NationStates Jolt Archive

Getting booted off the island would have nothing to do with communism and everything to do with democracy. Losing all of your possessions unfairly would be the communistic part of it.
You'd be losing all of your possessions democratically. Are you asserting that democracy is unfair?

Yes it is. If the person loses the labor and equity he has put into a business, it is through his own actions.

That scenario is also essential to the advancement of the economy and the society in general.

Also, how does communism rectify that situation? By not giving either a chance to have a successful business?

But one person could be succeeding becaus their competition is so poor, while another could be doing badly even though they have as much ability as the other person, and are putting in as much effort, but their competition is far better.

In a properly capitalist society, nothing - not a single thing - is stopping communists or socialists from pooling their resources and living together in a style which they feel is proper. If you want, you can write contracts which stipulate that nobody can join your commune unless they denounce the evil capitalist pigs and never buy anything from outside the commune, or whatever terms you want to impose in order to match your philosophy.

As a capitalist, my political views compel me to permit you to do whatever you want, as long as you don't steal from, harm, or commit fraud against anybody without their consent. Capitalism doesn't require you to do anything except refrain from those three activites.
On one hand, you are perfectly correct. However, capitalists and communists have a different idea of what "theft" is. While both would agree that personal items (such as a toothbrush) are perfectly acceptable, capitalists believe that owning something such as land is acceptable, whereas communists do not. Therefore, if a communist took your land it wouldn't be stealing as far as the communist is concerned, but it would be as far as the capitalist is concerned.

You'd be losing all of your possessions democratically. Are you asserting that democracy is unfair?

In that situation it is. Is democracy a justification for theft?

In that situation it is. Is democracy a justification for theft?
As long as it is applied equally: all resources are taken and redistributed, then, yes, it is. If it only applied to a certain person/group, then, no, it wouldn't be.

Getting booted off the island would have nothing to do with communism and everything to do with democracy.


So democracy is bad?

Losing all of your possessions unfairly would be the communistic part of it.

You don't get it- you don't lose all your possessions. You lose as much as you need to lose so that you are the same as everyone else.

Do you realize how unreasonable that assumption is? How many people in the US or your nation of residence espouse or even understand the various economic systems?

That is why I don't expect the US or Britain to become communist states tommorrow. There are plenty of pearties that aren't espouced by the majority, but that doesn't mean they give up and stop trying to persaude people to agree with them. It's the wonderful thing about democracy.

But one person could be succeeding becaus their competition is so poor, while another could be doing badly even though they have as much ability as the other person, and are putting in as much effort, but their competition is far better.

So the problem in this situation is with education and intelligence?

I think that even the most hardline communist can see the obvious problems with capping those two things.

So the problem in this situation is with education and intelligence?


What??? The problem in this situation is bad luck. Where does education or intelligence enter in?

As long as it is applied equally: all resources are taken and redistributed, then, yes, it is. If it only applied to a certain person/group, then, no, it wouldn't be.

Let me start by saying that theft should never be justified. The simple effort of trying to justify theft shows an appalling lack of respect for the individual.

Now as for your argument:

Theft can never be applied equally, some group will always be singled out, and in the communistic system, it will be the individuals who have more that will be singled out.

The USSR and the DDR. They tried and failed.
if it failed completely in ddr how come in east berlin the socialist got voted back (not sure when)
i have a ussr flag by my bed, though a staute of lenin would be cool, off to ebay i go.

if it failed completely in ddr how come in east berlin the socialist got voted back (not sure when)
i have a ussr flag by my bed, though a staute of lenin would be cool, off to ebay i go.

Socialism and Communism aren't the same thing.

Let me start by saying that theft should never be justified. The simple effort of trying to justify theft shows an appalling lack of respect for the individual.
But the simple fact is that theft has been justified. Take, for instance, the example of the Native Americans. Their land was taken, and they were either killed off or shipped to reservations. The fact that this situation wasn't rectified indicates that the theft was felt in some manner to be justified.

Communism can work under certain rules.

a: strong uncorruptable leader

b: a rich and fertile country

c: a good social wellfare program instead of a weapon development.

well the USSR had neither of these.
a: Stalin was probably the most evil man that has ever existed (yes far more worse then Hitler)

b: The USSR was mostly barren wasteland

c: There is no russian word for social wellfare.

Communism is a great theory , but in actual practice it doesn't work, because of human emotion, greed, and lust for power.

Communism is a nice enough idea in peactice but it doesnt really when work put in practice. Look at Russia for example or china, china is becoming more ecconomically powerfull etc but a lot of that is down to the capatlist ideas which are beginning to seep into its polices. Half the problem is that communism doesnt make any real way around a basic human flaw:selfishness (sp), thats why so much corruption took place in communist countries especially in E.Europe.

So democracy is bad?

It is hard for me to say this, but I have yet to see a system in which an unchecked democracy would not be extremely problematic. If you a democracy is able to override human rights, then it is bad.

You don't get it- you don't lose all your possessions. You lose as much as you need to lose so that you are the same as everyone else.

Trust me, I get communism.

Economic equality is impossible. Under a democratic communism, it is the responsibility of the people to decide the value of wages and goods and to maintain that they are distributed fairly. What stops even the most communal group of people from assigning biased values to labor and resources and in effect "screwing over" a portion of society?

That is why I don't expect the US or Britain to become communist states tommorrow. There are plenty of pearties that aren't espouced by the majority, but that doesn't mean they give up and stop trying to persaude people to agree with them. It's the wonderful thing about democracy.

I agree that it is entirely possible for a democracy to accept socialistic "policies", but for it to accept an entire economic principle seems very unlikely for me.

Communism isn't bad.

Stalinism is a totalitarian form of Socialism. Leninism is an authoritarian form of Socialism. Both are the only types of Socialism ever tryed.

State Capitalists(mentioned earlier in this thead) would be places like 1950's-1980's South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore were the government heavily planned there economies.

Communism is a great theory , but in actual practice it doesn't work, because of human emotion, greed, and lust for power.

All of these can be reduced. It doesn't work in practise at the moment, but that does not mean it should be dismissed.

Well all of you seem to be so very interested in this question and you're all playing semantical games with whether or not the USSR or Germany or anywhere else were true communist states and therefore that communism is still a good idea.

This is all utter crap and its quite obvious that communism hasn't worked because it can't work. It relies on the inner good in people which just isn't there. Instead there is a desire for power and as long as mankind is inherently evil at heart communism is a fallacy.

But I digress, my point was to tell you when it didn't work. The pilgrims created a settlement at Plymoth and originally created a socialistic/communistic community. They all nearly starved to death and realized that the only way to survive was to encourage people to work for what they recieved. Therefore they divided up the land among the people and began a captialistic society. It flourished.

What??? The problem in this situation is bad luck. Where does education or intelligence enter in?

There is no such thing as relative bad luck, especially in a large efficient economy.

If one company succeeds over another company that provides an equal amount of capital and an equal amount effort, it must mean that their effort was converted to more labor through expertise, and expertise is the result of education and intelligence.

