GOT EM'!. . mica! Bonds 6 Before You Read Some atoms share electrons and become more stable, Describe a situation in which people share something and everyone b GOT EM'! mica! Bonds 6 Before You Read Some atoms share electrons and become more stable Describe a situation in which people something everyone b
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (183)
[ 183 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#1 - friedgreenpomatoes
Reply +159 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
In small groups, Communism actually works terrifically. In fact, it's better than capitalism.

The problem with real, genuine Communism is that once the group size starts getting bigger than, ohh, 100 I think, everything goes to ****.
#2 to #1 - captainganto
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
As a historian, i can validate this
User avatar #7 to #1 - thisisspartah
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
but when you get a billion people together, that country was at one point or currently is communist
#32 to #1 - anon id: 1fd16b9a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
the problem with socialism and communism is eventually you run out of someone else's money
User avatar #67 to #1 - durkadurka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
That's because things become to complex to effectively implement central planning.
User avatar #81 to #1 - ryderjbudde
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
Invent representative communism.
#87 to #1 - anon id: 99e41d8e
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
usually, the Dunbar's number is estabilished somewhere around 200 people (the limit of population where everyone can have social relations to each other). And yes, there are real life examples of communism working out in small groups, like Kibbutz
#98 to #1 - anon id: 7dcbf945
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
love this thread!
and i want to add that imo communism might only work if it takes the whole world. the end of the internationalist prospective avoided - generalizing a lot - communism to win.
#141 to #1 - gerfox
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/17/2014) [-]
I guess you could say communism works perfectly as long as there are checks on the leaders, so that they do not become corrupt - and that the leaders are able to control the people from seeking greener pastures for themselves.

More people = More power for the leaders, making it more tempting to enrich themselves. More people = More people to control, making it harder to control all people from enriching themselves by not sharing.
User avatar #20 to #1 - Willhelm
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
As a dwarf fortress player, I can confirm this.
User avatar #142 to #20 - sirowlington
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/17/2014) [-]
As a random dwarf on the internet claiming to be a Dabbling Historian, I can also validate this
User avatar #149 to #1 - impaledsandwich
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/17/2014) [-]
As some asshole with an internet connection, I can validate this.
User avatar #85 to #1 - freakyorange
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
Communism is good in any number as long as it's not adjusted. If people hold true to Marxist communism, it would work flawlessly, but human greed takes over, and the government ends up giving all of the money to industrialists, so they continue to bring in profit from the generic citizens.
User avatar #125 to #85 - toensix
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
Sadly human greed is a byproduct of evolution. People who would take a little more then the rest had higher chances for survival. Marxist communism goes against human nature on large scales.

Communism goes to **** as soon as the members of the group(state) don't know every single member. Communism works best because of social pressure and feeling part of a group and wanting to work for that group. It's all a byproduct of human evolution. Humans used to live in small groups and we are evolutionary attuned to help a small group that we feel a part of and know most people because those groups used to be almost exclusive family. Family that had the same genes as the individual.
User avatar #127 to #125 - freakyorange
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
Did you just accidently prove that equality is ********?
User avatar #129 to #127 - toensix
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
Did I? Sorry I don't know what you mean.
User avatar #131 to #129 - freakyorange
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
The whole "Everyone is the same on the inside" thing.
User avatar #132 to #131 - toensix
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
Course it's ********. But for 99% of people living in a anarchic society(if you could even call that a scoiety) would be a downgrade from now.

User avatar #133 to #132 - toensix
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
BTW we should still have equality for everyone but yeah it's ********.
User avatar #83 to #1 - drakonpunch
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
I disagree. The problem with communism is that there is no incentive for people to work hard because it won't be rewarded. They get the same amount of utility no matter how hard they work or what they do for a living so there is no incentive to do the **** jobs. It can be solved somewhat by using patriotism or otherwise try to make a create a culture where hard work is rewarding in some other sense than materialistic.
TL;DR: it's not as easy as "communism works in small groups"
User avatar #99 to #83 - friedgreenpomatoes
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
Yes, but at a small scale, it's much easier to create such a culture than on the scale of, say, an entire city.

or Russia
User avatar #100 to #99 - drakonpunch
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
That's true. But the bottom line is communism won't work well without some ground work. It needs certain conditions that takes time to prepare. That's what Russia was doing, Russia was never really reached the point of a truly communistic state because iti s a lengthy process.

