安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
You will actually find that all of them declared themselves socialist with communism being the nirvana the whole society was busy building.
Khruschev was even daring enough to promise communism by 1980 at the XXIInd Congress.
But in practice, socialism requires an omnipotent state controlling every part of the economy, and hence the rest of society. And the revolution that precedes it leads to every other politically ideology banned and opponents massacred. There is simply no scenario where socialism can remain democratic.
Engels quite correctly admitted that it takes an absolute tyrant to facilitate the destruction of private property, and Marx was very enthused about 'reactionary ethnicities' getting wiped off the map - starting with the Jews.
But, of course, Stalin was democratically elected into office.
Whereas socialism introduces hilarious degrees of graft and inefficiency while removing any motivation to succeed other than the threat of repression.
http://i.imgur.com/9xosNQs.png
That's what I said.
Communism is running a country like it's a small commune. By the end of Fallout 4 all of your settlements comprise a small commune. Therefore they sound like communism, but smaller. Maybe a couple of hundred people.
Good ones attract with kindness/fairness (you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar)
Bad ones attract inner circle only with brutality and self-serving lack of empathy; they never survive en masse with their people as pure dictatorships, ask any dictator not yet hanged
Good settlements = turn the red unhappiness stuff into happy green
Bad settlements = pay no attention to the red stuff but here's an experiment, what if a settlement stays in perpetual unhappiness? Homework for the class, go!
No, I'm not. I'm rolling my eyes because this is such a tired and pedantic argument. If the goal of a socialist state is ultimately communism, then communism was attempted. If you wanted to go around saying "Real communism has never been achieved" you'd be closer to the truth. What you said is just patently false.
Which is why one must be able to slash past it.
Single party system and absolute repression of dissent? Sounds very democratic.
Inefficient? Do you think that having the government micromanage the life of every citizen is efficient or even cheap? I don't think so. And if you say:"ain't no government in mah communism" i say:"but there be government in yer communism for real", you know, to keep the repression going.
And yes capitalism is indeed based on greed but so is the high majority of human beings, this is why in a capitalist state, people will have to actually be useful to other people in their community in order satisfy such greed, and the people who are more useful get to be more important then those who are less useful. If they're not useful as capitalism requires, nature kicks in and they starve to death.
Is it perfect? Hell no. That's why we need a government to keep human beings from ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ over eachother costantly as it is often the quickest way to make profit, but if the government isn't able to act in the interest of at least the masses than it should be immediatly replaced with one that does.
A communist country is neither a democratic one nor a free one: there will be no reason to be a proactive member of society as you will not be able to progress in the social hierarchy because of absolute egalitarism, and there will be no reason to become better in whatever activity you got assigned by the state as you won't be paid any more then the people who slack all day.
Fidel Castro.
Fun fact: cuban private cab drivers earn more than doctors thanks to nationalization
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-mUZRP-fpo
This is a common fallacy.
Being productive for The Greater Good is one of the most noble of efforts, right behind giving your life to save another. One pursues achievements for the sake of all, not to get ahead of their fellow.
As for "communist leaders calling themselves fellow communists", that's an old ploy to get the common folk to support them.
"I'm just like you guys - except I have hot and cold running water, food, and toilet paper and you don't, and no one tells me what to do or when to do it, and I collect from you rather than gather for you - so yeah, aside from being totally opposite from you, I'm just like you".
Communism = communalism - in theory. It's when people appoint leaders over themselves that things get wonky.
Unfortunately, people require leadership to avert the natural progression of "one over his neighbor", and they generally end up with the same thing. The difference, I guess, is that they got to pick who was above them, rather than "just some guy".
If you can eliminate the penchant for "one upsmanship", you can build an ideal society.
Movie Stars are just like us except for all the good stuff they get and all the physical benefits.
So you'll be working for somebody else's cause, as the definition of "Greater Good" will be given by the only party, you won't be rewarded and you won't even get chance to use such work to progress in the social hierarchy, good selling point for an ant, less so for an adult human being whose dreams and needs are way superior to any other living creature's.
It's not even a good long-term solution for the economy because in capitalism there's an exchange of value between the people involved: both parties receive somekind of benefit by working for eachother which in time means an improvement in the overall economy, by working for free without demanding some sort value that you can use as a bargaining chip with even more people, the economy stagnates.
You can say that being generous to other people makes other people be generous to you but that's not just unlikely, because being generous =/= useful and is also still a form a capitalism.
Also, one upsmanship is part of human nature and the only way you can get close to removing it is by idoctrination, fear, repression and so on.