In this scenario human error and greed is removed. — TheDarkElf
And communism has as its core "same for everyone." — Frank Apisa
I am not even interested in a fairer distribution of wealth as most people are. I do not care if 10 people ended up with 90% of the wealth...SO LONG AS EVERYONE ELSE HAS PLENTY. — Frank Apisa
StreetlightX
5.1k
And communism has as its core "same for everyone."
— Frank Apisa
Yeah I mean it's not like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is one of the most famous communist slogans out there. No possible way. — StreetlightX
How do you square that with greed? Can those who profess “greed is good” (which seems to be the main economic motto of the day) ever obtain what they consider to be plenty? To me needless to say, this being how most of the 1%-ers got there.
Then there’s greed-based competition* to be top-dog winner where everyone else is a looser of the so-conceived game of life. And the end-state of this greed-based competition in which one finally obtains happiness is in fact an illusory reality: an untruth or self-deception. But it does produce a lot of losing parties out there, and correlated misery.
* Loosely understood, there are other forms of completion: for maximized knowledge, understanding, wisdom, good social standing, physical and mental health, etc. But many such forms of competition are a) often ones where one competes against one’s own perceived limitations rather than against other beings for that which is desired and b) where what is gained is then in turn often shared with others via community for the maximized benefit to oneself, as well as to others. Point being, there’s very little winner-looser dichotomy, if any, in many such alternative forms of non-greed-based completion. As one example, scientists compete to discover stuff, but when a discovery is made it doesn’t (typically?) turn the discoverer into a victorious winner and all other scientists into losers. Rather, the whole community benefits. — javra
ANY form of government is perfect if everyone agrees to it. Therefore there is no ‘perfect’. — I like sushi
So my comment that communism has "same for everyone" is not at odds with modern considerations about communism. — Frank Apisa
In a governmental system where there is no human error the system would work flawlessly. The parameters for success or failure of a social system is wholly dependent upon humans. — I like sushi
So what? Explain. Governments are related to humans directly whereas events in the world are related indirectly. If there is no human error do you think different governmental systems would act differently? If so show me why you think this.
Again, the OP removed human error! It’s irrelevant what system of government exists if humans never er. — I like sushi
If you’re making up your own hypothetical be explicit in doing so. — I like sushi
Communism is perfect in theory, but terrible in practice. And it's terrible in practice because a) it was bankrolled by capitalism from the beginning, b) egalitarianism is false, c) human nature doesn't accord with it.
Main reasons. — h060tu
You repeatedly ignore the OP. Hello? Wake up! — I like sushi
StreetlightX
5.1k
So my comment that communism has "same for everyone" is not at odds with modern considerations about communism.
— Frank Apisa
No it literally is. — StreetlightX
Baden
9.9k
↪StreetlightX
I used to think communism meant the "same for everyone". When I was six years old. — Baden
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.