It is hard for me to say this, but I have yet to see a system in which an unchecked democracy would not be extremely problematic. If you a democracy is able to override human rights, then it is bad.

But there is no system that guarantees for sure things like human rights. It's easier for a dictator to ignore human rights than for a democracy. So what is the alternative to an 'unckecked democracy'? You can't place rules that have no way to be changed, as people could just ignore those rules.


Trust me, I get communism.

Economic equality is impossible. Under a democratic communism, it is the responsibility of the people to decide the value of wages and goods and to maintain that they are distributed fairly. What stops even the most communal group of people from assigning biased values to labor and resources and in effect "screwing over" a portion of society?

What is to stop them from not doing that? Democratic communism won't mean that economic equality is perfect and stable, but any errors can be corrected.


I agree that it is entirely possible for a democracy to accept socialistic "policies", but for it to accept an entire economic principle seems very unlikely for me.

It is unlikely. That does not mean it is a bad ideal to aim for one day.

But the simple fact is that theft has been justified. Take, for instance, the example of the Native Americans. Their land was taken, and they were either killed off or shipped to reservations. The fact that this situation wasn't rectified indicates that the theft was felt in some manner to be justified.

How does that help your argument in any way? Are you saying that that was a justified instance of theft?

There is no such thing as relative bad luck, especially in a large efficient economy.

If one company succeeds over another company that provides an equal amount of capital and an equal amount effort, it must mean that their effort was converted to more labor through expertise, and expertise is the result of education and intelligence.

But they don't have control over their competitors. So the actions of competitors of 2 companies can determine which is more successful regardless of effort and expertise.

This is all utter crap and its quite obvious that communism hasn't worked because it can't work. It relies on the inner good in people which just isn't there. Instead there is a desire for power and as long as mankind is inherently evil at heart communism is a fallacy.


Then we can aim to remove the evil from humanity at the same time as promoting communism.

Then we can aim to remove the evil from humanity at the same time as promoting communism.

Oh please do tell how you aim to end the evil in human nature? Honestly are you people that naive that you think you can change the way people are from the moment they are born?

When was the last time you had to teach a young child how to be bad? Oh thats right, you don't teach them how to be bad, you teach them how to be good...what a freaking amazing concept. If we're born with inherent evil then it is impossible to change this, case closed. Saying anything else is ludicrous and idealistic at best.

But there is no system that guarantees for sure things like human rights. It's easier for a dictator to ignore human rights than for a democracy. So what is the alternative to an 'unckecked democracy'? You can't place rules that have no way to be changed, as people could just ignore those rules.

The alternative is a checked democracy. A democracy that has set boundaries for what government can be impowered to do.

Personally, I think the US Constitution as written by the founding fathers is the best system we have ever seen. It imposed limits on just how far the democracy could go by providing for the basic rights of people. They did provide avenues for changing the definition of rights, but made that a much more difficult thing to do.

What is to stop them from not doing that? Democratic communism won't mean that economic equality is perfect and stable, but any errors can be corrected.

A lack of vantage points, a lack of understanding of value, personal bias can prevent a democratic system from assigning fair value.

How can misvalued wages and resources be corrected?

It is unlikely. That does not mean it is a bad ideal to aim for one day.

I personally believe in anarchy. I know anarchy is impossible, but I believe that any progress towards anarchy is a step in the right direction.

But they don't have control over their competitors. So the actions of competitors of 2 companies can determine which is more successful regardless of effort and expertise.

No, an efficient market shows that everyone has the same access to information and opportunities, and that those individuals who are able to make wiser decisions using this completely open information will be more successful.

If you can show me a instance in a free market capitalism where one company is able to take advantage of another through something other than more or better applied capital that is not theft, I will concede this point to you.

If you are able to convince me of a scenario that meets those criteria, would you also explain how communism rectifies that situation.

How does that help your argument in any way? Are you saying that that was a justified instance of theft?
No, I'm saying that if you feel that theft from this point is bad, then the theft that happened previously must be acceptable. You can have three viewpoints:

1) The theft of the Natives' land was bad. This situation must be rectified. Being that the only way to rectify this is further theft, either through monetary compensation through taxation or by directly giving the land back to the Natives. Of course, there is no way to accurately determine who "should" have the land now. I could go into how I feel this situation could be resolved further if you like, but I think this is enough for now.

2) The theft of the Natives' land was acceptable. This means that further theft is also acceptable, as it's possible to find an acceptable reason for theft.

3) The theft of the Natives' land was bad. However, further theft would be bad, too. This means that all of the gains from the theft of the Natives' land are perfectly acceptable, and therefore it's acceptable to benefit from theft.

Of course, if you can come up with another scenario (other than total apathy) I'd love to hear it.

Communism isn't bad.

Stalinism is a totalitarian form of Socialism. Leninism is an authoritarian form of Socialism. Both are the only types of Socialism ever tryed.

State Capitalists(mentioned earlier in this thead) would be places like 1950's-1980's South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore were the government heavily planned there economies.

Leninism and Stalinism aren't the only types of socialism ever tried. You're forgetting about the Fidelista movement in Cuba, Maoism, and a host of other socialist governments in Africa and Latin America. On the more moderate side, even my own country of Spain has a socialist government.

As to your other point, it is bad. Economic justice means taking from those who work and make a decent living and giving it to those who don't. You have "free" universities which cost twice their worth in taxes, and which are nothing but havens for drug abuse, like mine :P

Take it from someone who lives under a socialist government: the less role the government has in your life, the less they can screw it up.

All of these can be reduced. It doesn't work in practise at the moment, but that does not mean it should be dismissed.

How many times does socialism need to fail before it should? Even the most authoritarian communist systems can't root out capitalism, from the USSR's NEP to Fidel's "farmers markets," which is basically an agricultural free market to incite peasants to produce, to the the capitalist reforms in China and their dealings with Hong Kong. The problem isn't really greed, it is that humans strive to be more than we are, we want to better ourselves. That doesn't jive well with social/economic equality, where people think it's a sin to be more productive than someone else, that the reward for hard work should be the redistribution of what you've earned.

Why do you feel that you have a right to someone else's property? To me communism can't escape greed because as much as you label it egalitarean, it's a completely self-centered ideal: take from you and give to me. If you call capitalism taking from the have-nots and giving to the haves, than communism is no better, simply the reserve of taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots. At least the people who have wealth actually did something to earn it... to me their claim is more legitimate.

But there's the rub. Why sould anyone expect politicians who have absolute power to willingly give it back to the masses? Power over others is most likely the reason they would seek office in the first place. And then, a nutcase like Stalin bullies his way to the top. To the terror of the citizentry, I might add. I think it's better not to give that kind of power to the government in the first place. That way, the government has less ability to infringe upon the rights of the people.

in fact, i agree with you when you say that the power shouldnt be that concentrated, but you are assuming that every politician is a bad person who is only interested in his personal profitt, and comunism, at is base, is totaly against that tipe of egoism, so, a true communist would never be that power obsessed megalomaniac

in fact, i agree with you when you say that the power shouldnt be that concentrated, but you are assuming that every politician is a bad person who is only interested in his personal profitt, and comunism, at is base, is totaly against that tipe of egoism, so, a true communist would never be that power obsessed megalomaniac

Um, name one communist ruler who isn't an egomaniac. By the way, if communism is so perfect and egalitarian, why does it need a leader in the first place? In fact, why does it need government or beaurocracy at all?

