NationStates Jolt Archive

This is rather straight forward so I''ll get right into it.

There's no money

An economy, and I'm using that word lightly, that is not based around moeny will ultimately fail. Especially when you outlaw profit or private enterprise. This is a hard thing to understand: no one making money = no money = no economy. I mean how did you think you were going to trade with the world?

[/rant]

Well the thing is it takes time to get there- the Soviet Union had its own money. I don't think any "communist" society has ever gone without some form of money (maybe Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge but they were just plain crazy anyway). The whole point of socialism is that it's a process leading up to pure communism.

However, I personally agree that communism is unworkable but not for your reason- rather, it works against human nature whereas captialism works with it.

Capitalism also fails because it, like communism, succumbs to humanity's own shortcomings.

Basically, nothing works.

Anyhoo, do we really need money? Once it was a unit of exchange, now it's a possession in itself. That sums us up...

However I think Communism is dangerous to try, especially if you use the Marxist way (ie Dictatorship of the Proletariat). Because it can easily become dictatorship of the Party and then Dictatorship of the individual. We should consentrate on taking power from the state and allow people to realise that they are capable of living their own lives.

Capitalism also fails because it, like communism, succumbs to humanity's own shortcomings.

Basically, nothing works.

Anyhoo, do we really need money? Once it was a unit of exchange, now it's a possession in itself. That sums us up...

Nothing works? Sounds like the catchcry of the ignorant.

Read "Gold and Economic Freedom" by Alan Greenspan and you'll see why we have money and why money doesn't buy as much as it use to.

Money is just a tool. Banning money on the grounds that people are greedy is like banning hammers because too many people break their thumbs with them. The only alternative is barter, which gets very complicated unless you are living in a small agricultural based community.

I would just like to clarify that nethier Pol Pot, Stalin, Castro or any current or former world leaders have ever been communists. And if they have, they haven't taught it to the masses.

Example: Sovjet was Stalinistic, not communistic. Stalinism is closer to fascism than anything else.

Also, before you start bitching about communism, read Das Kapital. Without reading it, you actually have not a fucking thing to use, read before you think.

Capitalism also fails because it, like communism, succumbs to humanity's own shortcomings.

Basically, nothing works.

Anyhoo, do we really need money? Once it was a unit of exchange, now it's a possession in itself. That sums us up...

Nothing works? Sounds like the catchcry of the ignorant.

Read "Gold and Economic Freedom" by Alan Greenspan and you'll see why we have money and why money doesn't buy as much as it use to.

Money is just a tool. Banning money on the grounds that people are greedy is like banning hammers because too many people break their thumbs with them. The only alternative is barter, which gets very complicated unless you are living in a small agricultural based community.

I didn't say I want money banned, I'm pointing out that it isn't just a tool any more. Greenspan joins the back of a very long queue of books to be read... and enough of your implications of ignorance, ya cheeky monkey. I'm just cynical and misanthropic. In a fluffy way, of course.

I'm writing a huge term paper about the flaws of Communism and I want to thank you guys for the info.

The point of Communism has again gone right over people's heads :roll:

Besides, Communism will work, but you cant ahve a revolution to obtain a Communist system, as that is doomed to fail, Communsim is going to come about by Evolution instead, as people develope more and more, human nature matures into a way which allows humans to survive better, thus a Communism System will become workable, of course this time period is over hunderds of years, as we move to a more reformed capitalist system (the British Commonwealth already provides it's citerzens with Free healthcare and so on) towards a Socialist style system and then to Communism, when people have gotten to that stage in the evolution where it works, of course I am not going to argue if Communism is the final stage in the Evolutionary process, since I am not sure.

Ecomony won't exisit in a Capitalist sense in a Communist Society, and the entire world would have to turn Communist to work, it would have to be done worldwide, which won't happen with a revolution, not unless it is organised by someone who is determined to get a Communist system into place and that person would also have to be a good judge of character to ensure that they don't have another Stalin leading a revolution in one place or someone even wrose then Stalin.

Capitalism also fails because it, like communism, succumbs to humanity's own shortcomings.

Basically, nothing works.

Anyhoo, do we really need money? Once it was a unit of exchange, now it's a possession in itself. That sums us up...

In what way does capitalism fail? Capitalism is the economic system that allows for the private and free exchange of goods and services in various markets where others are trying to do the same. And the economy exsists because of these transactions and exchanges.

Socialism/communism is a system where a body politik is largely responsible for planning the economy so that the production, distribution, and levels of consumption. Unfotunately these systems of government have two basic flaws. 1) people respond to incentives - that's why economies within these sysyems experience slow, zero, or negative growth. 2) central planners could never, ever, as hard as they try do a better job of responding to situations within an economy - a market is the fastest, most efficient way to allocate resources...though it's not the most equitable way...but hey, some people work harder, take more risks, or are otherwise smarter than the others.

Actually a btter explanation is that there's no MARKET.

No Market = No Prices = No way to determine what people want, and how badly they want it AND no way to determine resource shortages.

WHich means, in practice, that all decisions are made by... Josef Stalin. Or other bureaucrats who know just as little about their customers.

"Sooner or later, all tyrannies crumble. Those that have bad customer service [the USSR] tend to crumble faster."
--AT&T Ad

:twisted: Im all for socialism, atm im studing the effects of world governments, and in pratice, socialism would work nice and in agreemence, today we are turning to many socialist ideals, but maybe human nature prevents us from being able to be communist in its true form....

The point of Communism has again gone right over people's heads :roll:

Besides, Communism will work, but you cant ahve a revolution to obtain a Communist system, as that is doomed to fail, Communsim is going to come about by Evolution instead, as people develope more and more, human nature matures into a way which allows humans to survive better, thus a Communism System will become workable, of course this time period is over hunderds of years, as we move to a more reformed capitalist system (the British Commonwealth already provides it's citerzens with Free healthcare and so on) towards a Socialist style system and then to Communism, when people have gotten to that stage in the evolution where it works, of course I am not going to argue if Communism is the final stage in the Evolutionary process, since I am not sure.

Ecomony won't exisit in a Capitalist sense in a Communist Society, and the entire world would have to turn Communist to work, it would have to be done worldwide, which won't happen with a revolution, not unless it is organised by someone who is determined to get a Communist system into place and that person would also have to be a good judge of character to ensure that they don't have another Stalin leading a revolution in one place or someone even wrose then Stalin.

What do you do with the people who want to leave the system? What do you do with the people who wish to stay but still want private ownership of their land and capital? How do you determine who in the society does what for employment - what if everyone wanted to be part of the decision making process?

Why do I believe capitalism fails? Well, my point about human nature was more an argument against neoliberal or libertarian capitalism. Irrespective of economic benefits or ills, capitalism naturally impedes cultural and artistic diversity, in my view. If everything is left to the market, niche interests suffer. Just because something is a minority interest this does not reduce its validity. If left to the market, this minority interest becomes more costly and inaccessible.

That's just a cultural perspective.

Sorry this isn't very clear, I don't have time to fully explain and I've had very little sleep. Garnggh.

Why do I believe capitalism fails? Well, my point about human nature was more an argument against neoliberal or libertarian capitalism. Irrespective of economic benefits or ills, capitalism naturally impedes cultural and artistic diversity, in my view. If everything is left to the market, niche interests suffer. Just because something is a minority interest this does not reduce its validity. If left to the market, this minority interest becomes more costly and inaccessible.

That's just a cultural perspective.

Sorry this isn't very clear, I don't have time to fully explain and I've had very little sleep. Garnggh.

So the minority should be accomodated by the majority who have to pony up the costs? Forgive me for having a distaste for urination and feses smeared relgious symbols masquerading as a "niche interest art". Oh well, some of my taxes go to pay for the National Edowment for the Arts and some of yours go to pay for the Department of Defense - where I've been told or have heard that some interesting photography and video has just been uncovered. Art is art, right?

communism is a perfect system, but it is undermined by human nature. in a perfect world, communism would be an excellent system. unfortunately, communism will not work because its policy of equal distributuion fails in its goal to make everyone happy. if one worker does nothing and gets the same as the other, hard- working worker, the other will stop working too. its a good system, but the world just ain't perfect enough for it.

Why do I believe capitalism fails? Well, my point about human nature was more an argument against neoliberal or libertarian capitalism. Irrespective of economic benefits or ills, capitalism naturally impedes cultural and artistic diversity, in my view. If everything is left to the market, niche interests suffer. Just because something is a minority interest this does not reduce its validity. If left to the market, this minority interest becomes more costly and inaccessible.

That's just a cultural perspective.

Sorry this isn't very clear, I don't have time to fully explain and I've had very little sleep. Garnggh.

So the minority should be accomodated by the majority who have to pony up the costs? Forgive me for having a distaste for urination and feses smeared relgious symbols masquerading as a "niche interest art". Oh well, some of my taxes go to pay for the National Edowment for the Arts and some of yours go to pay for the Department of Defense - where I've been told or have heard that some interesting photography and video has just been uncovered. Art is art, right?

That wooshing sound over your head was the point. He's saying that a totally free market economy, i.e. pure capitalism, leads to social and cultural stagnation, as only the product with the most mass appeal ever sees the light of day. Niche interests become less and less profitable, and therefore more and more scarce. So, without alternate cultural experiences to enter the mass market, we are left with the same music, art, movies, etc. to cycle over and over again. Think about it. All our popular culture started at one time as a niche interest. Without new culture to enter pop culture, it would lead to massive stagnation. And when cultural stagnation takes hold, it begins the long road to collapse.

Misunderstanding
Sense

Thanks, Sdaeriji.

Why do I believe capitalism fails? Well, my point about human nature was more an argument against neoliberal or libertarian capitalism. Irrespective of economic benefits or ills, capitalism naturally impedes cultural and artistic diversity, in my view. If everything is left to the market, niche interests suffer. Just because something is a minority interest this does not reduce its validity. If left to the market, this minority interest becomes more costly and inaccessible.

That's just a cultural perspective.

Sorry this isn't very clear, I don't have time to fully explain and I've had very little sleep. Garnggh.

So the minority should be accomodated by the majority who have to pony up the costs? Forgive me for having a distaste for urination and feses smeared relgious symbols masquerading as a "niche interest art". Oh well, some of my taxes go to pay for the National Edowment for the Arts and some of yours go to pay for the Department of Defense - where I've been told or have heard that some interesting photography and video has just been uncovered. Art is art, right?