I just feel like it's becoming increasingly popular on FJ to be open minded about other religions, cultures and political views. While this is all fine, people jump on the bandwagon so easily and talk about communism without knowing a thing about it.
User avatar #101 to #100 - friedgreenpomatoes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
That's because there has never in all of history been an actual Communist communist state.
User avatar #153 to #101 - drakonpunch
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/17/2014) [-]
Exactly. But because we know people are selfish, we know it would take a lot to convince them not do be, especially to the degree communism requires. But it's all speculation of course, because ithere has never been a proper communist state.
User avatar #154 to #153 - friedgreenpomatoes
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/17/2014) [-]
Wait a second... we just had a civilized discussion on the internet! That breaks the circlejerk energy supply!

Quick, call me a faggot!
User avatar #162 to #154 - drakonpunch
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/17/2014) [-]
Oh ****, you're right, this is unacceptable. Don't be such a faggot, faggot.

pls don't ban us
User avatar #102 to #101 - friedgreenpomatoes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
*so nobody knows what it'd be like
#94 to #83 - anon id: 712509ec
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
It's simple really, give them colored text!
It's simple really, give them colored text!
#35 to #1 - djoka
Reply +21 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
As a former history student,now sociology student living in eastern European ex commie country,i can agree with you.Another reason is that people arent ready for real communism.Everybody wants to get rich and to stand out from others,so nobody really wants to be equal with the others.When commies came to power in my country,everything was fine first 5 years.Then suddenly,you had party leaders driving Mercedes(es) and other expensive cars,while people had to eat **** for dinner.
User avatar #36 to #35 - friedgreenpomatoes
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
Which former Commietopia are we speaking of?
#38 to #36 - djoka
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
Yugoslavia.And Yuga was even cool and liberal commie country,but underneath the surface it showed very well all flaws of communism.
#80 to #35 - anon id: 80501649
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
Hes right communism fails because people are not willing to be equal and accept loss so others may rise. Also dictators tend to emerge from the power the government has in communism.
User avatar #4 to #1 - funbaggy
Reply +75 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
As a random guy on the internet claiming to be a historian, I can also validate this
User avatar #137 to #4 - drtrousersnake
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/17/2014) [-]
as a sentient snake that happens to also be doctor i can validate his credentials for validation
#93 to #4 - anon id: b0366bd3
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
As a random internet on the guy claiming to be a historian, I can also validate this
User avatar #122 to #93 - rarityrarityrarity
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
As a random historian on the internet claiming to be a guy, I can also validate this
User avatar #103 to #93 - wimwam
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
As a random internet on the guy claiming to be a historian, I can also validate this
#105 to #103 - anon id: c63099f7
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
As a random internet on the guy claiming to be a historian, I can also validate this
User avatar #130 to #105 - sirowlington
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
As a validated historian on the random internetting to be a guy, I can also claim this
#138 to #130 - anon id: 48e5b975
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/17/2014) [-]
As a random validated internetting on the historian to be a guy, I can also claim this

User avatar #9 - andrewjla
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
I actually prefer communism over capitalism
User avatar #22 to #9 - learnthisline
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
Only the 1% actually has a better life under Capitalism than Communism.
Their greatest crime was convincing the 99% that Capitalism was also in their interests.
#24 to #22 - anon id: 47eb8237
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
how much better communism is*
#23 to #22 - anon id: 47eb8237
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
Really capitalism wasn't in the best interests of the people? Let's go ask those millions of people who were killed in Stalin's purges how much better is, or how about all those people that starved under Mao, or those people being forced into slave labor in North Korea.

It seems to me the only people who support Communism are people that have never had to live with it.
User avatar #31 to #23 - learnthisline
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
Well comrade, I feel for you, I really do.
You would be one of those whom suffered under the greatest crime of the modern age.
But, sure, list all those ills than happened under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It's not like America has blockaded certain countries, meaning hundreds of thousands starved.
It's not like Britain let Ireland starve is it?
You know nothing about history other than that which has been force-fed you.

#109 to #31 - anon id: bc9341b6
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
Here's the way I look at it, communism is all fun and good, however the rights of the individual are belittled in the interest of the state and community. Capitalism is selfish at its core and therefore has the primary concern of the individual not the community. If a capitalist society exists with a weak government it can sufficiently allow for the freedom of the individual which will likely result in the rise of some people at the expense of others. While communist needs a very strong centralization to crush the individualism that leads to selfishness, resulting in a community where all are equal. So what is more in your interests? Freedom or equality? Of course there is way more debate within those two words themselves.
#53 to #9 - anon id: 92ec74cd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
AKCHEWALY, you like the idea of communist over the practice of capitalism   
   
the communist idea is one that is supposed to create equality while at the same time make everyone happy. As humans we have this little thing called greed. Ever reaad animal farm? if everyone was a Boxer the system would work. The world is full of pigs (not the good ones like Snowball) and sheep and other examples of the animals. Therefore, no you do not like communism because it has not ever become real communism. you have never lived in communism therefore cannot prefer it over something taht does exist. so in fact, your opinion is wrong, and you are wrong
AKCHEWALY, you like the idea of communist over the practice of capitalism

the communist idea is one that is supposed to create equality while at the same time make everyone happy. As humans we have this little thing called greed. Ever reaad animal farm? if everyone was a Boxer the system would work. The world is full of pigs (not the good ones like Snowball) and sheep and other examples of the animals. Therefore, no you do not like communism because it has not ever become real communism. you have never lived in communism therefore cannot prefer it over something taht does exist. so in fact, your opinion is wrong, and you are wrong
#56 to #9 - anon id: 6c5ece14
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
In theory communism is better but in practicality capitalism is better. I would prefer to live in a world with capitalism because with communism no matter how much schooling I get or how hard I work to raise up the ranks I would not get an incentive for that at all. Sure the 1% get the most money in capitalism but I can still work very hard to get as close to the 1% as possible. In communism I would just choose to be a worker at McDonald or something along those lines because I wouldn't see the point in becoming anything different. I apologize if someone said the same thing as me and I just have not seen it.
User avatar #159 to #9 - douthit
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/17/2014) [-]
What about the violence required to enforce your communist ideal?
#10 to #9 - jamieswhiteshirt
Reply +121 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
COMMUNIST SCUM DETECTED
DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM
i respect your opinion
User avatar #51 to #10 - wiinor
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
Liberty prime for president
User avatar #11 to #10 - andrewjla
Reply -8 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
do you want to live in a world where the super wealthy **** on the poor people?
#12 to #11 - xaviaxz
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
Lets compare the US and Soviet in the 80s, and see which ideology worked best.
Not a fan of today's US, but I don't think communism can work, due to the fact that human greed with ruin the system in the end
User avatar #25 to #12 - thatonecommunist
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
butiwouldn'tevencallthesovietuniontrulycommunist

stalin was on top.
#27 to #25 - xaviaxz
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
That's why communism doesn't work, some people will always try to elevate themselves above all others.
User avatar #29 to #27 - thatonecommunist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
I think mechanization and computers dictating us could fix that.

but it'll never happen so whatever.
User avatar #126 to #12 - toensix
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
It works in small groups like #1 said because of social pressure.
User avatar #14 to #12 - andrewjla
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
isn't there an inbetween?
#19 to #14 - xaviaxz
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
Then it's not communism, but socialism.
#13 to #12 - xaviaxz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
will*
#3 - rety
Reply +59 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
#16 - sirthomasburr
Reply +45 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
#6 - dudesname
Reply +22 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
User avatar #18 - douthit
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
An anarcho-capitalist society allows for voluntary communist groups, but a communist society doesn't allow for anarcho-capitalists to live the way they want.