Since you guys haven't seemed to figure this out, I'll tell you. People don't like to part with their property. If you want to redistribute it, first you have to take it, most often against the owners will. Hence, you need a large government to form a country based on systematic theft and coercion. While this system may not be materialistically corrupt, it is morally bankrupt.

When has it not worked exactly?

China.

No, I'm saying that if you feel that theft from this point is bad, then the theft that happened previously must be acceptable. You can have three viewpoints:

1) The theft of the Natives' land was bad. This situation must be rectified. Being that the only way to rectify this is further theft, either through monetary compensation through taxation or by directly giving the land back to the Natives. Of course, there is no way to accurately determine who "should" have the land now. I could go into how I feel this situation could be resolved further if you like, but I think this is enough for now.

2) The theft of the Natives' land was acceptable. This means that further theft is also acceptable, as it's possible to find an acceptable reason for theft.

3) The theft of the Natives' land was bad. However, further theft would be bad, too. This means that all of the gains from the theft of the Natives' land are perfectly acceptable, and therefore it's acceptable to benefit from theft.

Of course, if you can come up with another scenario (other than total apathy) I'd love to hear it.

#1 is obviously the best viewpoint. Crimes were committed in the past, but due to impossibility it is impossible to provide adequate restitution for the harm done.

Why does that mean theft is justified?

I suppose if it happened in an area with few natural resources, that might be a problem (See: Russia.) However, most of the world has some amount of natural resources, so it's unlikely that if it happened it wouldn't work.Are you seriously suggesting the Russia lacks natural resources?

...
Consider that the overall political goal of capitalists like myself is to reduce government regulation in the economy and society as much as is reasonably possible.

In a properly capitalist society, nothing - not a single thing - is stopping communists or socialists from pooling their resources and living together in a style which they feel is proper. If you want, you can write contracts which stipulate that nobody can join your commune unless they denounce the evil capitalist pigs and never buy anything from outside the commune, or whatever terms you want to impose in order to match your philosophy.
...

I love you Dogburg. If I was a woman I'd offer to have your baby.

Just want to see what people think.

Good idea in theory, bad idea in practice.

Politics is, essentially the business of power. No matter if you have a capitalist or a communist system the prospect of controlling the commodities for the entire populace will be a pleasing idea to certain people. In capitalist societies, you can usually find these people in boardrooms downtown with huge offices that can probably see my house.

In communist societies, however, they go for government. You can start with this great idea about human rights and equality of all men, but the long and short of it is that the people you put in charge will proceed to fuck things over just about as fast [or faster] as they do in more right thinking political systems.

The thing to remember here is that you're dealing with keeping a very large population of people under control. Regardless of your ideology, certain elements of your culture or society will come forth to rule it just like they always have. That's why I say give the bastards as little power as possible.

No, capitalism is about screwing someone over. How can anyone be screwed over when we're all the same? And to clarify, while I don't want anyone to have a bigger tv than me, I also do not want to have a bigger tv than anyone else.


My selling a book doesn't screw anyone over.

And why the hell don't you want anyone else to have a bigger TV?

Do they have to cut their crotches short so that you feel better about yours too?

Seriously man, people are BORN -different-. Equality is impossible unless you make everyone a clone. They have books about this kind of nonsense.


Here, read a short story about this kind of mentality:

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html


Honestly. Why should the size of someone else's TV matter to YOU?

Um, name one communist ruler who isn't an egomaniac. By the way, if communism is so perfect and egalitarian, why does it need a leader in the first place? In fact, why does it need government or beaurocracy at all?

Since you guys haven't seemed to figure this out, I'll tell you. People don't like to part with their property. If you want to redistribute it, first you have to take it, most often against the owners will. Hence, you need a large government to form a country based on systematic theft and coercion. While this system may not be materialistically corrupt, it is morally bankrupt.

Read the communist manifesto. Marx realized that revolution would be required to achieve communism, and that strong leaders would need to lead this. How far would the bolsheviks gotten against the Czar, had not lenin been there?

The dictator/leader is not supposed to be in power forever. Once the nation can stop worrying about becoming communist, and instead maintaining it, they can get rid of the big leaders, and have government enough only to help distribute, etc.

Name one country that hasn't faced large political pressure because of their communist beliefs. Name one communist nation that hasnt been at war after ww1(Either war, or strong belief of it after a war, brings many nations to have to maintain large militaries and oppress their people to stop spies). I may have forgotten some little ones, but other than that, no. The only real exception I can think of is cuba, but the bay of pigs drove the cubans to khruschev, which was the US's fault.

How many chance do you have to give communism? One, as long as you give it a fair chance and a mass want for communism. It cant function without either one, and neither can any other system(none without mass support, anyways).

1) Revolution means screwing over the people who are happy with the set up. Why the bloody can't you just make your own state INSTEAD of a revolution? Just start a colony like the Amish do. They've survived for quite awhile, and are, guess what, pretty close to, GASP, communism. No revolution required.

2) What do you propose to do with people who LIKE capitalism? What about your children, since you can no more guarantee they'll love communism than you can guarantee that kids raised in a capitalist society will love capitalism?

IT isn't heartless, it's just unfortunately been corrupted in the Soviet's practice with Lenin and Stalin, because they both idealized Hitler (in the worser aspects, not the better).

Agreed
Unfortunately, if everyone is equal, then no-one is in charge. Then you get an archy and one is enough :)

By the way, if communism is so perfect and egalitarian, why does it need a leader in the first place? In fact, why does it need government or beaurocracy at all?

it doesn't; see the arguments between marx and bakunin back during the first international in the 1860s - early 1870s.

According to Marxist theory, after revolution the communist party would control the state until all selfish desires were eliminated then there would be no need for government and their wouldn't be one anymore.

So.

How do they intend to kill the id?

Whoa, hold on a sec.

Do people still believe communism could work?

Seriously man, people are BORN -different-. Equality is impossible unless you make everyone a clone.

in human terms, equal does not mean identical. and while people are born different, these natural differences are not very great (and this isn't exactly a new revelation - check your hobbes). certainly not to the extent of the differences created and maintained by class society. any honest consideration of the actual genetic differences between your average working-class person and your average owning-class person is going to show them to be more or less equal - hell, nearly fucking identical in terms of genetic variation within other species. but in terms of wealth and social status, the differences are ridiculously huge.

the vast differences in power, prestige, and access to resources we see between people have absolutely no real relation to in-born genetic differences. they have everything to do with a class system in which a miniscule minority illegitimately owns and controls the main sources of wealth and power within society and which skews the rules of the game in favor of the elite.

