Who says you would be cared for? Here. Try to finish this statement in reference to socialism: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his ____." Can you do it?
We wouldn't know because Marxist communism has never existed anywhere at any time, ever. All you need do is to correctly define communism according to Marx's description and you will see.
Quite wrong as communism is not a perfect state of being nor is it a perfect stateless society. you always lose that argument
Why, didn't I already state that you weren't qualified? Sure did. Lincoln was an authoritarian dictator that had a real problem with truth. The Gettysburg Address was a total travesty based on Lincoln being totally responsible for all those dead and pretending it was for some noble cause. And if you think his use of "Of the people, by the people and for the people..." has anything to do with the people, you are delusional. But where in that address does it mention either democracy or socialism? This is only your desire to have something mean what you want it to mean. Marx, a diseased individual that would be nothing without the diseased minds of Plato, Engels, Kant, Hegel and so many others. So why would I really care what Marx thought? His is but a utopia that never has been and never will be. Communism or Fascism, they are but one and the same, collectivism. Show where either has ever succeeded. Oh, I have no doubt you can quote all the facts of Marx or Lenin or Stalin or Hitler, but you are still clueless on their meaning and their effects. You somehow think these are all different forms of government, well you are clueless. There are no forms, just stages. But this thread is on morality, specifically communism. I know you are clueless on the immorality so can you explain why it would be moral?
Ok, so you have thoroughly, convincingly, honestly proven you have no actual knowledge of all this and are the one who is truly clueless. Welcome to the right wing fringe.
[QUOTE="Kode, post: 1067864722, member: 70481 he does have knowledge of it actually and is far more accurate than any of your claims have been. Whenever faced with an argument which you lack the mental capacity to refute you resort to such non arguments as " you do not know anything about it" The fact which you are in desperate denial of is that YOU ARE NOT better informed or educated than others. You are not more aware of the subject of socialism /communism than others and they are in fact debunking and crushing your shallow and ill informed ideas.
If you knew Marx's definition/description of communism you would have answered and given it. But you didn't because you don't know. Yet you prance around here asserting your "superior knowledge" of Marx and call me clueless. Yet you show you know nothing about it and you are therefore incapable of discussing it intelligently. Your posturing is all puff and fluffery. ... a sham. This is why I stopped discussing anything with you.
NEED! Of course.....that's all I am saying. If I choose not to work I will have unmet needs. If you have the ability.... you can pay for them. Does that sound like a good deal to you? I finished the Marxist statement, so now you tell me how well it works.
Does it matter? Does absolute rigid moral-based policies work in the real world? How do we know one moral is right and a conflicting one is wrong?
Can you agree that perhaps a culture may be more superior than another? If you can..... why on earth would that one culture compromise itself to get along with the other? I'll refer you to a song by Erin Tippen...."You've got to Stand for Something or You'll Fall for Anything!"
Sure, some cultures are better than others. What matters is the actual results achieved not some rigid dogmatic morals.
Communism requires that the authority (the government) take total control of all the resources and distribute justly, within a lower limit (minimum sustenance) and a upper limit (to include exceptional contribution of efforts/skills). Gradually, over the time the control by the authority fades to zero. It is this last premise that the government participation in the distribution would fade away is unrealistic. No entity associated with life ever wants to compromise its existence. Governments have natural tendency to keep growing, branching out and to acquire more and more power, out of greed for prestige, power and material gains of the individuals involved. No society can exist or function without some rules, by which some individual freedoms are curtailed for the good of the overall. This set of rules (laws)/ trends, traditions are called socialism. Just like a family, business or organization, only the just societies progress and become happy. Too much socialism creates repressive atmosphere, while too little of it creates anarchy. To make the socialism practical and perpetuating the control must be assigned to the society itself. Democracy is the best form of government available so far. The culprit is the unrestrained form of Capitalism, which lets the economically powerful corner the economy by tactics like mergers, absorptions, etc. In addition to the primary vice of unjust wealth distribution, it reduces the effectiveness of democracy by lobbying and campaign contributions.
The morals of a culture tend to be what makes that culture function in a way that honors individual liberty....would you agree?
Democracy can be like two wolves and a sheep taking a vote on what is for dinner. When we grow government to a point where over half work in government related jobs....we reach the point of no return. Healthcare is 1- 5th of our economy. I would guess that almost put us there. The point of no return is when the voters always vote in their own government financial interests, that is to make it bigger with more control.. Thank God we are a Constitutional Republic. That will make us less likely to go the way of Argentina.
In so far as the moral translates into actual results then it is a moral that should be important. But all morals can be taken too far to the extent that it starts causing harm, that should also be taken into account.
Of course human nature can always abuse a good thing.....but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater Anarchy is not a good thing..
So you read a few of his books with some radical theory for a land of eutopia and you are an expert. I doubt you actually know anything about Karl Marx. How about Engels? How does Kant fit into all this and let's not forget Hegel. These men have been responsible for the deaths of millions of souls. These cowards are still the influence of what ails this world today. Come on, tell me, name just one place on this earth were any collectivist system succeeded?
Freedom and morally are directly proportional; as morality increases, freedom increases; as morality declines, freedom declines. Another way of stating this would be to say that the presence of truth and morality in the lives of the people of any given society is inversely proportional to the presence of tyranny and slavery in that society. True freedom can never exist in a society that embraces "Moral Relativism"; the idea that there is no inherent and objective difference between right and wrong, so humanity may arbitrarily "create" or "decide" right and wrong for themselves. Some surveys state that 66% of the people believe in Moral Relativism. It is not the belief but the practice of Moral Relativism that is pure evil. How does one know right from wrong, common sense. Common sense is the definitive knowledge of the objective difference between right and wrong according to natural law. Exercise of Conscience, the free will choice of right action over wrong action, once the definitive knowledge of the objective difference between right and wrong according to natural law has been acquired. Sadly, as the survey suggests, two out of every three people suffer moral relativism, the inability to acquire such knowledge, looking to an authority to decide for them.
Its not just human nature, a good thing taken too far will become a bad things. Many of the evils in this world are good things that have been taken too far. I don't believe in amoral anarchy, I believe in practical limited morality.
You are going to have to more clearly define what you mean by "morality" because there are numerous moral systems and not all are even consistent with morality. If you only mean the moral systems that promote freedom then you are just stating the obvious since of course freedom will increase in this case. What do you mean by "true freedom?" Is it absolute freedom or only a certain amount of freedom? Give me a society where true freedom existed for everyone. I disagree with moral relativism in the way you have defined it because I don't find any evidence that right and wrong exist or that "relative right" is logically meaningful or that it is something that can be created by someone's subjective desires. What matters most is the real-world impacts of the policies, not whether they follow some mystical code. We can use morals as general guidlines as long as you pick ones that generally benefit society and not take them to a harmful extreme. Common sense doesn't always work and is more of a rule of thumb than absolute truth. Also, different societies and people have different "common" senses so its not an objective thing to determine morality from. You also didn't prove that morality comes from common sense or that it has some magical morality detector ability.
If you don't believe it exists....you have nothing to aspire too. "It's :eat drink and be Merry for tomorrow we die!"