That wooshing sound over your head was the point. He's saying that a totally free market economy, i.e. pure capitalism, leads to social and cultural stagnation, as only the product with the most mass appeal ever sees the light of day. Niche interests become less and less profitable, and therefore more and more scarce. So, without alternate cultural experiences to enter the mass market, we are left with the same music, art, movies, etc. to cycle over and over again. Think about it. All our popular culture started at one time as a niche interest. Without new culture to enter pop culture, it would lead to massive stagnation. And when cultural stagnation takes hold, it begins the long road to collapse.

That sound of air escaping from your over-inflated head was caused by my sharp criticism taking a jab at your irrational fondness, appreciation, and viewed importance of art on society in general. :P

That sound of air escaping from your over-inflated head was caused by my sharp criticism taking a jab at your irrational fondness, appreciation, and viewed importance of art on society in general. :P

Hmm. You're quite creative for a philistine!

My view on this is that communism will work on a small scale, say in a village, because everyone has strong social ties to each other, they depend upon each other for survival, and therefore have an incentive to cooperate and share with one another. In a large nation, where most people do not have strong attachments to one another and cannot regulate each other, communism doesn't work.

Free market economies have their problems too. I'm not getting into that. I think a dose of socialism would do every country some good myself.

That sound of air escaping from your over-inflated head was caused by my sharp criticism taking a jab at your irrational fondness, appreciation, and viewed importance of art on society in general. :P

Hmm. You're quite creative for a philistine!

I've sent you a telegram, Ecopoeia. Please take the time to read it.

My view on this is that communism will work on a small scale, say in a village, because everyone has strong social ties to each other, they depend upon each other for survival, and therefore have an incentive to cooperate and share with one another. In a large nation, where most people do not have strong attachments to one another and cannot regulate each other, communism doesn't work.

Free market economies have their problems too. I'm not getting into that. I think a dose of socialism would do every country some good myself.

Here (http://www.zendik.org/Home/home.html) is one such group that exsists in our country. Notice they're form of communism is not compulsory. Here's another (http://www.thefec.org/) interesting webpage for those who perfer the egaltarian lifestyles. Hey, whatever floats your boat as long as it doesn't overly infringe on the way I float mine!

Capitalism also fails because it, like communism, succumbs to humanity's own shortcomings.

Basically, nothing works.

Anyhoo, do we really need money? Once it was a unit of exchange, now it's a possession in itself. That sums us up...

In what way does capitalism fail? Capitalism is the economic system that allows for the private and free exchange of goods and services in various markets where others are trying to do the same. And the economy exsists because of these transactions and exchanges.

Socialism/communism is a system where a body politik is largely responsible for planning the economy so that the production, distribution, and levels of consumption. Unfotunately these systems of government have two basic flaws. 1) people respond to incentives - that's why economies within these sysyems experience slow, zero, or negative growth. 2) central planners could never, ever, as hard as they try do a better job of responding to situations within an economy - a market is the fastest, most efficient way to allocate resources...though it's not the most equitable way...but hey, some people work harder, take more risks, or are otherwise smarter than the others.

But capitalists seem to assume that the market/demand can grow forever. I, myself, think that this is foolishnes. Plus capital brings no true happines, but in a communist system people can't realize this for themselves (as most people are too dum to think if they will achieve what they truly want by the actions they are lanning tom do).
Also, capitalism doesn't unerdstand humanity (though I'm not claiming that communism does), which irritates the humanists.
Communism, as it's name implies, works best in communes, preferably small ones, or in a global one. I'd caaim even better in the small ones, where people know eachother and are more willing to share.

Please note thet I don't think before I write, especially while in love :)

I would just like to clarify that nethier Pol Pot, Stalin, Castro or any current or former world leaders have ever been communists. And if they have, they haven't taught it to the masses.

Example: Sovjet was Stalinistic, not communistic. Stalinism is closer to fascism than anything else.

Also, before you start bitching about communism, read Das Kapital. Without reading it, you actually have not a f--- thing to use, read before you think.

just the point i would have made and perhaps the most important point of the thread

communism hasnt been tried yet. vile dictatorships where the govt makes all decisions both private and economic for its citizens and executes those who disagree IS NOT COMMUNISM

they failed because they lost the will to keep brutalizing their citizens.

i doubt that real communism will ever be tried. there just isnt enough power in it for the guys at the top.

Why are we apologetic for the human condition anyway? I personally like having emotions, desires, drive, and interaction with other human beings with the same perceived "flaws". Is there something wrong with me?

Why are we apologetic for the human condition anyway? I personally like having emotions, desires, drive, and interaction with other human beings with the same perceived "flaws". Is there something wrong with me?

Not at all. Apart from the philist- shusssh, Ecopoeia.

Ahem. I like the approach of leaving people as free as possible without their freedom unnecessarily impinging on others. I happen to believe that capitalism will not deliver such an ideal. Then again, what will? Tricky. In the meantime, I'll buy fairtrade and hope that the right course of action will be taken for countries that are in a mess, be it a capitalist or a socialist remedy (horses for courses, as we say in Blighty).

An economy, and I'm using that word lightly, that is not based around moeny will ultimately fail. Especially when you outlaw profit or private enterprise.

bullshit. capitalism is new and non-monied cultures got along quite well. it took acts of genocide and enslavement to stop them.

someone is confusing economy and finance.

yep communism works....on your knees capitalist scum!!!! *fires an ak47 into the air!!!*

My view on this is that communism will work on a small scale, say in a village, because everyone has strong social ties to each other, they depend upon each other for survival, and therefore have an incentive to cooperate and share with one another. In a large nation, where most people do not have strong attachments to one another and cannot regulate each other, communism doesn't work.

yeah. which leads me to the idea of a generalized gift economy on the local scale and a system of loosely balanced reciprocity between communities and workplaces facilitated by voluntary federations.

of course, this is nothing new, just anarchism with new terms.

...Not at all. Apart from the philist- shusssh, Ecopoeia...

Look, I don't mind you pulling a name-call maneuver on me by using words that are seldomly used in the everyday course of language. If it helps you get your point across while simultaneously showing us that you have a mastery of the language and at the same time providing the illusion that you're a member of the elite, then you could call me a Cretin for all I care.

Just do not provide a fraudulent quotation of your own creation and ascribe it to me

...I'll buy fairtrade and hope...

Define "fair trade" for me - as you understand it. Use a weblink if you have to and make sure to elaborate as needed.

This is rather straight forward so I''ll get right into it.

There's no money

An economy, and I'm using that word lightly, that is not based around moeny will ultimately fail. Especially when you outlaw profit or private enterprise. This is a hard thing to understand: no one making money = no money = no economy. I mean how did you think you were going to trade with the world?

[/rant]

:shock: :roll:
This from the advanced school of political science?
Firstly- Communist states do have money. Even Russia under Lenin's War Communism had money.

Secondly- if it would completely collapse without money, how come it lasted so long in the USSR? It was something more complicated than 'no money' that bought it down, no?

Why do I believe capitalism fails? Well, my point about human nature was more an argument against neoliberal or libertarian capitalism. Irrespective of economic benefits or ills, capitalism naturally impedes cultural and artistic diversity, in my view. If everything is left to the market, niche interests suffer. Just because something is a minority interest this does not reduce its validity. If left to the market, this minority interest becomes more costly and inaccessible.

That's just a cultural perspective.

Sorry this isn't very clear, I don't have time to fully explain and I've had very little sleep. Garnggh.

So the minority should be accomodated by the majority who have to pony up the costs? Forgive me for having a distaste for urination and feses smeared relgious symbols masquerading as a "niche interest art". Oh well, some of my taxes go to pay for the National Edowment for the Arts and some of yours go to pay for the Department of Defense - where I've been told or have heard that some interesting photography and video has just been uncovered. Art is art, right?

That wooshing sound over your head was the point. He's saying that a totally free market economy, i.e. pure capitalism, leads to social and cultural stagnation, as only the product with the most mass appeal ever sees the light of day. Niche interests become less and less profitable, and therefore more and more scarce. So, without alternate cultural experiences to enter the mass market, we are left with the same music, art, movies, etc. to cycle over and over again. Think about it. All our popular culture started at one time as a niche interest. Without new culture to enter pop culture, it would lead to massive stagnation. And when cultural stagnation takes hold, it begins the long road to collapse.

That sound of air escaping from your over-inflated head was caused by my sharp criticism taking a jab at your irrational fondness, appreciation, and viewed importance of art on society in general. :P

So, you don't think art is important to society? Tell me, do you listen to music? Stop, it's art, it's not important. Do you watch movies? Television? Oops, can't do that anymore. Art. Do you read magazines or books? Damn, those are both art forms. Do you play video games of any kind? You shouldn't, it's not important. It's just art. Art isn't just your pitifully small view of feces smeared on a canvas. It's more than just paintings.

...Not at all. Apart from the philist- shusssh, Ecopoeia...

Look, I don't mind you pulling a name-call maneuver on me by using words that are seldomly used in the everyday course of language.

*blinks* What are you talking about? "Philistine" is a standard part of adult discourse where I come from... and before you ask, I grew up the opposite of rich. It describes a person who is not only uncultured but opposed to culture, and so far you seem to match that description. If I'm wrong, I'd love to know.

Just do not provide a fraudulent quotation of your own creation and ascribe it to me

Where has Ecopoeia done so on this thread? Aside from the "misunderstanding" "sense" thing, which was clearly intended as a lighthearted jab. Really, dude... lighten up.

Ever heard of the gift economy? It's the basis of anarcho-communism. It existed in many hunter-gatherer societies, early Christian communities, and some communes in revolutionary Spain. It also exists in some modern communes such as the Federation of Egalitarian Communities.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Ever heard of the gift economy? It's the basis of anarcho-communism. It existed in many hunter-gatherer societies, early Christian communities, and some communes in revolutionary Spain. It also exists in some modern communes such as the Federation of Egalitarian Communities.

Doesn't work on a large scale, and it tends to develop into capitalism anyway. It works fine on a small scale; Jesus People U.S.A. is one example of a successful gift economy Christian Commune, and I know of a number of others. However, it breaks down in urban environments. Mao Zedong came the closest to implementing the "gift economy" in large-scale communes, and we all know what came out of that effort...

Doesn't work on a large scale, and it tends to develop into capitalism anyway. It works fine on a small scale; Jesus People U.S.A. is one example of a successful gift economy Christian Commune, and I know of a number of others. However, it breaks down in urban environments. Mao Zedong came the closest to implementing the "gift economy" in large-scale communes, and we all know what came out of that effort...

