

[MessengerX]

And that's just one of the strengths it has over Communism.

The same would apply in a true Communist society.

I'm comparing a war to a war, and soldiers' equipment to soldiers' equipment. You implied that it was somehow unjust or corrupt to compel soldiers to purchase their equipment, and I believe it is. However, how much more corrupt and unjust is it to send soldiers into battle whom you cannot or will not equip for it at all?

They believed the Germans wanted to exterminate them, but that's not my point..... we were comparing the ideologies and contexts behind two wars. It's fallacious to say that the experience of the soldiers who fought in Soviet war of defense is a worse example of ideologies which force the people they are supposed to govern to die when you compare it with the invasion of Iraq.

Shouldn't they have abided by the terms of the Soviet-Nazi Pact instead? According to that document, each party was to remain neutral in the event that the other party found itself at war. Presumably, this document excluded Poland, making it a third party to the Pact and the Soviet response to the German-Polish conflict illigitimate.

I haven't read it, but it would be silly to assume that one of those countries was supposed to be at peace with a third party, Poland in this case, or at least that's how I inferred it. What if Germany was at war with the U.S., and the U.S. declared war on the Soviet Union? Would they have to remain neutral?

You said that we "didn't have to" go to war in Iraq -- the implication being that the use of force in that scenario was uncalled for. I am demonstrating through example that, once again, an unnecessary Capitalist use of force was not as senseless or egregious as an unnecessary Communist use of force.

You didn't demonstrate anything. You compared, with a false analogy, the experience of Soviet soldiers in a defensive war with British and American soldiers in an offensive war. The ideologies in the latter are directly responsible for the war in the first place, while the ideologies in the former were indirectly responsible.

You evaded the point -- China's economy under a purely Communist model was going down in flames. Only by adopting principles of Capitalism has China rebounded to any degree.

I didn't mean to evade the point, but your logic is a bit murky for me here. You stated that the Capitalist system enabled the ideological system, and that the U.S. Capitalist system is the greatest....... yet we have ourselves an Iraq war. China moved towards the Capitalist system in some sectors, and that helped the economy.

Communism can't be reformed to this degree and remain Communism. Humans are territorial and possessive animals. The abolition of private property is directly contrary to human nature in that respect; therefore, the abolition of private property can only be maintained through oppression and fear.

Then let's think of something better. If it can't be fixed, let's put together all the good ideas towards social harmony and give it a different name.

And there's the problem -- you may find a person who isn't corrupt, but give him that power and he soon will be.

You misunderstood. I meant that everyone would have access to everything.

Regarding the orginal topic - it's not really necessary to teach communism - it's man's natural state.

What about the alpha males, the chieftains of tribes? Communists are supposed to be against any form of man lording over man.

 

[MessengerX]

Possession and territoriality are mammal realities, and no amount of bushy-bearded philosophy or beret-in-a-coffee-house angst is going to change that. Ever.

What about wolves? They have to work together, or they would die out.

 

[The Question]

The same would apply in a true Communist society.

A "true" Communist society has never existed, and never will. Please keep up with the discussion.

They believed the Germans wanted to exterminate them, but that's not my point..... we were comparing the ideologies and contexts behind two wars. It's fallacious to say that the experience of the soldiers who fought in Soviet war of defense is a worse example of ideologies which force the people they are supposed to govern to die when you compare it with the invasion of Iraq.

Not at all. As I said, it's not a question of offense or defense. I'm sure the Bush administration still believes the military action in Iraq has been a defensive one, so that just doesn't wash. The comparison, again, is far more basic -- choosing to send men into battle without weapons is still a more unethical decision than sending them into battle and compelling them to pay for the equipment they had.

I haven't read it, but it would be silly to assume that one of those countries was supposed to be at peace with a third party, Poland in this case, or at least that's how I inferred it. What if Germany was at war with the U.S., and the U.S. declared war on the Soviet Union? Would they have to remain neutral?

At the point that the third party declared war on the previously neutral party, it would no longer be a third party.

You didn't demonstrate anything. You compared, with a false analogy, the experience of Soviet soldiers in a defensive war with British and American soldiers in an offensive war. The ideologies in the latter are directly responsible for the war in the first place, while the ideologies in the former were indirectly responsible.

Yet the decision to send men into battle is the same in either case. And I'm trying to demonstrate that the Soviets' action against Germany was not defensive, but was in fact in direct violation of a pact of non-aggression. Keep in mind that the Soviet Union, not Germany, was the state which violated the pact.

I didn't mean to evade the point, but your logic is a bit murky for me here. You stated that the Capitalist system enabled the ideological system, and that the U.S. Capitalist system is the greatest....... yet we have ourselves an Iraq war.

