The beginning of communism is the bourgeoise the owners with much properties, now the people, the laborers wants a piece of it, now doesn’t that makes everyone eventually become greedy as much as the bourgeiose?
Their ends are almost the same, it’s just the means that is different. Producing useless sh*t so the mob can live in their consumption fantasies. The latter just happen to be far more effective than the former.
It’s better for 200 million people to be able to eat and have decent living quarters, than it is for 2000 people to own giant penthouses, jets, and fancy cars. Capitalism inevitably moves toward the 2000, communism inevitably moves toward the 200 million, communism is better.
Is it better for 200 million people to be prosperous than for 2000 to be so? Sure. But it’s the means of achieving that which matter. Communism depends on the abrogation of all rights. Karl Marx called rights part of a “bourgeois ideology”. No right to property, no right to free speech, no right to…life. The collective good is all that matters. If two people benefit from you being killed and your property being taken, that’s fine, because the “collective” is simply the majority, and two is more than one.
Still think communism is better?
So your telling me it’s better to be forced to labor to improve the position of your boss, than to be forced to half the labor and be in an overall better economic position?
Do you realize you didn’t actually make a rational argument against Imp? He didn’t say that being forced to labor for your boss is good, or to be “forced to half the labor and be in an overall better economic position?” is good either. You’re attacking a straw man (or person, to be politically correct.) Not to mention that the second half of that argument is so laughable as to defy any attempts I could make to refute it. If you ask me to back that last sentence up, I will, and gladly.
[quote="jagermeister330"Is it better for 200 million people to be prosperous than for 2000 to be so? Sure. But it’s the means of achieving that which matter. Communism depends on the abrogation of all rights. Karl Marx called rights part of a “bourgeois ideology”. No right to property, no right to free speech, no right to…life. The collective good is all that matters. If two people benefit from you being killed and your property being taken, that’s fine, because the “collective” is simply the majority, and two is more than one.
Still think communism is better?[/quote]
I expect that was your last post on this thread, assuming you don’t want to be a hypocrite.
You’ve never argued that directly to my knowledge. I’ve just connected the dots.
Captialism portrays money as freedom.
The heads of capitalist enterprise migrate to the halls of power.
Once there they tax the general populace, a natural extension of their capitalism, becoming the ‘thieves’.
Having less money equals having less fredom.
Freedoms reduced are freedoms denied.