Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×



Details

Submitted on
December 19, 2013
Image Size
469 KB
Resolution
694×899
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
313 (2 today)
Favourites
11 (who?)
Comments
30
Downloads
2
×
Red Partisans by Party9999999 Red Partisans by Party9999999
Forward Comrades!
Add a Comment:
 
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Dec 19, 2013
But no defiance of communism of any sort allowed.                                      
Reply
:iconschmittlenin:
But of course, it's well known that every communist are fascist bastards and that free market lovers are the angels of freedom of speech, right?
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Dec 19, 2013
According to your warped view of rights, probably not.

According to the logical view of rights, which commies vehemently reject, very much so.
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Dec 19, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Oh?  All communists hate human rights?  Is that so?  Do you know every communist there is?  If so, did you ask them all if they hate human rights?  Or are you, perhaps, just making disingenuous blanket statements with no real basis in reality?
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Dec 20, 2013
Communism itself denies individual rights by denying people the right to their property.  Without property rights, no other rights are possible, as the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to support his life.  Communism calls for collective ownership of property, which achieves just that (ten people can't have the same right to one piece of meat)
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Dec 20, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
1) Communism does not deny any individual rights. In fact, communism supports individual rights. What you call "denying property rights", the rest of us call "collectivism". It all about taking what people keep to themselves, and sharing it with anyone who needs it.

2) Of course other rights are possible without property rights (refer to my above point about why property rights aren't 'stolen'). Most human rights have nothing to do with property. For example, the right to equal treatment, or the right to life, or perhaps the right to liberty and the ability to self-govern. Not a single one of those has anything to do with property.

3) Your statement that "the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to support his life", is not related to communism because be wouldn't be trying to support his life on his own, everyone would be collectively supporting everyone else.

4) Your analogy that "ten people can't share the same piece of meat" is stripped of useful context. Of course ten people can't share one piece of meat, but ten people can share access to the source of that meat. Privatization of food is an example of taking away those human rights that you proportedly hold so dear.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Dec 20, 2013
"1) Communism does not deny any individual rights. In fact, communism supports individual rights. What you call "denying property rights", the rest of us call "collectivism". It all about taking what people keep to themselves, and sharing it with anyone who needs it."

So that crop a farmer and his family spent all year producing belongs to everyone, regardless of whether they contributed to its production?  The money in the tip jar on the front counter at my job that gets filled based on MY abilities as an employee belongs to everyone, the fact that it was I and I alone who put in the effort to fill it be damned?  What about a doctor's skills, which even you can't deny were brought to fruition by the effort of an extreme few; does his brain belong to "anyone who needs it"?

I fully expect your reply to this question to involve some manner of force or to be a complete ignore, but who and by what right, by what code, by what standard gets to decide what a person can and cannot keep to himself and what another person needs?  Why is it okay for you, who probably had zero hand in the creation of the product in question, to decide how it is to be used and disposed of, but wrong for the person who put in the time and effort to actually create it?

Sorry chum, but your "collectivism" is nothing more than the act of putting a gun in the face of a producer and giving him a choice of his product/service or his life.  Any man who does not have the absolute right to the use and disposal of the product of his effort does not enjoy the right to his property.

That also begs the question:  Where the hell does the right to property one didn't create come from?

"2) Of course other rights are possible without property rights (refer to my above point about why property rights aren't 'stolen'). Most human rights have nothing to do with property. For example, the right to equal treatment, or the right to life, or perhaps the right to liberty and the ability to self-govern. Not a single one of those has anything to do with property." 

Boy, you really take the cake on ignorance with that one, chum.

Let's start with the right to life; how can anyone feed himself, shelter himself, clothe himself, etc if at any time, his food, shelter and clothing can be taken from him without his consent?  Without a right to his property, which all of that is, how can he have a moment's rest in life, since at any time, someone strong enough and ruthless enough might take it from him?

Same goes for the right to liberty and self-govern.  How many of us are free if our property can just be taken from us on a whim?  How many of us would be willing to self-govern if, at any time, our decisions might result in someone who didn't agree with us taking our home or food or what have you?