Anarchism seeks to replace cities with alliances of communes. The primary unit of political organization in anarchism is a commune with around 100 to 150 people. You are right, though. It doesn't work well on too large a scale.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

In my observation of this forum, I see a combination of both differing opinions on capitalism, communism, anarchy, socialism, and authoritarianism.

Before simply plowing singlemindedly toward trying to create a specific sort of government that we envision as "perfect." We should discuss what features of government are desireable.

From culture to culture, there is ultimately many distinctions between what is desireable. Some cultures desire to limit freedom, at least those who live within the constraints of said culture. However, not all persons within a culture will agree with the belief system. The people of the Jovian Worlds adhere to only ONE philosophy singlemindedly, and we do so because it is essentially all encompassing: A person must is free to do ANYTHING so long as it does not infringe upon another individual's freedom.

To this extent, we do not foresee how capitalism in some form will ever be restricted or banned. At the same time, we cannot imagine unregulated capitalism.

Why?

Unregulated capitalism concentrates power disproportionately and over time incentives become perverted to the extent that a miniscule minority will inevitably gain some amount of ultimately unaccountable power to limit the freedom of those without economic power.

Still, capitalism is essential to the economic success of a nation and technological progress; it is essential to improving the lives of a nation's citizens over time.

There _must_ be incentives to tacitly persuade citizens to meet their potential, improving themselves, and the lives of those around themselves through their actions.

Monetary rewards for success and limited power over the lives of others *is* necessary. However, the people of the Jovian Worlds believe that all power must be regulated. Unregulated power leads to autocracy, which essentially implies the ultimate slavery of all persons without a controlling stake in the system of government/business/whatever.

I'm not suggesting any perfect system. Rather just that there must be checks on all authority. Simply allowing the populace to have guns is not sufficient. Additionally, free information is only part of the equation. The roots of a vigorously democratic and meritocratic society must begin with education (the future peoples of the Jovian World's preferred solution).

There are certain issues that one must take into account. Removing incentives for success is an impediment to progress. Removing a social safety net is ultimately an impediment to the stability of society. The future people's of the Jovian Worlds take a humanistic approach to life. People require certain basic necessities to live: Housing, sustanance (food), and access to medical supplies (the latter being defined as procedures and medicines that prevent death or limit one's ability to compete in the global market place with their fellow men/women/etc.).

However, there are certain limitations that must be heeded, such as scarcity of non-renewable goods (land, difficult-to-produce medications). A nation should assist its citizens to compete to the best of their abilities on the global market, and reward fair competition.

I'm writing a huge term paper about the flaws of Communism and I want to thank you guys for the info.

Coming here might not have been the smartest move on your part. There are a lot of smart people here, but not too many have read Das Kapital or any other communist literature methinks.

What are the flaws of communism? Well, I suppose to answer that you have to presuppose that there are flaws with communism. A true communist might reject that presupposition, on the grounds that in most societies that tried to implement strict Marxism, things went along just fine until a bureaucrat managed to throw a wrench into the machine. For Russia, it was Stalin, who failed to follow up on Lenin's work and turned Russia into his own little fiefdom. For China, it was Mao, etc. The real problem, a true communist might say, is not the system, but rather that people commit revolutions in the name of socialism for nothing other than personal power.

communism was asking to fail.
marxism however was a good thing. problem is that people are just too darn greedy and the government hoards the money. thats when it turns into communism.

This is rather straight forward so I''ll get right into it.

There's no money

An economy, and I'm using that word lightly, that is not based around moeny will ultimately fail. Especially when you outlaw profit or private enterprise. This is a hard thing to understand: no one making money = no money = no economy. I mean how did you think you were going to trade with the world?

[/rant]

Capitalism is not based around money. Money is merely a universal equivalent. In a communist society, as in capitalist society, value is created by labor. Money is not magically bestowed with value, but has value because it represents labor. The difference between the two is that in capitalism, those who labor have some of the value thet they create stolen from them by the capitalist who creates no value to speak of. That surplus value is the source of "profit" so by eliminating profit, or in other words eliminating exploitation, the amount of value created does not change. It is merely distributed equitably.

communism was asking to fail.
marxism however was a good thing. problem is that people are just too darn greedy and the government hoards the money. thats when it turns into communism.

Marxism is Communism and it did not fail because "people are just too darn greedy". You are ignoring the real material conditions that existed in nations that have attempted communist revolution.

Capitalism is not based around money. Money is merely a universal equivalent. In a communist society, as in capitalist society, value is created by labor. Money is not magically bestowed with value, but has value because it represents labor. The difference between the two is that in capitalism, those who labor have some of the value thet they create stolen from them by the capitalist who creates no value to speak of. That surplus value is the source of "profit" so by eliminating profit, or in other words eliminating exploitation, the amount of value created does not change. It is merely distributed equitably.

The other point that needs to be raised with respect to the Labor Theory of Value is that of surplus labor and surplus production. In a capitalist society, we're paid by the hour to produce as many things as we can produce. The problem is that we may not need all that we produce (think about it, how does the Invisible Hand work? Through producing more cars than what are bought, which is the impetus for the ruthless process of selection and refinement that constitutes supply and demand), and because of the need for ever-increasing profit margins, we tend to be paid far less than what we need to buy what is produced. This leads to overproduction and deflationary crashes.

The solution in Marx's view is to produce what is needed. Instead of producing more cars than what can be sold in a means of determining what people want, you build a few models of car that satisfy the needs of everyone, and then you build enough to ensure that anyone who needs one has one. Cash is still used, but its paid on the basis of the value of the good or service your work produces, and what you need to get the materials you need.

Marxism is Communism and it did not fail because "people are just too darn greedy". You are ignoring the real material conditions that existed in nations that have attempted communist revolution.
good point.
not that i believe in dialetic materialism (is that the phrase?)
but it says that only a mature capitalism can move on to communism. lenin and stalin tried to jump over that small notion by having the dictatorship of the proletariat but those guys werent real philosophers like marx was, they were wanting to run russia.
no country who is qualified to move on to communism has ever tried it. those that did were in no way ready, russia was still in feudalism back in 1917, no wonder it turned out badly!

good point.
not that i believe in dialetic materialism (is that the phrase?)
but it says that only a mature capitalism can move on to communism. lenin and stalin tried to jump over that small notion by having the dictatorship of the proletariat but those guys werent real philosophers like marx was, they were wanting to run russia.
no country who is qualified to move on to communism has ever tried it. those that did were in no way ready, russia was still in feudalism back in 1917, no wonder it turned out badly!

I have my critiques of Lenin, but I wouldn't go as far as to say he wanted to run Russia. But yeah, the Russian proletariat was somehwat under-developed and also they needed Germany to revolt with them and that did not happen. Then you get Stalin who believed that communism was possible in a single nation and you get the horrible death tolls. If you want to know how Marx really envisioned socialism, read his writings on the Paris Commune.

ARGHHH!!! Simplistic reductions of historical events make me ANNGRY!!
Fecal matter like this makes me want to urinate on your collective heads heads!
:evil:



[inhale. exhale. beer. bong rip?...]

Okay. Now hopefully I'll spew something more than nonsense.

(Note: I'm not trying to provide any sort of statement on whether Marxism is good or not. For what it's worth, I've read my Marx, and marxism is mostly a load of excrement. I'm trying to present a historical basis--please try to understand the ACTUAL historical processes occurring.)

First on the rise of stalinism, trotskyism, and the very principles of, yes, marxism and the resulting soviet philosophies (trotskyism) developed in something more than a volatile atmosphere. Marx's theories emphasize the likelihood of a 'proletarian revolution'. That is, moralistic educated people would lead a vanguard of workers in a violent revolution. The so-called communist states that developed in the 20th century modeled themselves after Marx's vanguard movement approach. As such the structures the revolutions and hence revolutionary governments took on was a politically unaccountable militaristic authoritarian command structure. Unfortunately, many marxists fail to understand that the very philosophy to bring about a communist polity is perpetuated by authoritarian processes if not ideals.

The Soviet empire was born out of the ashes of warfare (no sht). It's beginnings were lodged in a struggle not between the proletarian and a bourgeoise class. The root of the struggle was between the PEASANTRY and landed nobility, the czar(MONARCHY).

It was a given that the landed class ruled and the workers worked. No questions asked. It was the way it always was. When an alterantive was presented, the political organization was done so in secret. This reinforced the the necessity of top-down decision making. There was a huge amount of intrigue between the major players as well. There were many assinations carried out as the party was pared down to only the most loyal members. Stalin managed to orchestrate much of the culling of influential peers. As such, he cleared the way for his own unchallenged authority to accomplish whatever tasks he deemed necessary.

As for the development and subsequent failure of the soviet empire: the early goals and basic (and enormously frightening and wasteful in terms of human life) 'success' in stalinism was its authoritarian approach to force develop a pre-modern society into a modern state in decades, by-passing the CENTURIES of cultural evolution the rest of western world had. Due to the very limitations of widespread human knowledge this is a fundamentally structurally (insofar as institutions--perpetuating of progress) unsustainable process (especially when you take into account the massive diversity of the conquered regions--nearly all of europe east of germany--most of asia and the middle east).

The ultimate failure in the 20th century implementations of marxism in all its cases was the failure to implement the rule of LAW over the rule of the INDIVIDUAL. Moreover, the polities and movements failed to heed to the needs and requisites of the PEOPLE they purported to rule.

I'm writing a huge term paper about the flaws of Communism and I want to thank you guys for the info.

Coming here might not have been the smartest move on your part. There are a lot of smart people here, but not too many have read Das Kapital or any other communist literature methinks.

Thankfully, I have. Read Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto, as well as some of Marx's less known works. Analyzed them. Realized that they were nonsensical, and aside from calling attention to the need for laborers to protect their rights have no value.

What are the flaws of communism? Well, I suppose to answer that you have to presuppose that there are flaws with communism.

Aside from the fact that communism inherently strips rights from those living under its rule- I'm talking pure communism, not communism as practiced- and can never be implemented successfully for any length of time, no, I don't suppose there are any flaws with it.

So, you don't think art is important to society? Tell me, do you listen to music? Stop, it's art, it's not important. Do you watch movies? Television? Oops, can't do that anymore. Art. Do you read magazines or books? Damn, those are both art forms. Do you play video games of any kind? You shouldn't, it's not important. It's just art. Art isn't just your pitifully small view of feces smeared on a canvas. It's more than just paintings.

So, you don't think art is important to society? Not the niche art that you discussed earlier - the kind that society rejects out of hand (I'm not a kook on the fringe type).

Tell me, do you listen to music? Not often, really! When I do listen to music these days, I tend to listen to classic rock. I spend much of my time listening to talk radio or listening to an audio book while commuting to and from work and college.

Do you watch movies? Not at the theater. I wait until they come out on video or on television.

Television? Some of the one hour dramas such as: CSI Miami, the Law & Orders, and I'm a particular fan of some of the edgier shows on FX. Nip Tuck is exceptionally written.

magazines or books? Financial magazines, yes. Non-fiction and reference books only.

So, now that I've answered your questions to show you that I do appreciate some art (or shall I say packaged creativity that found a market with this consumer), why is it that you took liberty with my earlier statement and spun my response to you as meaning that I was to art in its totality?

Was it due to your artistic creativity? Or is because that's what people on the Left are conditioned to do - take liberty?

So, now that I've answered your questions to show you that I do appreciate some art (or shall I say packaged creativity that found a market with this consumer), why is it that you took liberty with my earlier statement and spun my response to you as meaning that I was to art in its totality?

Was it due to your artistic creativity? Or is because that's what people on the Left are conditioned to do - take liberty?

That sound of air escaping from your over-inflated head was caused by my sharp criticism taking a jab at your irrational fondness, appreciation, and viewed importance of art on society in general.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but you seemed to say that I have irrational fondness, irrational appreciation, and an irrational view on the importance of art on society. Perhaps that is why I took liberty with your earlier statement and spun your response as meaning you were referring to art in general. And since my political leanings never once entered into the conversation, maybe you could refrain from broad, baselss accusations in this response?

Communism fails because of people like me :)

communism will work in its pure state, but when you get greedy people who want a little bit more and takes that. than you get a corupt system. Human nature is what ruins communism, not the system its self :!:

Communism is a good idea on paper.

Communism is a good idea on paper. Which version? Marxism? You even he admited it was incomplete and actively encourage people to undermine him to make the theory closer to perfect. He also got annoyed at the dogmatic tendancies of his 'followers' exclaiming "Thank God I am no Marxist."

btw the Anarchist at the time (esp. Bakunin) were the first to object to Marxism, well before it was 'tested.' iirc correctly Bakunin said "[the marxist state] will barrack regime, devoid of liberty" and "I cannot stand it as it negates human liberty. The ideal we should all strive for."* The Anarchists at the time also objected to it because they realised that the nessesity of the "Dictatorship of Proletariat" easily led to dictatorship of the party > the individual. Quite precient really.


*the quotes are from memory, I got the jist right but if anyone can give the real ones it would be most helpful

Now..let me see if I have this right..now..bear in mind..never read one bit of communist material..nor am I a capitalist stockbroker-do-evil-with-poor-people's money either.....but let me see if I have it right.

Communism doesn't work because I believe in getting paid for services rendered?...Now..if I work a hotdog stand...and it costs me a penny to buy a hotdog, add in a bun and accoutrements that'd make it a full nickel..you're telling me I'm greedy because I charge a full dime because not only do I wish to recoup what I put out I want to do better then just make even?

capitalism fails by fact 900 trillion dollars (us) are created each year, but only 25million required to bring world up to adaequate level of healthcare(W.H.O.), which is 3% of arms trade. Communism can work but man (i.e. you) must realise your true potential, that your supposed human instinct to do wrong is wrong. Communism must happen not only due to resource but also that original man would have lived such a way, so all happening since are unatural.

capitalism fails by fact 900 trillion dollars (us) are created each year, but only 25million required to bring world up to adaequate level of healthcare(W.H.O.), which is 3% of arms trade.


um, that's not a failure, that's a decision. people chose to spend money a certain way, and if you don't like that then you can feel free to make different choices with your own money. Communism doesn't make 900 trillion dolars a year, so when it does we'll talk.


Communism can work but man (i.e. you) must realise your true potential, that your supposed human instinct to do wrong is wrong. Communism must happen not only due to resource but also that original man would have lived such a way, so all happening since are unatural.

personally i believe that Communism IS wrong, so for Communism to work i would have to indulge my "human instinct to do wrong," as you call it ;).

capitalism fails by fact 900 trillion dollars (us) are created each year, but only 25million required to bring world up to adaequate level of healthcare(W.H.O.), which is 3% of arms trade. Communism can work but man (i.e. you) must realise your true potential, that your supposed human instinct to do wrong is wrong. Communism must happen not only due to resource but also that original man would have lived such a way, so all happening since are unatural.

Excuse me?..original man...there isn't a tribe on this continent, mine included that didn't trade with it's neighbors..our neighbors to the north, the Iroquis Confederacy were one of the Cherokee Nation's biggest traders and on occasion enemies...then out west the Sioux were regarded as shrewd,nay..stingy traders almost without equal.

Yes but at the same time when you think of how wrong communism is there is many right things about it. no homeless people, no crime, and everyone has food. the only problem is to keep it from fialing... perhaps if the private industry was legal and everyone could choose there job. BUT everyone was provided with a house, car, and food. dont tell me this isnt possible if a country makes it own money on its own printing press then a countrys money never really runs dry. I myself use the breed of communism i just mention it has great effects. sure there always someone that doesnt like it but hey most do and you cant please everyone as much as i try... -.-;;

-Kurama Sakabato, Foxfire Prince of Axis of Oz ^.^

Yes but at the same time when you think of how wrong communism is there is many right things about it. no homeless people, no crime, and everyone has food. the only problem is to keep it from fialing... perhaps if the private industry was legal and everyone could choose there job. BUT everyone was provided with a house, car, and food. dont tell me this isnt possible if a country makes it own money on its own printing press then a countrys money never really runs dry. I myself use the breed of communism i just mention it has great effects. sure there always someone that doesnt like it but hey most do and you cant please everyone as much as i try... -.-;;

-Kurama Sakabato, Foxfire Prince of Axis of Oz ^.^

LOL..are you telling me that communist systems, even if loosely based never had crime?..everyone has food?..you are familiar with how long the lines for food in the former Warsaw Pact and the USSR were right..or are you too young to remember?

If you print out enough money to let every garage a car and chicken in each pot then your money is worthless on the world business stage.

If that is thre price i must pay to insure the lasting power of my people than i will pay. besides i make a killing on tech weapons sure there is some crime but not enough to even consider it as wrong. wow he stole a smalll lawn nome go buy a new one! im not the russian army im not russia i wont make the same mistakes they made the reason it fialed is because it spent to much time, on trying to get other countries tojoin as far as im concerned if you dont live within the dark realms or a allies region to us you dont exist. You say my money doesnt count but MY countires money is only spent paying my allies and buying what my people need in MY nation the money from other nations i get from tech sales goes towards international buys and the army which is made up of well trianed and no longer homeless people my Black Berray outrank in skill any marines around the world.

-Kurama

Communism requires a leader who is uncorruptible. Since this person does not exist communism will always fail. Some leaders are better than others (in my opinion Wen Jiabao is better than Stalin, and Gorbachev was better than Mao), but all end up failing because 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'.

Communism is based on the idea of a utopian world, so in theory, if pure communism was to occur life would be grand. However, it can never occur, and trying to force a utopian world into being results in genocide (see Pol Pot).

Communist nations nowadays are either surviving on international aid (North Korea) or are reforming into capitalist nations (China). The fact that no communist nation has ever survived more than about 70 years (USSR - 1918-1989 R.I.P) proves that communism is unworkable.

Capatalist nations adopt certain policies out of communism (universal health care and universal education) but have failed miserably at trying to make them as good as for-profit equivalents. Canadians have routinely died in waiting rooms, and many head to the US to get treatment done before they die on waiting lists. Canada is even moving towards more for-profit medical care.

Case in point: One of my friends was told that he might have a serious heart condition that would need treatment. He was scheduled to have a test to see if he indeed had this condition, in 6 months. However, the doctors believed that he wouldn't last 3 months if they didn't start treatment right away. The treatment is dangerous so you wouldn't want to go through with it unless you are sure you have it. Fortunately, he did not have it.

As for the Canadian education systems, considering that some school have to get private funds to fix floors and roofs and buy new books kinda proves the point.

-deleted-

-deleted-

-deleted-

-deleted-

That wooshing sound over your head was the point. He's [meaning Ecopoeia – another poster engaged in this debate] saying that a totally free market economy, i.e. pure capitalism, leads to social and cultural stagnation, as only the product with the most mass appeal ever sees the light of day. Niche interests become less and less profitable, and therefore more and more scarce. So, without alternate cultural experiences to enter the mass market, we are left with the same music, art, movies, etc. to cycle over and over again. Think about it. All our popular culture started at one time as a niche interest. Without new culture to enter pop culture, it would lead to massive stagnation. And when cultural stagnation takes hold, it begins the long road to collapse.

The market was working just as it should have in this example you gave above. A lack of demand led to a lower supply. However, the consequence was scarcity of the supply, which should lead to higher value in the small market niche that makes up all of the demand -by definition the niche market in this example would this be “the fringe”, no?

Now, if I accept your premise that an entire culture collapses as an indirect phase of the non-introduction of fringe art on a society – which I don’t accept BTW – then how would you suggest that we force demand of said “fringe art” on a society that does not want it at the time?

My contention is that some “fringe art” will always become pop culture because of changing consumer tastes, great marketing, and the combination of the first two – irrational consumer behavior in the market place.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but you seemed to say that I have irrational fondness, irrational appreciation, and an irrational view on the importance of art on society. Perhaps that is why I took liberty with your earlier statement and spun your response as meaning you were referring to art in general. And since my political leanings never once entered into the conversation, maybe you could refrain from broad, baselss accusations in this response?

If you can defend an artificial & publicly funded (tax payer dollars) manipulation of a market that props up a “starving artist” while s/he creates one masterpiece after another that generates little or no interest to those outside of the “niche” market then…No, you didn’t misunderstand me…and in case you can defend your belief then I would be calling you irrational and I would be insinuating that you’re clearly a product of the Left.

Since this is an opinion only, I can have a baseless accusation. In much the same fashion that allowed you to take the liberty to spin my earlier commentary the way you did!

