<p>This is quite a different topic and is political. I am not a fan of the Chinese government of today but I wish to protest that surely not “every action” of China’s government is an act of oppressive dictatorship. This is a long debate in itself and I’m note going to get into that.
But either way, though it is not communism some of its singular actions have been communist. They tried to practice common ownership and failed, dragging the economy to a new low and bringing political unrest. Do you think that they failed to succeed in common ownership because they were in fact not following Marxist in other aspects or some some other reason?
And do you or do you not think propaganda is necessary to start and/or sustain communism?</p>
<p>One of the key ideas of Marxism is that the rise of industrialization had made it possible to produce enough goods to provide for everyone. China was not an industrialized country when its Communist party took over. Russia faced the same problem too, which is why Lenin planned for an artificial capitalist period before fully instituting communism. So neither country was really equipped, in the way Marx had envisioned, for communism.</p>
<p>Take a deep look at human nature. Do you really think that everyone will want to help the good of mankind. Not everyone cares about other people but themselves. True communism and capitalism are too idealistic and romantic for humans. Communism wants a Utopia but that won’t be. Its not in our nature. </p>
<p>And Billy you remind me of a kid I know who loves the idea of communism and always has the sickle and hammer symbol on him.</p>
<p>
Everyone doesn’t want to toil for money, everyone doesn’t want to live in capitalism, and you can be damn sure that everyone doesn’t want to live in poverty while watching the super-rich live in decadence.</p>
<p>
The coward thinks of a better world and calls it impossible, the revolutionary thinks of a better world and calls it necessary. Even if your better world is different from my better world, don’t be afraid to fight for what you think would benefit humanity; calling it an impossible utopia is the easy way out.</p>
<p>
I am loathe to use the hammer and sickle because of its association with a tyrannous country (USSR). I prefer the raised fist and the starry plough.</p>
<p>^And not everyone wants to live in communism.</p>
<p>
So let us look at the premises. Is it better for some to eat, or for all to eat? Is it better for some to have power, or all to have power? Is it better for some to have to much, or all to have enough? What do you think the average human being would think?</p>
<p>^To have that you need a government to ensure that’s protected. Most people can careless about others, and there are some that do. There’s many things stopping that from working, like the human ego.</p>
<p>calling it an Utopia is not simply an easy way out. The system is simply impossible because no matter what you do NOT EVERYONE would be selfless and giving.That’s my belief anyway.
Even if I’m poor (I’m not rich in reality,just middle-class), I would be happy to know that I can be rich someday if I fight for it.</p>
<p>
If that’s how society was, there wouldn’t be much to do about it. It would be an imperfect society, but better than one where people starve and die while others live in decadence.</p>
<p>
Says one who has never tasted poverty, hunger, homelessness in reality. Go to the average poor person in the world and give them a choice; A.) They can have what they need to survive and for their family to flourish, though they will never be rich, or B.) They can stay as they are, but you will assure them that someday they might become rich (even though they really won’t). How will the starving children in Africa, the sex slaves in Asia, the oppressed workers in Latin America become rich someday?</p>
<p>Billy, I think it’s time that you actually propose * how * we are to bring about the revolution.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lol, that’s not a counter-example. Anyway, to answer you question it depends. If he killed less because he was tired or some **** then no. If he killed less because he felt bad, then probably. Anyway, [India’s</a> per capita income doubles to Rs 38,084](<a href=“http://www.rediff.com/money/2009/feb/09indias-per-capita-income-doubles-to-rs-38084.htm]India’s”>India's per capita income doubles to Rs 38,084)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, talking about modern-day atheist. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Billy, you’re not answering my question. I don’t care about your speculation regarding how the world works. I added the right to kill a adulterer, now on what grounds can you say your definition is right and my definition is wrong? What are you basing your definition of human rights on?</p>
<p>Communism only works if everyone has the will to work hard regardless of results. Though communism’s flaws lie in its inability to factor in human greed.</p>
<p>The definition of human rights could be defined democratically (for example one could take the first 10 rights that get the most votes out of a 100 proposed rights to be the human rights).</p>
<p>Certainly killing an adulterer wouldn’t be on such a list (at least I hope not…).</p>
<p>It couldn’t be defined democratically and still claim to be objective. Also, it’s ridiculous to define human rights democratically.</p>
<p>There is no such thing as innate morals, obviously, objective morals. If animals don’t have innate rights (or if they have different rights), then how do humans have different innate rights then them? They must have evolved; humans had to decide on their own human rights. How else do you propose to do this? Obviously it wouldn’t make sense for only a few people to decide - then the innate rights might not be very good human rights - they would just be good rights for the few people that decided them; they wouldn’t fit humanity very well. Why is it ridiculous to define them democratically?</p>
<p>Because a) people are generally idiots and b) cultures are different (i.e. in Saudi they’d probably include right to kill a adulterer or right to kill someone talking part in homosexual activity). If we were democratic since the dawn of time, we wouldn’t have advanced. Change didn’t come democratically.</p>
<p>That’s an interesting point. I know change hasn’t come democratically. It seems democracy works better in smaller groups. </p>
<p>To circumvent the idiot problem: what if the only people who vote are the people that want to vote (most idiots wouldn’t care about helping define human rights).</p>
<p>I have a question: do you believe human rights can evolve? I do. Because then maybe democratically defined human rights wouldn’t be so bad, because they could change - there could be reelections for the rights every year. Probably this wouldn’t work at all, but I’m just thinking on a theoretical level.</p>
<p>People are also egoistic and believe their concept of right is right thus they’d probably be willing to take part. There’s two kinds of stupid. There’s gang-bangers (for example) who couldn’t really give a **** and these people probably wouldn’t vote if it was optional and then there’s dumb red necks (for example), this group will still most likely continue to vote because their patriotic and all. I really don’t see why non-economist should vote on economic issues. I wouldn’t mind there being a panel of economist and them democratically voting. </p>
<p>It’s subjective therefore yes it can and has evolved.</p>
<p>Language makes humans so complicated. </p>
<p>What are human rights - they are things that people can do. Things that people can do affect society (societies will vary depending on the set of rights they adhere to).</p>
<p>Human rights should be based, maybe, not on what we think we should be able to do, but based on the rights that an optimal society would need to function.</p>
<p>Is it possible that human rights formulated from the perspective of the innate rights all humans should have - is it possible that the realization of that set of rights could be incompatible with a functioning society?</p>
<p>Maybe there is something inherent to human organization and structure that limits the freedom human rights can afford. (that is to say, the basic freedoms of everyone, the human rights, would have to be limited to few basic things).</p>
<p>Human rights are violated, obviously. My question is when does something become so violated that it’s not regarded as a human right anymore, but a privilege.</p>
<p>Happiness is mostly relative. We become happy when a desire is fulfilled or we receive something we longed for. If we keep getting whatever we want, the happiness threshold will increase. For example, a millionaire will not be much happier if he wins a $1000 prize. A poor, homeless man will be much, much happier.</p>
<p>Our self-image is also mostly relative. We base our own self-worth on our neighbors. A man earning double the average wage in Sudan is going to be much happier than a man earning the average wage in America. An average girl going to school with ugly people will feel a lot better about herself than a model working with other models just as attractive as her.</p>
<p>In a communist society, where property is commonly owned, and all people are in theory equals, no one would be happy. Everyone’s desires would be fulfilled to a certain extent, but as people get used to it, they would no longer be happy or satisfied. A man will be glad eating plain rice if he was hungry before. A man used to eating plain rice will not be as happy eating plain rice; however, he will be happier if he is eating meat.</p>
<p>Rich people are not necessarily any “greedier” than poor people. They seem greedy to the poor, but they are just pursuing what is needed to maintain their level of happiness. Since their threshold is higher, they need more to be happy. A poor person thrust in wealth over time would be just as “greedy”.</p>