If System A allows for B, but System B doesn't allow for A, by default A is correct/best.
#44 to #18 - kingpongthedon
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
An anarcho-anything society allows for voluntary anything groups to form, it's still **** compared to absolutely everything else. It's been tried many times before, it doesn't even hold up to the Communist argument of "There was never a truly Communistic society, so we can't say for sure that it doesn't work." We know it doesn't work and we know exactly why, there is no balance of power and it inevitably ends in internal blood-feuds and/or foreign occupation. You need to find the sweet-spot between complete freedom and totalitarianism, otherwise your society won't last.
User avatar #54 to #44 - douthit
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
From what I've heard and read, the closest thing to an anarcho-capitalist society was a few centuries in medieval Iceland. Other than that, of course there have been societies closer or farther from that, but capitalist/non-government cultures have scarcely existed.
#62 to #54 - kingpongthedon
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
A number of Spanish communities attempted it during their civil war, all fell either to internal bickering or Communist or Fascist hostile take-overs. Same thing happened during the French Revolution. Admittedly, there were extenuating circumstances in those cases, but they still broke down much faster than everything else. It only serves to prove that they can't sustain themselves in times of trouble.

It's also been tried in a number of American communities in times of relative stability. There were a few planned anarcho-capitalistic societies, typically in the Midwest during the 1800s. These all fell apart primarily due to petty personal issues piling up, not anything on the level of a bloody revolution. John just got sick of TIffany's ******** one day and said "**** it, I'm not pulling my weight until Tiffany pulls hers" Then Sara says "**** it, I'm not pulling my weight until John pulls his" and so on and so forth. Without somebody in power to say "Quit pulling this middle-school ********," it spirals out of control pretty fast.

That said, there are still a number of communities in the USA (and I'm certain there's more elsewhere) that could probably, though not officially, be considered anarcho-capitalistic. Typically these are in Appalachia, the Ozarks, the Pacific Northwest, or island communities. They get along beautifully. What they all have in common is they are small, tight-knit, isolated communities, just like medieval Iceland. Once it gets to a certain size or starts getting enough outside influence, everybody loses the sense of community and regularity that allowed everything to work so well and it joins in with the rest of the world.

It's something that works incredibly well for a very specific type of community, but outside of this type of community it doesn't hold up well. Unfortunately, the modern world is not that community.
User avatar #70 to #62 - douthit
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
Anarcho-capitalism isn't something that "works" or doesn't. It's simply the idea that the initiation of force is immoral, and renunciation from such. In a way you could say any relationship of any number of people not exercising non-defensive violence against one another is anarcho-capitalism--even if they don't acknowledge it as that.

I don't see how we can really say anyone in America is part of an anarcho-capitalist society or group, because the laws of their city, county, state, and nation are imposed upon them via the initiation of force. Those people may be anarcho-capitalists in that they don't exercise the beginning of force and/or that they desire to see others practice the same, but they're (often unwillingly) involved in a society built upon infringements upon their persons.
#82 to #70 - kingpongthedon
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
Ok then, I'll rephrase it: A society built on the principles of anarcho-capitalism is neither competitive nor stable in the modern world.

And as far as the American communities I'm talking about, they are completely isolated. There is practically no outside influence from the county, state, or federal level. Technically, they are beholden to these laws, but without anybody to enforce them, it's all done (or not done) voluntarily. In all practical sense, they are in a state of anarchy.

I used to do a bit of environmental research that required me to go to places that are still unmapped to this day. Occasionally, I'd run into some of the locals, keep in mind that there was no outside record of anybody living in these places. Naturally, we'd try to talk, but most of the time the English language had evolved so much in these communities that it was near impossible to do so. On one of these expeditions, I ended up showing an approximately 50 year old man (he did not even know his own age) the first dollar bill he'd ever seen. On several expeditions to some of the Sea Islands, I was often the first white person the entire island had seen. They may be within American borders, but I assure you, they are in no way beholden to any part of the American system.
User avatar #90 to #82 - douthit
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
From how you've described these small societies, I don't see a problem that needs fixing. You'd have to describe for me what you mean by "competitive" and "stable" for me to see how they're lacking. But right now that if they're less than competitive or stable, in whatever way, it's probably partially due to their isolation--which is an attempt to escape from the violence of the laws of their governments. Without these governments from which they've escaped--purposely or not--they wouldn't be so unstable or uncompetitive.
#134 to #90 - kingpongthedon
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
For a society to be competitive, it needs to be able to retain it's population. If people leave as soon as they find something else, then it is not competitive with the outside world. A truly competitive society not only keeps its people, but it is able to bring in more people from the outside to join as well. The best example today is the US, though we can hardly be said to be a stable society. After all, our country was founded on the idea that we'd have a (bloodless) revolution every two years. I'm sure you can imagine that there isn't an abundance of growth in these small communities.

