Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Me and Me · 02-09-2003, 04:02 PM

Beyelzu

I know someone that lives in Honduras and he is a more fervent Communist than I am.

Once again you and others on the board expect us to fall for your crocodile tears for the (I know someone that lived in a communist country) defense. It seems to me that if someone really cares about oppressed people than they would certainly not ignore some and play up others as you and some others have done. Example: Play up stories or examples of bad situations under previous communist country, but play down or completely ignore bad living conditions in practically all capitalist countries. You and others are just spewing propaganda and pretending to care for oppressed people.

Grad Student Humanist · 02-09-2003, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Me and Me
I wouldn't be against it, we would just go underground like all illegal political parties have done in any country.

You wouldn't be going underground, you would be going to jail. There would be no oppositon parties, just like there are no opposition parties in Cuba.

Loren Pechtel · 02-09-2003, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur
Isn't this far too much of an over-reaching simplistic statement --- and therefore wrong ?

Poverty has a thousand causes (simple lack of resources being one); you've simply named only one as the one, without any evidence, and contrary to real-world events.

Just to reductio ab absurdum; since when is a person in a geographical area with severely limited natural resources and an overpopualtion problem somehow magically at blame owing to an "attitude problem" for their poverty ?

I'm distinguishing the circumstantial causes from the internal causes. Those who are without money (poor) because of circumstances generally recover. Those who are without money from internal reasons remain in poverty.

Loren Pechtel · 02-09-2003, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by moon
And one more thing before I go to bed, to clear up one more misconception.

There is no such thing as a "free" press. Presses are very expensive, especially today. In the U.S., only a small minority have access to a press that reaches any significant portion of the population. By comparison, Cuban's have a much greater access to the press. Plus, the doctrinal constraints on those who do gain access to the press are much less severe in Cuba than they are in the U.S. While there is some constraint in Cuba about broadcasting anti-Cuban propaganda (the Miami radio does that already), the Cuban press is much more free than their American counterparts, who adhere with virtual unanimity to the establishment line.

You're not paying to use this system, are you? Therefore this is an example of a free press..

Note that in times past China has censored this site, although they did a poor job if it, while www.infidels.org was blocked the boards have been hosted by www.iidb.org which isn't blocked.

Loren Pechtel · 02-09-2003, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by B. H. Manners
If anyone objects that those businesses that failed did so because they were not "good enough" and those new well educated people did not get the highly paid jobs in their field of study because they were not "as qualified as the one who did" will have to show me this is true in an objective absolute manner.

The great majority of people will never be rich or high middle class, so what is in their self interest to support the system?
If they can get a better or equal standard of living under socialism as well as free health care, job security, ect why should they not just go for that instead of taking a chance that they might wind up rich under capitalism?

However, the same arguments apply to communism. Communism has no more need for top people than capitalism does.

Loren Pechtel · 02-09-2003, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by B. H. Manners
Please re-read my post above. I cannot freely criticize my boss like I can GWB . I still maintain the reason I cited above:GWB has little direct influence on my life whereas my boss, company, and work do. If I criticized my boss, company, ect. in the name of free speech and everyone else did as well, it would lead to disputes, worse productivity, ect. This is probably what the communists were trying to avoid, since the government is the employer. The soviets, despite their drawbacks, did have elections where you could vote "yes" or "no" to candidates and fill in on the ballot things you felt needed to ba taken care of. There were also times where things could be discussed and disputed as far as policy goes. But when a decision was made, it was expected to be followed. This is the same over here in the US.

The point is that in a communist country you would not be permitted to criticize Bush..

beyelzu · 02-09-2003, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Me and Me
Beyelzu

I know someone that lives in Honduras and he is a more fervent Communist than I am.

Once again you and others on the board expect us to fall for your crocodile tears for the (I know someone that lived in a communist country) defense. It seems to me that if someone really cares about oppressed people than they would certainly not ignore some and play up others as you and some others have done. Example: Play up stories or examples of bad situations under previous communist country, but play down or completely ignore bad living conditions in practically all capitalist countries. You and others are just spewing propaganda and pretending to care for oppressed people.

I dont offer the point as a sob story, I dont even argue that I care about people that live in communist countries. I just point out that people who live in these communist countries dont like the communism that you peddle.

B. H. Manners · 02-09-2003, 09:40 PM

""""The point is that in a communist country you would not be permitted to criticize Bush.."""""

That may be true for the most part. I do have a Russian friend that said she used to make all sorts of jokes about Andropov, Chernenko, and Gorbachev and heard others do the same, without reprisal from the cops. However, that is just one case that I doubt many here will accept.