1) Revolution means screwing over the people who are happy with the set up. Why the bloody can't you just make your own state INSTEAD of a revolution? Just start a colony like the Amish do. They've survived for quite awhile, and are, guess what, pretty close to, GASP, communism. No revolution required.

2) What do you propose to do with people who LIKE capitalism? What about your children, since you can no more guarantee they'll love communism than you can guarantee that kids raised in a capitalist society will love capitalism?

1. If a minority(a large one) feels like this, they can do so. For all intents and purposes, the revolution stated would be one that had majority support by the people.

2.The people who like capitalism can leave, assuming this isnt a world revolution. If the leaders of these new nations don't let them leave, then its wrong. However, if its a world revolution, the minority capitalists are screwed. Communism has to be supported by the masses to work. When it loses that, it fails. If enough children dont like it, their generation can start a counter-revolution when they get old enough to have political power.

Both of your arguments could be used against capitalism, for communism.

in human terms, equal does not mean identical. and while people are born different, these natural differences are not very great (and this isn't exactly a new revelation - check your hobbes).


Last I checked, Forest Gump and Einstein were more than a little different, and your average basketball player is a tad bit more different than the folks who played the parts of the Lollipop Guild. Masai!=Pygmy

Humans have some of the most extreme morphological differences of any species on the planet.


certainly not to the extent of the differences created and maintained by class society.



So long as people don't all do the exact same thing with the exact same effort, there will always be differences. Being a librarian is going to be a cushier, 'higher class' job than being a manure scooper, no matter how 'equal' a society you have.



any honest consideration of the actual genetic differences between your average working-class person and your average owning-class person is going to show them to be more or less equal - hell, nearly fucking identical in terms of genetic variation within other species.



Yeah. Pygmy vs Masai.



but in terms of wealth and social status, the differences are ridiculously huge.



That's partially because poor, uneducated people tend to do more breeding.



the vast differences in power, prestige, and access to resources we see between people have absolutely no real relation to in-born genetic differences.



They're the result of hard work and good luck, which gets passed on to children.

All you can argue here is that nobody should be able to spend extra money on their kids.



they have everything to do with a class system in which a miniscule minority illegitimately owns and controls the main sources of wealth and power within society and which skews the rules of the game in favor of the elite.

Any power system does that. There's no such thing as legit control unless everyone happens to agree it should be in place, and under full knowledge of the situation.

Like in Athens.

1. If a minority(a large one) feels like this, they can do so. For all intents and purposes, the revolution stated would be one that had majority support by the people.


Yes, this is where a democracy is nice.

Of course, the trick is to not force people who want to stick to capitalism. Individual rights and all.

The amish prove that communistic practices can survive fine in capitalism.

Can capitalism survive in communist states?


2.The people who like capitalism can leave, assuming this isnt a world revolution. If the leaders of these new nations don't let them leave, then its wrong. However, if its a world revolution, the minority capitalists are screwed. Communism has to be supported by the masses to work. When it loses that, it fails. If enough children dont like it, their generation can start a counter-revolution when they get old enough to have political power.

Both of your arguments could be used against capitalism, for communism.

So, what do you intend to do with the capitalists?

Kill them? Imprison them? Enslave them?

First of all i'm sorry i wont be able to keep track of what's happening here.. unfortunately i can read here only few times in a day..

Since most of the things said here have been told you by someone and not your first person experience how can you know they are all true? I just want to say my part of the truth..what i've seen with my eyes or what my parents tasted on their skin...

few explanation: I lived in Yugoslavia during both socialistic years and during war.. now I live in italy...with berlusconi doing the same effort USA and most western europe do to make all socialist and communist ideologies appear as bad, rotten, bad for economy etc..

The problems that came out in my old country had been caused by both internal problems and external influence and after the war and usa and germany did quite a lot to keep the temperature hot there... however up til 1990 the lifestyle, the economy, education and most of the social fields were higher than here in italy.. As my mother says.. you had to work if you could (it doesnt mean 14 hours like slaves but 8 if you can, less if you cant) yet everything kept working...

example: earthquake in Kosovo..all rebuilt in few years with state money... with perfect anti-sismic criteria...mostly volunteer work too!

Here in italy we got a capitalistic lifestyle which becomes even more US-like every day.. My parents work 8 hours a day a work that should be done in 16 hours.. are paid less, treated badly... education is worse... healthcare even more... we have a smaller apartment while my parents boss has 3 houses (i am aware of) 3 fabrics (one in china, let's do some child labour, yay) and a lot of money...

example: earthquake in Marche-Umbria in 1997: people still live in containers...

Berlusconi likes to use the word "freedom"...for him communism is not freedom while capitalism yes...

if he speaks about freedom to take others money or survive doing nothing while someone else brings you money i don't see that as an extra freedom..i see it as slavery...

I have a lot more to tell but no time nor will right now to discuss with people who never felt the hunger and will hardly ever change idea...

Just want to see what people think.

Replace "Lenin" with "Marx", and you're closer. Of course, I do not have *any* statues beside my bed ( :P ), but overall, I think Marx had some very, very good ideas. That the implementation led to the Soviet union cannot be blamed on Marx any more than Hiroshima can be blamed on Einstein.

Whoa, hold on a sec.

Do people still believe communism could work?
Being that it pretty much hasn't been tried yet, there's no reason not to.

Are you seriously suggesting the Russia lacks natural resources?
I've already addressed this. What I should have said was that Russia didn't have very much arable land. (Of course what I did say "few natural resources" is still different than "lacks natural resources" but that's incidental.)

#1 is obviously the best viewpoint. Crimes were committed in the past, but due to impossibility it is impossible to provide adequate restitution for the harm done.

Why does that mean theft is justified?
That's not what #1 said. While it is impossible to rewrite history, it is still possible to attempt to make amends for history's wrongs. If you don't try to make amends, then you essentially are saying that the current system is acceptable - that it's okay to profit from theft.

I've already addressed this. What I should have said was that Russia didn't have very much arable land. (Of course what I did say "few natural resources" is still different than "lacks natural resources" but that's incidental.)
Whatever. If it comes down to natural resources, how can anyone survive in Hong Kong?

1. If a minority(a large one) feels like this, they can do so. For all intents and purposes, the revolution stated would be one that had majority support by the people.

Of course, the problem with this is that the majority doesn't give a damn one way or the other. The only people who count are the revolutionaries and the counterrevolutionaries. Everyone else is peripheral.


As for Communism... forgive me if I'm repeating someone, as I only read up through page 13 of this argument, but... Marxism requires a simultaneous, global change to communism. The world has to be thoroughly saturated with corrupt capitalism to the point at which the proletariat cannot afford basic needs. They will then rise up as one and throw down the governments, replacing them with a communist state. The state will then wither away, and everyone will be happy. If Capitalism

Before anyone starts arguing with me, allow me to add that I don't care for Marxism. It's an eschatology, and I am an historian. I don't care for any theory that says that history is just going to end. After all, if they're right, they'll put me out of a job!

Whatever. If it comes down to natural resources, how can anyone survive in Hong Kong?I didn't say that natural resources were necessary for success, but that not succeeding was highly unlikely with enough natural resources. Certainly it is possible for a communist society to succeed without natural resources, but it is unlikely.

Edit: More specifically, the communist society that democratically splintered off of a capitalist society, the decision mutually agreed on by both societies.

Last I checked, Forest Gump and Einstein were more than a little different

ignoring the fact that one is a fictional character, i'll go along with that. so what? their differences are not all that great except on a few particular measures. and those differences will not all favor the same person.

btw, nice choice on examples - after all, einstein was a committed socialist.

and your average basketball player is a tad bit more different than the folks who played the parts of the Lollipop Guild. Masai!=Pygmy

ah, yes. because obviously differing hieghts are an injustice that must be abolished. come on, you'll have to do better than that.

Humans have some of the most extreme morphological differences of any species on the planet.

i'd like you to meet my friend canis familiaris.

but seriously, we have very little genetic diversity in our species. much less than we find between chimps living in the same troop. we can see 'extreme' morphological differences between ourselves partly because of a couple strange founder-effect distributions of pigmentation genes. but mostly it's because we are built to be able to recognize each other as distinct individuals, and therefore pick up on such things better in our own species than in others.

So long as people don't all do the exact same thing with the exact same effort, there will always be differences.

not many important ones. the socially important differences in power, prestige, and access to resources require social exaggeration and a system to defend the privileges of the elite. in societies with different systems of social exaggeration, we have seen much lower levels of inequality, all the way down to near perfect egalitarianism. our society is actually one of the most unequal ones ever to exist - and it's not because we as a population are all that genetically different than any other human groups.

Being a librarian is going to be a cushier, 'higher class' job than being a manure scooper, no matter how 'equal' a society you have.

and therefore we must have a class of people who does the shit work for us all the time and on top of that is poorly paid and despised, right?


Yeah. Pygmy vs Masai.

got any relevant genetic differences between them? they have all of the same capacities, except for those directly related to the skewed height distribution. but so what?

That's partially because poor, uneducated people tend to do more breeding.

no, it held true before the widespread use of reliable birth control and the liberation of women among the wealthier classes.

They're the result of hard work and good luck, which gets passed on to children.

it's more than that. the differences in power, wealth, and prestige are completely tied up with social rules and norms - rules and norms that were not handed down by god and have varied over time. they are also connected to control of the state and the use of force, or the threat of it. these things do not just magically distribute themselves, their particular distribution is entirely contingent on particular social constructs.

Everything about communism is one big lie. Communists speak of tolerance and compassion, let they slaughter Christians, Jews, and Muslims. They speak of racial equality, yet they do everything they can to instigate racism, incite riots, and provoke racial wars. They speak of equality, yet they send well-to-do people to gulags and massacre their families. They denounce imperialism, yet embrace Soviet and Chinese imperialism wholeheartedly. They go absolutely apeshit whenever a right-wing government kills somebody, yet remain eerily quiet when a left-wing government does the same.

oh you crazy kids....

comunism is good ideally, but would not work in the real world, it is too corrupt.

Everything about communism is one big lie. Communists speak of tolerance and compassion, let they slaughter Christians, Jews, and Muslims. They speak of racial equality, yet they do everything they can to instigate racism, incite riots, and provoke racial wars. They speak of equality, yet they send well-to-do people to gulags and massacre their families. They denounce imperialism, yet embrace Soviet and Chinese imperialism wholeheartedly. They go absolutely apeshit whenever a right-wing government kills somebody, yet remain eerily quiet when a left-wing government does the same.

Never slaughtered anyone.

Never instigated racism.. actually quite the opposite

Never been in a riot or incitated one...though sometimes i wish i had

Never provoked racial wars

Never sent anyone to gulags or massacred their families

I think communism actually helped in urss and china in the beginning but it screwed up the idea and their imperialism created anti-communists like you...

and as for going apeshit... it could be said the same about USA propaganda and most rightwingers...

I personally am aware of what has happened in URSS and China.. are you aware of what happened in usa? Can anyone say McCarthyism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism) ?

Still red scare out there... brainwashed for so long that you keep saying the same thing without even running a simple search...

comunism is good ideally, but would not work in the real world, it is too corrupt.

A political ideology cannot be corrupt. Only certain examples of governments can be corrupt.

That's not what #1 said. While it is impossible to rewrite history, it is still possible to attempt to make amends for history's wrongs. If you don't try to make amends, then you essentially are saying that the current system is acceptable - that it's okay to profit from theft.

It would be nearly impossible to make apt restitutions to Native Americans, as it would be impossible separate the land that was taken from them from the capital that individuals have invested into that land (not to mention determining which Native Americans will recieve this land).

Our government was very wrong in its actions towards Native Americans, it was theft, and it was immoral. However, the government extended legal property rights to other individuals in good faith and with guarantee, so to force the present owners of the land in question would be the epitomy of a second wrong in the interests of making a right.

Do I think that one group of people can benefit from another's loss through theft? Of course, that is common sense. Do I think that one person's benefit from theft is a justification? Not a chance.

A political ideology cannot be corrupt. Only certain examples of governments can be corrupt.

He meant that the world was too corrupt, and he is probably correct.

As for communism, I do believe it to be immoral, or based on faulty morality. However, morality is highly subjective, and I will not try to convince you of that.

If you can show me a instance in a free market capitalism where one company is able to take advantage of another through something other than more or better applied capital that is not theft, I will concede this point to you.

If you are able to convince me of a scenario that meets those criteria, would you also explain how communism rectifies that situation.

I assume you're still interested in a response to this? I would have responded to this yesterday but I left.

The situation I am thinking of is one where one company is working in an area where there are lots of other companies working, and it struggles to do well. Another is working in an area where there is hardly any competition, and does very well.

The way communism racifies that situation is that the two companies no longer work in competition, but co-operation.

Why should the ability of someone to use applied capitol decide who does well if life and who does poorly? The ability of using applied capitol is only an asset in a system that has manufactured the ability and encourages it, regardless of the fact that without the system, we could work without the ability, and concentrate on improving our abilities in things that help all of humanity.

Without money, we would not need anyone to be experts in applied capitol, and yet without all that expertise, would there be any less resources in the world? Would our scientists progress any slower in improving our technology?

He meant that the world was too corrupt, and he is probably correct.


'The world is too corrupt for communism' is not the same as 'the world will always be too corrupt for communism.'

The situation I am thinking of is one where one company is working in an area where there are lots of other companies working, and it struggles to do well. Another is working in an area where there is hardly any competition, and does very well.

Market factors are open to anyone who wishes to research them. A person who starts a business without researching the market (level of competition is the most important market factor, as well as the most obvious) they will deservedly fail.

The way communism racifies that situation is that the two companies no longer work in competition, but co-operation.

