Interesting and gritty interview with a Tibetan monk

[goldisheavy]

Well, (I assume) you freely chose to move from a Communist to a capitalist country.

 

Things are not black or white. USA had a lot of problems. We would have preferred to go to Canada or Australia, but they had stricter requirements for acceptance. The people that made the decision to move were my parents. We didn't leave USSR due to Socialism. We left it due to ethnic prejudice. Understand?

 

My family used to be a well-to-do family back in USSR. In USA my parents live a destitute life. We didn't come here because Capitalism is so fucking great. We were running from unfair ethnic persecution.

 

Actions speak louder than words. I think this debate is now over. Thx for playing.

 

What debate? You ignored most of what I said and you just kept repeating your idiotic party line. You're a moron. It is obvious now. Intelligent people respond directly to points raised, which you never did. I responded directly to all your assertions while you dodged every worthy statement of mine. That's not a debate. That's posturing.

 

Now, when revolution rolls around in this country, and you get slaughtered, you will know why. Don't say no one tried to talk to you and don't say no one tried to share their problems and pain with you. I have tried. You ignored. You don't give a fuck about anyone other than yourself. You are killing civility by that kind of attitude.

 

Morals depend on people willing to care for one another. "What?? Care for one another? That's Socialism!!!" No it's not. You can call it Socialism, but it's not about that. If you don't care about other people, you won't get the benefit of civility or morality. If you don't want to help other people even a tiny bit, then you are excluded from moral protections.

Edited April 23, 2010 by goldisheavy

[gendao]

Things are not black or white. USA had a lot of problems. We would have preferred to go to Canada or Australia, but they had stricter requirements for acceptance. The people that made the decision to move were my parents. We didn't leave USSR due to Socialism. We left it due to ethnic prejudice. Understand?

No, I don't. You could have fled to any number of other Communist countries - yet you purposely preselected only capitalist ones (USA, AUS or CA).

 

Preach Communism, practice capitalism. Check.

Credibility? Plummeting...

Now, when revolution rolls around in this country, and you get slaughtered, you will know why. Don't say no one tried to talk to you and don't say no one tried to share their problems and pain with you. I have tried. You ignored. You don't give a fuck about anyone other than yourself. You are killing civility by that kind of attitude.

 

Morals depend on people willing to care for one another. "What?? Care for one another? That's Socialism!!!" No it's not. You can call it Socialism, but it's not about that. If you don't care about other people, you won't get the benefit of civility or morality. If you don't want to help other people even a tiny bit, then you are excluded from moral protections.

Maybe I will, by our Communizing government. Which is what I'm trying to prevent.

 

And I am all for teamwork & helping each other out - just BY CHOICE. I'm not a hardass, really. I simply don't want to help some gangbangers living next door who deal drugs & just raped our neighbor. I don't have the luxury of living in a gated community and have to deal with these types all the time. So, I am against FORCED collectivism & charity. It's a simple matter of free will & common sense here, not lack of compassion or willingness to cooperate.

Edited April 23, 2010 by vortex

[goldisheavy]

No, I don't. You could have fled to any number of other Communist countries - yet you purposely preselected only capitalist ones (USA, AUS or CA).

 

That's simply not true. You just don't know what you're talking about. You've demonstrated that you're willing to talk out of your ass on numerous occasions. I keep correcting you and giving you more info, to show you that your assumptions are wrong, but you keep assuming things.

 

You are brainwashed.

 

By the way, Canada and Australia have first-rate socialized medical care. Something USA doesn't have yet, and is struggling bitterly to acquire.

 

And I am all for teamwork & helping each other out - just BY CHOICE. I'm not a hardass, really. I simply don't want to help some gangbangers living next door who deal drugs & just raped our neighbor.

 

OK, so when I point out some problems with economic and class stratification, it's equivalent to me asking you to help gangbangers? My parents are not gangbangers. But thanks for bringing gangbangers up. That's very kind of you.

 

I keep talking about diagnosing the problems and you keep reacting to your imagined solutions. I didn't even put forth a proposal for a solution. I didn't defend Communism or Socialism. I simply said that some of the things Communists noticed were correct. How is that a defense of Communism? Even Hitler made one or two correct observations, but does that mean I support Hitler? Cut down on your kneejerking tea bagger loon.

