Bigcheecho's Magical Communist Thread

[TB_]

I thought it would be obvious that the percentage was about the unemployment rate, but sure. Here is a wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... yment_rate

Also, socialism is so horrible that the top 3 countries here are all socialist.
http://prosperity.com/Ranking.aspx

edit: Also, if you're unsure about how professional that rank is, you can take a look here. http://webapi.prosperity.com/download/p ... logyV4.pdf

[Conduit]

I thought it would be obvious that the percentage was about the unemployment rate, but sure. Here is a wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... yment_rate

Also, socialism is so horrible that the top 3 countries here are all socialist.
http://prosperity.com/Ranking.aspx

edit: Also, if you're unsure about how professional that rank is, you can take a look here. http://webapi.prosperity.com/download/p ... logyV4.pdf

But note, those top three " socialist " countries are rated to high the highest quality of life, why? Because the government does not own them and steal from the people, taking from what you worked for, giving it to everyone, even those who don't work.
" If he/she doesn't work and gets a share, why should I work? "

[TB_]

uhm, we don't get free money. It's just really easy to get jobs here.
Where did you learn that we get free handouts by the state?

[VladVP]

I thought it would be obvious that the percentage was about the unemployment rate, but sure. Here is a wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... yment_rate

Also, socialism is so horrible that the top 3 countries here are all socialist.
http://prosperity.com/Ranking.aspx

edit: Also, if you're unsure about how professional that rank is, you can take a look here. http://webapi.prosperity.com/download/p ... logyV4.pdf

But note, those top three " socialist " countries are rated to high the highest quality of life, why? Because the government does not own them and steal from the people, taking from what you worked for, giving it to everyone, even those who don't work.
" If he/she doesn't work and gets a share, why should I work? "

Well... the philosophies that you're implying, always assume that every human is moral against every other human... which is not the case. Luckily there's lots of, both original, and new socialist/communist philosophies out there which aren't as ignorant.

[Bigcheecho]

Why should i work harder if results of my labour will be taken away and divided on many people?

That is probably the second most common arguement communists get in a debate. Not saying it's a bad arguement, you actually provide a good point.

HOWEVER,
Humans tend to be moral to each other. Heck, almost-communism is actually human nature. We're just taught to be capitalists.

[Totenkopf]

As for me, i prefer socialism's "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution" than communism's "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". This seems more legit for me, cause in communism one can lower his abilities and risen his needs, while in cosialism one is interested in rising his abilities to risen his contribution and consequently, his benefit.

[VladVP]

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution"

That's a capitlaist term.... not a socialist... lol.

[Totenkopf]

I don't speak about reading books, but even wikipedia says "Distribution would be based on the principle to each according to his contribution.".

[VladVP]

Hhhmmm... I see.... in that case I've learnt something new today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_ac ... ntribution

[DrDeuce]

Why should i work harder if results of my labor will be taken away and divided on many people?

That is probably the second most common argument communists get in a debate. Not saying it's a bad argument, you actually provide a good point.

HOWEVER,
Humans tend to be moral to each other. Heck, almost-communism is actually human nature. We're just taught to be capitalists.

Not really. Humans are the only known animals who drive to have more than they need. So actually, capitalism is the auto-matic reaction, that's why it's so much more common, humans like to have individuality in a greedy immoral way

[HoboHob]

HOWEVER,
Humans tend to be moral to each other. Heck, almost-communism is actually human nature. We're just taught to be capitalists.

Oh really?

Let's take a man, let's stick him in the jungle at birth and leave him there cut off from society for 20 years.

When he comes back, he'll obviously be a civilized young man ready to contribute to his country!

Yeah right, he'll be an animal. He'll be violent, not trustworthy and he will probably be violent to.

Human nature is basically that of an animal. Society keeps us decent citizens. Without society, we are nothing more than lost and broken people.

We're only good and moral people because society teaches us to from birth. If that weren't the case, we would be just like this man. Saying mans natural state is basically that of a communist is quite false. We are taught to be communists, just as we are taught to be capitalists.

[Venator]

meh.
Still prefer capitalism.
We may got some things going wrong but I dont care.
And you only ttalked about theoretical stuff.
But how do you want to turn the communism into practice?

[TB_]

All political systems have their cons.
F.ex. Capitalism. Big corporations care so little about anything else than money, that things like the environment suffers.

[HoboHob]

All political systems have their cons.
F.ex. Capitalism. Big corporations care so little about anything else than money, that things like the environment suffers.

So then the people get mad at corporations, who then change their ways to get back favor with the people. Who then buy more from that company earning them more money.

[TB_]

That's the whole theory/practise thing venator talked about.
EX: People dislike walmart for paying the workers so badly. But people still go to the cheapest store.