NationStates Jolt Archive

I have not a clue who the farmer was. All I can say is if he destroyed other people's property and got away with it, that's too bad. Criminals should be prosecuted.
Especially the criminals who destroy our environment to make money like those capitalist farmers were. I suppose you never hear about this because your medias are biased.

Then defend your freedom not to work 18 hours a day for $2 instead of defending some useless freedom.
? i already do. i don't see these freedoms as "useless," either...i see freedom of choice (for both employer and employee) as extremely useful, and the world economy appears to agree with me. you may think these freedoms are wicked or wrong, but i don't see how you can possibly argue that they aren't useful.

It doesn't. Where the funds come from doesn't change how inovation is done.

Not really. Capitalist innovation usually stems from competition. In a desire to gain the most customers and therefore the most profit, companies will constantly try and outdo eachother in product quality and competitive pricing. If government holds a monopoly on industry, there's nobody to compete with, so who cares if the work is shoddy.

This happened in the USSR, and now in this instance I don't care if the USSR "wasn't real communism", the only point I'm making is about centralized monopoly on industry. Whether or not the USSR was communist, the removal of capitalist-style competition in industrial production meant people built shitty tractors with missing parts, slapped together low quality buildings, and so on.

They only did what they needed to do in order to save themselves from the gulags, they had "the stick" as punishment, but no "carrot" to make them want to produce better stuff.

? i already do. i don't see these freedoms as "useless," either...i see freedom of choice (for both employer and employee) as extremely useful, and the world economy appears to agree with me. you may think these freedoms are wicked or wrong, but i don't see how you can possibly argue that they aren't useful.They are useless because nobody want to work 18 hours a day for $2

....Yeah that is an argument against monopolization of industry. In my country for instance, the state controls several competing banks.

Maybe where you live. Here capitalism is not liked that much. McDonalds stores are destroyed and people tend to be annoyed by aggressive marketing practices.

But when I go on holiday to mainland Europe, I can still get a cheap burger or a packet of crisps or a can of coke or whatever just as easily. I think your region's McDonald-pillaging must be a localized phenomenom.

But when I go on holiday to mainland Europe, I can still get a cheap burger or a packet of crisps or a can of coke or whatever just as easily. I think your region's McDonald-pillaging must be a localized phenomenom.
Did you ask the people on the street what they think about coca-cola, McDonalds, vivendi or HSBC?

Yeah that is an argument against monopolization of industry. In my country for instance, the state controls several competing banks.

If the state controls them, they aren't competing.

If the state controls them, they aren't competing.Why? What is the link between your cause and your conclusion?

Did you ask the people on the street what they think about coca-cola, McDonalds, vivendi or HSBC?

Nope. On the occassions I can remember, I just assumed they were satisfied, because they were, you know, buying burgers and coke as well. Maybe it was just some kind of really subtle protest. Who knows.

Maybe where you live. Here capitalism is not liked that much. McDonalds stores are destroyed and people tend to be annoyed by aggressive marketing practices.
don't you live in france? in the uk we love capitalism. we have something like 75% of the EU credit card debt.

Nope. On the occassions I can remember, I just assumed they were satisfied, because they were, you know, buying burgers and coke as well. Maybe it was just some kind of really subtle protest. Who knows.
Well ask them and you will see they usually don't like it and feel invaded by corporations. Actually in France people tend to boycott big corporations when they still have the choice.

Nope. On the occassions I can remember, I just assumed they were satisfied, because they were, you know, buying burgers and coke as well. Maybe it was just some kind of really subtle protest. Who knows.

so were more people buying burgers than not buying burgers? did you see an overwhelming majority of the population eating macds?

Why? What is the link between your cause and your conclusion?

Well, if one business entity controls two outlets, their proceeds will both go to the one entity. It is not in the interest of one to outdo the other, since they are both essentially the same thing. In capitalism, different businesses are all trying to make profit by providing better service than their competitors. But two different McDonalds chains have no reason to try and beat eachother, because they're the same company. You see?

Well, if one business entity controls two outlets, their proceeds will both go to the one entity. It is not in the interest of one to outdo the other, since they are both essentially the same thing. In capitalism, different businesses are all trying to make profit by providing better service than their competitors. But two different McDonalds chains have no reason to try and beat eachother, because they're the same company. You see?
Ah but they compete on profits, not on quality of service and on price.

so were more people buying burgers than not buying burgers? did you see an overwhelming majority of the population eating macds?

I wasn't really performing too detailed a fast-food survey, but when I've eaten in fast-food joints in Europe, they generally seemed to be getting enough customers. Who knows, maybe it was a coincidence and just a load of europeans happened to stop boycotting big business just on those very occassions.

Ah but they compete on profits, not on quality of service and on price.

Yeah, and profit is determined by quality and price. If a company has low quality goods at unreasonable prices, nobody's gonna shop there, and they'll lose profit.