 

I don't have the luxury of living in a gated community and have to deal with these types all the time. So, I am against FORCED collectivism & charity.

 

Quote me one line where I suggest FORCED collectivism & charity as a solution. Emphasis yours.

Edited April 23, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Oleg Galkin]

Stalin killed more people than Hitler....So while you are at it, why don't you defend Hitler?

 

And regarding tibetan buddhism, the commies STILL have the Panchen Lama kidnapped till the present day!

 

And I saw a rare interview with the China president on CNN. That guy is fucked up in the head!!

 

Communism is bad, capitalism is good... Think using your own head, man! Don't listen to media crap. In Russia we've seen both of them, and it have appeared that both of them are total f...ng shit.

[Sunya]

I left USSR in 1989. I grew up there.

 

Owned!

 

Me too actually, though I was only 6 years old when I left. I don't remember much but my parents spent a majority of their lives there and were quite glad to leave. Unfortunately they've embraced the American view too much and became Republicans. It's human to take one extreme for another unfortunately.

 

Btw Vortex why do you keep equating USSR, China, and other failed experiments with communism? As has been said earlier, a true communist state has never existed. You're talking about totalitarian states.

Edited April 23, 2010 by mikaelz

[Sunya]

OK, so when I point out some problems with economic and class stratification, it's equivalent to me asking you to help gangbangers? My parents are not gangbangers. But thanks for bringing gangbangers up. That's very kind of you.

 

Gold, I'm sure your parents are very kind people. Btw mine escaped USSR out of ethnic persecution too. Now they live here, support Israel, and watch Fox news. I have many gripes with them

 

Anyway its a very common response by Republicans that tax money that supports others will only make others lazy. Why should I support those who aren't willing to support themselves. I think its a good argument against socialism. Many live on welfare because of sheer laziness. My parents tell me all the time how lazy people were about working in the USSR because nobody cared. I think we would agree that this laziness is eventual outcome because peoples mentalities are selfish. Those that don't want to work are selfish and those that do want to work are selfish. So of course there's no middle ground. The former want as much help as possible so they don't have to work while the latter want the least amount of taxes so they get the most amount of money.

 

Like I said before, a complete paradigm shift has to occur in how we perceive ourselves in the world and our relation to others. A whole different value system must be undertaken before socialization can actually be a good thing. So I'm not very clear on where I stand with current debates about socialization in America since I know that people aren't evolving at all. The politicians who want to instill change have good hearts but don't realize what people really need. We have this obsession, an all encompassing value, with fulfilling the "standard of living" and raising that standard. As if that's the holy grail of societal achievement. This standard is not only having food and shelter but being able to fulfill every desire; since we are inherently desiring creaters, right Hobbes?

 

I think we have a lot of very good things in this modern era, but the majority of technology is useless and only clutters our lives. Supposedly technology is supposed to increase education possibilities yet I always see morons texting in class; whenever I want into the computer labs in the library everyone is on youtube or facebook. Wonderful.

Edited April 23, 2010 by mikaelz

[goldisheavy]

Anyway its a very common response by Republicans that tax money that supports others will only make others lazy. Why should I support those who aren't willing to support themselves. I think its a good argument against socialism. Many live on welfare because of sheer laziness. My parents tell me all the time how lazy people were about working in the USSR because nobody cared.

 

I don't buy this argument for one second.

 

In USSR people didn't want to work for other reasons. It's not because there was a great safety net or something like that. As far as I know people were forced to work. You couldn't just hang out at home, even if you wanted to. I didn't know anyone in USSR who didn't work. It just didn't happen. You might have a crappy job or a job you don't want, but you'd get some kind of work most of the time.

 

The reason why people in USSR were so demotivated is that they didn't see any connection between personal effort and success. It would appear to those people that no amount of personal effort would result in any kind of influence or improvement. The Soviet Union operated like one giant machine where people's wishes were irrelevant. So if you have a great idea? Too bad. You can work faster? Ok, the first year, you get a medal, but the second year, your quota of widgets is raised and your faster rate is now the required rate. Etc.