What is seen as 'communism' by most of the world today, i.e. Stalinist Russia, and Castro's Cuba is NOT communism. It is some form of extreme authoritarian socialism. This means that the world (in particular the American 'flag waving' public as an example. Don't get me wrong, not all americans are like this, but it certainly seems to be prevalent; look at most of their politicians) has a jaundiced and clouded view of it. Therefore, communism hasn't actually failed yet, as it hasn't been tried properly. True communism (in the Marksist sense), would involve minimal government intervention, as people would do things because they were right, and things wouldnt require paying for, as one had earned them by being a productive member of society. Clearly, this will not work in todays society, so changes will have to be made. :idea:
For a really good look at a modern progressive form of goverment try reading Kim Stanley Robinsons 'Red Mars' sequence, and look at the government that emerges at the end of Blue Mars.

-Grand Teton-

capitalism fails by fact 900 trillion dollars (us) are created each year, but only 25million required to bring world up to adaequate level of healthcare(W.H.O.), which is 3% of arms trade. Communism can work but man (i.e. you) must realise your true potential, that your supposed human instinct to do wrong is wrong. Communism must happen not only due to resource but also that original man would have lived such a way, so all happening since are unatural.

Where did you get these numbers?

This is the best explanation of why communism fails, and will always fail, that I have ever seen. I found it on another forum. Unfortunately, I didn't note the authors name.

I've frequently heard this argument ("Real Communism hasn't been tried yet, therefore Communism is not a failure") - even by some of my more optimistic fellow Americans.

My response(s)

1) What about Human nature is going to change to enable Communism? People need a personal interest and a sense of "ownership" in the things they manage, in order to feel a strong sense of motivation to improve, to make a profit, to gain more for themselves etc. This is the very reason that China is booming now that they let people have more of an owership stake. (This is often summarized in the succinct phrase: Greed works. or, if you prefer - "To become rich, is glorious")

2) Individual humans, or even a group of humans acting as centralized leadership, simply cannot contain in their brains all the best possibilities, all of the myriad enterprises, activities, etc that can and should take place in the society. This is what the Capitalists call "The Genius of the Marketplace" or "The invisible hand of the market." How is Communism going to do top down management better than capitalist market based competition for the best solution? (bonus question: How can large corporations really manage themselves best when they get so big they are too complex for their own leadership to understand? - and when they kill of competitive pressure to improve in their market?)

3) What makes Marx such a genius that he can predict some future form of government that no one has ever seen or experienced, or at least implemented correctly though they tried...? Why keep claiming Marx was right? When I hear this line "first you must have Capitalism before you can have real Communism", I just want to reply "so, real Communists are hardcore Capitalist advocates, then?"

I think someday, Capitalism may be improved or replaced by something. Definitely we need to find the balance between governmental / societal policy, and pure free market Capitalism. But will that be Communism? Or something else? Nobody knows yet, especially dead and gone economist/philosophers from 100 years ago

I'm writing a huge term paper about the flaws of Communism and I want to thank you guys for the info.

Coming here might not have been the smartest move on your part. There are a lot of smart people here, but not too many have read Das Kapital or any other communist literature methinks.

Thankfully, I have. Read Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto, as well as some of Marx's less known works. Analyzed them. Realized that they were nonsensical, and aside from calling attention to the need for laborers to protect their rights have no value.

What are the flaws of communism? Well, I suppose to answer that you have to presuppose that there are flaws with communism.

Aside from the fact that communism inherently strips rights from those living under its rule- I'm talking pure communism, not communism as practiced- and can never be implemented successfully for any length of time, no, I don't suppose there are any flaws with it.

I would have to disagree wholeheartedly on both points. Even though I'm not a socialist (personally, I think Rosa Luxembourg's critique of Millerand's and Bernstein's Social Democrat platform is spot on, and for that reason we need to adopt Millerand's position to kill any shot at future revolutions), I have read some of the literature, and I have to say that it is some of the most cogent critiquing of lassiez-faire capitalism that has ever been put out. That Marx was wrong in his analysis that a communist society a) could be produced, and b) that such a society would inevitably turn into a materialist utopia is in my opinion indisputable. But by the same token, his analysis of market forces and the tendency towards greater and greater instability brought on by overproduction were extremely well-thought out (considering that much of this analysis came straight from extrapolating the work of such lassiez-faire Gods as Riccardo, Malthus, and Smith, this should be far less surprising than it usually is). Had people been paying attention to Marxism in the 20's aside from the usual castigation, the Great Depression might well have been averted.

Similarly, if you think communism inherently strips rights, then you don't really know much about political or economic theory. For a brief refresher, consider the following skeletal argument: Capital (i.e. land, but also including other forms of Capital) is power. Democracy only flourishes when power is distributed among the people (otherwise it's an oligarchy, not a democracy) rather than concentrated. The net effect of capitalism is that of concentration of capital into fewer and fewer hands. Ergo, those things that might reverse that trend (e.g. socialism), are democratic.

You're presupposing that all of the Capital in this instance goes to the State, and that leads to autocracy. While this is what actually happened, it sure wasn't what Marx was banking on. Rather, he believed that all the Capital would be distributed equally among the people, and absent any compelling interests to take what other people have, the need for a state to force people to be civil to one another (i.e. Hobbes' Leviathan) would evaporate. This was the real philosophical difference between Marx and Bakunin: Bakunin didn't see how organization and mass action could lead to an anarchical state, whereas Marx did.

Sdaeriji wrote:

"Niche interests become less and less profitable, and therefore more and more scarce. So, without alternate cultural experiences to enter the mass market, we are left with the same music, art, movies, etc. to cycle over and over again. Think about it. All our popular culture started at one time as a niche interest. Without new culture to enter pop culture, it would lead to massive stagnation. And when cultural stagnation takes hold, it begins the long road to collapse."

Indeed. Look what Hollywood's been putting out lately :roll:

As I read the various responses to this thread, I noticed how drastically different some of our interpretations of communism/capitalism/etc. are. This is not necessarily wrong; it's philosophy, after all. People can interpret philosophy many, many different ways, which is one of the abundant reasons for the failure of communism in the world. Communism, as I interpret it (no, I haven't read Marx, unfortunately) glorifies sameness: same income (no upper class), same ideas about how to run things, etc. The "problem" is that every person is different. We humans don't see eye to eye on hardly anything, all things considered. Look at the Communist states of the world: anyone who thought differently than the state was persecuted, right? (I do agree with those who say that no truly communist country has existed—but then we're talking about one single interpretation of communism, right? And one doesn't need to look any further than this thread to realize there are many.) This is why communism, to a point, could work in Christian communities and other small, closely knit groups that have a fundamental doctrine to unite them and a belief in absolute truths.

Another problem with communism is that, more so than any other system, you get out of it what you put in. Everyone has to work equally hard for things to be any good. If they don't, then the goods they acquire are as poor as the goods they themselves made. And humans apparently don't think making goods for other people is a great enough incentive to make things well, even when the quality of their work directly affects them, as is the case with communism.

We should be both ashamed and proud that communism does not work. Ashamed, because it means that the vast majority of people are unwilling to think about others before themselves; proud, because the failure of communism graphically illustrates the wonderful, beautiful differences between us.

I personally think that the capitalist nations of the world are employing more and more communist/socialist programs as time goes on. Look at the capitalist system in 1800's America and compare it to today. Huge differences! Perhaps Marx will end up being right: the highly advanced countries will be the first to truly embrace communism (closest to the way he apparently envisioned it), and it will seem a logical step to them.

But I am glad because in NationStates, communism, and any other system one can think of, DOES work. :)

Communism, as I interpret it (no, I haven't read Marx, unfortunately) glorifies sameness

not any communism that i know of - except maybe some of the utopian intentional communities.

Communism, as I interpret it (no, I haven't read Marx, unfortunately) glorifies sameness

not any communism that i know of - except maybe some of the utopian intentional communities.

What real communism are you talking about? All the real communist systems that have failed? All the ones I know from the past demanded conformity and stifled individualism.

...Not at all. Apart from the philist- shusssh, Ecopoeia...

Look, I don't mind you pulling a name-call maneuver on me by using words that are seldomly used in the everyday course of language. If it helps you get your point across while simultaneously showing us that you have a mastery of the language and at the same time providing the illusion that you're a member of the elite, then you could call me a Cretin for all I care.

Just do not provide a fraudulent quotation of your own creation and ascribe it to me

Er... I'm a little baffled by your response. Silly me, I thought that these exchanges (and your telegram) were all a bit of light-hearted banter. So, I apologise for the offence my japery has caused you, though not the intention behind it. "Fraudulent"? I'd suggest "cheeky", or "flippant".

I wasn't aware that philistine was so exclusive a word. I make no claim to have a mastery of the language, unfortunately. I have no idea which particular elite you refer to. I apologise for the sad fact that my natural way of language is long-winded, flowery and a touch pompous. I'm simply not very good at being succinct.

Actually, I really wanted to replace your comments reproduced above with 'whinge', or 'strop'. However, I accept that would have been immature (however much it would have gratified my petty side).

By the way - thank you, The Logarchy, for your support.

Define "fair trade" for me - as you understand it. Use a weblink if you have to and make sure to elaborate as needed.

You're very officious, considering the General forum is pretty much a glorified web chatroom. Anyway... the web link for the London-based Fairtrade Foundation is here:

http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/

My own perspective? Well, I'm afraid I don't have time to be exhaustive (I only have computer access at work and, much as I'd like to scam the corporate bloodsuckers all day, I can't) so here's a summary (hopefully succinct!):

Under 'free' trade, multinational corporations are able to exploit the labour of individuals/small organisations in developing (for want of a better word) nations for economic advantage. These individuals/organisations are often barely able to survive and cannot afford to negotiate reasonable remuneration for their produce (eg cash crops). Under these conditions, an inadequate remuneration is accepted and the producers are unable to reinvest any money into making their working practices more efficient (machinery, extra labour, whatever).

Fair trade simply guarantees a 'fair' rate of remuneration that provides the opportunity for the producers to break out of the cycle of poverty. It's not an ill-advised prop for a failing producer, more of a leg-up to enable burgeoning producers to get themselves on the ladder.

A lot of this is down to consumer choice. Fair trade (or rather Fairtrade TM) can't force distributors to charge appropriate rates, it just gives consumers the option to purchase at a slightly higher price products of equal quality to non-fairly traded products. An extension of this is that I try not to not purchase clothing produced in sweatshops, etc. I can't guarantee that people haven't been exploited in the production of goods I consume, but I can at least try with the regrettably limited information I have at my disposal.

Damn, so much for succinct. I hope this has been of some value to you.

