Should I join komsomol?

I say yes.

yeah!

Ja!

Komsomal is for you, even though you aren't leftists you never spam, and all ways help ededucate other users!

Sorry, I didn't reallise it needed explanations. Sorry! :p There it is:


First, I think It I must join komsomol because I'm active and I never spam and because I like WR so much that I cannot think about leaving it

Explain what is democracy with one sentence:
Democracy is a corrupted system only meaningful when population is educated and where majority wins over minorities.

Explain what is socialism with one sentence:
Political organisation which support capitalism's abolition and collectivity well being.

Name at least one communist country:
No communist country at all. (China, Russia, Cuba, and North Korea are considered as "communist countries" even if in reallity, they don't have the perfect communist profile)

How many communist countries exist currently?
Theorically Four, but Theorically, none of them are really communist

Give a scenario when each of the following is bad:

dictatorship:
Well, Dicatorship is bad when you have an educated population capable of doing their own choice well... and also in any other case because it brings inegality, exploitation, power abuse, and gives all the power to only one person.

democracy
When you have an uneducated population, for exemple, democracy is meaningless. Democracy good working is based on citized opinion, but if their opinion just doesn't make sense, stupid majority will win over intelligent minority which has justified arguments and understand.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of free market and centrally planned economy.

Weakness: Surconsomation is possible / collectivity over individuality
Strengh: Free to use the money you own exactly as you want, depending on your own preference and values./in opposition to capitalism

What kind of economic system is there in EU?
Is that really a question!? That's evident, we call it communism!
...
Capitalism of course!


there it is!

Lilith wrote:

What kind of economic system is there in EU?
Is that really a question!? That's evident, we call it communism!
...
Capitalism of course!

Of course you are right, but Kenzu is the one who scores you, and he believes the EU is socialist, or something like that.

I said yes, but that counts as your birthday present, cos i'm cheap like that.

Aye indeed. Your points are excellent Lilith and are completely true. Especially the one about "democracy". "Meaingless if the people are uneducated". That's so hard-core ownage, you deserve nice hot chocolate. :3

join lilith! i voted yes

Thanks all!

who voted no? and why?

Quote :

Of course you are right, but Kenzu is the one who scores you, and he believes the EU is socialist, or something like that.

So the answer can differ from a person to an other. If I said Cuba was communist, it is that false? Because the rest of the world consider Cuba as a communist country. The definition is relative. Definitions can change from a person to another. Their communism criterias are "bla bla bla" and yours and "bleh bleh bleh" What they call communism is not nessessary the same thing you call communism. You just both talk about two different things but use the same name. Everything to say that If my vision oppose his vision, I'm sure he's gonna be able to consider what I said like a point of view instead of a statement with no other definition possibility

(US? Socialist?? Can you explain that Kenzu, I'm courious! )

There're always at least two ass-hole nay-sayers. Don't take it personally, they're just bitter.

oki

Lilith wrote:

So the answer can differ from a person to an other. If I said Cuba was communist, it is that false? Because the rest of the world consider Cuba as a communist country. The definition is relative. Definitions can change from a person to another. Their communism criterias are "bla bla bla" and yours and "bleh bleh bleh" What they call communism is not nessessary the same thing you call communism.

The thing Lilith is that things like communism have an objective definition. That is you cannot think that something that is not communism is communism and be right. You can have a point of view on wether Cuba's system is good or not, wether it is functional or not, but you cannot understand it as communism when it's objectively not communist. You cannot have the opinion that the Sun is 90% blue, 5% pink and 5% green, you cannot have the opinion on wether water vapour is a gas or not. You get the point?

And yes... there are always some bitter people just voting "no" for the sake of it.

I'm pretty sure Oligarch voted no.

Also stop assuming that everyone is going to like you. There will ALWAYS be people that dislike you and complaining about 2 people who said no when the majority said yes is pathetic.

Quote :

The thing Lilith is that things like communism have an objective definition. That is you cannot think that something that is not communism is communism and be right. You can have a point of view on wether Cuba's system is good or not, wether it is functional or not, but you cannot understand it as communism when it's objectively not communist. You cannot have the opinion that the Sun is 90% blue, 5% pink and 5% green, you cannot have the opinion on wether water vapour is a gas or not. You get the point?

And yes... there are always some bitter people just voting "no" for the sake of it.

But it seems like definition of communism isn't objective 'cause everybody over the world call those countries "communist countries". They're not all dumb. Anyway, the only thing I wanted to show is that: for me, US isn't socialist at all! Maybe Kenzu thinks that, that's in it rights, at least he has good arguments to defend it, but in my view that's different. I just want him to show me good arguments to support his point of view.


(By the way, you know, sun is all except yellow depending on the point of view. Basically it is, but theorically, the sun takes all colors except yellow, which is reflected an then we see yellow BECAUSE its not.)

Lilith wrote:

But it seems like definition of communism isn't objective 'cause everybody over the world call those countries "communist countries". They're not all dumb.

No, they're not dumb, just ignorant. People are not born knowing what communism is and very few acquire the knowledge. Mass media, scholar systems (often anti-marxist) and politicians make their best effot to present people a distorted and completely false idea of what communism stands for.

Communism has an objective definition, the problem is that very few know it.

Lilith wrote:

(By the way, you know, sun is all except yellow depending on the point of view. Basically it is, but theorically, the sun takes all colors except yellow, which is reflected an then we see yellow BECAUSE its not.)

The sun is a bunch of thermonuclear explosions, being so the sun essentially has the colour of the elements burning within it. As an explosion as well, it gives "white light". Even if white light can be refracted to produce the "colours of the rainbow" the reality is that said light still is "white".