I wasn't really performing too detailed a fast-food survey, but when I've eaten in fast-food joints in Europe, they generally seemed to be getting enough customers. Who knows, maybe it was a coincidence and just a load of europeans happened to stop boycotting big business just on those very occassions.
The problem is that you can't really avoid them nowadays. You can eat at McDonalds and don't like it.

Yeah, and profit is determined by quality and price. If a company has low quality goods at unreasonable prices, nobody's gonna shop there, and they'll lose profit.
except when they have a monopoly or when they hide the price in India or when they destroy your environment.

There is no problem with communism, it is just the way that the rest of the world, mostly capitalism, sees it and uses its different ways to show the world its flaws, sort of like a racial thing, but with parties, the capitalists are just threatened by it.

Yeah, and profit is determined by quality and price. If a company has low quality goods at unreasonable prices, nobody's gonna shop there, and they'll lose profit.

are you telling me that in capitalist economies there are no shoddy goods, unreasonable prices, unscrupulous traders etc? what bollocks.

are you telling me that in capitalist economies there are no shoddy goods, unreasonable prices, unscrupulous traders etc? what bollocks.

Of course there's dodgy dealing in capitalist society. However, when such traders are found out, they usually lose business very quickly.

The problem is that you can't really avoid them nowadays. You can eat at McDonalds and don't like it.

There are still many small businesses, restaurants run by small-scale entrepeneurs and the like. But I guess they're all capitalist pigs too right? Well yes, if you really feel you can't eat at a food-provider which isn't capitalist, then you're right. I don't know of any public sector restaurants.


except when they have a monopoly or when they hide the price in India or when they destroy your environment.


So your remedy for a temporary private-sector monopoly is to install a permenant state monopoly? That's a really bright idea.

So your remedy for a temporary private-sector monopoly is to install a permenant state monopoly? That's a really bright idea.
The idea is that you can have several organisations competing with each other and redistribute all the profits to the people. You don't need a lord to get the profits.

The idea is that you can have several organisations competing with each other and redistribute the profits of both to the people.

As I recall, that's what the Soviet Union did, for instance, with design bureaus.

As I recall, it's one of the things that caused the economic collapse.

The idea is that you can have several organisations competing with each other and redistribute all the profits to the people. You don't need a lord to get the profits.

In nationalized industry, the state becomes the lord. I'd rather have several lords competing to provide me with service than have one lord pumping out government-issue food and clothing and telling me what I have to do.

As I recall, that's what the Soviet Union did, for instance, with design bureaus.

As I recall, it's one of the things that caused the economic collapse.Fortunatelly in several countries it works better than in the USSR.

In nationalized industry, the state becomes the lord. I'd rather have several lords competing to provide me with service than have one lord pumping out government-issue food and clothing and telling me what I have to do.It is not the government, it is the people.

It is not the government, it is the people.

Ok, let me rephrase. I'd rather have several lords competing to provide me with service than have one group of people pumping out people-issue food and clothing and telling me what I have to do.

Ok, let me rephrase. I'd rather have several lords competing to provide me with service than have one group of people pumping out people-issue food and clothing and telling me what I have to do.
You are part of the group.

You are part of the group.

Yes, but the rest of the group outnumbers me so grossly that I can't possibly make my own decisions. I want to be able to choose what I do with my effort and the wealth I create or exchange, not have everybody else tell me what to do with it.

It is not the government, it is the people.

You're arguing a theoretical here because no government, socialist or otherwise, is truly representative of the people.

Always there is someone at the top who hijacks power.

You're arguing a theoretical here because no government, socialist or otherwise, is truly representative of the people.

Always there is someone at the top who hijacks power.
It is apparent that Psylos believes that the people at the top are gifted Socialists who would never usurp power.

Me thinks Communist society would only work if we had Borg Technology.

The collective Hive.. BzzzZzzZt

I'm not against communism, or anything, actually I'm for it, but there are problems with it.
:confused:

The Problems with Communism:
The limits on Freedom
making everybody equal can limit economical freedom, so people may not reac their full potential.
It can be very easy for somebody with power to take over and become a merciless dictator, as greed is part of human nature.
It has to be very carefully to make sure it does not turn into slave labour, particularly when it is a Communist dictatorship.

If you have any more Pros or Cons of Communism, please add them.

If you want to see the problems with Communish, go read 'Faith of the Fallen' by Terry Goodkind. Actually, read the whole series (don't mean to hijack a thread, if that means what I think it does, but it kicks ass).

It is apparent that Psylos believes that the people at the top are gifted Socialists who would never usurp power.
No I'm saying that the people on top do not have the power. They only have the power that the mass is fool enough to give them. At the end of the day the workers have the power. In a tyrany or in capitalism, they're just not well organized enough to use it.

No I'm saying that the people on top do not have the power. They only have the power that the mass is fool enough to give them. At the end of the day the workers have the power. In a tyrany or in capitalism, they're just not well organized enough to use it.

Workers have power in capitalism. Everybody has power in capitalism, power over themselves. In a tyrannical monarchy or a communist state, somebody is telling you what to do. In a capitalist state, you can choose what you do.

Id ask the people from North Korea, China and the USSR about that.
Open your ears, dipshit, it's time to learn basic English vocabulary:

THEY (refering to a group, in this case North Korea, China and the USSR)

ARE (a state of being; could also be "were," the past form of "are," in the case of the USSR since it doesn't exist anymore)

NOT (negating the verb, in this case "are")

COMMUNIST (duh)

I hope you learned something today, children.

No nation has ever claimed to have achieved Communism, people seem to forget that.
This will go on for pages with all the anti-commies completely ignoring that fact
We have a new Nostradamus.

Open your ears, dipshit, it's time to learn basic English vocabulary:

THEY (refering to a group, in this case North Korea, China and the USSR)

ARE (a state of being; could also be "were," the past form of "are," in the case of the USSR since it doesn't exist anymore)

NOT (negating the verb, in this case "are")

COMMUNIST (duh)

I hope you learned something today, children.



We have a new Nostradamus.


http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html

Communist state one-man dictatorship

Go back to school.

Go back to school.
Actually, I'm there right now...

Let fly the "use your school-time wisely" comments!

Open your ears, dipshit, it's time to learn basic English vocabulary:

THEY (refering to a group, in this case North Korea, China and the USSR)

ARE (a state of being; could also be "were," the past form of "are," in the case of the USSR since it doesn't exist anymore)

NOT (negating the verb, in this case "are")

COMMUNIST (duh)


You're a dipshit yourself. This "no communist countries were real communist countries" crap has been used over and over. They were trying to be communist, and they failed, badly, just like all other attempts have and will. "Real" communism is an asinine fantasy, and attempted communism is a stupid, brutal failure.

Actually, I'm there right now...

Let fly the "use your school-time wisely" comments!

North Korea IS a Communist state.

North Korea IS a Communist state.
It doesn't seem to think it is.

Odd that.

Open your ears, dipshit, it's time to learn basic English vocabulary:
<snip>
I hope you learned something today, children.
Today's lesson plan for The Soviet Americas. Write in longhand "I will not flame in General." 1000 times. There will be a quiz later, so take this material to heart. Clear?

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

[edit]You're a dipshit yourself.
Dogburg, 1000 lines from you as well.

Anyone else?

It doesn't seem to think it is.

Odd that.

No, they're Communist. They added the Juche idea so that they would retain some semblance of local control in the face of meddling by both Chinese and Soviet pressure.

Today's lesson plan for The Soviet Americas. Write in longhand "I will not flame in General." 1000 times. There will be a quiz later, so take this material to heart. Clear?
~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
[edit]
Dogburg, 1000 lines from you as well.
Anyone else?

Do they have to really write it.. as in really write it out? uhh.. type it out?

*tip.. Use CUt and Paste.. Tee hee*.

Communist slaps the bourgeois prick and continues: "No, let me finish. If we educate people as to the benefits of working and teach them to help their fellow man people will still be motivated to improve things. Except for a few of those ungrateful bourgeois basts- er... I mean jerks..."





Hahahahahaha



Hahahahahahaha





Hahahahahahahahahahaha





The benefits of working? Teach them to help their fellow man? Jesus, you are delusional. This is one of the basic arguements of Communism, and also the basic reason why it will always fail. People can never stop looking at what benefit they will gain from anything. Altruism is just a concept, and cannot happen. Even the most generous of people gain a sense of pride or accomplishment from helping others.

Look at how many abuses are found in the welfare system.

Let me ask some questions then, for all the Communists out there. Who will be your janitors? Who will work at your sewage treatment plants? Who will do all the jobs people hate now?

How can you tell someone who is your equal they have to do a shit job while you sit in an air conditioned office? How will you motivate someone to 'help their fellow man', when their fellow man gets to go home every night to the exact same size house, and yet he doesn't have to work in -40 degree temperatures?

How do you motivate someone above self interest? You cannot convince an entire nation to look to the needs of others above their own. It is the downfall of Communism, and WILL NEVER BE SOLVED.

You ignore the fact that if the People unite, they will not have to work as much to produce more than enough for everyone. Every will have what they need to live a comfortable life. If 6 billion people work toward this goal, then it can be accomplished.

You also do not understand the differance, or are to ignorant to understand them, between Socialism, Communism, Stalinism. You keep describing Stalinism - a form of Capitalism.

Just out of curiosity - before I continue, I'd like to know, what country did you immigrate from?

EDIT: Messed up on the quoting... This is directed toward Unistates last comment.

