Would you rather support (By DonkeyPunch MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper StarDiamondGold Crown 5 years ago)

Votes by gender

Guys
54 votes
29.6%
70.4%
Girls
23 votes
17.4%
82.6%
Unknowns
97 votes
21.65%
78.35%

Votes by country map view

United States
106 votes
21%
79%
Australia
15 votes
40%
60%
United Kingdom
13 votes
15%
85%
Unknown
9 votes
11
89%
Canada
9 votes
44%
56%
Finland
3 votes
100%
Netherlands
2 votes
50%
50%
Ireland
2 votes
100%
Germany
2 votes
100%
Iraq
1 vote
100%
Belgium
1 vote
100%
Greece
1 vote
100%
South Africa
1 vote
100%
Bulgaria
1 vote
100%
Sweden
1 vote
100%
Croatia
1 vote
100%
Austria
1 vote
100%
Hong Kong
1 vote
100%
Saudi Arabia
1 vote
100%
China
1 vote
100%
Palestinian Territory
1 vote
100%
Europe
1 vote
100%
  • image
    4 years ago
    ico
    Communism doesnt work
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    I think there needs to be some kind of hierarchy
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    I support it as an idea. But it can't happen. It's unfortunately completely against human nature
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +3
    What is human nature and how do you know?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    Equality as in equal chances for everything, though. Not like where everyone gets the same share even if some people work much harder than others.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    That second part doesn't describe equality at all; if some people are expected to labour more than others, that simply doesn't meet the basic prerequisite of equality.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    I didn't mean that some people are EXPECTED to work harder, but that maybe some are just more motivated and WANTED to work harder. By my previous comment I meant that everyone should have an equal chance at succeeding but what they do to reach their goal and whether they reach it given the prerequisite that they all had the same chance to get it depends on how hard they worked. And those who were also given the equal amount of chance but didn't work hard to try and succeed (under the assumption that they would like to succeed) don't deserve to be given the equal amount of rewards as those who worked hard... If you know what I mean. So like, everyone is given the same extent and quality of education, but if some people just decided to slack off while others worked hard, then those who slacked off don't deserve to be rewarded EQUALLY as those who'd worked hard...
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Very few people want to work harder; if they did, then we wouldn't need to attach a reward to it at all. People work because it is socially necessary; society has an expectation that certain pieces of work will be done. By signing up for a difficult task, you direct society's expectations to yourself. This is what I mean by with "expected". The point is, labour expends personal resources such as time and energy. If someone loses these without getting something in exchange, then that is not an equal exchange, it's a net loss. That creates inequality, not equality. You must keep in mind, though, that it was theorized at a time when everyone in a given area did essentially the same work at essentially the same rate: it can be equality in that context, but not in the context of an unequal exchange.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Actually that was what I meant with the first comment. Equality when everyone did essentially the same work, not when they didn't/
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Right, I was agreeing, but I didn't agree with the terminology you were using.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +3
    As an ideal, not as something that can or should be forced.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Depends. Is this like fascism vs. communism or something less extreme?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Interpret it however you want. As long as you can justify your belief, it does't matter to me.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    I'd rather not live in a Feudalist Monarchy.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    You have a brain in your skull, so just think about option "B". Do you dream of living in a communist society, where no one can prosper?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    You wrote two sentences. They are not related.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    My impropriety.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +4
    I don't think people realize that choosing B is an indirect way of choosing Communism.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    McSneeze MaleGold MedalSuper Star from Georgia, United States
    I support equality of opportunity, not equality of reward
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    What does that mean, and what does it have to do with what he said?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    McSneeze MaleGold MedalSuper Star from Georgia, United States
    Equality of opportunity is when everyone has an equal chance to apply for something (more or less like jobs in a capitalist market), while equality of reward is where everyone gets the same reward independent of the work they put in (like in communism).
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    This is a complete misunderstanding of the word "communusm". Communusm is not a wealth distribution mechanism; it's a theorized stage of society which follows from socialism that is defined in negative terms. While marx understood capitalism and socialism to be observable social systems, he viewed communism as a stage of which we have no knowledge. You cannot say "communism involves X" or "communism rewards X" because it is not observable; it can only theoretically exist after the progress of society into another stage of being. Marx wrote, therefore, very little about communism: while he wrote heavily about capitalism, in total, he only described communism for about ten pages. This is because communism can only be described in terms of what it is not: while there are classes and states under capitalism, there will not be under communism. What there will be, however, is unknowable because society hasn't progressed to the communist stage of being. The idea that communism means "everyone gets the same salary" is juvenile and lazy; its not an accurate refutation, and it demonstrstes nothing but a misunderstanding of the topic at hand. Am I a Marxist? No, not really, I do follow historical materialism, and I do think that much of Marx's writing concerning capitalism is valuable today, but his predictions were inadequare in describing the future. However, it really irks me when people try to talk about communism without understanding elementary Marxist theory.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    McSneeze MaleGold MedalSuper Star from Georgia, United States
    It was an example off the top of my head, but was that not one of the reasons why the Soviet Union fell? Because there were no incentives for people to work any more than the minimum? That's all I was trying to say
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    The Soviet Union was neither an example of communism nor equality. Marxist-leninism operates with the idea that states need to follow a progression of Feudalism>Capitalism>Socialism>Communism, with the idea that the Bolshevik party carrying feudal russia through the two intermediate phases. They didn't claim to be practicing communism, and they certainly didn't practice equality (ask anyone who lived then if the goverment officials and the peasants were equal). The Soviet Union didn't really have a labour crisis; they had a production crisis. The Soviet economy actually grew really fast; it just produced guns and tanks when they needed food and consumer goods. The collapse was also mainly political, as they had just made a lot of reforms which made it easier for people to protest; if it were economic´╝îthe collapse eould have iccured much earlier than it did.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    Not necessarily as the question does not specify to what extent the social equality is being promoted. That's kinda like saying choosing A is supporting Nazism because the Nazis wanted a rigid social hierarchy on the basis of race.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Well seeing as though the pic for "A" is poor/rich, there's a good chance that where the question seemed to be going.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Yeah I accidentally chose the wrong one
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Hmm, care to explain how? What exactly do you think Communism is?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Of course I understand that communism in its true form is far from such issues that I mentioned. I was mainly referring to the form of communist regime that when applied turns into more of a capitalistic regime rather than communistic. A fine example of such nation is China in my opinion. A capitalist nation hidden under a communistic jacket! These forms of communism limit civil freedom and allows the state to own what would be considered (in a capitalist nation) as private property which in return would strongly limit the possibilities of wealth and higher income, yielding to a rather uniform wage for the majority of the people in that nation.