And i don't know if ever the majority of people will reach to that spiritual level as to achieve it and be ready for applying a real communist or socialist system. — dimosthenis9
The empirical record on the whole phenomena is all over the place, just as it is with capitalist liberal democracy. — Moliere
Compare this to the competition, a metaphysical reality of infinite possibility and ethical certitude (God and religion are very compatible with the capitalist republic, which generally delivers a higher standard of living) . . . it makes sense that people can't make a spiritual commitment to communism. — Merkwurdichliebe
As for the myriad of people who say socialism leads to mass murderer, that's a logical fallacy. Mass harm is Always done in the name of the some common good. Until a government actually exhibits caring for everyone, socialism hasn't been tried. — Kaiser Basileus
seems also logical for me that communism remains an utopia, even if i still vote for leftist parties on elections — dimosthenis9
We could say the same about classical monarchy, autocratic dictatorships, imperial dynasties, &c.
This is getting into the epistemological territory of identification. Is it communist because there is such a thing in-itself that is communist, or is it a mere descriptor that we apply to a phenomena because it fits sufficient relativistic criteria. — Merkwurdichliebe
have you ever noticed that a lot of atheists are anti-communist? — Merkwurdichliebe
I'd distinguish between ideology, nation, state, and party. Communism is an ideology, nations are historical claims on territory, states control nations, and parties compete to control states. I'd also point out that nations work differently from monarchies and dynasties: the nationalist cause is self-determination within the framework of a nation. If you don't even have a nation then it's an understandable demand because it's the basic framework of power in the modern world. One could be said to be without a politics if you don't even have a nation — Moliere
I'd say the common there is in the structure of a nation. To build a nation requires violence, or at least that's been the most common and effective method so far. And to keep a nation in control also requires violence -- there's something to be said for the theory that the modern state has a claim to a monopoly on violence. It's what keeps the state in order. — Moliere
The peril of centralization just there. Economies perhaps have to be de-centralized in order not everybody makes the same mistakes. — ssu
That is another point of communist confusion. Because it is materialistic at heart, the loftiest entity that a communist can recognize is the State. And given that tyranny is the default position of the State, it is very reasonable to be suspicious of any state that wants to centralize power in order to bring about some hypothetical utopia. Compare this to the competition, a metaphysical reality of infinite possibility and ethical certitude (God and religion are very compatible with the capitalist republic, which generally delivers a higher standard of living) . . . it makes sense that people can't make a spiritual commitment to communism. — Merkwurdichliebe
They are decentralized. Only some of them go bankrupt or out of business, but not all.Let's decentralize companies too then! — Benkei
A higher standard of living for whom? — Benkei
At least from 1945 until 1970 health data of Soviet Union citizens improved more rapidly than anywhere else in Europe. — Benkei
In any case, the "tyranny of the State" is one of those catchphrases that I always find interesting. What is it? Is it their monopoly on violence? No problem in a democratic society. The tyranny of the majority? No problem when we have human rights and particulary due process. — Benkei
But there are political obligations related to liberalism that self-styled, winner-takes-all, laissez-faire capitalist individuals ignore. — Benkei
This is an argument for fairness but raises the question of what qualitative nature the benefits must have that they require a duty for the individual to perform their part (as the moral intuition is no such obligation exists when the benefits are trivial). Enter natural duty theories. — Benkei
So, of these approaches, in my view the "fairness" argument can gain the most traction via natural duty theories such that the political obligation is not based on a moral transaction between people and wider society , but because it either a) promotes an impartial moral good, (utility or justice); or 2) is a moral duty owed by all persons to all others (universal rights). — Benkei
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.