Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Needs Vs. Wants


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Needs Vs. Wants Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/11/2012 6:46:36 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
FR

A few things I find peculiar about this thread:

1. There seems to be little understanding of the subjectivity involved in distinguishing between needs and wants. I saw a cartoon once in which a man and his wife were walking out of the front door of their castle and towards their Rolls Royce. The man says to his wife, "Isn't it wonderful that we have so many more basic needs than everyone else?"

2. Rights and privileges: Why do some people state, as though they are unassailable truths, that X is not a right, though Y is? This is bollocks. God didn't invent what we now consider to be rights, nor did the writers of any given nation's constitution. What falls under the rubric of 'Rights' is not immutable. We are free to re-designate.

3. There seems to be almost no sense of the difference between negative and positive freedoms here. That is, the difference between 'freedom from' and 'freedom to'. Modern liberals would point, for instance, to the American constitution's phrase ' . . . the pursuit of happiness' and argue that no-one is *free to* pursue happiness if, for instance, they are still grappling with the bottom level of Maslow's pyramid of values. Now, we can all rubbish the argument by giving extreme examples (e.g. I can't pursue happiness unless I have a Rolls Royce, etc, etc) but it's surely feeble to argue that someone is free to pursue happiness if he's in great physical pain.

4. 'Individual responsibility' is one of those phrases so beloved of the Right. But the community *also* has a responsibility. Were that not to be the case, there'd be no governments, no armies and no police forces. You *do not* get out of your collective responsibility as a community by continually growling about individual responsibility. And you have to have the political and economic institutions in place to facilitate, rather than erode, both individual *and* community responsibilities.

< Message edited by PeonForHer -- 6/11/2012 6:48:21 AM >


_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to MariaB)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/11/2012 7:41:01 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

In a communist utopia there wouldn't be any incentive to change anything.


As long as you choose to be ignorant of your subject you will continue to post peurile tripe lilke this.


quote:

If Joe the plumber is making or has the same amount of "widgets" as Colleen the CEO, where is the incentive for Joe to branch out and start his own plumbing business?


If joe has the same amout of widgets as colleen why would he want to branch out and start his own plumbing business instead of buying a boat and going fishing next to colleen?

quote:

While I'm sure there are selfless people out there, willing to do twice the work as their neighbor. Sooner or later they will come to realize that the neighbor has stopped working all together, because of his extra effort, and either stop working so hard, or become unable to carry the neighbor's load.


A false premis will always lead to a false conclusion.
Why do you assume that one will always do twice the work of another?
Why do you assume that others are lazy?


quote:

Communism is a race to the bottom, Capitalism is a race to the top, where would you rather hang your hat?




If onw were to compare and contrast the russia of today to the russia of the tsar one could hardly characterize it as a race to the bottom. If one were to compare and contrast the u.s. of today with the u.s. of 50 -60 years ago one would have to acknowledge that wealth has been more and more cncentrated...hardly a race to the top for any but those at the top.

(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/11/2012 7:45:17 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Both systems are fatally flawed.
Communism rejects human nature which of course does not work for long.
Capitalism amplifies the worst aspects of humanity and has repeatedly failed and been propped back up due to a lack of a better idea.


quote:

Few will disagree with you that Capitalism is flawed. I'm not one of them. There isn't an unflawed system out there. Communism, socialism, etc. have all been tried and failed several times over.



Perhaps you might cite some specifics to validate the above.


quote:

While Capitalism isn't perfect, either, it still has done one helluva job building our standard of living here.


It would appear that you do not watch the news or read newspapers.

quote:

You want to talk about income and wealth disparities, look at what we have in the US vs. what others have outside of the US. Look how much we have.


I think what you mean is look how much the rich have

quote:

Look at how large our properties are. It's ridiculous. Better hope there isn't a World-wide "Occupy the USA" movement. We could be fucked.



Wrong tense

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/11/2012 7:47:32 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

A lot of it boils down to who is responsible for the meeting of those needs. Is it government that should provide for those needs, or is it on the individual? If it's on government, then they need to provide housing, food, and water. In places where the climate changes greatly, they'll also need to provide heating and cooling services, too. Obviously, that's not the way things are here (and I'm not sure there are any places that way), though.

Who *should* be responsible for making sure the basic needs are met?