Back to your qoute---I explained the rational behind why you are not able to criticize the leader of a communist country like you can GWB here in the US. He has little impact on our day to day lives, unlike our employers do. In a communist country the state is the employer and cannot allow what you call "freedom of speech" anymore than a capitalistic business here in the US can. Go out and hold a sign along the road in front of your place of employment saying "I work at ----- and my company, CEO, GM, SM, and department manager sucks" and see what happens to you. As i said before there is a reason for this: maintaining discipline and productivity and preventing anarchy. Not only that, if for the the sake of argument your grievance is legitimate, there is no way for you to vote out your manager. Under a communist system you could do so and voice your grievances--though at various times via the election process.

Maybe what needs to happen is the communist nations left in the world need to have a head of state that is a pure figurehead without any power over the day to day aspects of its citizens lives. Then, people can make fun of him and tell jokes about him, thus satisfying a capitalist's desire to see "free speech." Then take the guy who runs GOSPLAN and change his title to CEO or General Manager and change the name of the collectivized industries to "(whatever country), Inc." and that will silence the capitalists screaming for "free speech" as well there.

RED DAVE · 02-09-2003, 10:01 PM

From B.H. Manners:

Quote:

Maybe what needs to happen is the communist nations left in the world need to have a head of state that is a pure figurehead without any power over the day to day aspects of its citizens lives. Then, people can make fun of him and tell jokes about him, thus satisfying a capitalist's desire to see "free speech." Then take the guy who runs GOSPLAN and change his title to CEO or General Manager and change the name of the collectivized industries to "(whatever country), Inc." and that will silence the capitalists screaming for "free speech" as well there.

Actually, that's pretty much what's happened in Eastern Europe and is well on its way in China. I've always felt that the seamless transformation of "Communism" into capitalism was a good demonstration that "Communism" was actually a form of capitalism -- state capitalism.

RED DAVE

B. H. Manners · 02-09-2003, 10:08 PM

Red Dave,

That was an attempt at humor. The "(whatever country), Inc." would still be owned by the state and the real head of government would be a prime minister or something. I was just trying to put a communist economic planned system into terminology that the capitalists here could understand, and procede from there to see why the "freedom" they want under communism cannot work no more than it can in a capitalist business.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-09-2003, 04:02 PM	#121
Me and Me Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: California Posts: 600	Beyelzu I know someone that lives in Honduras and he is a more fervent Communist than I am. Once again you and others on the board expect us to fall for your crocodile tears for the (I know someone that lived in a communist country) defense. It seems to me that if someone really cares about oppressed people than they would certainly not ignore some and play up others as you and some others have done. Example: Play up stories or examples of bad situations under previous communist country, but play down or completely ignore bad living conditions in practically all capitalist countries. You and others are just spewing propaganda and pretending to care for oppressed people.

02-09-2003, 05:00 PM	#125
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by B. H. Manners If anyone objects that those businesses that failed did so because they were not "good enough" and those new well educated people did not get the highly paid jobs in their field of study because they were not "as qualified as the one who did" will have to show me this is true in an objective absolute manner. The great majority of people will never be rich or high middle class, so what is in their self interest to support the system? If they can get a better or equal standard of living under socialism as well as free health care, job security, ect why should they not just go for that instead of taking a chance that they might wind up rich under capitalism? However, the same arguments apply to communism. Communism has no more need for top people than capitalism does.

02-09-2003, 09:40 PM	#128
B. H. Manners Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,213	""""The point is that in a communist country you would not be permitted to criticize Bush..""""" That may be true for the most part. I do have a Russian friend that said she used to make all sorts of jokes about Andropov, Chernenko, and Gorbachev and heard others do the same, without reprisal from the cops. However, that is just one case that I doubt many here will accept. Back to your qoute---I explained the rational behind why you are not able to criticize the leader of a communist country like you can GWB here in the US. He has little impact on our day to day lives, unlike our employers do. In a communist country the state is the employer and cannot allow what you call "freedom of speech" anymore than a capitalistic business here in the US can. Go out and hold a sign along the road in front of your place of employment saying "I work at ----- and my company, CEO, GM, SM, and department manager sucks" and see what happens to you. As i said before there is a reason for this: maintaining discipline and productivity and preventing anarchy. Not only that, if for the the sake of argument your grievance is legitimate, there is no way for you to vote out your manager. Under a communist system you could do so and voice your grievances--though at various times via the election process. Maybe what needs to happen is the communist nations left in the world need to have a head of state that is a pure figurehead without any power over the day to day aspects of its citizens lives. Then, people can make fun of him and tell jokes about him, thus satisfying a capitalist's desire to see "free speech." Then take the guy who runs GOSPLAN and change his title to CEO or General Manager and change the name of the collectivized industries to "(whatever country), Inc." and that will silence the capitalists screaming for "free speech" as well there.

02-09-2003, 10:08 PM	#130
B. H. Manners Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,213	Red Dave, That was an attempt at humor. The "(whatever country), Inc." would still be owned by the state and the real head of government would be a prime minister or something. I was just trying to put a communist economic planned system into terminology that the capitalists here could understand, and procede from there to see why the "freedom" they want under communism cannot work no more than it can in a capitalist business.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.