What real communism are you talking about? All the real communist systems that have failed? All the ones I know from the past demanded conformity and stifled individualism.

first off, all those stalinists were not communists in any sense i'm willing to accept. even on their terms, they only claim to be in the socialist stage. keeping your head down in a totalitarian terror state only makes sense, but it isn't a reflection one way or the other on communism.

communists make a crucial distinction between equality and conformity. the point is to make sure we all have equal opportunity and equal access to social wealth, not to make sure we all think and act the same.

communists make a crucial distinction between equality and conformity. the point is to make sure we all have equal opportunity and equal access to social wealth, not to make sure we all think and act the same.[/quote]

That's a good goal, and one I certainly agree with. I quite like the intent of communism. But when this equality was attempted in practice, it most regrettably came in the form of isolating dissent, as you said. I think it's because humans, far too often, hate difference in opinions, etc. even though it's all atound us. Look at religious fundamentalists, of all stripes, for example.

...I hope this has been of some value to you.

More than you could possibly know.

...My own perspective? Well, I'm afraid I don't have time to be exhaustive (I only have computer access at work and, much as I'd like to scam the corporate bloodsuckers all day, I can't)...

After reading these sentences above I found it very interesting that you began to describe lyour views on labor, production, and efficiency. I can't help but wonder if your employer is getting "fair trade" for the compensation that is paid to you. I don't see the emoticon that vomits or I'd insert it here.

That's a good goal, and one I certainly agree with. I quite like the intent of communism. But when this equality was attempted in practice, it most regrettably came in the form of isolating dissent, as you said. I think it's because humans, far too often, hate difference in opinions, etc. even though it's all atound us. Look at religious fundamentalists, of all stripes, for example.

as emma goldman wrote 80 some years ago, there was no communism in russia. as the bolsheviks consolidated power, they actively (and brutally) undermined and surpressed the revolution and instituted a replacement class system with them at the top. they never even tried for equality; all they cared about was maintaining and expanding their own power and privilege.

the enforced conformity of opinion has more to do with psychotic paranoid dictators than with communism. psychotic paranoid capitalist dictators tend to not treat dissenters very nicely either. any tendency towards conformity beyond that is just the natural human tendency to conform, which is visible in every single society ever encountered.

...I hope this has been of some value to you.

More than you could possibly know.

I have this image of you leaning back in a plush leather chair, bridging your fingers and chuckling a quiet "mwahahahaha...".

...My own perspective? Well, I'm afraid I don't have time to be exhaustive (I only have computer access at work and, much as I'd like to scam the corporate bloodsuckers all day, I can't)...

After reading these sentences above I found it very interesting that you began to describe lyour views on labor, production, and efficiency. I can't help but wonder if your employer is getting "fair trade" for the compensation that is paid to you. I don't see the emoticon that vomits or I'd insert it here.

You really are a little charmer, aren't you?

DP

It's a simple fact, communisom doesn't fail, it's the people, they want indivuality so the more people the more it will fail. Now if communsiom was applied to say Kuwait it might work...

Communism doesn't work because we are all Greedy. Hence, Greedy as a pig.

Communism is perfect. But unfortunately we arent. We want to aspire to be more than just worker ants, or a small little cog in a machine. Also, Communism failed in, if everything is provided, we would have no desire to work hard, but just slack off. Why should I work harder? Not like the government is going to give us anything anymore.

Also, the major downfall of communism in most communist countries is corruption. You see the citizens starving yet their leader gets to eat all the goodies Communism has to offer.

Fault is in the human factor.

Some might debate, that the world doesn't have enough resource that everybody would live a moderate happy well fed 3 meals a day.

That sound of air escaping from your over-inflated head was caused by my sharp criticism taking a jab at your irrational fondness, appreciation, and viewed importance of art on society in general. :P

Hmm. You're quite creative for a philistine!

You're right, definatley, but what has that got to do with the argument. (actually, what have I got to do with this argument, but thats off the point)

That sound of air escaping from your over-inflated head was caused by my sharp criticism taking a jab at your irrational fondness, appreciation, and viewed importance of art on society in general. :P

Hmm. You're quite creative for a philistine!

You're right, definatley, but what has that got to do with the argument. (actually, what have I got to do with this argument, but thats off the point)

I'm not sure any more, to be honest. It's all got a wee bit messy. Oops.

DP

I find that the reason Communism as a whole fails, is human nature. Communism is just the twisted perversion of Socialism, a system in which all persons are treated equal, and, when it comes down to financial terms, all get an equal slice of the economic pie. The problem with this system is that someone always finds a loophole. As it said in Animal Farm by George Orwell, 'All...are created equal, but some [the communist pigs who take over Animal Farm] are more equal than others.'
Unless there is some way to override human greed and ego, there will never be true socialism as Marx, the politician who began the idea.
As in the words of Quinn of Sealab 2021, "Hasn't history shown us that Marx's dream of an egalitarian utopia is unatainable, inevitably creating an oligarchy more opressive to the proloteriat than the bouguasie it's supposed to villify?"

I find that the reason Communism as a whole fails, is human nature. Communism is just the twisted perversion of Socialism, a system in which all persons are treated equal, and, when it comes down to financial terms, all get an equal slice of the economic pie. The problem with this system is that someone always finds a loophole. As it said in Animal Farm by George Orwell, 'All...are created equal, but some [the communist pigs who take over Animal Farm] are more equal than others.'
Unless there is some way to override human greed and ego, there will never be true socialism as Marx, the politician who began the idea.
As in the words of Quinn of Sealab 2021, "Hasn't history shown us that Marx's dream of an egalitarian utopia is unatainable, inevitably creating an oligarchy more opressive to the proloteriat than the bouguasie it's supposed to villify?"

Firstly Communism only ever works in theory. For a communist society to work people need to be completely unselfish ie. If you worked your whole life to become a doctor you would still get paid as much as the guy that cleans the streets. This leads to the problem of a society that has very few intellectuals or academics. Another problem with TRUE communism is the lack of any votes at all and the unlimited power of the state. This in theory is all right with a perfect leader, but this is rarely achieved, with power hungry maniacs usually winning.
Socialism on the other hand still allows you to make more money the harder you work. This in turn leads to the betterment of bussinesses (and thus growth of economy) when money is spent. Socialism allows capatalism but is still fair to the poor. This is the most realistic far left wing government. But Probably the key to the argument-Democracy. It may sound American and "Evil" to extreme leftwingers, but it is the most fair form of government to date. If the majority don't like the ruler he's (or she) voted out. If History has taught us anything it is that Men become corrupt and with democracy when this happens the corruption can be stopped.

The Money argument is crazy. Money is a tool, not an evil scheme, it simply makes life easier. This means at the end of a week instead of getting a sofa you get the luxuary of buying what you need.

As it said in Animal Farm by George Orwell, 'All...are created equal, but some [the communist pigs who take over Animal Farm] are more equal than others.'

of course, orwell was a trot-leaning libertarian socialist. animal farm is a fairly standard trotskyist reading of what went wrong with the russian revolution.

Socialism allows capatalism...

no, it doesn't. socialism allows for a market, but socialism is not worthy of the name if it allows capitalism. you mean social democracy.

But Probably the key to the argument-Democracy. It may sound American and "Evil" to extreme leftwingers, but it is the most fair form of government to date.

but then again, members of the ultra-left and libertarian socialist camps are much more thorough going and consistent democrats than people pushing psuedo-democratic 'democracies'.

but then again, members of the ultra-left and libertarian socialist camps are much more thorough going and consistent democrats than people pushing psuedo-democratic 'democracies'.

This is a good point. Many people seem to equate capitalism with democracy, yet I don't see how capitalism is democratic. Why should democracy have no place at work?

What disappoints me is that so many are prepared to fight tooth and nail for unproven ideals. We don't know if libertarianism can work, we don't know if communism can work. I suspect neither can, not without a sea change in human nature.

but then again, members of the ultra-left and libertarian socialist camps are much more thorough going and consistent democrats than people pushing psuedo-democratic 'democracies'.

This is a good point. Many people seem to equate capitalism with democracy, yet I don't see how capitalism is democratic. Why should democracy have no place at work?

What disappoints me is that so many are prepared to fight tooth and nail for unproven ideals. We don't know if libertarianism can work, we don't know if communism can work. I suspect neither can, not without a sea change in human nature.

Wow, suddenly your less radical in your written opinions...I see progress here from this Progressive. Keep this up, it is far more becoming of someone who is good at that debate - there's no question that you are smart enough.

If that came across as condescending, I apologize...it was the only way I could give you a pat on the head for showing some true growth even though I don't subscribe to your ideals.

This is a good point. Many people seem to equate capitalism with democracy, yet I don't see how capitalism is democratic. Why should democracy have no place at work?

Democracy, and more appropriately the Rule of Law, at least in the context of Western Enlightenment Philosophy, is letting individuals work out their own problems with minimal government interference.

The owner of a workplace has the right to make his workplace democratic, tyrannical, etc., so long as he is not positively violating the rights of anyone else (i.e. by stelaing their money or killing them).

Forcing quote, "Democracy" in private institutions goes against the very thing democracy was created to do: protect the rights and liberty of the individual. In that case, democracy is no different than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

What disappoints me is that so many are prepared to fight tooth and nail for unproven ideals. We don't know if libertarianism can work, we don't know if communism can work. I suspect neither can, not without a sea change in human nature.

Well it's better to advocate the whole thing and get half then to advocate nothing and twiddle your thumbs while society goes to hell in a basket.

but then again, members of the ultra-left and libertarian socialist camps are much more thorough going and consistent democrats than people pushing psuedo-democratic 'democracies'.

This is a good point. Many people seem to equate capitalism with democracy, yet I don't see how capitalism is democratic. Why should democracy have no place at work?

What disappoints me is that so many are prepared to fight tooth and nail for unproven ideals. We don't know if libertarianism can work, we don't know if communism can work. I suspect neither can, not without a sea change in human nature.

Wow, suddenly your less radical in your written opinions...I see progress here from this Progressive. Keep this up, it is far more becoming of someone who is good at that debate - there's no question that you are smart enough.

If that came across as condescending, I apologize...it was the only way I could give you a pat on the head for showing some true growth even though I don't subscribe to your ideals.

Erm... OK, I'll let you off the Fido treatment. To be fair, I've not really changed my views and therefore there's been no growth in the fashion you describe. At no point - I think - have I espoused 'communism or nothing'. I'm not a communist/socialist, at least not according to conventional wisdom. I think I've been conciliatory (if irreverent) throughout. I'm not sure what label applies to me (nor am I sure I want a label).

Anyway, I've noticed that you're very keen on your economic theory. The level of research you produce is commendable. However, I do have my concern over the way you seem to hold it up as irrefutable hard fact. Economics is not a science (perhaps a pseudo-science), and even if it were it would still be susceptible to new thinking and ideas - witness the evolution of physics, for example. I feel like I say this all the time to people on left and right: please consider that you might be mistaken.

Uh. Woof, woof.

*wags tail, hopes for bone*

The owner of a workplace has the right to make his workplace democratic, tyrannical, etc., so long as he is not positively violating the rights of anyone else (i.e. by stelaing their money or killing them).

Forcing quote, "Democracy" in private institutions goes against the very thing democracy was created to do: protect the rights and liberty of the individual. In that case, democracy is no different than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

maybe its just me, but i don't see the distinction between public and private institutions in this case. isn't a country under a king or a dictator essentially the private property of that ruler? under the system that the liberal revolutions overthrew this was explictily the case - the entire country was the king's land, which he allows you to use under a certain set of conditions. therefore it should be totally up to the king whether he lets you little people have any say in how he runs the place, no? if you don't like the rules you can always move.

and before you say that the difference is that state can use force, i would like to remind you that without the use of force you would be unable to stop people from trespassing. and under a system based even more strongly around private property, property owners would be allowed to 'privately' use any level of force to 'protect their property'.

so just why should people have a say in the running of the country they live in? and why shouldn't they have one in the places where they are required to spend a large portion of their waking hours?

Communism doesn't work. Period.

Agreed.

Communism doesn't work. Period.

What tyoe of communism are you talking about, so that we're all on the same page?

The owner of a workplace has the right to make his workplace democratic, tyrannical, etc., so long as he is not positively violating the rights of anyone else (i.e. by stelaing their money or killing them).

So coersion is bad in one case and a form of freedom in another. How inconsistant.

Forcing quote, "Democracy" in private institutions goes against the very thing democracy was created to do: protect the rights and liberty of the individual. In that case, democracy is no different than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Unless that individual doesn't have anything to sell but their labor, in which case they don't matter and should do whatever the boss says.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

...Unless that individual doesn't have anything to sell but their labor, in which case they don't matter and should do whatever the boss says.

If an individual is only able to peddle their labor services to one bidder then perhaps that individual should just grab their ankles and be a victim to their own stupidity.

If an individual is only able to peddle their labor services to one bidder then perhaps that individual should just grab their ankles and be a victim to their own stupidity.

It takes more than choice to make it free. If you are forced to die but choose how, you aren't free and if you are forced to take orders but choose who orders you around, you also aren't free.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Letila,

I saw where on another thread (best Debaters) you were clamoring for someone to notice you and to recognize you for your debating prowess.

What if one of the game’s moderators stepped up - in an effort to provide equality for the self-esteem of all - and made the decision to limit replies to the post so that no one could identify a favorite poster as long as someone else had already mentioned (in other words, no one’s name could be selected more than once). In your eyes, would this cheapen any acknowledgement that you would get? Would the popular posters – the ones whose names were mentioned several times – feel cheated that the other participants were not able to practice discrimination (the modern day dirty word for choice) for whom they found the best debaters.

Now, what if the game’s moderators made sure that they enforced this equality of recognition by editing posts to ensure that the policy was complied with? How many would be willing to participate if they had to post the names of people that they really didn’t wish to select – would participation decrease?

Now, what if the same moderators made it compulsory to participate, what then?

Now, what if a less dictatorial moderator decided on another gimmick along the same lines of equality but so that participation wouldn’t suffer so much (assuming that it would suffer). What if the moderator had different categories – ones other than best debater; such as best tagline or best personal image displayed – so that everyone could be somewhat of an individual and be recognized differently as long as the recognition was positive recognition and everyone was recognized positively for some talent/skill.

But what if a more controlling moderator or moderatos came along and made sure – in the interest of diversity of dialogue and equal attention that all would receive - that an individual poster had to respond to just as many posts to those of whom they wanted to engage than those of whom they wanted to refrain from. How long would it take before individuals wanted to leave the forum? Now, what if in order to keep the forum alive, the moderators collaborated and made sure that no individual could leave and also made sure that all the individuals abided by the set policies; how long before there was a major revolt?

And how long would it be before the moderators used some creative virus spreader so that your ability to post on another message board was disabled? You do see the parallels, don’t you? No, probably not!

What I believe it comes down to, is:

"Why should I have to do any more work than anyone else if we all will be paid the same?"

In communism, very little incentive is given to encourage people to do a good job.

What I believe it comes down to, is:

"Why should I have to do any more work than anyone else if we all will be paid the same?"

In communism, very little incentive is given to encourage people to do a good job.

Communists/Marxists believe that we would and should work as hard as we can so that we can produce the most/best and therefore be good men, giving as we are able and taking as we need.

In capitalism very little incentive is given to encourage people to do a good job. Rather incentive is given those who can fire their fellow brothers with no remorse and induce near-slave working conditions on others with the least resistance.

...In capitalism very little incentive is given to encourage people to do a good job. Rather incentive is given those who can fire their fellow brothers with no remorse and induce near-slave working conditions on others with the least resistance.

It is interesting that those "near-slave working conditions" that you write of happen in a free society with quite possibly the highest standard of living. Very queer indeed!

What disappoints me is that so many are prepared to fight tooth and nail for unproven ideals. We don't know if libertarianism can work, we don't know if communism can work. I suspect neither can, not without a sea change in human nature.

Well it's better to advocate the whole thing and get half then to advocate nothing and twiddle your thumbs while society goes to hell in a basket.

Fair enough.

My comment was badly worded. I'm dismayed at the dogmatic "my way or nothing" perspective of many who argue for extreme ideals. It's a little thing, but it would be great to see more people acknowledge that they and their beloved theories are not infallible.

...In capitalism very little incentive is given to encourage people to do a good job. Rather incentive is given those who can fire their fellow brothers with no remorse and induce near-slave working conditions on others with the least resistance.

It is interesting that those "near-slave working conditions" that you write of happen in a free society with quite possibly the highest standard of living. Very queer indeed!

Ever seen the DeBeer's factories in India? Nike factories in China, Maybe the Mexican Maquilladora. People still die because of capitalist enterprise. People shouldn't be so naive as to think that the few working rights that we have in this country have all been strongly opposed by capitalism and businesses.

"Why should I have to do any more work than anyone else if we all will be paid the same?"

Because productivity is respected. Besides, if you're living life just to gain stuff, you're living for the wrong reasons.

It is interesting that those "near-slave working conditions" that you write of happen in a free society with quite possibly the highest standard of living. Very queer indeed!

US, free? Hardly. I don't remember getting a chance to consent to going to school, paying taxes, or signing up for selective service.

Ever seen the DeBeer's factories in India? Nike factories in China, Maybe the Mexican Maquilladora. People still die because of capitalist enterprise. People shouldn't be so naive as to think that the few working rights that we have in this country have all been strongly opposed by capitalism and businesses.

Exactly. People in other countries pay even more for the wealth of the rich.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

...

US, free? Hardly. I don't remember getting a chance to consent to going to school, paying taxes, or signing up for selective service.

Would you rather be uneducated, without infrastructure, and live in fear of invasion?

US, free? Hardly. I don't remember getting a chance to consent to going to school, paying taxes, or signing up for selective service.

Would you rather be uneducated, without infrastructure, and live in fear of invasion?

You frikin' Marxists here on this forum are all over the place. What do you people like doing, arguing for arguments sake?

Oh and Don, when you say that capitalists have no incentive to do a good job...does this mean that you feel that doing a sloppy job somehow nets one more of a market share?

actually, people have more incentive to work in a market economy.

But the idea in a Marxist society is that everyone is motivated not by greed. Instead of working to get more money, you work to better society. It relies on a very optimistic view of human nature.

actually, people have more incentive to work in a market economy.

not in a capitalist market economy. unless you buy into the myth that working hard is how you advance. nevermind that the people who work hard are the ones who get the least out of a capitalist society. the real incentive in a capitalist economy is to become a capitalist - to own a bit of the means of production and get other people (specifically those hard working suckers) to work for you. those hard working types don't so much get to be capitalists.

What I believe it comes down to, is:

"Why should I have to do any more work than anyone else if we all will be paid the same?"

In communism, very little incentive is given to encourage people to do a good job.

Communists/Marxists believe that we would and should work as hard as we can so that we can produce the most/best and therefore be good men, giving as we are able and taking as we need.

In capitalism very little incentive is given to encourage people to do a good job. Rather incentive is given those who can fire their fellow brothers with no remorse and induce near-slave working conditions on others with the least resistance.

Oh sure there is incetives..it's called a payraise....bonuses..merit pay, increased vacation time..etc..

actually, people have more incentive to work in a market economy.

not in a capitalist market economy. unless you buy into the myth that working hard is how you advance. nevermind that the people who work hard are the ones who get the least out of a capitalist society. the real incentive in a capitalist economy is to become a capitalist - to own a bit of the means of production and get other people (specifically those hard working suckers) to work for you. those hard working types don't so much get to be capitalists.

Would you consider "advancing" to mean sucessful? You do realize that many people define the meaning of sucess or "advancing", differently.

You also realize that "hard working" means diffent things to different people as well. See, when I see you write, "to own a bit of the means of production and get other people (specifically those hard working suckers) to work for you... I immediately thought that you were probably a lazy pig that really want to be compensated well even though you detest the system...on the other hand, I thought that maybe you are a hard working sucker - sucking off the teet of someone else who you should probably thank for giving you a job.

US, free? Hardly. I don't remember getting a chance to consent to going to school, paying taxes, or signing up for selective service.

Would you rather be uneducated, without infrastructure, and live in fear of invasion?

You frikin' Marxists here on this forum are all over the place. What do you people like doing, arguing for arguments sake?

Oh and Don, when you say that capitalists have no incentive to do a good job...does this mean that you feel that doing a sloppy job somehow nets one more of a market share?

I simply meant that in a capitalist society, those that work (manual labor) gain nothing. while those that do nothing (Officers and Board Members) gain the most.

I forget which NSer said this but

Communism doesn't work cause people like to own stuff

Oh sure there is incetives..it's called a payraise....bonuses..merit pay, increased vacation time..etc..

You call those incentives? Consider this, in a socialist economy there would not be money, so there goes the first three incentives (all money-related, what a queer thing)

Vacation? How many hours do you work? You'd be working half that in a communist society where overproduction and consumer reliance weren't the only thing running the economy.

And Stableness, do you have any clue of to what the labor theory of value is?

Well, in case you didnt know...

The LTV is the theory that market prices are attracted by prices proportional to the labor time embodied in commodities. In other words, relative prices tend towards relative labor values.

Do they? I don't think so... because not only is the labor underpaid. But the products are over priced, and hence we have profit margins. What corporations and share holders rely on for their livelihoods.

Here's an example of how capitalism works concerning the labor theory of value.

Joe makes 100 tacos an hour. Those tacos sell for $100. The cost of capital (beef, cheese, lettuce, taco shells, utensil, _capital_) cost around $10 for that 1 hour of use. Joe gets paid $8 an hour, so the total cost is $18. and $82 are made in profits. Now, using the labor theory of value... Joe should either be getting paid $90 an hour, or the cost of 100 tacos should be around $18.

This is how capitalists justify m1 < m2. Because the capitalist (CEO of tacos4u) bought that meat, lettuce, taco shells, and _capital_. And hired that labor, capitalists think that he has the right to all of the money that Joe made in profits for however long he works.

Really makes sense huh? :roll:

I'll tell you why, because it eliminates competition. Why would I want to go to college a long time to get a degree if I wasn't going to get paid more and have a nicer house than the Taco Bell worker that lives in the small apartment and has no education.

I'll tell you why, because it eliminates competition. Why would I want to go to college a long time to get a degree if I wasn't going to get paid more and have a nicer house than the Taco Bell worker that lives in the small apartment and has no education.

Because you enjoy learning and wanted the degree so that you could be a more effecient worker in whichever field you choose to work. If a house is all that matters to you, then sure, capitalism is for you.

Communism is for those of us that believe that both you and the taco bell worker both contributng to society should have equal living conditions.

I forget which NSer said this but

Communism doesn't work cause people like to own stuff

of course, you can own stuff under communism. you just can't own stuff that allows you to earn a living off of the work of others. we aren't after your toothbrush.

I forget which NSer said this but

Communism doesn't work cause people like to own stuff

of course, you can own stuff under communism. you just can't own stuff that allows you to earn a living off of the work of others. we aren't after your toothbrush.

Exactly, Communism is simply the public ownership of the means of production (capital). Eloquently put comrade.

Oh sure there is incetives..it's called a payraise....bonuses..merit pay, increased vacation time..etc..

You call those incentives? Consider this, in a socialist economy there would not be money, so there goes the first three incentives (all money-related, what a queer thing)

Vacation? How many hours do you work? You'd be working half that in a communist society where overproduction and consumer reliance weren't the only thing running the economy.

And Stableness, do you have any clue of to what the labor theory of value is?

Well, in case you didnt know...

The LTV is the theory that market prices are attracted by prices proportional to the labor time embodied in commodities. In other words, relative prices tend towards relative labor values.

Do they? I don't think so... because not only is the labor underpaid. But the products are over priced, and hence we have profit margins. What corporations and share holders rely on for their livelihoods.

Here's an example of how capitalism works concerning the labor theory of value.

Joe makes 100 tacos an hour. Those tacos sell for $100. The cost of capital (beef, cheese, lettuce, taco shells, utensil, _capital_) cost around $10 for that 1 hour of use. Joe gets paid $8 an hour, so the total cost is $18. and $82 are made in profits. Now, using the labor theory of value... Joe should either be getting paid $90 an hour, or the cost of 100 tacos should be around $18.

This is how capitalists justify m1 < m2. Because the capitalist (CEO of tacos4u) bought that meat, lettuce, taco shells, and _capital_. And hired that labor, capitalists think that he has the right to all of the money that Joe made in profits for however long he works.

Really makes sense huh? :roll:

No, I have never heard of the Labor Theory of Value! But as you have defined it, it seems to be a stinking load of horsesh-t. Your theory falls apart when you consider that if someone overpaid their employees they should be able to charge a higher price for the finished good or service that that employee produced - this ignores what the consumer's reaction would be on the buying end.

Supply & demand set the price. Many factors go into each and I could give you a lesson if you like but labor is but one input in the supply equation and it is only one part of the costs of production.

Here's another point for your Tacos4U example. It would take about a "New York minute" for other entrepenuers to realize that the profit margin of the taco making market was extremely high. Because of the witnessing of economies of scale for the industry, many would be attracted to also produce and sell tacos, because that's where the money is. This trend would continue until the whole sum of the entire industry realized a zero economic profit - some would make a profit some would lose money. Eventually all the competition would drive down prices so that the industry as a whole made just enough to create a zero "economic profit" condition.

*note* that in economics, an economic profit and an accounting profit are two different things.

M1 is always going to be smaller than M2 or even M3 because of the way that they are defined: M3=illiquid assets+M2+M1; M2=liquid assets+M1.

But I do know what your getting at. You'd like to see no one be able to invest in order to make a profit because you believe in sharing. You further believe that someone like me has bad intentions because I seek not equality of wealth but I instead seek the desire to better my living standard through the accumulation and management of wealth.

Every idealist (marxist) I have ever debated has a fundemental desire to pratice capitalism on some level with something that they value in their lives, even if the thing of value to them is something intangible. Look at Letita's seeking of recognition as an example. Put a different way, on some level everyone seeks to be compensated for what value they feel they can add to a community of individuals - even if those individuals share a fondness for collectivism. Now, not everyone seeks compensation in the form of money or commodities that get traded, sometimes it's praise or influence (but it's always something).

Am I making any sense to you :?:

No, I have never heard of the Labor Theory of Value! But as you have defined it, it seems to be a stinking load of horsesh-t. Your theory falls apart when you consider that if someone overpaid their employees they should be able to charge a higher price for the finished good or service that that employee produced - this ignores what the consumer's reaction would be on the buying end.
More specifically, if an employer paid their employees living wages we would find that the final goods were more affordable and profit margins would be lower. And following your example, the CEO's that pay themselves millions of dollars a year, yeah, the consumers don't react, because they aren't concious as a class. They just think that's how life has to be.
Supply & demand set the price. Many factors go into each and I could give you a lesson if you like but labor is but one input in the supply equation and it is only one part of the costs of production.
Supply and Demand set price? Hmm, maybe in Adam Smith's world, where there would be no patents, trade secrets, or product differentiation. Rather, the business set price by brainwashing the masses into "Demanding" those superfluous goods that no one in their right mind could actually need.
Of the _three_ factors that go into production, land, labor, and capital, it is a _well_ known fact that labor is the most cost demanding of those _three_. When businesses need to cut costs, what do they do? Sell the land that their factories sit on? Maybe they sell their equipment? Perhaps they lay off their workers or offer them a lower wage? Just look at the country today...
Here's another point for your Tacos4U example. It would take about a "New York minute" for other entrepenuers to realize that the profit margin of the taco making market was extremely high. Because of the witnessing of economies of scale for the industry, many would be attracted to also produce and sell tacos, because that's where the money is. This trend would continue until the whole sum of the entire industry realized a zero economic profit - some would make a profit some would lose money. Eventually all the competition would drive down prices so that the industry as a whole made just enough to create a zero "economic profit" condition.
Ever heard of market concentration? Maybe barriers to entry in the market? Back to my Tacos4u example. Let's say Tacos4u has a patent on their logo, their slogan, even the types of food that the sell. And Tacos4allofus decides that since the market is so lucrative, they can jump on in and take some of those windfall profits? Not so, Tacos4u will come out with a campaign that says they have the best tacos in the world, and people will believe it. They will sue Tacos4allofus because "stole" their 'mexican pizza' and tried to market "their" product. Or perhaps we can look at the other spectrum, Tacos4u will say, no, you either get out of the business or will flood the market with even cheaper tacos driving you out of business because you can't take the losses that we can. Or they'll say, you have to sell out to us or we'll flood the market. Both are examples of market concentration and that's assuming that Tacos4allofus can enter into the market.
Your example of "zero economic profit" has shown all of us one thing that has happened over the interminable lifespan of capitalism. Mergers and market concentration.
*note* that in economics, an economic profit and an accounting profit are two different things.
Agreed.
M1 is always going to be smaller than M2 or even M3 because of the way that they are defined: M3=illiquid assets+M2+M1; M2=liquid assets+M1.
When I said M1 I meant (initial amount money) and M2 (larger amount of money). Not the total money supply. Marx argued that M1 could never transmogrify into M2 without the exploitation of labor. I had hoped this was common knowledge.
But I do know what your getting at. You'd like to see no one be able to invest in order to make a profit because you believe in sharing. You further believe that someone like me has bad intentions because I seek not equality of wealth but I instead seek the desire to better my living standard through the accumulation and management of wealth.
It's been proven that the only way to better your standard of living is through the immiseration and exploitation of others (usually in the working class).
Every idealist (marxist) I have ever debated has a fundemental desire to pratice capitalism on some level with something that they value in their lives, even if the thing of value to them is something intangible. Look at Letita's seeking of recognition as an example. Put a different way, on some level everyone seeks to be compensated for what value they feel they can add to a community of individuals - even if those individuals share a fondness for collectivism. Now, not everyone seeks compensation in the form of money or commodities that get traded, sometimes it's praise or influence (but it's always something).
Agreed, people want recognition, but that's partly because people believe that they are entitled to what they think and do, and there would be recognition in a Marxist society but it wouldn't be in the form of brand name goods it be in the fact that you could say "I made the world a better place" "I lifted my neighbor out of the gutter" "I helped those kids get and education" The difference between Marxists, and others is that they believe they deserve to better themselves, not the community. I don't know what Letila's all about but I challenge him/her to learn more about the fundamentals of capitalism, the abstract capitalism we have today, and then learn about the true Marxist ideals, the changing of a society based on bettering oneself to the type of society where we better the community. Not the 20-people-can-peacefully-exist-on-an-island-somwhere-with-no-money-and-no-government. He/She speaks of all the time.
Am I making any sense to you :?:
Yeah you're making sense to me, but most of your assumptions are based on true capitalism which we don't have today, we have government-protected neo-liberal capitalism.

Every idealist (marxist) I have ever debated has a fundemental desire to pratice capitalism on some level with something that they value in their lives, even if the thing of value to them is something intangible.

capitalism =/= compensation

capitalism = private ownership of the means of production and distribution + exploitation of labor through the wage system