 

So the presence of safety net or government support had absolutely nothing to do with demotivation of people in USSR.

 

I think we would agree that this laziness is eventual outcome because peoples mentalities are selfish.

 

I disagree. I think that no one can stand too much idleness. There are some rare people who can tolerate a lot of idleness, but most people like to keep busy. If we didn't have to work for a living, we would work for fun. We would probably do different kind of work. There would be less drudgery and less stupid work. But people would work no matter what.

 

All you have to do is look at Europe. Look at the countries there with great social safety nets. Most people there want to work.

 

Read why J.K. Rowling doesn't mind paying taxes: The Single Mother's Manifesto.

 

Those that don't want to work are selfish and those that do want to work are selfish. So of course there's no middle ground. The former want as much help as possible so they don't have to work while the latter want the least amount of taxes so they get the most amount of money.

 

Like I said before, a complete paradigm shift has to occur in how we perceive ourselves in the world and our relation to others. A whole different value system must be undertaken before socialization can actually be a good thing. So I'm not very clear on where I stand with current debates about socialization in America since I know that people aren't evolving at all.

 

Too late for that. We are already socialized. When all of us bailed out bankers for insane amounts of money, we were already socialized. We are socialized whether we like it or not. Our choice now is this: should we have corporate and bank welfare, which is what we currently have, or should we have welfare for the people instead, and let the banks go bankrupt.

 

In a good capitalist society mismanaged institutions must go bankrupt, no matter the cost. And yet USA government routinely bails out big businesses and banks. So we are already socialized and the people getting the benefits of the safety net are rich guys who don't need any benefits.

 

The politicians who want to instill change have good hearts but don't realize what people really need. We have this obsession, an all encompassing value, with fulfilling the "standard of living" and raising that standard. As if that's the holy grail of societal achievement. This standard is not only having food and shelter but being able to fulfill every desire; since we are inherently desiring creaters, right Hobbes?

 

I think we have a lot of very good things in this modern era, but the majority of technology is useless and only clutters our lives. Supposedly technology is supposed to increase education possibilities yet I always see morons texting in class; whenever I want into the computer labs in the library everyone is on youtube or facebook. Wonderful.

 

I like computers, but what I want the most is for relations between human beings to change. I want corporate douchebags to stop treating people like commodities. That would be a good start.

 

And wealth disparity is a huge problem that will get fixed either peacefully or violently, but it cannot continue as is, and it will get fixed.

Edited April 23, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Apech]

Hmmm things seem to have got rater personalized on here. If everyone calms down there's an interesting debate here.

 

I think there is a kind of irony about social benefits, welfare and so on - because it is a curse in modern Britain that large numbers of people choose not to work. In fact there are third generation kids growing up whose families have never worked. I don't know the numbers but its too many. The socialists talk about the dignity of work because they grew up in an environment where being hard working was a great virtue but the safety net of welfare which they introduced has become a way of life for some. The real irony though is that welfare reforms came in to keep people at the bottom of society quiet in times of depression. People looked at the 30's and the Great Depression and saw that the social upheaval and suffering it caused led directly to the rise of fascism and the spread of communism (because they appeared to provide the answers - while the capitalists were clueless). Welfare as it exists today is actually a sugar pill offered to people to stop them rioting and far from being anti-capitalist it is the way in which capitalism has adapted to survive more or less intact when everyone predicted collapse. Similarly the way in which the Soviet Union was run was more to do with how do you keep this vast amalgam of different cultures and ethnic groups together and stop the whole thing collapsing - by offering full employment and by demonising the capitalist west.

[Pero]

[C T]

 

I think there is a kind of irony about social benefits, welfare and so on - because it is a curse in modern Britain that large numbers of people choose not to work. In fact there are third generation kids growing up whose families have never worked. I don't know the numbers but its too many.

Yes a very interesting debate indeed!

 

Just want to add that its the same here in most parts of Ireland. I have seen people become 'rich' thru fraudulent means by siphoning off the welfare system by signing on in the Republic and then going over to Northern Ireland for another check!! All that was apparently needed was a registered address. Its a major headache. This flared out of all proportions during the boom years because these 'suckers' knew the govt wouldn't move a muscle to pursue them cos they were too engrossed with their own dirty greed and glory from all the 'juice' flowing into their pockets, co-created by them, with their crony bankers and developers to hatch the property bubble. Its a big mess now, nobody wants to admit accountability, and the fatcat developers and bankers are still having a good laugh, playing golf and sailing their yachts! There is so much hue and cry over the cost of welfare here, yet the amount pales in comparison to the bailout handed to these idiot bankers and their VIP developer clients.

 

Heard a great little tale last month about a bank who made a 'show' of an attempt to deal with one of its rogue developer customers. They managed to catch hold of this guy, and invited him to a meeting with a few of the bank officials. These guys had thought that he would show up with a retinue of accountants and lawyers in tow, so they pulled out all the files and whatever, and got their solicitors briefed etc. The day of the meeting came and this brazen chap shows up, walks into the meeting, all by himself, holding a small shopping bag in one hand. He sits down, and attentively listened to what the bankers had to say, and when they finished, they asked him what he thought of the situation and how best it can be rectified. The guy stands up, reached into the bag and took out a bunch of bananas and handed one each to all in the room. As he walked to the door, he turns around and said, with a wry smile on his face, "Mind you, I am not the only monkey in this room."

[goldisheavy]

Hmmm things seem to have got rater personalized on here. If everyone calms down there's an interesting debate here.

 

I think there is a kind of irony about social benefits, welfare and so on - because it is a curse in modern Britain that large numbers of people choose not to work. In fact there are third generation kids growing up whose families have never worked. I don't know the numbers but its too many.

 

The numbers would be interesting indeed.

 

The socialists talk about the dignity of work because they grew up in an environment where being hard working was a great virtue but the safety net of welfare which they introduced has become a way of life for some. The real irony though is that welfare reforms came in to keep people at the bottom of society quiet in times of depression. People looked at the 30's and the Great Depression and saw that the social upheaval and suffering it caused led directly to the rise of fascism and the spread of communism (because they appeared to provide the answers - while the capitalists were clueless). Welfare as it exists today is actually a sugar pill offered to people to stop them rioting and far from being anti-capitalist it is the way in which capitalism has adapted to survive more or less intact when everyone predicted collapse.

 

This is pretty much what Marx predicted. Basically, as the wealth disparity continues, the bottom layers of society begin to riot. If something isn't done, revolution soon follows. So in a way, British capitalists were quite clever. They found a sneaky way to stop the revolution.

 

But did they fix the real problem? Is wealth disparity stable in UK?

 

Also, the system wasn't designed for the influx of immigrants who would refuse to assimilate.

 

Similarly the way in which the Soviet Union was run was more to do with how do you keep this vast amalgam of different cultures and ethnic groups together and stop the whole thing collapsing - by offering full employment and by demonising the capitalist west.

 

This is an absurd caricature.

Edited April 23, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Guest paul walter]

Capitalism "ruins your life" and you will resist it with force???

 

 

 

It ruins my life, Vortex, each and every day, though I don't resist it with force (brutality should be met with compassion, amongst other things) . It's true you are, as gold says, a bit of a dick. Paul.

[Apech]

The numbers would be interesting indeed.

 

Gold,

 

the figures are quite hard to come by but I have the following quote:

 

"So, to summarise, just over 50% of working age poor people live in households where nobody works and 70% of workers in poor households are low paid. How this has come about will become clearer when we look at why poverty has risen dramatically since 1979..."

 

(Published by Centre for Economic Performance )

 

and you can get more info from this site:

 

Poverty in UK

 

... they are saying that it is not just about pure numbers - although these must be quite high but about how these inequalities are focused into certain households. So if you are low paid or out of work there is a 50% chance that no one in the household works ... or this is how I understand it from a quick read. What they don't give is the total numbers of poor households but if these are taken as benefit dependents it may be around 30%. In the area where I live its more like 60% and there are over 50% households were someone is disabled or long term sick. In Britain the way things work people on low income are effectively sucked into ghettos of disadvantage.

