Strong Link Found Between Supporting Communism And Never Once Having Opened A History Book

You don't need to read government abuses in history books, it's happening in Canada at an alarming rate. I've said it before, it's not hyperbole to suggest that Canadian system has a excessive amount of East German tactics within it's system. With an alarming amount of nepotism and Fiefdom within the system which separates it from the Stasi.

INDEED INDEED


the west is going down
western europe and canada .....we're only a couple step right behind ya
the first people you need to throw out of helicopters are anyone on one of them Canadian human rights councils
When the shtf day comes kilemgood kilemall

have you met your Canadian civil war opponents

iFgkZu1.jpg



Is it sick that I think it would be funny to bludgeon them to death while stompin tom conners plays in the background?
just askin :04:
 
I see more than a couple potential serial killer suspects in that photo.

Or, maybe, I've been binge watching 'Mindhunter' too much.
 
I see more than a couple potential serial killer suspects in that photo.

Or, maybe, I've been binge watching 'Mindhunter' too much.
YA know the first guy on the left ...you may be on to sumthin
well we cant have that
pass me a preventative maintenance bat


 
The fact is, capitalism places a monetary value on human life, and if that value is less than the potential profit, human life is expendable.

In fact, the exact opposite is true. Capitalism is a system where the individual makes choices about their lives. What I study, what skills I acquire, where I work, what I do with the money I earn, where I live, what I eat, what I read, and how I think, are all choices the individual makes. In essence, the individual decides their own worth to society. They determine how they best want to make (or not make) a contribution to society.

In a Communist system, the value of any person is determined by their usefulness to the state. The state decides the value of a person based on what the state can get out of them.

Choice is problematic in either system
person A has a science aptitude in a democracy
person B has a science aptitude in communism

communism will give person B more opportunity to become a scientist if he has the aptitude because it is a valued skill and the state would support that but he may not want to be a scientist even with the skills and prefer to do something else but he has no choice but to support the collective

in democracy it depends on numerous factors such as does he/she or his family have the money
can he/she get government assistance
if none of the above what choice does he/she have but to do something else because they cannot afford it his choices are limited because of a lack of money
 
Does capitalism have a moral compass?

Does Communism?

Tiananmen%2002%20-%20Bodies.jpg


I wouldn't pull on that thread if I were you.
But I will...you knew that right?


Communism in theory has more of a moral compass than capitalism because it takes into account the rights of the traditionally powerless individual. .

If I had a theory that gas cans turn into flowers when exposed to flame, I would test that theory.

After a few dozen incinerated laboratories, I'd go back to the chalkboard and revise my theory.

In both theory and practice, Communism is the ideology that allows one segment of society to control the reins of power by using the masses to eliminate the existing power structure.

It does this by making promises that Communism can't deliver and leaves those masses worse off than they were before. The morality of Communism is based on sowing hatred for an imaginary oppressor so he can be replaced with a cabal of revolutionaries who can then exploit the same masses for their own good.

The morality of Capitalism is rooted in the ethos that hard work and smart investment not only benefits the individual, but society at large.

Capitalism has delivered a higher standard of living, higher literacy rates, more free time, and more disposable income for the masses than any other system in the history of mankind.
Capitalism only did that with regulation, and some socialism. Unadulterated it lead to a divide between those who had and those who did not. The only difference was that instead of a hereditary aristocracy...you had a wealthy business aristocracy, but you still had a mass of people at the bottom who couldn’t get out.

Bill Gates, Alan Gerry, Oprah Winfrey, Do Wang Chang, Howard Schultz, and thousands of other individuals have begun their lives with literally nothing and built successful financial empires, allowing millions of others to earn their own livings, because they were allowed to make their own choices and utilized their own talents in ways they felt would benefit them the most.

None of these thousands of success stories would have been possible in a Communist society.