Why do you think dictators usually abolish private property?  How many people are going to question said dictator if he can just confiscate their home and what not?

"3) Your statement that "the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to support his life", is not related to communism because be wouldn't be trying to support his life on his own, everyone would be collectively supporting everyone else."

I'm sure I'm speaking for a lot of folks when I say that I'm not going to take a lot of hot air about "everyone would be collectively supporting everyone else" seriously when it comes to supporting my life; I don't consider it healthy to put such a valuable item, which I only have one of, completely in the hands of others.  History is full of examples of collectivism (including some of the first settlers of America, who started out using collectivism, then switched to personal responsibility when collectivism was a monumental failure)

Also, the question arises:  By what code, by what standard will the collective support everyone else?  Suppose I don't agree with it; am I to just shut my brain off because I'm just one person?

"4) Your analogy that "ten people can't share the same piece of meat" is stripped of useful context. Of course ten people can't share one piece of meat, but ten people can share access to the source of that meat. 

Edible meat, along with a great many other things, doesn't produce itself, chum.  If I was the only one with the knowledge on how to produce the food you commies needed, collectivizing it wouldn't do you any good if I refuse to share the knowledge.  And I'm willing to bet other folks with the knowledge to produce the things you need would also tell you to go to hell if you tried to cheapen their knowledge by claiming it belonged to everyone.  Just look at all the doctors who are telling Obama and his new healthcare law to go fuck themselves.

"Privatization of food is an example of taking away those human rights that you proportedly hold so dear." 

There is no right to anything that can only be produced by the time and effort of another person, so DO NOT insult my intelligence by playing that card with me.
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Dec 20, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
"So that crop a farmer and his family spent all year producing belongs to everyone, regardless of whether they contributed to its production?"

---Yes, and everything that the people who weren't farming produced during that same year, belongs to everyone as well, including those hard working farmers.  "From each according to his ability to each according to his own need."  It means that if someone is good at producing something or providing a service, then they should do so for those who are incapable because they are producing or servicing other things.

"What about a doctor's skills, which even you can't deny were brought to fruition by the effort of an extreme few; does his brain belong to 'anyone who needs it'?"

---I would never deny someone's effort and ability.  And the answer is yes, his "brain" (meaning abilities and skills) does belong to anyone who needs it.  Are you saying that some people don't deserve medical care because they aren't doctors?

"Why is it okay for you, who probably had zero hand in the creation of the product in question, to decide how it is to be used and disposed of, but wrong for the person who put in the time and effort to actually create it?"

---It isn't okay for "me", a single person to decide where and how something is distributed.  The decisions are made according to who requires the product or service.

"Sorry chum, but your "collectivism" is nothing more than the act of putting a gun in the face of a producer and giving him a choice of his product/service or his life.  Any man who does not have the absolute right to the use and disposal of the product of his effort does not enjoy the right to his property."

---Putting a gun to the face of a producer and threatening his life if you don't consent to produce what they want?  You must be thinking of fascism, not communism.

"Let's start with the right to life; how can anyone feed himself, shelter himself, clothe himself, etc if at any time, his food, shelter and clothing can be taken from him without his consent?"

---Communism doesn't make "people" feed, clothe, or shelter "themselves" independently.  Everyone is collectively fed because of the efforts of everyone working together in solidarity for the collective good of everyone.

"Without a right to his property, which all of that is, how can he have a moment's rest in life, since at any time, someone strong enough and ruthless enough might take it from him?"

---Again, you're misunderstanding communism.  People don't "take things at a whim", you're thinking of capitalism where the things you produce are sold to make money for the business owners, who pay a smaller fraction to the actual worker.  Also, again, "strong and ruthless" people are a characteristic of capitalism, not communism.  When someone decides to take the fruits of another's labor for their own personal use or gain without collective assent, then they're acting out of self-interest rather than collective interest.

"How many of us would be willing to self-govern if, at any time, our decisions might result in someone who didn't agree with us taking our home or food or what have you?"

---I don't see your reasoning behind "taking your home or food".  If by that you mean foreclosure, then I would agree with you that nobody deserves to have their home foreclosed.  Fortunately, communism does not have a concept of profit-driven power hungry banks who would do such things.

"Why do you think dictators usually abolish private property?  How many people are going to question said dictator if he can just confiscate their home and what not?"

---We're talking about communism, not dictatorships.

"I'm sure I'm speaking for a lot of folks when I say that I'm not going to take a lot of hot air about "everyone would be collectively supporting everyone else" seriously when it comes to supporting my life; I don't consider it healthy to put such a valuable item, which I only have one of, completely in the hands of others. "

---You consider your life a commodity rather than a right?  And if you are so closed towards everything that you don't believe anyone should be able to help people with their lives, then I don't see why you believe in ANY system of government or economy besides social darwinism.

"History is full of examples of collectivism (including some of the first settlers of America, who started out using collectivism, then switched to personal responsibility when collectivism was a monumental failure)"

---Well, since history is so full of examples, how about you give me some well-sourced ones?

"By what code, by what standard will the collective support everyone else?  Suppose I don't agree with it; am I to just shut my brain off because I'm just one person?"

---The "code" or "standard" by which the collective supports everyone is, as I have said in my above points, "From each according to his own ability, to each according to his own need."  If you "don't agree with" people working to help and support each other, then maybe you are a social darwinist.

"Edible meat, along with a great many other things, doesn't produce itself, chum.  If I was the only one with the knowledge on how to produce the food you commies needed, collectivizing it wouldn't do you any good if I refuse to share the knowledge."

---But... you aren't the only one who knows how to produce edible meat... so that analogy doesn't make sense... But even so, why would you refuse to share the knowledge?  Do you just hate everyone else so much that you would be willing to starve them to death just to prove a point?

"And I'm willing to bet other folks with the knowledge to produce the things you need would also tell you to go to hell if you tried to cheapen their knowledge by claiming it belonged to everyone.  Just look at all the doctors who are telling Obama and his new healthcare law to go fuck themselves."

---Are you saying that only people with money deserve the skills of doctors, and that not everyone has a right to receive medical care?

"There is no right to anything that can only be produced by the time and effort of another person, so DO NOT insult my intelligence by playing that card with me."

---So, what you're saying is that people don't have a right to eat because they didn't have a direct hand in the production of the food?

"I fully expect your reply to this question to involve some manner of force or to be a complete ignore"

---I decided to save this one for last because this part of your argument has nothing to do with communism.  This is an attack aimed at me, personally.  By force, do you mean insults and aggression, like you seem to be doing right now?  Do you want me to justify your very clear hatred of not only communism, but communists, for you by insulting you?  Well, I'm not going to do that because, contrary to what you seemingly believe, I don't consider myself a horrible person.  I'm just defending my political stance from an attacker, because it was you, after all, who posted "But no defiance of communism of any sort allowed." on a pro-communism deviation.  It's fairly clear that you were looking for a fight, and I'm not going to give you one.  Instead, I'd like to have a civil discussion that doesn't involve any personal insults.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconspiritswriter123:
Spiritswriter123 Dec 20, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Let's use that farmer's analogy: A farmer makes some food, and that food is sent to feed say the farmer himself, a worker, an inventor and a doctor. That worker then eats the farmer's food, then makes tools that are used by the farmer, the inventor, and the doctor. The inventor, using the worker's tools and eating the farmer's food, continues to invent new stuff to make producing these tools and food more efficient to produce and the doctor curing people easier. Then the doctor, eating the farmer's food, using the worker's tools, the inventor's inventions, helps heal or keep healthy the farmer, the worker, and the inventor. Just cut out the middle man known as money and multiply the system by millions and that is how theoretically Communism is suppose to act. (of course, according to me anyways, humans are naturally corrupt, lazy, greedy and selfish, so people will probably never work so cooperatively for it to be actual Communism)
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icontwistedunreality:
TwistedUnreality Dec 19, 2013
:iconfreeinternetplz:
Reply
Add a Comment: