Quote:
Originally Posted by kahljorn
How is it a morally superior doctrine? This is a self-contradictory statement ;/
Anyway, communism rejoices in the weak and "feminine." The entire point of communism is so that the weak and feminine can survive just as easily as the strong. In fact, what it says is that the weak, feminine, strong and masculine are all equal in value. And it also argues that the weak and the feminine deserve more money/benefits than the strong and masculine.
Something can't be a morally superior doctrine just because it sounds nicer ;\
|
First of all, exactly how do you justify grouping "weak" only with "feminine" and "strong" only with "masculine"? Don't you think there are weak masculine people or strong feminine people? Strength comes in many forms you know.
Second of all, no communism is not superior. It's not a bad thing, it just would never work. It's based on the idea that every single person in a nation will do their share of work for the benefit of others. Ideally, if every single person did this, every single person would be covered (you would be covering everyone else, and you'd be covered by everyone else). Unfortunately, the concept is thrown down the toilet if even one person decides to not do their share. Since it's impossible to expect an entire nation to pull their weight for someone else, then it's impossible for actual Communism (the way it was meant to be) to work.