The USSR. A Thought Sharing Discussion.

[Guest Supreme Gamesmaster]

The USSR had a great idea, and then went about it all the wrong ways. World domination is impossible. Nor is equality. All men and women aren't created equal; hence, the impossibility of communism. Communism offers no incentive for work; hence, most humans, being lazy scumbags, will work as little as possible, and so the economy cannot grow.

 

However, even with communism's flaws, the USSR did communism wrong:

 

•It tried to consolidate an authoritarian government. You can't really expect people to believe the philosophy of equality if the government is totally superior to the general populace.

•It focused on military strength. Communism should exist through voluntary admission by its own philosophy. Building a military above what is necessary for defense is hypocritical, and therefore incorrect.

•It didn't listen to its people. The morale of the populace is vital to the existence of any civilization, and even once they did start doing it wrong, they didn't even let the populace tell them. But it gets worse.

•They did the Nazi-ish intolerance thing. The philosophy of equality and the philosophy of "the mold" differ. You don't need to kill/imprison/fine anyone who's different; in fact, in the enforcement of equality, it's counterproductive.

•They stopped anyone from leaving the country. That only encourages people to risk departure. If communism is done correctly, no one will want to leave. It was a bad civilization, and others should have destroyed it.

 

So, really, Stalin killed Lenin's dream with the whole authoritarian thing. They did kill the Nazis, though, but other than that, the USSR did it wrong.

 

3. By "for their job' date='" I am implying that possession would not exist. The government would technically own all things, as so that it cannot be claimed that the people own things themselves. Ideally, people would be given what they need to live contently and if they are not selfish, happily, and any other convenience, such as a "better laptop" would not be given to an individual for convenience, but rather to make society more efficient.[/quote']

 

This makes the government omnipotent. The populace will be virtuous, but the government will invariably become greedy, possessive, and selfish to an extreme, thus tearing socialism apart.

[Static]

The USSR had a great idea' date=' and then went about it all the wrong ways. World domination is impossible. Nor is equality. All men and women aren't created equal; hence, the impossibility of communism. Communism offers no incentive for work; hence, most humans, being lazy scumbags, will work as little as possible, and so the economy cannot grow.

 

However, even with communism's flaws, the USSR did communism wrong:

 

1. •It tried to consolidate an authoritarian government. You can't really expect people to believe the philosophy of equality if the government is totally superior to the general populace.

2. •It focused on military strength. Communism should exist through voluntary admission by its own philosophy. Building a military above what is necessary for defense is hypocritical, and therefore incorrect.

3. •It didn't listen to its people. The morale of the populace is vital to the existence of any civilization, and even once they did start doing it wrong, they didn't even let the populace tell them. But it gets worse.

4. •They did the Nazi-ish intolerance thing. The philosophy of equality and the philosophy of "the mold" differ. You don't need to kill/imprison/fine anyone who's different; in fact, in the enforcement of equality, it's counterproductive.

5. •They stopped anyone from leaving the country. That only encourages people to risk departure. If communism is done correctly, no one will want to leave. It was a bad civilization, and others should have destroyed it.

 

So, really, Stalin killed Lenin's dream with the whole authoritarian thing. They did kill the Nazis, though, but other than that, the USSR did it wrong.

 

3. By "for their job," I am implying that possession would not exist. The government would technically own all things, as so that it cannot be claimed that the people own things themselves. Ideally, people would be given what they need to live contently and if they are not selfish, happily, and any other convenience, such as a "better laptop" would not be given to an individual for convenience, but rather to make society more efficient.

 

This makes the government omnipotent. The populace will be virtuous, but the government will invariably become greedy, possessive, and selfish to an extreme, thus tearing socialism apart.

 

You assume that this government is led by Capitalists. Had the leaders been raised in a society where Capital philosophy is unheard of, the idea of greed would not exist.

 

Onto the points.

 

1. Stalin's flaw. For those who fail to read, which is Not SGm, it means that Communism is not flawed because the USSR was.

 

2. Ideally, Communism would exist in one country thats populance was the enitrity of Human Civilization. They needed the military to try to achieve that goal.

 

3. People should be taught to listen to their society, if the societies morale's and founding philosophies of life are sound. They should be essentially slaves to whatever morality/Philosophy is ruling, and in any decent and sensible society, it would not be one of an invisible deity.

 

4. If you can get rid of difference without the pain, suffering, or showing of such things, then it should be done. I am of course refering to differences that cause problems solely. Skin color should not be removed, the people who make a big deal of it, the prideful people, should be. However, people who really believe that the will of their god gives their church the right to go against a group of people because they are different, should be eliminated swiftly.

 

5. In Communism, once ideal standards would be achieved, there would only be one existing world country.

[Supernova513]

Now I am from and live in the United States, and believe me, I am no big fan of how the U.S. runs things. But the problem with communism is that it simply cannot exist. Greed will consume us all. People are not satisfied with having a ration in order for others to have also. In practice, communism DOES make all its plebeians equal by treating them all like crap. Only "special citizens" are allowed to have more in communism. As far as "removing" those who "damage" society, that is very inhumane. First of all, ignorance, stupidity, and craziness will always exist. So Static, are you suggesting that a "Social Cleansing" would be acceptable for a society to become "perfect".

[Guest Supreme Gamesmaster]

You assume that this government is led by Capitalists. Had the leaders been raised in a society where Capital philosophy is unheard of' date=' the idea of greed would not exist. [b']However, it is a natural human instinct. Since the beginning of time, beings have had fundamental instincts to survive, one of which is the natural urge of self-preservation, the urge that, when given a choice between saving your own life and saving your friends, you ought to spare yourself. We now call this instinct greed, and if often flourishes when one is in abundance. Until evolution abolishes the instinct of greed, communism sans corruption will be impossible.[/b]

 

Onto the points.

 

1. Stalin's flaw. For those who fail to read, which is Not SGm, it means that Communism is not flawed because the USSR was.

 

2. Ideally, Communism would exist in one country thats populance was the enitrity of Human Civilization. They needed the military to try to achieve that goal. In a truly 'perfect' society, civilians would prosper, and claim so while vacationing, in magazines, etc. The reputation of the country would grow, and others would flock to the area. Certainly, a military would be necessary for defense from jealous countries, but if the civilization cultivates one's morale to the proper degree, the civilization has no need for conquest. I think you'll agree that in the perfect society, the civilians are happy.

 

3. People should be taught to listen to their society, if the society's morals and founding philosophies of life are sound. They should be essentially slaves to whatever morality/Philosophy is ruling, and in any decent and sensible society, it would not be one of an invisible deity. A perfect philosophy is malleable, ready to adapt to the logic and reasoning of its proponents, and a perfect society has a perfect philosophy, so this point is sound.

 

4. If you can get rid of difference without the pain, suffering, or showing of such things, then it should be done. I am of course refering to differences that cause problems solely. Skin color should not be removed, the people who make a big deal of it, the prideful people, should be. However, people who really believe that the will of their god gives their church the right to go against a group of people because they are different, should be eliminated swiftly. The need for control is another human instinct. The Darwinian eradication of those who give in to this instinct (also colloquially labeled the deadly sin of 'pride'), a.k.a. supremacists, discriminators, etc. is generally the only method humanly possible to remove this instinct ibidem. Once again, Static is, if controversial, correct to a degree. However, one might argue that in eliminating supremacists, we are being supremacists ourselves. And even this isn't really possible; Supernova513 only had one good point: "...ignorance, stupidity, and craziness will always exist."

 

5. In Communism, once ideal standards would be achieved, there would only be one existing world country. You said that in point 2.

[Static]

You assume that this government is led by Capitalists. Had the leaders been raised in a society where Capital philosophy is unheard of' date=' the idea of greed would not exist. [b']However, it is a natural human instinct. Since the beginning of time, beings have had fundamental instincts to survive, one of which is the natural urge of self-preservation, the urge that, when given a choice between saving your own life and saving your friends, you ought to spare yourself. We now call this instinct greed, and if often flourishes when one is in abundance. Until evolution abolishes the instinct of greed, communism sans corruption will be impossible.[/b]

 

Onto the points.

 

1. Stalin's flaw. For those who fail to read, which is Not SGm, it means that Communism is not flawed because the USSR was.

 

2. Ideally, Communism would exist in one country thats populance was the enitrity of Human Civilization. They needed the military to try to achieve that goal. In a truly 'perfect' society, civilians would prosper, and claim so while vacationing, in magazines, etc. The reputation of the country would grow, and others would flock to the area. Certainly, a military would be necessary for defense from jealous countries, but if the civilization cultivates one's morale to the proper degree, the civilization has no need for conquest. I think you'll agree that in the perfect society, the civilians are happy.

 

3. People should be taught to listen to their society, if the society's morals and founding philosophies of life are sound. They should be essentially slaves to whatever morality/Philosophy is ruling, and in any decent and sensible society, it would not be one of an invisible deity. A perfect philosophy is malleable, ready to adapt to the logic and reasoning of its proponents, and a perfect society has a perfect philosophy, so this point is sound.

 

4. If you can get rid of difference without the pain, suffering, or showing of such things, then it should be done. I am of course refering to differences that cause problems solely. Skin color should not be removed, the people who make a big deal of it, the prideful people, should be. However, people who really believe that the will of their god gives their church the right to go against a group of people because they are different, should be eliminated swiftly. The need for control is another human instinct. The Darwinian eradication of those who give in to this instinct (also colloquially labeled the deadly sin of 'pride'), a.k.a. supremacists, discriminators, etc. is generally the only method humanly possible to remove this instinct ibidem. Once again, Static is, if controversial, correct to a degree. However, one might argue that in eliminating supremacists, we are being supremacists ourselves. And even this isn't really possible; Supernova513 only had one good point: "...ignorance, stupidity, and craziness will always exist."

 

5. In Communism, once ideal standards would be achieved, there would only be one existing world country. You said that in point 2.

 

Prelude: It is also human nature to act like others around you. It is good to fit in, so that you can function in society. If we cultivate society to be anti-darwinist, to go against some of the key pieces of what humanity is, we can create a society where we can control what components control human nature. It is in our nature to be social, and if being social comes at the cost of losing some other piece of our nature, if the former is stressed enough, they will grow out of it, and it will progress by generation.

 

1. No Comment

 

2. Ideally they would be happy, but they would be happy with what we want them to be happy with. An ideal society is more a dictatorship without tears than anything, but it wouldn't be an Economic Enslavement Regime. Waiting for the people to consent to what they want is.... so American, it would take too much work to change society while the people are still under the capitalist mentality. We would not have the resources to enact the genocide required to finish the job and still continue on if we need to make this happen in every country in the world.

 

3. Ok.

 

4. Greed may be human nature, however, pride is not. There is no instinct that says that one is better than another, there is only hate and fallacy filled logic to back pride up. Pride is nothing more than the result of Imperialistic mentality poisoning our world, a result of greed when a subjective matter is at hand. Of course; To eliminate supremacists is of course, being an elitist, but the same case is true for not tolerating in tolerance, it is something that we are obligated to do if we truly are. Ignorance, stupidity, and "craziness" will exist for as long as the root causes for such things exist. Craziness is defined by morality, stupidity is defined by intellect, and these can be fixed through proper education and a better standard of morality. Ignorance will exist as long as human nature remains the way it is, with the will to fit into society being weaker than the will to feel things to defend your weaknesses, and of course, for as long as a society that will accept you if your initial one does not exists.

 

5. I know, but I felt I needed to address it. Point dropped.

 

:D

[Silencerleader]

Lenin FTW!!!

I just hate it how all good things come to an end. -_-

[Static]

Which; Lennon or Lenin? (Guy who wrote the greatest song of all time, or the one who lead the Russian revolution?)

[Silencerleader]

Which; Lennon or Lenin? (Guy who wrote the greatest song of all time' date=' or the one who lead the Russian revolution?)

[/quote']

 

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin...my master...