But they are owned by the government (or the people as I am sure you will say), so automatically they preclude the individual from succeeding as a businessman. Neither has the opportunity to succeed, as both individuals are FORCED to work for the good of everyone else at their own expense.

I won't even tough how horribly inefficient the economy would be if competitive businesses began to cooperate. There is a reason that price and wage fixing is illegal in the US, it puts the consumer and the worker at a severe disadvantage.

Why should the ability of someone to use applied capitol decide who does well if life and who does poorly? The ability of using applied capitol is only an asset in a system that has manufactured the ability and encourages it, regardless of the fact that without the system, we could work without the ability, and concentrate on improving our abilities in things that help all of humanity.

First, the economic term is capitAl, CapitOl is where Congress convenes.

Secondly, capital is not manufactured by capitalism. Capital will always exist no matter what economic system, it is just the ownership of capital that is debated. For example, labor is capital, every person is born with some sort of capital inherent to them, under communism it is assumed that all capital is owned by the government. Therefore, it can be argued that a communistic government forcefully claims ownership of a portion of the individual upon birth. In a capitalism, the individual has complete sole possession of himself and his labor. Sure this extra right comes with added responsibility, but many of us have a keen desire to not hand over this right, and furthermore we feel that the responsibility is an added bonus that makes the right all the more valuable.

1) Without money, we would not need anyone to be experts in applied capitol, 2) and yet without all that expertise, would there be any less resources in the world? 3)Would our scientists progress any slower in improving our technology?

1) It would be impossible for a society to function without a monetary system, no matter if it is a public monetary system or a private monetary system. Also, there would still have to be financial, accounting, and managerial experts for investment and operations planning.

2) Although the level of resources would not change without the expertise, the allocation and application of the resources would be completely inefficient and unorganized.

Look at it this way, you somehow gain control of 200 acres of oil rich desert, now who do you want making the decisions concerning its extraction, refining, and distribution? A collective democracy of NS users, or Halliburton?

3) Yes, in fact science would be slowed if businesses were cooperative. The economy in general and businesses specifically are driven by risk and reward. If there were no reward in added profits for large R&D expenditures, there would be no business willing to accept the risk of it.

'The world is too corrupt for communism' is not the same as 'the world will always be too corrupt for communism.'

When the world becomes ready for communism all you will have will be free market anarchy.

Can anyone say McCarthyism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism) ?

Oh, and I forgot to mention how communists love to smear their opposition, such as they did to McCarthy.

Communists also claim to hate genocide, yet they practice it far more than even the putrid pieces of filth called Nazis did. Victims of communist genocide:

Ukrainians (under Stalin), Montagnards (in Vietnam), Hmong (in Laos), Miskito Indians (in Nicaragua), whites (in Angola, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe), Matabele (in Zimbabwe), Christians (all communist countries), Jews (all communist countries), Muslims (most communist countries, including- ironically- Algeria), etc.

Never slaughtered anyone.


I've seen the photos of my grandparents (murdered before I was born) and their children.

They were beaten to death with axe handles by Communists. But first, they were told that the crime was being an intellectual (they were teachers). Then they were bound with barbed wire (including the children) and beaten to death.

It's not propaganda.

I've seen the photos of my grandparents (murdered before I was born) and their children.

They were beaten to death with axe handles by Communists. But first, they were told that the crime was being an intellectual (they were teachers). Then they were bound with barbed wire (including the children) and beaten to death.

It's not propaganda.

He meant he's never slaughtered anyone. The actions of some communists should not condemn all of them.

He meant he's never slaughtered anyone. The actions of some communists should not condemn all of them.
Most revolutions involved this sort of thing.

Most revolutions involved this sort of thing.

Which is why I for one am a non-revolutionary communist.

Market factors are open to anyone who wishes to research them. A person who starts a business without researching the market (level of competition is the most important market factor, as well as the most obvious) they will deservedly fail.

Ok, I concede that in perfect capitalism, no-one advances by any other way other than having good capitalist skills. But I still debate whether those skills serve any function other than just generating unnessecary work.

But they are owned by the government (or the people as I am sure you will say), so automatically they preclude the individual from succeeding as a businessman. Neither has the opportunity to succeed, as both individuals are FORCED to work for the good of everyone else at their own expense.

You are assuming that accomplishing something for the good of society is not a success, whereas accomplishing something for yourself is. That is a capitalist view. Since the form of communism I advocate cannot come about until the majority are communists, that isn't a problem.

I won't even tough how horribly inefficient the economy would be if competitive businesses began to cooperate. There is a reason that price and wage fixing is illegal in the US, it puts the consumer and the worker at a severe disadvantage.

But that is because in capitalism the bussinesses are aiming to make as much profit for themselves as possible, and therefore would want to fix prices and wages to their advantage. Eliminating money would solve this problem. All you need to do is to change the aim of a business, from making money to providing a service to the community.

Secondly, capital is not manufactured by capitalism. Capital will always exist no matter what economic system, it is just the ownership of capital that is debated. For example, labor is capital, every person is born with some sort of capital inherent to them, under communism it is assumed that all capital is owned by the government. Therefore, it can be argued that a communistic government forcefully claims ownership of a portion of the individual upon birth. In a capitalism, the individual has complete sole possession of himself and his labor. Sure this extra right comes with added responsibility, but many of us have a keen desire to not hand over this right, and furthermore we feel that the responsibility is an added bonus that makes the right all the more valuable.

In my ideal communist world, people would not be forced to work, they would do so by choice. No-one has possession over any of you, but you choose to give your work to everyone else, as they give theirs to you. This gives you an even greater right and responsiblity, as you have the right to not contribute, and to only receive.

1) It would be impossible for a society to function without a monetary system, no matter if it is a public monetary system or a private monetary system. Also, there would still have to be financial, accounting, and managerial experts for investment and operations planning.

Why would it be impossible? Why cannot everyone support everyone else?

2) Although the level of resources would not change without the expertise, the allocation and application of the resources would be completely inefficient and unorganized.

Look at it this way, you somehow gain control of 200 acres of oil rich desert, now who do you want making the decisions concerning its extraction, refining, and distribution? A collective democracy of NS users, or Halliburton?

I would want the same sort of people from Halliburton to make that desicion, but under the understanding that they do it for the best interests for everyone, rather than just themselves.

3) Yes, in fact science would be slowed if businesses were cooperative. The economy in general and businesses specifically are driven by risk and reward. If there were no reward in added profits for large R&D expenditures, there would be no business willing to accept the risk of it.

Again, you assume that people's only reward is personal gain, rather than for the good of society.

While a good idea, any system where people can choose to live only as leeches on society will eventualy destroy that society, as those willing to work have more and more forced on to their shoulders by the slackers. Not unlike a Union shop I used to work in, actually. Some people sleep, some people work their butts off. The trick is, the workers leave. Or their work ethic gets corroded to the point where they join the leeches.