 

This is pretty much what Marx predicted. Basically, as the wealth disparity continues, the bottom layers of society begin to riot. If something isn't done, revolution soon follows. So in a way, British capitalists were quite clever. They found a sneaky way to stop the revolution.

 

But did they fix the real problem? Is wealth disparity stable in UK?

 

No they didn't - this is what I was saying. The sugar pill or sticking plaster of capitalism (not socialism really) has had major knock on social effects, one of which is massive and growing wealth disparity. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This is not healthy for any society IMO.

 

Also, the system wasn't designed for the influx of immigrants who would refuse to assimilate.

 

 

Er ... well it is factually true that no one for saw this issue properly and economic migration creates local pressures on housing, schools, hospitals and so on - but overwhelmingly migrants benefit the economy. Many communities such as the orthodox Jewish community who live near me have never integrated fully ... I don't see the problem - they live their lives as they wish and don't cause anyone problems - that's up to them. Other communities do bring issues like organised crime and so on but they need to be tackled. Most integration for most people is economic - they aspire to be middle class and as they do so their behaviours conform - problems arise where prejudice and stigma prevent this happening.

 

This is an absurd caricature.

 

OK I hang my head in shame for making sweeping assumptions about a country that I don't know enough about. Mea culpa.

[RongzomFan]

Communism is bad, capitalism is good... Think using your own head, man! Don't listen to media crap. In Russia we've seen both of them, and it have appeared that both of them are total f...ng shit.

 

 

You should move to a real country

Edited April 23, 2010 by alwayson

[goldisheavy]

No they didn't - this is what I was saying.

 

Sorry, I was only agreeing with you. I just reiterated your point as a way to agree.

 

The sugar pill or sticking plaster of capitalism (not socialism really) has had major knock on social effects, one of which is massive and growing wealth disparity. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This is not healthy for any society IMO.

 

The growing wealth disparity cannot be caused by that sugar pill. Are you familiar with fractional reserve banking?

 

Anyway, here's a good table to look at:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_employment_rate

 

Check this out. Notice something? Countries with the highest employment rates are Socialist, or at least, what Americans would call "Socialist." I am pretty sure that all the countries at the top of the list have a good social safety net system. So the argument that having a good social net encourages laziness doesn't seem to stand up in the face of evidence.

 

Er ... well it is factually true that no one for saw this issue properly and economic migration creates local pressures on housing, schools, hospitals and so on - but overwhelmingly migrants benefit the economy. Many communities such as the orthodox Jewish community who live near me have never integrated fully ... I don't see the problem - they live their lives as they wish and don't cause anyone problems - that's up to them. Other communities do bring issues like organised crime and so on but they need to be tackled. Most integration for most people is economic - they aspire to be middle class and as they do so their behaviours conform - problems arise where prejudice and stigma prevent this happening.

 

In this context I was mostly talking about economic integration and not cultural integration.

 

OK I hang my head in shame for making sweeping assumptions about a country that I don't know enough about. Mea culpa.

 

I think you're overreacting. The way USSR evolved is pretty complicated and I don't think anyone really understands all the motivations that went into shaping it as it was. For example, did Lenin really care about keeping diverse cultures together? Maybe. I am not aware of it. From what I was told, the primary goal for Lenin was to end Czarism. As I understand it, Soviet Socialism arose as an answer to Czarism and not (!) as an answer to Capitalism. I think Lenin read Marx's papers, and thought something like, "Aha... so Capitalism is unsustainable, OK... so we shouldn't switch Czarism to Capitalism, why it will just collapse. So what should we do? Aha! I got it. We will implement Soviet style Socialism instead. It will be durable and much better. But whatever we do, we must end Czarism." So the main goal was to put an end to Czarism. I haven't studied history much. I am just going from what I remember in my time in USSR. Maybe if someone is a scholar who studied Lenin's writings, they can say more.

 

But then right after Lenin, Stalin rose to power. And Stalin was completely, completely different from Lenin. And after Stalin, Kruschev, who was again, completely different. When Kruschev came to power he immediately denounced and demonized Stalin. So USSR is not something that evolved with some kind of uniform ideology. It's a hodge podge of dictaroship, mono-culturure, pseudo-Socialism, materialism, just to name a few things. I don't think USSR presidents/premiers knew exactly what to do. They were playing it by ear. And I doubt modern presidents know exactly what to do either.

 

Well, I was reading wikipedia and I found this article, which I think is relevant and interesting:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_consensus

[Apech]

Sorry, I was only agreeing with you. I just reiterated your point as a way to agree.

 

 

 

The growing wealth disparity cannot be caused by that sugar pill. Are you familiar with fractional reserve banking?

 

Anyway, here's a good table to look at:

 

http://en.wikipedia....employment_rate

 

Check this out. Notice something? Countries with the highest employment rates are Socialist, or at least, what Americans would call "Socialist." I am pretty sure that all the countries at the top of the list have a good social safety net system. So the argument that having a good social net encourages laziness doesn't seem to stand up in the face of evidence.

 

Aha I'm glad you brought this up ... the top countries practice the Nordic Model or similar:

 

Wiki on Nordic Model

 

and to quote from this:

"It is distinguished from other welfare states with similar goals by its emphasis on maximizing labour force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarian and extensive benefit levels, large magnitude of redistribution, and liberal use of expansionary fiscal policy"

 

(my bold.)

 

This is different from the British model which seems to me to suck people into dependency. However in 2003 when this table was produced UK was doing well and the issue was the number of migrant workers flooding into Britain to take up jobs.

 

By the way I do not take the US position that you shouldn't have welfare cos it makes people idle, I think that the highest duty of the state is to protect, educate, shelter and keep healthy its people. In fact if governments did this instead of conducting illegal wars the world would be a better place. No it should have intelligent support which does not breed dependency. I call the welfare system here a sugar pill because it breeds dependency and is designed to make it harder and not easier to escape from. For instance a person on benefits gets free prescription medicine, housing costs, tax rebates and so on to the point that to make it economically viable to come off benefits they would have to find a very well paid job as the first step on the ladder.

 

I would like to see the Nordic Model introduced here.

 

In this context I was mostly talking about economic integration and not cultural integration.

 

Ok but not sure what the difference is ultimately.

 

I think you're overreacting. The way USSR evolved is pretty complicated and I don't think anyone really understands all the motivations that went into shaping it as it was. For example, did Lenin really care about keeping diverse cultures together? Maybe. I am not aware of it. From what I was told, the primary goal for Lenin was to end Czarism. As I understand it, Soviet Socialism arose as an answer to Czarism and not (!) as an answer to Capitalism. I think Lenin read Marx's papers, and thought something like, "Aha... so Capitalism is unsustainable, OK... so we shouldn't switch Czarism to Capitalism, why it will just collapse. So what should we do? Aha! I got it. We will implement Soviet style Socialism instead. It will be durable and much better. But whatever we do, we must end Czarism." So the main goal was to put an end to Czarism. I haven't studied history much. I am just going from what I remember in my time in USSR. Maybe if someone is a scholar who studied Lenin's writings, they can say more.

 

But then right after Lenin, Stalin rose to power. And Stalin was completely, completely different from Lenin. And after Stalin, Kruschev, who was again, completely different. When Kruschev came to power he immediately denounced and demonized Stalin. So USSR is not something that evolved with some kind of uniform ideology. It's a hodge podge of dictaroship, mono-culturure, pseudo-Socialism, materialism, just to name a few things. I don't think USSR presidents/premiers knew exactly what to do. They were playing it by ear. And I doubt modern presidents know exactly what to do either.

 

Well, I was reading wikipedia and I found this article, which I think is relevant and interesting:

 

http://en.wikipedia....ngton_consensus

 

I wasn't over reacting I was just accepting that I didn't really know much about USSR.

 

Maybe I had a point though because I would suggest that all regimes in Russia have this same problem of governing such a vast and diverse country. How do you hold such a thing together into a coherent state without centralized bureaucracy and control ... the person of the Czar or the Supreme Soviet isn't it all about the same thing? Maybe?

[gendao]

I recognise the quotes from the TTC although not sure which translation that is. I do understand the difference between non-duality and non-judgement and I do not consider Stalin, Mao, Hitler or even Obama, Mandela, Gandhi or whoever to be the good ruler as defined by the TTC. So I don't understand your point and can't answer it.

My point was simply that Taoism does pass judgement. The DDJ is a manual advising harmonizing with our true Nature to maximize efficiency & positive results. This is a judgement on a better way to live life. It even goes so far as to give political advice against any large, meddlesome government that micromanages for the "common good." This is a judgement on a better way to run a country - and can easily be interpreted as anti-Communist.

 

So, it would actually be perfectly natural for Taoists to be anti-Communist...not a "surprise" at all.

 

I agree with most of your subsequent posts, though.

Btw Vortex why do you keep equating USSR, China, and other failed experiments with communism? As has been said earlier, a true communist state has never existed. You're talking about totalitarian states.

Well, I'd be more than happy to discuss a successful Communist country. Name one.

 

Reality is, the USSR & China ARE REAL Communism - an Orwellian Trojan Horse that tooled the gullible underclass (who were later killed or enslaved) to overthrow the ruling regime (and thus pave the way for its totalitarian replacement). It was always a bait & switch power-tripping psyop to begin with. And has shown these true colors everywhere its been implemented.

 

These weren't failed experiments at all. They were successful ones.

 

But keep the faith, if you want. Maybe one day the "real utopian" Communism will show up...along with the "real" Santa Claus (not the fake shopping mall imposters)!

The reason why people in USSR were so demotivated is that they didn't see any connection between personal effort and success. It would appear to those people that no amount of personal effort would result in any kind of influence or improvement. The Soviet Union operated like one giant machine where people's wishes were irrelevant. So if you have a great idea? Too bad. You can work faster? Ok, the first year, you get a medal, but the second year, your quota of widgets is raised and your faster rate is now the required rate. Etc.

Excatly, that's what happens when you artificially equalize results, regardless of effort. Which is what happens under Communism. (Yes, I know that you are not arguing 100% for Communism, I am just making a general point here.) I'm really just here to debate issues, not you personally. So, no need to take every comment I make personally. No offense, but this debate is much larger than just YOU.

 

paul walter - GIH has called me a stupid thick head asshole puffing up your chest who don't know what the fuck you are talking about...& also threatened the use of brute force...yet I haven't called him any names (other than using his own words against him to make a point). But, somehow I am the dick here?

 

And how does capitalism ruin your life? And do you really think you'd fare better under Communism? Where a small band of ruthless thugs like Mao or Stalin micromanages your life? Where instead of letting the free market & due process decide the value of things - everything is instead based upon the whims, personal opinions & private agendas of an opaque, power-tripping cabal (regardless of any actual facts, common sense or logic)? And you, the "uplifted proletariat," have absolutely no say - in your own life?

Edited April 23, 2010 by vortex

[gendao]

The numbers would be interesting indeed.

Raised on welfare, the 'Why Bother?' generation that doesn't want to work

 

A "why bother?" economy has been created in Britain which has left thousands with no motivation to work, a report published today concludes.

 

The findings by the public services think tank Reform suggest that increased welfare dependency has made it more difficult for those on the lowest incomes to do better.

Jean Thompson, right, with son Steven and granddaughter Jessica: All ten members of her family share a three-bedroom council house and have never worked

Meet the families where no one's worked for THREE generations - and they don't care

 

Known as the "Shameless" family among horrified neighbours, the McFaddens "boast" three generations of adults who are not working.

 

All ten members of the clan share a council house and live off benefits amounting to around £32,000 a year. And very happy they are, too.

 

Jean Thompson, right, with son Steven and granddaughter Jessica, who says: 'It is my right to claim benefits'. All ten members of her family share a three-bedroom council house

 

"The only problem is," she says without a hint of irony, "that we're living in a three-bedroom council house, which is ridiculous.

 

"I'm asking the council for a ten-bedroom home for all of us. We need more space. It's awful sometimes when all the children are squabbling. Still, we do have a big TV with Sky, but we need some relaxation."