Perhaps you should first ask yourself why we form ourselves into societies?
The rich have no problem requiring the govt(taxpayers)to support them but you seem to cop total attitude if the rest of us would like a seat on the gravy train.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/11/2012 7:53:02 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini
I think most of us can agree on the "basic needs"- {oxygen, food, water, shelter, clothing}.
I am an American citizen and as a citizen of THIS country, I also want to include, the NEED for preventive, emergency, and certain life sustaining medical care.


quote:

Those "needs" can be met as you read this. What most people who gripe about our health care delivery system are really griping about is how expensive it is (and I am in that group). But, if someone has to provide that service, who should be paying for it? How much should the provider be paid? Who should get to decide what the provider gets paid?


Who pays for the fire department? How much do fire fighters get paid? Who decides that? You have aked questions that the answer to is well known. If it works for fire fighters why not doctors etc.?

quote:

Medical care is not a right. I can even make the statement that it's a want. The only time you actually need non-emergency care is to extend your life. Emergency care isn't even a right, even the care that isn't dealing with the life-threatening incidents (ie. broken leg).





If you choose to be a "rugged individualist" then by all means do so. You will not be entitled to any thing that society brought before you were born nor anything that society developed after you were born.
If you choose to be a member of society remember that that membership carries responsibilities comensurate with the priviledges of membership.
It seems you are not comfortable paying your dues to belong to a pretty exclusive club.

quote:

A lot of it boils down to who is responsible for the meeting of those needs. Is it government that should provide for those needs, or is it on the individual? If it's on government, then they need to provide housing, food, and water. In places where the climate changes greatly, they'll also need to provide heating and cooling services, too. Obviously, that's not the way things are here (and I'm not sure there are any places that way), though.

Who *should* be responsible for making sure the basic needs are met?


< Message edited by thompsonx -- 6/11/2012 7:58:17 AM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/11/2012 8:30:02 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline


quote:

And here, again, is where you are bitching about the cost of care being so high. Why is it the Community's problem if you are in pain? Was it the Community's fault your leg is broken? Why does the cost of fixing your leg fall on the Community when it wasn't at fault?


“Community” implies care and the obligation for care. This has nothing to do with fault. If a person gets old and senile there is no fault, but we take care of that person out of our obligation to one another as a community. If a stray dog breaks its leg it is cared for by agencies of the community. Why would we do less for a human being? Animal care services exist as part of County governments.

quote:

You require food to live, but if you go into a random stranger's house and start eating their food, can you tell them to fuck off because you have the right to their food because of a right to Life? Same goes with water.


This is a bogus and shameful strawman argument. No one has made such a suggestion.

quote:

The right to Liberty isn't infringed by anyone if you are responsible for your actions. In fact, if you aren't taking care of your own issues, you are infringing on the every one's right to Liberty. You are forcing them to provide for you. If you call that Liberty for them, you need to look up some definitions.


So, by your logic, if I do not have a gun to confront an intruder in my home but call the police instead of taking care of my own issues, I am infringing on everyone else’s right to Liberty. Really?

quote:

Demanding a specific level of happiness can not be given without taking from someone else. And, that, requires an infringement on their liberty, freedom, and, possibly, their chosen pursuit of happiness.


I have not made that demand. Again a bogus and strawman argument by you. But the pursuit of happiness by an individual who has a debilitating illness is certainly infringed upon by circumstance. So is the lack of education. Our governments provide for education; there is no reason they cannot provide for healthcare.

quote:

Your right to Life is not infringed on if you are denied medical care you have not purchased. . . .Can you not see that the only way you have a right to an actual commodity, it has to be taken from someone else?


Let me explain something and thank you for giving me the courtesy of your attention. There are two kinds of economies. There is a market economy where goods and services, debts and obligations are exchanged with some token medium: money of some kind.

There is also a social economy where we exchange affection, concern, morals, ethics and unfortunately power and cruelty.

Making medical care a commodity is a perversion of the social economy by the Adam Smith/Ayn Rand thinking that pervades the market economy. The reason that healthcare is a commodity is because several hundred years of market thinking has obfuscated our clear vision of the social economy. In other words, wrong thinking doesn’t make a thing what you think it is.

quote:

Government is instituted among Men, why? To secure our rights. That isn't providing our rights. It is all about making our rights safe, protecting our rights. Government gets it's authorities and powers from us. It doesn't give us our rights.


Yours is only one of a dozen definitions of the word secure. There is also this:

to get hold or possession of; procure; obtain: to secure materials

So, it may be the most moral, equitable, and efficient method to secure, to get hold of, to obtain our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if done by the agency of government with our consent.

It is an infringement on the liberty of those who cannot meet insurance premiums to aggregate the wealth of healthcare only to a more fortunate segment of the population. It is a violation of social justice. Hasn’t Congress already corrected this inequity by providing access to Medicare for the elderly and disabled, and by providing healthcare for military veterans? It has. What part of your liberty has been infringed by these actions?

Would it be an infringement on your individual liberty if the Congress voted to provide a single payer system for all? How could this be an infringement? Doesn’t Congress govern by the consent of the governed? Have you not given your consent by your vote? I think you have.

Your thoughts?






_____________________________

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/11/2012 8:39:54 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

2. Rights and privileges: Why do some people state, as though they are unassailable truths, that X is not a right, though Y is? This is bollocks. God didn't invent what we now consider to be rights, nor did the writers of any given nation's constitution. What falls under the rubric of 'Rights' is not immutable. We are free to re-designate.


While mainly we are in agreement allow me to remind you that the the American Declaration of Independence spoke of unalienable rights or inalienable rights based on the philosophy of natural law:

Natural rights are rights which are "natural" in the sense of "not artificial, not man-made", as in rights deriving from deontic logic, from human nature, or from the edicts of a god. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. For example, it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life. They're sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/11/2012 8:42:34 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB
I only have one word for the American medical system ....... Corrupt


Two things, MariaB...okay 3:

1. The American medical system's corruptness? Absolutely. They buy the politicians.
2. The American Government's corruptness? Absolutely. They are for sale, and it's sickening.
3. Fucking awesome profile pic. Stunning.

As far as the first two go, the wrong way to change it is to give more power and authority to the government. Democrats are for sale. Republicans are for sale. Hell, Independents are probably for sale. There are a few here and there from each party that aren't for sale, but they are far and away the minority.

As for #3: <Drool>

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to MariaB)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/11/2012 8:47:18 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

As far as the first two go, the wrong way to change it is to give more power and authority to the government. Democrats are for sale. Republicans are for sale. Hell, Independents are probably for sale. There are a few here and there from each party that aren't for sale, but they are far and away the minority.


Maybe the way to change it is too take money out of politics. By your reasoning, is there anything we should intrust to government?

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/11/2012 9:02:00 AM   
subrob1967


Posts: 4591
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

As long as you choose to be ignorant of your subject you will continue to post peurile tripe lilke this.


Yet you can't be bothered to post a link showing us where all these great communist innovations are.

quote:

If joe has the same amout of widgets as colleen why would he want to branch out and start his own plumbing business instead of buying a boat and going fishing next to colleen?[


That was my point... Duh

quote:



A false premis will always lead to a false conclusion.
Why do you assume that one will always do twice the work of another?
Why do you assume that others are lazy?
The only thing false about my premise is your response. Because I've seen and dealt with it first hand.

quote:


If onw were to compare and contrast the russia of today to the russia of the tsar one could hardly characterize it as a race to the bottom. If one were to compare and contrast the u.s. of today with the u.s. of 50 -60 years ago one would have to acknowledge that wealth has been more and more cncentrated...hardly a race to the top for any but those at the top.


So Russia is your shining example of how a communist government should work? Really? Got any links to verify your bullshit, or are you spouting nonsense yet again?


_____________________________

http://www.extra-life.org/

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/11/2012 10:12:31 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
1. There seems to be little understanding of the subjectivity involved in distinguishing between needs and wants. I saw a cartoon once in which a man and his wife were walking out of the front door of their castle and towards their Rolls Royce. The man says to his wife, "Isn't it wonderful that we have so many more basic needs than everyone else?"


No, there is no misunderstanding of the subjectivity. However, this thread was to be more of a "theory" thread, not necessarily exacting specifics. Shelter is a need to keep us safe from the elements. While some may turn their noses up at a tent as shelter, the specific shelter necessary depends greatly on the climate you live in.

quote:


2. Rights and privileges: Why do some people state, as though they are unassailable truths, that X is not a right, though Y is? This is bollocks. God didn't invent what we now consider to be rights, nor did the writers of any given nation's constitution. What falls under the rubric of 'Rights' is not immutable. We are free to re-designate.