While a good idea, any system where people can choose to live only as leeches on society will eventualy destroy that society, as those willing to work have more and more forced on to their shoulders by the slackers. Not unlike a Union shop I used to work in, actually. Some people sleep, some people work their butts off. The trick is, the workers leave. Or their work ethic gets corroded to the point where they join the leeches.

I said earlier in this thread that the move to communism must go hand in hand with the move to better humanity so that people would not want to slack.

When the world becomes ready for communism all you will have will be free market anarchy.

Maybe, or a succesfull communist soceity :p

I said earlier in this thread that the move to communism must go hand in hand with the move to better humanity so that people would not want to slack.
I have a easier, and better idea.

When technology advances to the point where we have robots doing ALL of the work (except some mental stuff we might do for fun), we can eliminate all human "labor". That's right, we can all goof off if we want, and still be fat, rich, and happy. The robots and computers will run everything and do everything. Then we can all be "equal". You could have a perfect Communism then, and most people would be eager to go along - you wouldn't have to engage in violent revolution, and the rich wouldn't see any downside.

I have a easier, and better idea.

When technology advances to the point where we have robots doing ALL of the work (except some mental stuff we might do for fun), we can eliminate all human "labor". That's right, we can all goof off if we want, and still be fat, rich, and happy. The robots and computers will run everything and do everything. Then we can all be "equal". You could have a perfect Communism then, and most people would be eager to go along - you wouldn't have to engage in violent revolution, and the rich wouldn't see any downside.

That would work excpet for the fact that there will most likely always be some things that only humans can do.

So the problem in this situation is with education and intelligence?

I think that even the most hardline communist can see the obvious problems with capping those two things.

you're just avoiding completely the point pyromanstahn made...intelligence and education had nothgin to do with it.

There is no such thing as relative bad luck, especially in a large efficient economy.

If one company succeeds over another company that provides an equal amount of capital and an equal amount effort, it must mean that their effort was converted to more labor through expertise, and expertise is the result of education and intelligence.

..or luck..

That would work excpet for the fact that there will most likely always be some things that only humans can do.
And the few malcontents who aren't happy partying forever can do those things.

And the few malcontents who aren't happy partying forever can do those things.

OK, then. Why don't you get started on designing all these robots then?

OK, then. Why don't you get started on designing all these robots then?
You have to agree, it's a much better idea than armed revolution.

You have to agree, it's a much better idea than armed revolution.

I do agree. I never said anything in support of armed revolution.

In my opinion, communism is a good idea in theory. However, it does not account for human nature. Therefore, it is flawed and cannot work in a human society. I'm still holding out for goldfish though... ;)

I do agree. I never said anything in support of armed revolution.
On day 1,006, having left the local system of the Nereid Nebula, I noticed a spot on the screen and tried rubbing it off with a chamois cloth. There was nothing else to do, so I spent four hours rubbing before I realized the spot was a planet and rapidly growing larger. Circling this heavenly body, I was not a little surprised to find that its vast continents were covered with regular patterns and geometric configurations. I landed with due caution in the middle of an open desert. It was covered with small disks, perhaps half a meter in diameter; hard and shiny, as if turned on a lathe, they ran in long rows in various directions, forming the designs I had noticed from a high altitude. After making a few tests, I went cruising just above the ground seeking an answer to the riddle of the disks, which intrigued me enormously. During a two-hour flight I discovered, one after another, three immense and beautiful cities; I touched down in a square in one of them. But the city was completely deserted; houses, towers, squares, everything was dead; no sign of life anywhere, or any trace of natural disaster. More amazed and bewildered than ever, I flew on. Around noon, I found myself above a vast plateau. Catching sight of a shiny building near which there was some sort of movement, I immediately landed. A palace rose from the rocky plain, sparkling as though cut from a single diamond. A wide marble staircase led up to its gilded portal. At the foot of the staircase, several unfamiliar beings were milling about. I looked at them close up. If my eyes did not deceive me, they were alive, and moreover, resembled humans so much (especially from a distance) that I dubbed them “hominiformicans.” I was prepared with this name because I had spent time during my voyage thinking up nomenclature, in order to have terms handy for such occasions. “Hominiformicans” fit the bill, for these beings walked upon two legs, and had hands, heads, eyes, ears, and lips. True, the lips were in the middle of the forehead, the ears under the chin (a pair on each side), and the eyes, ten in all, were arranged like rosary beads across their cheeks. But to a traveler like me, who has encountered the most bizarre creatures in the course of his expeditions, they were the spitting image of humans.

I approached them, keeping a safe distance, and asked what they were doing. They made no reply, but continued peering into the diamond mirrors that rose from the lowest step of the staircase. I tried to interrupt them once, twice, three times, but seeing that this had not the slightest effect, in my impatience I shook one vigorously by the shoulder. Then they all turned in my direction and seemed to notice me for the first time. After regarding me and my rocket with some astonishment, they asked me several questions, to which I willingly replied. But because they kept breaking off the conversation to gaze into the diamond mirrors, I was afraid I would not be able to question them properly. Finally, however, I managed to persuade one to satisfy my curiosity. This Phool (for, as he told me, they are called Phools) sat down with me on a rock not far from the stairs. My interlocutor fortunately possessed considerable intelligence, which showed in the gleam of the ten eyes on his cheeks. He threw his ears over his shoulders and described the history of the Phools, as follows:

“Alien voyager! You must know that we are a people with a long and splendid past. The population of this planet has been divided from time immemorial into Spiritors, Eminents, and Drudgelings. The Spiritors were absorbed in the contemplation of the nature of the Great Phoo, who in a deliberate creative act brought the Phools into being, settled them on this globe, and in His inscrutable mercy surrounded it with stars to illuminate the night and also fashioned the Solar Fire to light our days and send us beneficent warmth. The Eminents levied taxes, interpreted the meaning of state laws, and supervised the factories, in which the Drudgelings modestly toiled. Thus everyone worked together for the public good. We dwelt in peace and harmony; our civilization reached great heights. Through the ages inventors built machines that simplified work, and where in ancient times a hundred Drudgelings had bent their sweating backs, centuries later a few stood by a machine. Our scientists improved the machines, and the people rejoiced at this, but subsequent events showed how cruelly premature was that rejoicing. A certain learned constructor built the New Machines, devices so excellent that they could work quite independently, without supervision. And that was the beginning of the catastrophe. When the New Machines appeared in the factories, hordes of Drudgelings lost their jobs; and, receiving no salary, they faced starvation…”

“Excuse me, Phool,” I asked, “but what became of the profits the factories made?”

“The profits,” he replied, “went to the rightful owners, of course. Now, then, as I was saying, the threat of annihilation hung…”

“But what are you saying, worthy Phool?” I cried. “All that had to be done was to make the factories common property, and the New Machines would have become a blessing to you!”

The minute I said this the Phool trembled, blinked his ten eyes nervously, and cupped his ears to ascertain whether any of his companions milling about the stairs had overheard my remark.

