PubliusInfinitum
Rookie
- Aug 18, 2008
- 6,805
- 729
- 0
- Banned
- #41
Man, the fact that there are still fools defending Communism attests to the fact that some people never learn.
It is significant that today is the anniversary of the first printing of the Manifesto, 1848, and here are some quibbling over abstruse points when recent history shows us that Communism is counter to human nature and is responsible for more deaths than any philosophy or even any disease.
A pity that so many schools and 'elites' still think it marks them as highminded.
A pity that so many fail to understand the nature of communism, and instead conflate it with inappropriate references to Soviet state capitalism.
Now I've deleted the balance of your argument, because it was HERE that your argument FAILED
Notice how you've sought to set re-direct the discussion to the ethereal 'nature of communISM'?
PC understands that you do not accept the history which conclusively establishes the unexceptional failure of communism; and this without regard to the facet which the repsecitve experiment represents... She also understands that your inability to accept this, stems from your feelings that 'the reason that Communism has always failed is that the people executing the experiment were corrupt.'
She likewise understands that what corrupted them was that they fell victim to human nature and in this case, became CommunISTS.
CommunISM in every one of its' various facets, rests upon unsound principle. It suggests that there is a means by which the collective is vested with rights which supercede those of the individual... When in reality, it is ONLY the individual which possesses ANY RIGHT... thus the collective can only enjoy the benefits of the Rights of the sum of individuals WHEN THOSE INDIVIDUALS RECOGNIZE AND RESPECT THE INHERENT RESPONSIBILITIES ON WHICH THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS REST. Socialism rejects those rights, it rejects the divine authority in which those inalienable rights rests and it seeks to transfer the responsibility from the individual to the COLLECTIVE... Which is to say Socialism chronically speaks to the rights of "The People"; represented by "the State" who tends to assuring FAIRNESS, which is chronically confused with EQUALITY... which the State is empowered to distribute... to assure FAIRNESS/Equality.
Thus, by virtue of the simple fact, that it is quite impossible to impart a higher means onto those of lessor means, Socialism becomes in PRACTICE, the function of 'the People/the State' to restrict ad otherwise limit and to punish those who CAN... so as to insure that those who CANNOT are stationed fairly and at equity with those who otherwise WOULD. Socialism all about classes and it's all about 'fair distribution' to the SocialIST... Socialism all untenable idiocy which, despite you vehenment protestations to the contrary, flies in the face of immutable human nature.
And you're endless references which name drop this or that obscure and wholly irrelvant academic who scratch their various inane observations and/or opinions in advocacy of that idiocy is irrelevant to that history which conclusively establishes that where Socialism is practiced: IT FAILS... will not change that fact; and that you 'feel' that the sweetness and light possessed by the endless thoeries of CommunISM are not reflected in the INDISPUTABLE RESULTS REALIZED BY THE COMMUNIST... is well beside the point and not at issue in any discussion where the HISTORY of COMMUNISM is at hand.
Last edited: