OT- Rights in the USA and Canada and the world

[Roanon]

Originally posted by Rollo:
Communism doesn't have to be forced. That's my point.

Without force, you will not be able to keep the majority of people unhappy.

[Slynky]

Originally posted by Roanon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rollo:
Communism doesn't have to be forced. That's my point.

Without force, you will not be able to keep the majority of people unhappy.

---

I have to disagree. Now...please understand...I know your country is Germany. And know this: If I had to live in another country besides the US, it would be a tough choice between Germany and Australia.

But, I disagree with the "force" comment. (unless "force" is a different definition)

To have a "successful" country, you need only keep the population happy enough to not revolt. That doesn't take force. It takes giving them things. If they have enough things to keep them happy, they will not revolt. Force, on the other hand, is only playing for time...sooner or later, there will be a revolt.

[Roanon]

Originally posted by Slynky:
it rarely (in actuality) ever worked. Why? Because human nature, IMHO, tends toward greed. To get MORE than they are entitled to...or to do less than they should to support the community.

Exactly. But greed is the main driving force of mankind. And this is not generally bad. Take away the greed, and humanity would still live in caves using stone tools (if at all).
Agreed, there should be regulations and limits, but the only way to make everyone communistically equal is to downgrade everything to the lowest possible level - and let it stay there. Communism = nice theorey, just sucks in reality.

[Slynky]

Roanon said, "Communism = nice theorey, just sucks in reality."

I think we agree! Sometimes, it sucks to admit humanity has built-in faults.

BTW, your English is wonderful! As good as Alneyan's.

[Roanon]

Originally posted by Slynky:
To have a "successful" country, you need only keep the population happy enough to not revolt. That doesn't take force. It takes giving them things. If they have enough things to keep them happy, they will not revolt.

Yep. This was something already known to the Romans - the emperors knew that the people needed nothing else than "panem et circenses" - bread and games.
Problem with communism, you cannot give under such a system, only deny. Because it is easy to deny equally, but giving has to start somewhere, to come from somewhere i.e. something has to be developed somewhere. This would mean unequality, or "greedy taking more than they are entitled to" somewhere. And this would be in contrast to basic communistic principles.

[tesco samoa]

Slynky... I am sorry I did not say you were country bashing.... Maybe I need a few more returns between those sentances

I was just reminding posters what the intent of the thread was.

Roanon.

I disagree with you in the greed concept. And I also agree with you. If that makes you go Huh!

I used to think it was just greed.

But I believe that it is the quest of Standard of Living.

People wish to live their lives where they can see that their standard of living increases from year to year.

This includes material goods, shelter, food , stability and level of comfort.

With this thought think about those 5 key areas. There is greed involved there. Yes but it is just part of the puzzle.

We have never seen a Marxist Version of Communisim. For the conditions to trigger/evoluve (from a marxist point of view) this have never been met.

But if you take a Marxist point of view and apply it to the 5 key areas that societies strive towards this Version of Communisim could happen with the different levels of greed that people do have.

For greed to truely kill a system everyone should have an equal level of greed. But that is not the case as its the standard of living that is the goal. This is why we have seen the many types of goverments in the 20th century and the reason they flurish and decline.

Well thats what I think. And I do believe it ties into a persons rights within what ever country they live in.

Would you ( anyone ) choose a high standard of living over personal freedoms within a nation and the personal freedoms of others in other nations?

It is a tough question to answer. And one where I have not answered yet. And one that is not cut and dry. Perhaps I do not want to answer it, but I also do not want the question answered for me

[Baron Munchausen]

greed (noun)

An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth: “Many... attach to competition the stigma of selfish greed” (Henry Fawcett).

(American Heritage Dictionary, emphasis added)

There is a difference between desire for property, security, and advancement and greed...