Zealot, white is the absence of all colors, which are reflected instead of being absorbed. So the object itself isn't white at all! So people who calls it white are they ignorant? Not necessary, they just don't see the real scientific side, but they are right too. The color of an object depends on both the physics of the object in its environment and the characteristics of the perceiving eye and brain. Physically, objects can be said to have the color of the light leaving their surfaces. But theorically, objects can also be said to have the colors which doesn't leave the surface. Which is the right one? The physically one every people think it is cause they see it like this or the Theorical side? Same with vision of communism. People who don't think the same are they so ignorant or just see communism in a different way?

Lilith wrote:

Zealot, white is the absence of all colors, which are reflected instead of being absorbed. So the object itself isn't white at all!

White actually is the mixture of all colours Lilith.

Lilith wrote:

So people who calls it white are they ignorant? Not necessary, they just don't see the real scientific side, but they are right too.

Lilith wrote:

The color of an object depends on both the physics of the object in its environment and the characteristics of the perceiving eye and brain. Physically, objects can be said to have the color of the light leaving their surfaces, which normally depends on the spectrum of the incident illumination and the reflectance properties of the surface, as well as potentially on the angles of illumination and viewing. But theorically, objects can also be said to have the colors which doesn't leave the surface.
Which is the right one? The physically one every people think it is cause they see it like this or the Theorical side?

Lets exemplify with the notion that "the sky is blue". The sky per say is not blue but it is perceived as blue. The way waves of sunlight interact with the chemicals composing the sky make it look blue but those chemicals without the interaction of sunlight are perceived as transparent.

Objectively the sky (defined as the stratosphere) is transparent but with sunlight applied to it it looks blue. What's blue then? The sky or the sunlight? Sunlight would be the blue thing here. However "Sky" is understood not only as the chemicals composing it but as all the elements within it, that is sunlight, starslight, moonlight and chemicals. Therefore the sky is of a morphologic (changing) nature.

Lilith wrote:

Same with vision of communism. People who don't think the same are they so ignorant or just see communism in a different way?

Communism, unlike the Sky or other physical phenomena is not of a morphologic nature. It has an objective and unalterable perception and definition. While depending on circumstances you may perceive the sky as blue, orange, green, grey or transparent, communism has a sole meaning.

So yes, if they think different from what communism is they are ignorant.

Don't understand "ignorant" as a degradating or offensive term because it's not. It's an objective term to define lack of knowledge. People lack knowledge on what communism is so if they're told that communism is what they have in Cuba they may think so until they finaly get to know that communism doesn't stand for that.

Jeiro Sijakeuigwan wrote:

Aye indeed. Your points are excellent Lilith and are completely true. Especially the one about "democracy". "Meaingless if the people are uneducated". That's so hard-core ownage, you deserve nice hot chocolate. :3

i agree. only people who are smart enough to vote for us should be able, that means party members of the leftish partys.

Communism with an objective goal. Indeed, that is true.

It's like how capitalism has an objective goal: To make the most paper money as possible (no matter what the cost).

The same can be said for communism. Communism strives for the equality of all people (in Marx case, working class) and the social good. However, the path of which communism can and WILL be reached may be subjective. Eventually, it is all the same, humans have the will and capacity to change drastically.

After all, if it was "against human nature" to do so, then why do we all speak different languages, have different religious, have different families...and yet get along with each other?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Lilith wrote:

So the answer can differ from a person to an other. If I said Cuba was communist, it is that false? Because the rest of the world consider Cuba as a communist country. The definition is relative. Definitions can change from a person to another. Their communism criterias are "bla bla bla" and yours and "bleh bleh bleh" What they call communism is not nessessary the same thing you call communism.

The thing Lilith is that things like communism have an objective definition. That is you cannot think that something that is not communism is communism and be right. You can have a point of view on wether Cuba's system is good or not, wether it is functional or not, but you cannot understand it as communism when it's objectively not communist. You cannot have the opinion that the Sun is 90% blue, 5% pink and 5% green, you cannot have the opinion on wether water vapour is a gas or not. You get the point?

And yes... there are always some bitter people just voting "no" for the sake of it.

lul what isn't that directly oppsit to freedom of speec and thought?
sorry for off topic.

mattabesta wrote:

lul what isn't that directly oppsit to freedom of speec and thought?
sorry for off topic.

Objectivism? No. Otherwise things like language wouldn't make sense. If I tell you "I have a white chair" you ought to imagine a white chair and not a blue car as product of my statement.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

lul what isn't that directly oppsit to freedom of speec and thought?
sorry for off topic.

Objectivism? No. Otherwise things like language wouldn't make sense. If I tell you "I have a white chair" you ought to imagine a white chair and not a blue car as product of my statement.

wut?
if I say the that the moon landings are false and I can't even give you a shred of evidance that they didn't take place it's still my right to think so.
same for evrything else.

mattabesta wrote:

wut?
if I say the that the moon landings are false and I can't even give you a shred of evidance that they didn't take place it's still my right to think so.
same for evrything else.

And who's arguing wether it's your right or not?

If you say that a car is not a car and if you point at a book with no images and say "this is a cellphone" you are wrong but you have the right to say it. You'd be ignorant about cars, books and cellphones.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

wut?
if I say the that the moon landings are false and I can't even give you a shred of evidance that they didn't take place it's still my right to think so.
same for evrything else.

And who's arguing wether it's your right or not?

If you say that a car is not a car and if you point at a book with no images and say "this is a cellphone" you are wrong but you have the right to say it. You'd be ignorant about cars, books and cellphones.

yah but I still have thie right to think that and preech my thoughts on cellphones right?
if yes then I won't reply.

mattabesta wrote:

yah but I still have thie right to think that and preech my thoughts on cellphones right?
if yes then I won't reply.

If they're wrong, not without rebuttal.