Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#41 - xxpredatorxx
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(05/09/2013) [-]
In my opinion communism is bad because it's morally wrong. It may work better than capitalism in theory, but that doesn't change the fact that it's immoral.
User avatar #95 to #41 - toastedspikes
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/09/2013) [-]
Communism does not imply forced sharing. I hope you don't think the USSR was communist...
User avatar #139 to #95 - redtooth
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/09/2013) [-]
In Yugoslavia we had communism and it worked fairly well for a number of years, according to my parents, especially after the leader (Tito) broke away from Stalin. We managed to get a working communistic country that wasn't closed in like others; people were allowed out of the country and tourists were allowed into the country, but the main problem was that it was a bunch of nations which were too different to live together bunched up into one big country and that made the country crumble. I do think that a small communistic country with the right leader could make it work; of course, keeping your country open to tourists and allowing your people to leave the country is a crucial part of succeeding in that matter, IMO.
User avatar #144 to #139 - toastedspikes
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/09/2013) [-]
Tito's Yugoslavia is quite admirable, in my opinion, but it was more of a market socialism than a communism. The fact that you guys had a leader and a state, sorta defies the definition of communism.

Though I assume you're using communism colloquially.
User avatar #149 to #144 - redtooth
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/09/2013) [-]
I am, my bad, you are right, it was more socialist than communist.
#60 to #41 - anon id: 9b554169
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/09/2013) [-]
why is it immoral for people to share?
User avatar #97 to #60 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/09/2013) [-]
"share"

There's a difference between "Here, have 5 dollars, courtesy of me" and "Give us 5$ to give to someone else our we'll beat your ass"
#63 to #60 - xxpredatorxx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/09/2013) [-]
It's immoral to force people to share. Big difference.
#64 to #63 - anon id: 9b554169
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/09/2013) [-]
If you ever had a sibling and your parents forced you to share, is that immoral? it teaches you to be more thankful for what you have. If everyone works to sustain the system then everyone should reap the rewards of that.
#66 to #64 - xxpredatorxx
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/09/2013) [-]
I have siblings and my parents never forced me to share anything that I bought with the money I earned because it is immoral. However, if it didn't belong to me personally then it would have been completely justified to make me share. If one person works harder than the rest, why should everyone else get a piece of his reward?
#68 to #66 - anon id: 9b554169
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/09/2013) [-]
I see what you mean if you apply it to this society. But the principle of communism is that there will be no government, sharing should just come naturally and people live as they choose, as an isolated family who share in each others rewards, or as a town who want to all work hard to give everyone a better quality of life. But yes people ruin everything and it could never happen, someone will want something for nothing. But it seems like the utopian future humanity should aim for. Rather than kill and financially oppress each other for our own gain.
#74 to #68 - xxpredatorxx
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(05/09/2013) [-]
What you're describing is something I would call "charity", and I think it works pretty well when applied to capitalism. Honestly, I don't think true communism could ever be achieved by someone making a conscious decision to become communist. For it to work it must come naturally.
User avatar #78 to #74 - toastedspikes
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/09/2013) [-]
Yeah, it works very well when applied to capitalism. That's why half of the planet's population is living in poverty.