“By the Ten Noses of the Phoo, I implore you, O Stranger; do not utter such vile heresy, which attacks the very foundation of our freedom! Our supreme law, the Principle of Civic Initiative, states that no one can be compelled, constrained, or even coaxed to do what he does not wish. Who, then, would dare expropriate the Eminents’ factories, it being their will to enjoy possession of the same? That would be the most horrible violation of liberty imaginable. Now, then, to continue, the New Machines produced an abundance of extremely cheap goods and excellent food, but the Drudgelings bought nothing, for they had not the wherewithal…”

“But, my dear Phool!” I cried. “Surely you do not claim that the Drudgelings did this voluntarily? Where was your liberty, your civic freedom?”

“Ah, worthy stranger,” sighed the Phool, “the laws were still observed, but they say only that the citizen is free to do whatever he wants with his property and money; they do not say where he is to obtain them. No one oppressed the Drudgelings, no one forced them to do anything; they were completely free and could do what they pleased, yet instead of rejoicing at such freedom, they died off like flies… The situation worsened; in the factory warehouses, mountains of unpurchased goods rose skyward, while swarms of wraithlike, emaciated Drudgelings roamed the streets. The Plenum Moronicum, the venerable assembly of Spiritors and Eminents that governed the state, conferred all year round on ways to remedy the evil. Its members gave long speeches and frantically sought a way out of the predicament, but to no avail. At the very beginning of the deliberations, one member of the Plenum, the author of a famous work on Phoolian freedoms, demanded that the constructor of the New Machines be stripped of his golden laurel wreath and that, on the contrary, his ten eyes be plucked out. This was opposed by the Spiritors, who begged mercy for the inventor in the name of the Great Phoo. The Plenum Moronicum spent four months determining whether or not the constructor had violated the law of the realm by inventing the New Machines. The assembly split into two camps. The dispute was finally ended by a fire in the archives that destroyed the minutes of the proceedings; since none of the august members of the Plenum could recall what position they had taken on the issue, the whole matter was dropped. It was then proposed that the Eminents, who owned the factories, be requested to cease building the New Machines; the Plenum appointed a committee for this purpose, but the committee’s entreaties had not the slightest effect. The Eminents declared that it was their wish to continue to produce in this way, for the New Machines worked more cheaply and more swiftly than did the Drudgelings. The Plenum Moronicum resumed deliberations. A law was drawn up stipulating that the factory owners give a fixed percentage of their profits to the Drudgelings, but that proposal fell through, too, for, as Archspiritor Nolab rightly pointed out, such handouts would have corrupted and degraded the souls of the latter. Meanwhile, the mountains of manufactured goods kept rising, until finally they began to spill out over the walls of the factories, whereupon mobs of starving Drudgelings rushed up with threatening cries. In vain did the Spiritors attempt to explain to them, with the greatest kindness, that they were defying sovereign laws, and daring to opposed the Phoo’s inscrutable decrees; that they should endure their lot meekly, for through mortification of the flesh, the soul is elevated and gains the certainty of heavenly reward. The Drudgelings, however, turned a deaf ear to this wisdom, and armed guards were needed to curb their seditious activity.

“Then the Plenum Moronicum summoned the constructor of the New Machines before its august presence, and addressed him as follows:
“‘Learned Man! Great danger threatens our state, for rebellious, criminal ideas are arising among the masses of Drudgelings. They strive to abolish our splendid freedoms and the law of Civic Initiative! We must make every effort to defend our liberty. After careful consideration of the whole problem, we have reached the conclusion that we are unequal to the task. Even the most virtuous, capable, and model Phool can be swayed by feelings, and is often vacillating, biased, and fallible, and thus unfit to reach a decision in so complicated and important a matter. Therefore, within six months, you are to build us a purely rational, strictly logical, and completely objective Governing Machine that does not know the hesitation, emotion, and fear that befuddle living minds. Let this machine be as impartial as the light of the Sun and stars. When you have built and activated it, we shall hand over to it the burden of power, which grows too heavy for our weary shoulders.’

“‘So be it,’ said the constructor, ‘but what is to be the machine’s basic motivation?’

“‘Obviously, the freedom of Civic Initiative. The machine must not command or forbid the citizens anything; it may, of course, change the conditions of our existence, but it must do so always in the form of a proposal, leaving us alternatives between which we may freely choose.’

“‘So be it,’ replied the constructor, ‘but this injunction concerns mainly the mode of operation. What of the ultimate goal? What is this machine’s purpose?’

“‘Our state is threatened by chaos; disorder and disregard for the law are spreading. Let the Machine bring supreme harmony to the planet, let it institute, consolidate, and establish perfect and absolute order.’

“‘Let it be as you have said!’ replied the constructor. ‘Within six months, I shall build the Voluntary Universalizer of Absolute Order. With this task ahead of me, I bid you farewell…’

“‘Wait!’ said one of the Eminents. ‘The Machine you create should operate not only in a perfect but also in a pleasant manner; that is, its activity should produce an agreeable impression, one that would satisfy the most refined aesthetic sensibility…’

“The constructor bowed and left in silence. Working arduously and aided by a troop of nimble assistants, he erected the Governing Machine, the very one you see on the horizon as a small dark spot, alien traveler. It is a conglomeration of iron cylinders in which something constantly shakes and burns. The day it was switched on was a great state holiday; the eldest Archspiritor blessed it solemnly, and the Plenum Moronicum gave it complete power over the country. Then the Voluntary Universalizer of Absolute Order emitted a long whistle and set to work.

“For six days the Machine labored, around the clock; in the daytime clouds of smoke hung over it, and at night it was surrounded by a bright glow. The ground shook for a radius of one hundred and sixty miles. Then the double doors of its cylinders opened, and out spilled hosts of small black robots, which, waddling like ducks scattered over the whole planet, even to its remotest corners. Wherever they went, they assembled by the factory warehouses and, speaking in a charming and lucid manner, requested various items, for which they paid at once. Within a week the warehouses were empty, and the Eminent factory owners sighed with relief: ‘Truly the constructor has built us a splendid machine!’ Indeed, it was marvelous to see the robots use the objects they had purchased: they dressed in brocades and satins, oiled their axles with cosmetics, smoked tobacco, read books – shedding synthetic tears over the sad ones; they even managed to consume the most varied delicacies (with no benefit to themselves, of course, since they ran on electricity, but to the great benefit of the manufacturers). It was only the masses that were not satisfied; on the contrary, they murmured more and more among themselves. The Eminents, however, hopefully awaited the Machine’s next move, which was not long in coming.

“It assembled large quantities of marble, alabaster, granite, rock crystal, and copper; sacks of gold and silver, and slabs of jasper; after which, making a terrible din, it raised an edifice no Phoolian eye had ever beheld – this Rainbow Palace, traveler, which stands before you!”

I looked. The sun had just emerged from behind a cloud and its beams played on the polished walls, splitting into flames of sapphire and ruby red; rainbow stripes shimmered around the angled towers and bastions; the roof, adorned with slender turrets and covered with gold leaf, was all aglow. I feasted my eyes on this magnificence while the Phool went on.

“News of the wondrous building spread over the whole planet. