Originally posted by Spoiled
Communism wasnt bad, it just wasnt our way of government and for the idealist it was perfect... but unfortunatly communism was never established in its pure form.. Do you own a pair of Nikes? if so that is supporting communism they are made in Vietnam, not only are you supporting communism but you are taking away jobs from americans... His crimes arent forgotten - we all make mistakes, some greater than others, him testifying shows he knew they where wrong... We have someone that invaded a sovergn nation without (we realize this now) true reason, and he still refuses to openly say "I was wrong"
Communism in theory, as it is in practice, was and is inherently evil... wrong... malaligned. Pure Communism is altruism. And I'm going to defer to those who are much better writers than me to expressing why it is so evil.
"'The greatest good for the greatest number' is one of the most vicious slogans ever foisted on humanity. This slogan has no concrete specific meaning. There is no way to interpret it benevolently, but a great many ways in which it can be used to justify the most vicious actions. What is the definition of "the good" in this slogan? None, except: whatever is good for the greatest number. Who, in any particular issue, decides what is good for the greatest number? Why, the greatest number.
If you consider this moral, you would have to approve of the following examples, which are exact applications of this slogan in practice: fifty-one percent of humanity enslaving the other forty-nine; nine hungry cannibals eating the tenth one; a lynching mob murdering a man whom they consider dangerous to the community. There were seventy million Germans in Germany and six hundred thousand Jews. The greatest number (the Germans) supported the Nazi government which told them that their greatest good would be served by exterminating the smaller number (the Jews) and grabbing their property. This was the horrible achieved in practice by a vicious slogan accepted in theory. But, you might say, the majority in all these examples did not achieve any real good fro itself either? No. It didn't. Because "the good" is not determined by counting numbers and is not acheived by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. "
...
"The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value. Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice - which means: self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction - which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good."
...
"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good."
All of the above quotes are by Ayn Rand.
Democrats want more government control, which is closer to Communism than less government control. So Kerry gets away with it because it's for the "greater good" of the Democrat party.