If bill gates or anybody else was in a communist society they would have done the same thing based on the aptitude for it and the big difference is except they would not have been billion or millionaires
They would have lived a comfortable life except if they criticized the government then they would probably lose everything

The problem with communism is not the success that some have but it is the lack of freedom they have

The issues is freedom and what people believe freedom is
They want choices in think that they feel are important

The fall of the soviet union was because of one man
Gorbachev who pushed for reforms

people who feel oppressed want freedom especially when they see what other democracies have done

The funny thing is how those with freedom feel oppressed and want to deny freedom to others simply because they disagree

Everybody wants to be an individual and the problem is when they find individualism in populist movements when all the sudden it is us against them

The individual gets lost because they have comrades that feel and thing the same way

Even individuals want to belong, well some do
 
I think communism fails because it does not account for human nature. We need something in it for ourselves, incentive,reward. It is all fine and dandy to do it all for the collective...except we don’t. And we don’t want to be forced to when we get no individual rewards.

What you are labeling Socialism is actually philanthropic zeal supported by the taxpayer.

Socialism, in its most fundamental definition, is a system where the means of production or the means of distribution, are controlled by the state (ostensibly in the name of the people).

Safety nets and social welfare programs aren't Socialism. They maintain no control over the economy or how the economy supplies goods and services. Social programs loot the economy through enforced taxes to give largess to the masses in the name of the state.

In the days of Rome, Senators bought votes and the love of the masses by spending their own money on bread and circuses.

Today, our politicians are much smarter, they do the same things, for the same reasons. But, they don't do it with their own money, they do it with the money of the taxpayers while still taking the credit.

This taxpayer philanthropic zeal is exactly what most rightists on this board define as socialism....

People frequently use words they don't fully understand because they have emotional appeal.

Strictly speaking, social programs aren't Socialism. It still doesn't mean I support them.
Do you support social programs?

I support anyone's right to create their own, privately funded, social system. I do not support systems that rely on taxpayers money to operate. Those systems often create more problems than they solve.

Trillions of dollars of taxpayer money have been spent waging a 'War on Poverty' since the 1960's... it's a war in which we haven't won a single battle and, in many ways, actually gone backwards.

In my current job, I work on the coalface with many providers of social services. They are most often ineffectual at their best, completely detrimental at their worst. The one thing they do have in common is their sense of moral superiority and the perception they are performing a service to the community ... regardless of the facts of the matter.

Of course it hasn't been won, but that doesn't mean there has not been progress

The war on poverty has many faces and it is not just about welfare

It was about aid to schools and universities, job training programs, housing, Medicare health coverage for the elderly and Medicaid coverage for the poor, and other programs that still exist such as Head Start, Job Corps, and Community Health Centers.
It scope also included addressing racial discrimination which lead to the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, schools, hospitals, community boards, and neighborhood programs were desegregated.

Current updated studies by Colombia university show as 26 percent decline in poverty

Yet with Globalization, labor saving technology, increase in single family homes, fall of labor unions and lack of wage increases, prison population increases, recessions, roller coaster economy. increase in the prices of things especially medical the battle is still on as it is no longer 1960

I for one am not ready to give up just because the war has not been won
 
The fact is, capitalism places a monetary value on human life, and if that value is less than the potential profit, human life is expendable.

In fact, the exact opposite is true. Capitalism is a system where the individual makes choices about their lives. What I study, what skills I acquire, where I work, what I do with the money I earn, where I live, what I eat, what I read, and how I think, are all choices the individual makes. In essence, the individual decides their own worth to society. They determine how they best want to make (or not make) a contribution to society.

In a Communist system, the value of any person is determined by their usefulness to the state. The state decides the value of a person based on what the state can get out of them.

Here is a reality check (and I am not defending communism) - capitalism is no more ethical.

When it comes to human lives, many industries view it as an economic calculus. If the potential cost of a human life, in terms of fines or legal settlements, is less than the profit gained by the enterprise, the human life is not worth preserving. We see this in pharmaceutical companies that market insufficietly tested drugs, or attempt to obscure the adverse effects of those drugs. We see it in companies such as those in the energy industries that rack up millions in fines, penalties and deaths because those costs are still less than the profit they will gain by cutting corners and putting lives at risk.

What does that say about the value of a person in that system?

Today's life expectancy is higher than at any other time in human history. That is almost completely because of advances in the pharmaceutical industry.

Every thing from Aspirin to Interferon, comes from investment in research to find cures for humanities worst ailments.

If you've ever taken a Tylenol or an antibiotic, you can owe the alleviation of your suffering or your very life to the pharmaceutical industry.

Sometimes the cost of finding cures to mankind's ills costs billions of dollars in research. I don't expect any investor to spend billions of dollars of their own money without a market for that cure that won't support the investment.

You can call that putting a cost on human life.

In Communist system, the state, not the individual, decides which diseases they will fight and what sick they will treat, based on the needs of the state, not the needs of the individual.

That is also putting a cost on human life.

While I don’t disagree with the benefits, that doesn’t put to rest the willingness in many cases, to hide or, pay settlements on drugs that have ended up having severe adverse consequences beyond potential benefits. That is absolutely putting a price on human life. Until that price threatens profitability, it will not change.

And, even worse, look at the mining industry with black lung, accidents, etc. The cost of a human life isn’t high enough to cause them to alter practices.

That is the reality of capitalism. Yes, you have great opportunity, if you are lucky, and yes it has led to great innovation and societal enrichment in a way communism can not...it also comes at a price. There is NO moral compass. That is provided through political activism, u ions, churches and regulation. Itis not inherent in capitalism itself.
Everyone in America- and the world - can move to a socialist utopia nation of your choice today.

Yet here we are - no one moving out of America and everyone in the world wishing to immigrate trying to get inside America.

Socialism is for ignorant morons just like communism is.
 
The fact is, capitalism places a monetary value on human life, and if that value is less than the potential profit, human life is expendable.

In fact, the exact opposite is true. Capitalism is a system where the individual makes choices about their lives. What I study, what skills I acquire, where I work, what I do with the money I earn, where I live, what I eat, what I read, and how I think, are all choices the individual makes. In essence, the individual decides their own worth to society. They determine how they best want to make (or not make) a contribution to society.

In a Communist system, the value of any person is determined by their usefulness to the state. The state decides the value of a person based on what the state can get out of them.

Here is a reality check (and I am not defending communism) - capitalism is no more ethical.

When it comes to human lives, many industries view it as an economic calculus. If the potential cost of a human life, in terms of fines or legal settlements, is less than the profit gained by the enterprise, the human life is not worth preserving. We see this in pharmaceutical companies that market insufficietly tested drugs, or attempt to obscure the adverse effects of those drugs. We see it in companies such as those in the energy industries that rack up millions in fines, penalties and deaths because those costs are still less than the profit they will gain by cutting corners and putting lives at risk.

What does that say about the value of a person in that system?

Today's life expectancy is higher than at any other time in human history. That is almost completely because of advances in the pharmaceutical industry.

Every thing from Aspirin to Interferon, comes from investment in research to find cures for humanities worst ailments.

If you've ever taken a Tylenol or an antibiotic, you can owe the alleviation of your suffering or your very life to the pharmaceutical industry.

Sometimes the cost of finding cures to mankind's ills costs billions of dollars in research. I don't expect any investor to spend billions of dollars of their own money without a market for that cure that won't support the investment.

You can call that putting a cost on human life.

In Communist system, the state, not the individual, decides which diseases they will fight and what sick they will treat, based on the needs of the state, not the needs of the individual.

That is also putting a cost on human life.

While I don’t disagree with the benefits, that doesn’t put to rest the willingness in many cases, to hide or, pay settlements on drugs that have ended up having severe adverse consequences beyond potential benefits. That is absolutely putting a price on human life. Until that price threatens profitability, it will not change.

And, even worse, look at the mining industry with black lung, accidents, etc. The cost of a human life isn’t high enough to cause them to alter practices.

That is the reality of capitalism. Yes, you have great opportunity, if you are lucky, and yes it has led to great innovation and societal enrichment in a way communism can not...it also comes at a price. There is NO moral compass. That is provided through political activism, u ions, churches and regulation. Itis not inherent in capitalism itself.
Everyone in America- and the world - can move to a socialist utopia nation of your choice today.

Yet here we are - no one moving out of America and everyone in the world wishing to immigrate trying to get inside America.

Socialism is for ignorant morons just like communism is.
Spoken as he himself benefits from the so-called socialist programs.
 
View attachment 274727

CAMBRIDGE, MA—A study performed by researchers at Harvard University found a strong link between supporting the idea of communism and never once having even briefly opened a history book, sources confirmed Tuesday.

The study appears to imply that would-be communists are deterred from supporting the political theory the moment they encounter any real-life examples of communism in world history and read about the tens of millions of people murdered or slaughtered under communist rulers.

“We found that of the people who advocate communism today, over 97% slept all the way through each of their history classes in elementary school, high school, and college,” head researcher Todd Devlin said in a statement accompanying the release of the study’s findings. “Without exception, not a single supporter of communism in the study had ever opened any kind of history textbook or scholarly work covering the 20th century.”

“They do occasionally catch a special on Nazis on the History Channel, but usually turn it off before the piece begins to break down the horrific regimes of Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao,” the paper continued.

The study also found that the majority of modern communists who do happen across a stray piece of information showing the horrors and atrocities of real-life communism are able to quickly rationalize the historical facts away by labeling those examples “not real communism.”
This sounds like the entire Republican Party.

Books bad.

So that must be why they elected a president who doesn’t read.
 
The fact is, capitalism places a monetary value on human life, and if that value is less than the potential profit, human life is expendable.

In fact, the exact opposite is true. Capitalism is a system where the individual makes choices about their lives. What I study, what skills I acquire, where I work, what I do with the money I earn, where I live, what I eat, what I read, and how I think, are all choices the individual makes. In essence, the individual decides their own worth to society. They determine how they best want to make (or not make) a contribution to society.

In a Communist system, the value of any person is determined by their usefulness to the state. The state decides the value of a person based on what the state can get out of them.

Here is a reality check (and I am not defending communism) - capitalism is no more ethical.

When it comes to human lives, many industries view it as an economic calculus. If the potential cost of a human life, in terms of fines or legal settlements, is less than the profit gained by the enterprise, the human life is not worth preserving. We see this in pharmaceutical companies that market insufficietly tested drugs, or attempt to obscure the adverse effects of those drugs. We see it in companies such as those in the energy industries that rack up millions in fines, penalties and deaths because those costs are still less than the profit they will gain by cutting corners and putting lives at risk.

What does that say about the value of a person in that system?

Today's life expectancy is higher than at any other time in human history. That is almost completely because of advances in the pharmaceutical industry.

Every thing from Aspirin to Interferon, comes from investment in research to find cures for humanities worst ailments.

If you've ever taken a Tylenol or an antibiotic, you can owe the alleviation of your suffering or your very life to the pharmaceutical industry.

Sometimes the cost of finding cures to mankind's ills costs billions of dollars in research. I don't expect any investor to spend billions of dollars of their own money without a market for that cure that won't support the investment.

You can call that putting a cost on human life.

In Communist system, the state, not the individual, decides which diseases they will fight and what sick they will treat, based on the needs of the state, not the needs of the individual.

That is also putting a cost on human life.

While I don’t disagree with the benefits, that doesn’t put to rest the willingness in many cases, to hide or, pay settlements on drugs that have ended up having severe adverse consequences beyond potential benefits. That is absolutely putting a price on human life. Until that price threatens profitability, it will not change.

And, even worse, look at the mining industry with black lung, accidents, etc. The cost of a human life isn’t high enough to cause them to alter practices.

That is the reality of capitalism. Yes, you have great opportunity, if you are lucky, and yes it has led to great innovation and societal enrichment in a way communism can not...it also comes at a price. There is NO moral compass. That is provided through political activism, u ions, churches and regulation. Itis not inherent in capitalism itself.
Everyone in America- and the world - can move to a socialist utopia nation of your choice today.

Yet here we are - no one moving out of America and everyone in the world wishing to immigrate trying to get inside America.

Socialism is for ignorant morons just like communism is.
 
Its just a discussion no need to fallback on the love it or leave mentality

If you do believe in freedom of speech which is totally american then why do the fallback move
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top