No, we are not free to re-designate. Anything that can be re-designated, is not a right, but a privilege. If there is no one that can provide the service you think you have a right to, how can you have a right to it? While we're at this, what, exactly, is a "right?" To have a right, means what?

quote:


3. There seems to be almost no sense of the difference between negative and positive freedoms here. That is, the difference between 'freedom from' and 'freedom to'. Modern liberals would point, for instance, to the American constitution's phrase ' . . . the pursuit of happiness' and argue that no-one is *free to* pursue happiness if, for instance, they are still grappling with the bottom level of Maslow's pyramid of values. Now, we can all rubbish the argument by giving extreme examples (e.g. I can't pursue happiness unless I have a Rolls Royce, etc, etc) but it's surely feeble to argue that someone is free to pursue happiness if he's in great physical pain.


The pursuit of happiness starts with the pursuit of those things at the bottom of Maslow's pyramid. That's where your aforementioned modern liberals err.

quote:


4. 'Individual responsibility' is one of those phrases so beloved of the Right. But the community *also* has a responsibility. Were that not to be the case, there'd be no governments, no armies and no police forces. You *do not* get out of your collective responsibility as a community by continually growling about individual responsibility. And you have to have the political and economic institutions in place to facilitate, rather than erode, both individual *and* community responsibilities.


Political structures are brought about to protect our individual rights, not provide our individual rights. That is the essential difference between the United States of America and pretty much every other political structure in the world at the time when Monarchs ruled. A Monarch was the only truly free person. He was free to do as he chose, regardless of what anyone else wanted. He decided what those under him were allowed to have. If he wanted something, he took it. If he wanted you to have less, he decreed it. It was all on him.

Not so, in these United States. The Federal Government was granted limited authorities under the US Constitution. These authorities were granted by the States and the People. We, collectively, gave of our natural rights and authorities to the Federal Government to act on our behalf for the good of the Nation as one unit.

The US Constitution puts it this way:
    quote:


    Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


The Preamble starts off as "We the People of the United States..." setting apart the two. We have the People and the States that are united. The Federal Government was being Constituted out of the inherent rights and authorities of the People (which is also where the State Governments derived their just powers). The focus of the Federal Government wasn't to be on We the People. It was to be on the "United States." It was to be on the Nation as one unit, not the Nation made up of however many different individuals and State/Regional/Local Governmental bodies.

Community responsibilities are laid out within the Community's charter, and should have been granted solely out of the authorities of their charges with the consent of their charges. The Community can come together and help those who can not help themselves. But, that's not Government. That's charity.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/11/2012 1:53:41 PM   
SternSkipper


Posts: 7546
Joined: 3/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

so you are entitled to SERVICES OTHERS PROVIDE as a business.

I want steak and lobster every day, PROVIDE it for me.


I would be HAPPY to send you unrefrigerated lobster if you sign a contract stating you will eat them.


_____________________________

Looking forward to The Dead Singing The National Anthem At The World Series.




Tinfoilers Swallow


(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/12/2012 7:00:37 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

As far as the first two go, the wrong way to change it is to give more power and authority to the government. Democrats are for sale. Republicans are for sale. Hell, Independents are probably for sale. There are a few here and there from each party that aren't for sale, but they are far and away the minority.

Maybe the way to change it is too take money out of politics. By your reasoning, is there anything we should intrust to government?


I'm all for getting the money out of politics. My only complaint about the aim of the Occupy Wall Street movement was that it wasn't going to do a damn thing when politicians are still for sale. Root out the corruption in DC (yeah, I'm sometimes naive in my aspirations) and Wall Street won't have the opportunity to buy politicians. As long as politicians are for sale, someone will buy them.

There are things that our current crap of politicians (yes, the wordage was intended) should be entrusted with. Corruption can be weeded out quickest, IMO, by following the beliefs I've listed in my signature. The deeper Government can impact anything, the more likely corruption will grow. Thus, get Government's reach out from the depths and minimize it (notice I am not saying to get rid of Government regulations completely) to minimize the opportunity for corruption.

What is more likely to give incentive for business to spend gajillions of dollars on lobbyists: Government that has direct control of 5% GDP or Government that has direct control of 20% GDP?



_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/12/2012 7:25:18 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

So Russia is your shining example of how a communist government should work? Really? Got any links to verify your bullshit, or are you spouting nonsense yet again?


Russia is not and has not ever been communist.
A quick check of google should give you access to what the relative differences are between tsarist russia and socialist russia vis-a-vis sufferage,literacy,education,economic stability or any other measure of comparison you would like to apply.

(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/12/2012 7:49:45 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

What is more likely to give incentive for business to spend gajillions of dollars on lobbyists: Government that has direct control of 5% GDP or Government that has direct control of 20% GDP?


Well, DS, I don't know the source or validity of your numbers. I also question the 'quality' of that direct control, or even where there is DIRECT control. What part of Government regulatory agencies are not also in the pocket of Bankers, Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc? For them it is just the cost of doing business, which they write off as expenses. AND that money circulates in the economy, doesn't it, adding to demand? Acceleration of money seems to be necessary. But, accepting your premise for the sake of discussion, which regulatory agencies would you diminish or eliminate?

Vincent

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/12/2012 12:15:02 PM   
subrob1967


Posts: 4591
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

So Russia is your shining example of how a communist government should work? Really? Got any links to verify your bullshit, or are you spouting nonsense yet again?


Russia is not and has not ever been communist.
A quick check of google should give you access to what the relative differences are between tsarist russia and socialist russia vis-a-vis sufferage,literacy,education,economic stability or any other measure of comparison you would like to apply.



Really? You might wanna Google that "fact" for yourself...

_____________________________

http://www.extra-life.org/

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/12/2012 12:23:54 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Marx wrote the book titled "Communist Manifesto" (1848), which advocated a system without classes and privately-owned property.

Neither of which happened in the Soviet Union, so communism wouldn't quite be the correct nomenclature.  You might call it Marxism-Leninism by example, but no more than all crescent wrenches (adjustable spanners for the brits) are actually made by the Crescent company, neither would it be punctillious to call the Nazis socialists or the Soviet Union communist.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/12/2012 12:39:35 PM   
subrob1967


Posts: 4591
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Marx wrote the book titled "Communist Manifesto" (1848), which advocated a system without classes and privately-owned property.

Neither of which happened in the Soviet Union, so communism wouldn't quite be the correct nomenclature.  You might call it Marxism-Leninism by example, but no more than all crescent wrenches (adjustable spanners for the brits) are actually made by the Crescent company, neither would it be punctillious to call the Nazis socialists or the Soviet Union communist.




Um Mean Street, they called THEMSELVES communist, you want to argue that too? BTW you misspelled punctilious... Just sayin'

_____________________________

http://www.extra-life.org/

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/12/2012 1:23:12 PM   
Marini


Posts: 3629
Joined: 2/14/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

I think most of us can agree on the "basic needs"- {oxygen, food, water, shelter, clothing}.

I am an American citizen and as a citizen of THIS country, I also want to include, the NEED for preventive, emergency, and certain life sustaining medical care.


A lot of these issues are remind me of this thread....
Is Health Care a Privilege or a Right?

"Privilege/Rights/Wants/Needs" these sort of questions/issues seem to be the new buzz words as we move forward, having to make difficult decisions.

_____________________________

As always, To EACH their Own.
"And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. "
Nelson Mandela
Life-long Democrat, not happy at all with Democratic Party.
NOT a Republican/Moderate and free agent

(in reply to Marini)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/12/2012 1:44:48 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Marx wrote the book titled "Communist Manifesto" (1848), which advocated a system without classes and privately-owned property.

Neither of which happened in the Soviet Union, so communism wouldn't quite be the correct nomenclature.  You might call it Marxism-Leninism by example, but no more than all crescent wrenches (adjustable spanners for the brits) are actually made by the Crescent company, neither would it be punctillious to call the Nazis socialists or the Soviet Union communist.




Um Mean Street, they called THEMSELVES communist, you want to argue that too? BTW you misspelled punctilious... Just sayin'



That's not correct.

From the same website:

"The practical imposition of Communist power throughout Russia is a harder task, but Lenin seems to relish the prospect of using the techniques of a police state to impose control through terror. He believes passionately in the need for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (albeit only as a stage in the progress towards a Communist utopia in which there is no need for government), and he is in no way averse to all the techniques of repression and cruelty invariably associated with dictatorship." (My bolds.)

'Communism' describes an end-state. That's one reason for the one time name of 'Union of Soviet Socialist Republics', rather than 'Communist Republics'.

"

< Message edited by PeonForHer -- 6/12/2012 1:46:27 PM >


_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Needs Vs. Wants Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125