 

The McFaddens bear an uncanny resemblance. Grandmother Sue is divorced and has three daughters, Theresa, 34, Debbie, 32, and Tammy, 24. None of the adults living in the house in Ellesmere Port, near Chester, has a job, and there are also six grandchildren living at home - Kyle, 18, Clayton , 12, Tyler, nine, Courtney, eight, Jodie, seven, and Lucas, six.

 

But the really disturbing aspect of the McFaddens' lifestyle is that they are far from alone. Six million Britons are living in homes where no one has a job and "benefits are a way of life"

There's a fine line between a safety net for rare, "perfect storm" emergencies...and a crutch for the lazy & greedy. Edited April 23, 2010 by vortex

[Apech]

My point was simply that Taoism does pass judgement. The DDJ is a manual advising harmonizing with our true Nature to maximize efficiency & positive results. This is a judgement on a better way to live life. It even goes so far as to give political advice against any large, meddlesome government that micromanages for the "common good." This is a judgement on a better way to run a country - and can easily be interpreted as anti-Communist.

 

 

 

To be honest you make it sound like some second rate management training manual.

 

I don't read it all the way you do but I suppose that's just how it is.

[Sunya]

You should move to a real country

 

Man, I had a lot of respect for you in those Buddhist threads but now I see that you're kind of an idiot... Sorry.

[RongzomFan]

no need to apologize since your opinion means nothing to me....

 

But just to provide context, he was bashing capitalism based on his experience with it in RUSSIA.

 

My point is that capitalism works quite well in America, and many other capitalist countries around the world.

[markern]

You can have plenty of social benefits without people loosing the will to work. Plenty of European countries have loads of social benefits and still a higher productivity per hour than the US, although people usually work fewer hours which I think is a good thing. You can get into trouble if unemployment benefits are so high that there is little or no money gained by actually getting employed. You just have too avoid that and otherwise people do work. In Norway for example where benefits are very generous unemployment are frequently at the lowest possible level.

 

What is generally considered by many in the US to be communist level social benefits and state involvement (total bullshit but thats how many see it) have existed in Europe for decades without leading to any of the supposed disasters.

 

From a happiness point of view researchers have documented thouroughly that beyond a certain, quite low, income level there are almost no increased happiness from earning more money by aquiring the money itself. Almost the only thing that matters above this level is how you perceive yourself to be doing financially with regards to other people. THis is the main reason the average level of happiness, to the extent it can be measured, has not risen in accordance with increased wealth in most industrialized countries the last 50 years. So from a happiness point of view what really matters is that you avoid poverty below a certain level. If it is possible to earn 100 000 dollars as a doctor or 1000 000 as a doctor has almost nothing to say. So having a system that ensures people don`t have to work two jobs to make ends meet, that people don`t become homeless no matter what etc. but that does not give as high income oportunities as a system were there is much more poverty, homelessness etc. but were you can earn twice as much if you are a CEO seems a lot better to me. Even if according to an abstract notion of fairness you do view it as important that the CEO can get rewarded with double what he is today, from a happiness point of view it is more or less meaningless.

[RongzomFan]

What is generally considered by many in the US to be communist level social benefits and state involvement (total bullshit but thats how many see it) have existed in Europe for decades without leading to any of the supposed disasters.

 

 

Are you involved with the financial world at all? There are a LOT of European economic disasters, the current one being Greece. Europeans have always had many more economic problems than the U.S.

 

The Euro is tanking because of Greece.

Edited April 23, 2010 by alwayson

[markern]

Are you involved with the financial world at all? There are a LOT of European economic disasters, the current one being Greece. Europeans have always had many more economic problems than the U.S.

 

The Euro is tanking because of Greece.

 

Plenty European countries are doing fine. THe US has huge economic difficulties, unemployment at around 10% and a debt at a level that could cripple it amongst other things.

[RongzomFan]

If you don't think European countries took a hit in this last crisis as much as us, that is pretty delusional.

 

The WHOLE WORLD suffered the same crisis my friend

 

Europeans are also suffering from debt and record unemployment.

Edited April 23, 2010 by alwayson