Which war is independent of Capitalist ideology, despite the claims that it's a war for oil. If it were a war for oil, we could certainly expect to be seeing some evidence by now that that's the case, and there simply isn't any.

China moved towards the Capitalist system in some sectors, and that helped the economy.

Precisely my point, thank you.

Then let's think of something better. If it can't be fixed, let's put together all the good ideas towards social harmony and give it a different name.

Why would we be giving it a "different" name unless it's the same old package?

You misunderstood. I meant that everyone would have access to everything.

Unfeasible.

What about he alpha males, the chieftains of tribes? Communists are supposed ot be against any form of man lording over man.

But man lording over man is part of what makes man what he is, which is where Communist theory fails, a failure which has always been and always will be belied by Communist practice.

 

[MessengerX]

A "true" Communist society has never existed, and never will. Please keep up with the discussion.

I am keeping up with it. I started this thread. You're also repeating what I stated earlier. Want to review?

Not at all. As I said, it's not a question of offense or defense. I'm sure the Bush administration still believes the military action in Iraq has been a defensive one, so that just doesn't wash. The comparison, again, is far more basic -- choosing to send men into battle without weapons is still a more unethical decision than sending them into battle and compelling them to pay for the equipment they had.

They didn't have a choice. Did you watch 'Enemy at the Gates?' You evaded the question of whether or not they would supply them with weapons if they had weapons to supply them with.

At the point that the third party declared war on the previously neutral party, it would no longer be a third party.

Motion to strike.

Yet the decision to send men into battle is the same in either case. And I'm trying to demonstrate that the Soviets' action against Germany was not defensive, but was in fact in direct violation of a pact of non-aggression. Keep in mind that the Soviet Union, not Germany, was the state which violated the pact.

By citing Poland as an example? They shook hands at the new borders. :wtf?:

Which war is independent of Capitalist ideology, despite the claims that it's a war for oil. If it were a war for oil, we could certainly expect to be seeing some evidence by now that that's the case, and there simply isn't any.

I didn't think that it was solely for oil. I'm on the fence about the Israel stuff, but I think that if Israel was involved, the U.S. gladly let Israel supply it with false intelligence so that it could maintain its global policeman status.

Precisely my point, thank you.

Your point was that the U.S. Capitalist system of economics was the best in the world. I never stated that Capitalism was all wrong. I stated that China was moving towards it, not embracing it.

Why would we be giving it a "different" name unless it's the same old package?

???

Unfeasible.

Why not?

But man lording over man is part of what makes man what he is, which is where Communist theory fails, a failure which has always been and always will be belied by Communist practice.

I'm inclined to agree with this..... that natural state comment didn't hold up with me.

 

[The Question]

I am keeping up with it. I started this thread. You're also repeating what I stated earlier. Want to review?

As long as you're aware that a "true" Communist society (one which actually delivers on the promises of the propaganda) is impossible, there's no need to review -- and no need to keep proposing such an impossible society.

They didn't have a choice. Did you watch 'Enemy at the Gates?'

You mean a fictional film? No, I don't draw my understanding of history from sources I know from the start can contain inventions of someone's imagination.

You evaded the question of whether or not they would supply them with weapons if they had weapons to supply them with.

I did, because, "Ifs" have no place in this discussion. As I said, we're dealing with realities here. There was no need for the Soviets to send soldiers into war, period, and had they chosen to abide by the terms of their non-aggression pact, the "If" in this case would be moot. The fact is that they chose to send soldiers into battle unarmed when that choice was unnecessary.

Motion to strike.

Another good call.

By citing Poland as an example? They shook hands at the new borders. :wtf?:

The whole point of that is that Poland was, once again, not a party to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which made Russia's response to the German-Polish conflict of 1939 an illegal and unnecessary one.

I didn't think that it was solely for oil. I'm on the fence about the Israel stuff, but I think that if Israel was involved, the U.S. gladly let Israel supply it with false intelligence so that it could maintain its global policeman status.

My opinion is that it was Israel's grudge against Iraq that led them to supply false intel to Bush, whose own personal grudge against Iraq led him to act on that false intel.

Your point was that the U.S. Capitalist system of economics was the best in the world. I never stated that Capitalism was all wrong. I stated that China was moving towards it, not embracing it.

Yes, I know that -- my point is that the closer China's economy has moved toward Capitalism, the stronger it has become. Why are you quibbling over this while you simultaneously acknowledge it?

Why not?

Because the majority of people are usually too busy taking care of their own business to mind everybody else's.