For a society to be stable, it needs to retain both it's people and principles. They can't undergo a rapid cultural shift as a result of either internal or external influences. A great example would be N.Korea. Even though they aren't competitive on the world stage, they have been able to retain the exact ideology the country was founded on. This can be said of very few societies. But again, N.Korea is an isolated community. I don't think anybody holds illusions that if there was more outside influence that they would undergo a rapid cultural shift.

As you can see, there are advantages and disadvantages to both and society needs to find a balance between the two.

And again, I'm not saying there's a problem that needs fixing, far from it. Personally, I think it's an ideal set-up and I'd love to live in a society that operated as such. What I am saying is that once societies reach a certain size or level of outside influence from other societies that have already surpassed this size, then problems arise within the community.
#135 to #134 - kingpongthedon
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/17/2014) [-]
And yeah, their isolation and small size are definitely key factors as to why they aren't competitive or stable, but it's also what allows them to live like that in the first place. Once they reach a level of size and access to the outside world that would allow them to be competitive, they shift away from the ideals that they originally lived by.
#49 - aryastarkismywaifu
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
Ain't no party like a communist party
#77 - schnizel
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
Dumping
User avatar #121 to #77 - Shiny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
This image is kind of like saying "evolution is fact because my local priest is a butthole". Your central point might be correct, but you're backing it up with garbage.
#161 to #121 - schnizel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/17/2014) [-]
The end result is what matters, not how I get to it.
I had more pictures but I don't know where I've put them.
User avatar #163 to #161 - Shiny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/17/2014) [-]
"The ends justify the means"

This is the dogma behind every failed political campaign.
User avatar #165 to #163 - schnizel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/17/2014) [-]
Your founding fathers would say otherwise. Actions speak louder than words.
User avatar #166 to #165 - Shiny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/17/2014) [-]
Which explains the endless attempts to make peaceful protest.
User avatar #167 to #166 - schnizel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/17/2014) [-]
Bosnia, or in Murica?
User avatar #168 to #167 - Shiny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/17/2014) [-]
America. The sole reason we had to go to war was because our parent nation was a totalitarian imperialist state run by a mental case.
User avatar #169 to #168 - schnizel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/17/2014) [-]
That harsh to say against the elders.
User avatar #170 to #169 - Shiny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/17/2014) [-]
...are you browbeating me for being politically incorrect?
User avatar #171 to #170 - schnizel
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/18/2014) [-]
No, I'm just saying you should be a bit more respectful for the masters.
User avatar #172 to #171 - Shiny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/18/2014) [-]
They're dead. What do they care.
#173 to #172 - schnizel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/18/2014) [-]
I'm not talking about them.
<
User avatar #174 to #173 - Shiny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/18/2014) [-]
He is also dead.
User avatar #175 to #174 - schnizel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/18/2014) [-]
His legacy is still here.
User avatar #176 to #175 - Shiny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/18/2014) [-]
No, his extended family has a lot of money and they keep to themselves because nobody cares about rich people outside of Wall Street. Same with the Rockefellers, Waltons, etc. It's pretty much impossible to use economic influence for political agendas without someone noticing.
#177 to #176 - schnizel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/18/2014) [-]
>It's pretty much impossible to use economic influence for political agendas without someone noticing.
That is why we have the international media silly.
:3
User avatar #178 to #177 - Shiny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/18/2014) [-]
Everyone knows that the mass media lies. It's impossible for NOBODY to publish something somehow if it exists and constitutes such.
User avatar #179 to #178 - schnizel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/18/2014) [-]
Well, true. But many don't care about the interests of bankers and their plans but they worry about the leatest trend, or the newest video-game, or a sport even, a movie premiere?
User avatar #186 to #179 - Shiny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/18/2014) [-]
Nobody is offended for no reason.
User avatar #187 to #186 - schnizel
0 123456789123345869
(02/19/2014) [-]
True. Everything has a reason.
User avatar #184 to #179 - Shiny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/18/2014) [-]
Being offended by entertainment and real current events are two entirely different things. If we didn't get offended now and then we'd be too complacent with the status quo to ever do anything.
User avatar #185 to #184 - schnizel
0 123456789123345869
(02/18/2014) [-]
It's not the problem when saying that is wrong because yada radda radda
the problem is just saying im ofendud cuz im ofendud
User avatar #182 to #179 - Shiny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/18/2014) [-]
lol....ethnocentric blogs are kinda depressing. I want to feel offended, but their thinking is so simple that this seems mean.
#183 to #182 - schnizel
0 123456789123345869
(02/18/2014) [-]
User avatar #180 to #179 - Shiny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/18/2014) [-]
Well, a fact of life is that people will always care most about things that directly affect them, not indirectly. I might enjoy being politically literate, but I'd also be pissed if Borderlands 3 was released and I didn't notice.

There's also the problem with the often true stigma of politically active people as zealots with agendas.
#181 to #180 - schnizel
0 123456789123345869
(02/18/2014) [-]
yep
#78 to #77 - schnizel
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
#79 to #78 - schnizel
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
User avatar #30 - fpsnoob
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
The theory of communism is actually really good, there's just 1 issue. It requires perfect people that will give their best without gaining anything extra.

Basically if you had 2 people, one is brilliant, and the other is an idiot, the first one would have to go to school for half his life and become a surgeon, while the second one will just work as a janitor, however both of them will get identical living conditions.
User avatar #34 to #30 - icefried
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
Well.. yeah, but think of it this way.
A surgeon, farmer, janitor and builder live together. The builder built and maintains the house in which they live, the farmer provides the food, the janitor keeps it all clean and the surgeon keeps them all healthy.
At least that's how i understand it.
User avatar #59 to #34 - fpsnoob
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
Yes, that is basically how the system is supposed to work. However it still doesn't change that some people will have to put in way more effort into getting their job done than others. That's why real communism isn't possible.
User avatar #160 to #59 - icefried
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/17/2014) [-]
Well that's true, but the surgeon can't survive without the farmer, janitor and builder.
He wouldn't have anywhere to live, nor have anything to eat.
You would still have to put in a lot of effort into what you do, it's just that people wouldn't pursue a career in say medicine because they'd think it would bring them a better lifestyle, but because it's something they wish to do because everyone already has absolutely everything provided for them... though this sounds more socialist than communist.
Basically the incentive wouldn't be "i want to become X so i can have enough money to buy Y", it would be "I want to become X because that's what interests me".
The real communism you mentioned will only be possible once people quit being so materialistic and greedy and realise that there is much more to life than having a gold plated porsche.
I don't know if i'm explaining myself well enough..
User avatar #164 to #160 - fpsnoob
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/17/2014) [-]
Your explanation is irrelevant because you're baseically restating my whole point. From the start I said that communism is impossible because it would require perfect people. That means exactly what you're saying, where people aren't materialistic and just do things for the common good. However as I've been saying people are greedy and that's why communism would never work in our world.
User avatar #50 - dildoes
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
communism is perfect, in theory.
but there are always going to be corruption at the top
#116 to #50 - anon id: e47ba988
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
how is it perfect in theory, in theory everyone gets paid the same no matter how hard you work. That breeds a lack of incentive which destroys innovation that isn't perfect. People not getting rewarded for working harder than someone who is complacent is not perfect so nice try.
User avatar #68 to #50 - durkadurka
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
In theory, practice and theory are the same thing. In practice, they're not.
User avatar #76 to #68 - ninjaroo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
Everyone knows this.