You ignore the fact that if the People unite, they will not have to work as much to produce more than enough for everyone. Every will have what they need to live a comfortable life. If 6 billion people work toward this goal, then it can be accomplished.

You also do not understand the differance, or are to ignorant to understand them, between Socialism, Communism, Stalinism. You keep describing Stalinism - a form of Capitalism.

Just out of curiosity - before I continue, I'd like to know, what country did you immigrate from?

Someone will still have to clean the toilets, while some will have to design buildings while sitting in an office.

Will you clean the toilets for the rest of your life, brother?

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html

Communist state one-man dictatorship

Go back to school.

You trust everything the CIA says? And your school?

Do some research, read the Manifesto, or Das Kapital. Communism is democratic.

Someone will still have to clean the toilets, while some will have to design buildings while sitting in an office.

Will you clean the toilets for the rest of your life, brother?

No, I'm not good at it. I'll contribute to society and do journalism, or be a politician, or write novels - not doing something I'd be bad at.

Oh, and Janitors don't clean toilets for a living. They take care of entire buildings.

You also do not understand the differance, or are to ignorant to understand them, between Socialism, Communism, Stalinism. You keep describing Stalinism - a form of Capitalism.

Just out of curiosity - before I continue, I'd like to know, what country did you immigrate from?

EDIT: Messed up on the quoting... This is directed toward Unistates last comment.

I believe YOU may need to actual READ 'The Wealth of Nations' by Adam Smith (Father of Modern Capitalism) if YOU believe that Stalinism was ANYTHING LIKE, let alone have anything in common, with Capitalism!

Regards,
Gaar

I believe YOU may need to actual READ 'The Wealth of Nations' by Adam Smith (Father of Modern Capitalism) if YOU believe that Stalinism was ANYTHING LIKE, let alone have anything in common, with Capitalism!

Regards,
Gaar

Been there, done that. Capitalism has evolved a bit since the 1700s, buddy. You might want to live in the present day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

No, I'm not good at it. I'll contribute to society and do journalism, or be a politician, or write novels - not doing something I'd be bad at.

Oh, and Janitors don't clean toilets for a living. They take care of entire buildings.

In most Communistic Societies you are not given a choice what you want to do, you are given a test...

And then they "place you" in the Profession that "suits you" best.

After all, if people got to "choose" how many do YOU think would choose to clean the toilets? But yet someone HAS to, so to be fair some who may not like it are going to have to learn...

And if there are enough other writers, who show better than you do on the test, YOU are going to have to learn to "like" some other Profession also. But YOU won't mind will you!?!?

After all, it's for the good of everyone, right?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

No, I'm not good at it. I'll contribute to society and do journalism, or be a politician, or write novels - not doing something I'd be bad at.

Oh, and Janitors don't clean toilets for a living. They take care of entire buildings.

Not everyone does what they're good at. Not everyone does what they want to do for a living - even in a pure communist or socialist society.

There are a lot of unhappy people with no hope of changing anything.

Quite unlike the worker's paradise that was promised.

Almost as hopeless a promise as the 72 virgins - but at least those guys aren't around afterwards to find out they were robbed.

Been there, done that. Capitalism has evolved a bit since the 1700s, buddy. You might want to live in the present day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

Perhaps, but not the "principles" behind it, have they?

And since ANYONE can contribute to that "link" of yours, I'm not so sure I would be citing it as an authoritive source.

Besides, it is kind of hard to "continue" to compare Stalinism to today then, by YOUR OWN standards, since it hasn't "changed" in a while... Right?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

Perhaps, but not the "principles" behind it, have they?

And since ANYONE can contribute to that "link" of yours, I'm not so sure I would be citing it as an authoritive source.

Besides, it is kind of hard to "continue" to compare Stalinism to today then, by YOUR OWN standards, since it hasn't "changed" in a while... Right?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

A while? It's been 10 years. As opposed to the Wealth of Nations, which has aged 200 hundred years.

A while? It's been 10 years. As opposed to the Wealth of Nations, which has aged 200 hundred years.

Hmmm....

And here I thought Stalin died LONG ago...

My bad!

So just as YOU say Capitalism has "changed" since Adam Smith's time, you are then going to try and say that Stalinism hasn't changed since Stalin's time?

Do YOU get to have it BOTH ways?!?!

That's just a bit HYPOCRITICAL of you, is it not?

EDIT: And I am pretty sure that the U.S.S.R. ceased being in 1989, which would be some 16 years now, not the 10 you cite.

Regards,
Gaar

Can we please have a reasonable debate?
Please leave those stupid patriotic attitudes at your door. Let's not talk about the cold war, the US, or the USSR or some people's ego will just explode and we will end up in some stupid flame war and the world is much more than that.
Let's talk about the real issues.
Everybody agrees communism is the best system we know. Some people think it is utopic and impossible and some people think it is possible.
Well let's discuss how to achieve it. What is the best and most realist path to communism? What can we do in the world of today to make something closer to communism?

I'm not against communism, or anything, actually I'm for it, but there are problems with it.
:confused:

The Problems with Communism:
The limits on Freedom
making everybody equal can limit economical freedom, so people may not reac their full potential.
It can be very easy for somebody with power to take over and become a merciless dictator, as greed is part of human nature.
It has to be very carefully to make sure it does not turn into slave labour, particularly when it is a Communist dictatorship.

If you have any more Pros or Cons of Communism, please add them.

Theres nothing wrong with Communism..t worked for Lenin, it works for Vietnam..it can work for you too!!!!!

You ignore the fact that if the People unite, they will not have to work as much to produce more than enough for everyone. Every will have what they need to live a comfortable life. If 6 billion people work toward this goal, then it can be accomplished.

You also do not understand the differance, or are to ignorant to understand them, between Socialism, Communism, Stalinism. You keep describing Stalinism - a form of Capitalism.

Just out of curiosity - before I continue, I'd like to know, what country did you immigrate from?

EDIT: Messed up on the quoting... This is directed toward Unistates last comment.

I know someone's already complained about this, but I feel I must point this out as well. To claim that Stalin was a capitalist in any form is bullshit of the highest caliber. "State capitalism" is a contradictory, misleading term. Capitalism is the idea that the state should have absolutely no influence in the economy except where it must step in to prevent force and fraud. That's what capitalism is.

Stalin's government controlled the economy to a degree which had probably never been reached before in human history, the state ran absolutely every industry which the country had. That is the most acute opposite to capitalism which I can possibly imagine.

I know someone's already complained about this, but I feel I must point this out as well. To claim that Stalin was a capitalist in any form is bullshit of the highest caliber. "State capitalism" is a contradictory, misleading term. Capitalism is the idea that the state should have absolutely no influence in the economy except where it must step in to prevent force and fraud. That's what capitalism is.I thought capitalist was the private ownership of the capital. If the state is here to guarantee the private ownership of the capital and prevent force, then the state must use force to prevent people from violating the private capital, therefore the state must intervene in the economy. The other solution would be that the capitalists guarantee their private ownership themselves with a private police. In this case the state no longer step in to prevent force and loose its relevance. Society is no longer organized by the state but by the oligarchic capitalists. Anyway if the state exists, it will influence the economy.

I thought capitalist was the private ownership of the capital. If the state is here to guarantee the private ownership of the capital and prevent force, then the state must use force to prevent people from violating the private capital, therefore the state must intervene in the economy. The other solution would be that the capitalists guarantee their private ownership themselves with a private police. In this case the state no longer step in to prevent force and loose its relevance. Society is no longer organized by the state but by the oligarchic capitalists. Anyway if the state exists, it will influence the economy.

That's why I said something to the effect of "except to prevent force and fraud".

That's why I said something to the effect of "except to prevent force and fraud".
That is an intervention in the economy.

That is an intervention in the economy.

Read my original post.

"Capitalism is the idea that the state should have absolutely no influence in the economy except where it must step in to prevent force and fraud. That's what capitalism is."

Which part of "except where it must step in to prevent force and fraud" are you missing?

Read my original post.

"Capitalism is the idea that the state should have absolutely no influence in the economy except where it must step in to prevent force and fraud. That's what capitalism is."

Which part of "except where it must step in to prevent force and fraud" are you missing?
I can make a similar point about socialism. Socialism is the idea that the state should not intervene in the economy except when it has to.

I can make a similar point about socialism. Socialism is the idea that the state should not intervene in the economy except when it has to.

But your definition of "when it has to" is "whenever anybody owns anything", which turns into "everywhere".

But your definition of "when it has to" is "whenever anybody owns anything", which turns into "everywhere".
It is the same with capitalism. The state intervenes whenever anybody owns anything. Owning anything must be registered to the state in order to become private property and the state intervenes when it protects your property. Did you see the burocracy involved? Just to record what everybody own, to record alleged stealings and to put police patrolling private property is no small business.

It is the same with capitalism. The state intervenes whenever anybody owns anything. Owning anything must be registered to the state in orger to become private property and the state intervenes when it protects your property.

Alright, but definitions of what intervention is necessary changes. The capitalist feels that it is necessary for the state to ensure that people don't take other people's property, the communist feels that is necessary for the state to take the people's property and give it to other people.

Alright, but definitions of what intervention is necessary changes. The capitalist feels that it is necessary for the state to ensure that people don't take other people's property, the communist feels that is necessary for the state to take the people's property and give it to other people.
No the communists feels that there is no private property.

It is the same with capitalism. The state intervenes whenever anybody owns anything. Owning anything must be registered to the state in order to become private property and the state intervenes when it protects your property. Did you see the burocracy involved? Just to record what everybody own, to record alleged stealings and to put police patrolling private property is no small business.

I've invented several types of predictive neural networks that are unique. They are my ideas, and therefore my property. How would you argue that they belong to the state?

I've invented several types of predictive neural networks that are unique.
personal sidebar: whoa, COOL!

I've invented several types of predictive neural networks that are unique. They are my ideas, and therefore my property. How would you argue that they belong to the state?They belong to the people, everybody, just as the man who discovered fire discovered it for everybody or you would still be too busy hunting for eating and you wouldn't ever have invented anything.

They belong to everybody, just as the man who discovered fire discovered it for everybody.
so what is my incentive for sharing my ideas, then? it sounds like the best thing for me to do is hoard my discoveries so that people like you don't lay claim to them...why should i allow my effort to be stolen for the benefit of people who will feel no gratitude, no obligation to compensate me, no appropriate respect for my work, but only entitlement to what is not theirs?

They belong to the people, everybody, just as the man who discovered fire discovered it for everybody or you would still be too busy hunting for eating and you wouldn't ever have invented anything.

Well then, in a socialist society, I would invent these things and never tell anyone. And if someone asked me for them, I would erase the programs.

so what is my incentive for sharing my ideas, then? it sounds like the best thing for me to do is hoard my discoveries so that people like you don't lay claim to them...why should i allow my effort to be stolen for the benefit of people who will feel no gratitude, no obligation to compensate me, no appropriate respect for my work, but only entitlement to what is not theirs?
Well currently your state of mind is capitalist, that is why there must be a transition before communism. In socialism, you would get money from the state for your discovery and it would be free.

Well then, in a socialist society, I would invent these things and never tell anyone. And if someone asked me for them, I would erase the programs.
You choose, or you could just get money from the state for it.

Well currently your state of mind is capitalist, that is why there must be a transition before communism. In socialism, you would get money from the state for your discovery and it would be free.
what if i don't want money from the state for my discovery? will you just tell me that i am supposed to want it, then take what is mine against my wishes? you have given me no reason to want to help you or those like you, since you seem to primarily concern yourself with taking what isn't yours and informing anybody who works for a living that they are being selfish by not giving away their work and property...if i am going to be forced to let my discoveries support your irresponsible and disrespectful lifestyle, i have no incentive to discover in the first place.

what if i don't want money from the state for my discovery? will you just tell me that i am supposed to want it, then take what is mine against my wishes?No.
you have given me no reason to want to help you or those like you, since you seem to primarily concern yourself with taking what isn't yours and informing anybody who works for a living that they are being selfish by not giving away their work and property...if i am going to be forced to let my discoveries support your irresponsible and disrespectful lifestyle, i have no incentive to discover in the first place.
Well you choose. If you want money you will have to sell your ideas. That is what the system is about : giving incentive, not coercing.

You choose, or you could just get money from the state for it.

Not if I don't get the amount of money I think it's worth.

Not if I don't get the amount of money I think it's worth.
How much is it worth?

How much is it worth?

In consideration of its accuracy in achieving results in superresolution, it might be worth millions of dollars in a free market economy.

As an example of what might be expected under socialism, people who achieved similar results in the former Soviet Union got a new apartment.

A new apartment would not be enough.

In consideration of its accuracy in achieving results in superresolution, it might be worth millions of dollars in a free market economy.

As an example of what might be expected under socialism, people who achieved similar results in the former Soviet Union got a new apartment.

A new apartment would not be enough.
How much did you work to find it?
I give you $5000 per hour. Is that ok?

How much did you work to find it?
I give you $5000 per hour. It that ok?

The value of something is not necessarily determined by how much work was put into creating or obtaining it. The value of something is determined entirely by what people are willing to pay for it, and what he is willing to sell it for.

The value of something is not necessarily determined by how much work was put into creating or obtaining it. The value of something is determined entirely by what people are willing to pay for it, and what he is willing to sell it for.
What am I doing right now? I'm negociating with him. If $5000 is not enough, he will say $10 000 and we will settle at $8000.

How much did you work to find it?
I give you $5000 per hour. Is that ok?
I've been working on it since 1995. Several hours a day.
Let's see - figure about 1000 hours per year.
Ten years, total 10,000 hours.
50,000,000 dollars you're giving me?

I've been working on it since 1995. Several hours a day.
Let's see - figure about 1000 hours per year.
Ten years, total 10,000 hours.
50,000,000 dollars you're giving me?
ok for $30 millions and that's cutting my own throat.

ok for $30 millions and that's cutting my own throat.

Why? I worked for it. My brain contained something that no one else in the country contained.

Traditionally, in true socialism, no one has intellectual property rights at all. Which is why in a socialist country, I would burn my work.

Why? I worked for it. My brain contained something that no one else in the country contained.

Traditionally, in true socialism, no one has intellectual property rights at all. Which is why in a socialist country, I would burn my work.
Well that's ok. Burn your work and I burn the $30 million in front of your eyes.
I give you one last chance. $40 million. If that's not ok, then bye bye.

Everybody agrees communism is the best system we know. Some people think it is utopic and impossible and some people think it is possible.
Well let's discuss how to achieve it. What is the best and most realist path to communism? What can we do in the world of today to make something closer to communism?

I entirely do not agree that Communism is the best system we know. I think Communism could work, but only if society is treated as more important than the individual. Most of the dystopian futures I've heard/read of seem to think that said uniformity is a bad thing. Communism could work, and could work well, but it is a morally and philosophically reprehensable system. That is why I disagree with it, and I will choose a flawed Capitalist system over a perfect Communist one every time the choice is put in front of me. Better the system in which unfairness is tackled and treated, instead of the one where unfairness is the entire purpose of the nation's existence.

I'm getting very tired of people saying "such-and-such a nation isn't Communist." They would do well to note that we're pointing out places which tried communism and failed; does this not say something about Communism?

Well that's ok. Burn your work and I burn the $30 million in front of your eyes.
I give you one last chance. $40 million. If that's not ok, then bye bye.

That's too bad, because it would have been militarily useful to the state. Among other uses.

Now your state doesn't have it, and no way to create it - without investing more labor and time. There's the off chance with some technological innovations that you'll never achieve them, either.

That's too bad, because it would have been militarily useful to the state. Among other uses.

Now your state doesn't have it, and no way to create it - without investing more labor and time. There's the off chance with some technological innovations that you'll never achieve them, either.

Plus a truly communist state would not be able to ideologically give someone a lump sum of 50 million dollars because that would elevate them into the bourgeoisie :rolleyes:

Can we please have a reasonable debate?

Sure, if YOU don't mind stopping stating YOUR OPINION as some sort of fact...

Please leave those stupid patriotic attitudes at your door. Let's not talk about the cold war, the US, or the USSR or some people's ego will just explode and we will end up in some stupid flame war and the world is much more than that.

Just how do we do that while talking about the problems with Communism?

Let's talk about the real issues.
Everybody agrees communism is the best system we know. Some people think it is utopic and impossible and some people think it is possible.
Well let's discuss how to achieve it. What is the best and most realist path to communism? What can we do in the world of today to make something closer to communism?

Really?!?! When did "Everybody" decide that?!?!

I'm pretty sure I belong to that group and I don't believe that... So YOUR statement is emphatically FALSE!

So it's ok for YOU to bring YOUR BIAS to the Table, but everyone else should leave theirs at the door?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

We could start with whether or not "everyone" would want communism.

And for those that don't want it, why they would not want it.

We could start with whether or not "everyone" would want communism.

And for those that don't want it, why they would not want it.

Perhaps because we have SEEN BOTH in action, and Capitalism/Democracy WON hands down!

So, in order to believe that Communism is somehow better than Capitalism/Democracy you also have to believe that wherever it has been tried and failed was simply because they either got the concept wrong, or the people in charge weren't doing it right or weren't smart enough to figure out the problems...

And I would contend that, if Communism is so hard to "get right" then it really can't be all that Superior a System now, can it?!?!

Doesn't seem that Nations are having too difficult a time getting Capitalism right. Hell, even some of the few remaining Communistic Countries are embracing different principles of Capitalism!

Regards,
Gaar

We could start with whether or not "everyone" would want communism.

And for those that don't want it, why they would not want it.

I don't want it. And yeah, to claim "everyone" wants communism is stretching the truth to a ridiculous degree. I would say that supporters of communism in today's society are a tiny minority.

I don't want it. And yeah, to claim "everyone" wants communism is stretching the truth to a ridiculous degree. I would say that supporters of communism in today's society are a tiny minority.

At least here in the U.S.

Regards,
Gaar

I don't want it. And yeah, to claim "everyone" wants communism is stretching the truth to a ridiculous degree. I would say that supporters of communism in today's society are a tiny minority.

I certainly don't know many people that want it, and I live in Vermont... the only state in my country that ever ran the risk of being BRANDED communist. :D

I certainly don't know many people that want it, and I live in Vermont... the only state in my country that ever ran the risk of being BRANDED communist. :D

But you eventually came to your senses...

So we forgive you! :p

:D

Regards,
Gaar

At least here in the U.S.

Regards,
Gaar

Here in the UK and Europe too. While we're a little more public-sector friendly around here, it's not like we're even close to communism. And I assume most of the ex-Soviet bloc countries aren't interested in returning to what they just got away from.

While we're a little more public-sector friendly around here, it's not like we're even close to communism.

Just what does "Public sector friendly" mean, and why do you believe you are a 'little more' of it than we are in the U.S.?

You may have "different" ways of dealing with the "Public sector" but that doesn't necessarily mean that you do it any better than we do, does it?

I could actually cite MANY reasons I believe our System to be Superior to ANY others with regard to the 'friendliness to our Public sector', just by pointing out the standard of living that even the poor in our Country are able to obtain.

Or by pointing out the great Wealth that has been accumulated by our Private sector, enabling US to be the most Charitable Nation on the face of the Earth, BAR NONE!

And that is PROOF of the "First Order" not some hypothetical BULLSHIT that some people seem to just pull out of their A$$...

Regards,
Gaar

Just what does "Public sector friendly" mean, and why do you believe you are a 'little more' of it than we are in the U.S.?

You may have "different" ways of dealing with the "Public sector" but that doesn't necessarily mean that you do it any better than we do, does it?

I could actually cite MANY reasons I believe our System to be Superior to ANY others with regard to the 'friendliness to our Public sector', just by pointing out the standard of living that even the poor in our Country are able to obtain.

Or by pointing out the great Wealth that has been accumulated by our Private sector, enabling US to be the most Charitable Nation on the face of the Earth, BAR NONE!

And that is PROOF of the "First Order" not some hypothetical BULLSHIT that some people seem to just pull out of their A$$...

Regards,
Gaar

Hey man, I'm a capitalist. "Public-sector friendliness" isn't something I'm keen on, I used it as a term to point out that Europe is more oriented towards nationalized industry and higher taxation. Yes, I think America's system is way better than Britain's, and I wish we would alter ours a little further in that direction. You grossly misunderstood the implication of my post. I'm a diehard free-marketer.

Hey man, I'm a capitalist. "Public-sector friendliness" isn't something I'm keen on, I used it as a term to point out that Europe is more oriented towards nationalized industry and higher taxation. Yes, I think America's system is way better than Britain's, and I wish we would alter ours a little further in that direction. You grossly misunderstood the implication of my post. I'm a diehard free-marketer.

Understood, I apologize for my rant.

I just get a bit defensive on these Boards with what I see the U.S. being accused of and the claims made by some around here...

Again, my apologies.

Regards,
Gaar

Understood, I apologize for my rant.

I just get a bit defensive on these Boards with what I see the U.S. being accused of and the claims made by some around here...

Again, my apologies.

Regards,
Gaar
The US has a huge public sector.
The US government spends more than half of the world's military budget.
Most of the technologies of the 20th century were developed by the military.
So what is your defense?

I certainly don't know many people that want it, and I live in Vermont... the only state in my country that ever ran the risk of being BRANDED communist. :D

Vermont is the only state that allows everyone to carry a concealed pistol without a permit.

Reading their state constitution, they also enshrine the bearing of arms as an individual right.

Doesn't seem too Communist to me.

Vermont is the only state that allows everyone to carry a concealed pistol without a permit.

Reading their state constitution, they also enshrine the bearing of arms as an individual right.

Doesn't seem too Communist to me.
Many people carry pistols in Vietnam and in North Korea.
What does it have to do with communism?

The US has a huge public sector.
The US government spends more than half of the world's military budget.
Most of the technologies of the 20th century were developed by the military.
So what is your defense?

Certainly today America's military budget is out of all proportion, but traditionally the Americans have tended towards smaller government than the Europeans.

Many people carry pistols in Vietnam and in North Korea.
What does it have to do with communism?
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the laws.

To own, or carry a pistol in any Communist country, you have to be a Party member.

If you're not a Party member, you can't have one.

In the US, we don't ask if you're a member of the Party.

The US has a huge public sector.
The US government spends more than half of the world's military budget.
Most of the technologies of the 20th century were developed by the military.

Sadly true, but the Libertarian party is making gains, so in a couple of decades we might see some big changes there. (Fingers crossed, at least.)
So what? Liberty and freedom would fall without strength protecting it.
So what? A lot of technologies the military have developed have been extremely useful.

Sadly true, but the Libertarian party is making gains, so in a couple of decades we might see some big changes there. (Fingers crossed, at least.)
So what? Liberty and freedom would fall without strength protecting it.
So what? A lot of technologies the military have developed have been extremely useful.

I think military technology is cool, but sometimes I wonder if we couldn't just eliminate all those conventional weapons and just keep nukes and infantry.

Nukes for MAD, infantry for insurgency, save a lot of money...?

The US has a huge public sector.
The US government spends more than half of the world's military budget.
Most of the technologies of the 20th century were developed by the military.
So what is your defense?

Defense for what?

Developing most of the Technologies of the 20th Century?

First off, I won't say "most" but I would agree to "many", and I don't personally see that as a bad thing that I need to apologize for, why do you?

Our Government here in the U.S. is only tasked with certain things, protecting us is one of them, and therefore the Military Budget.

We generally believe that the bulk of the "heavy lifting" for Societies lower rungs can be done through Charities and the like, and it looks like it works fairly well I might add...

So, what was it you wanted me to defend again?

Regards,
Gaar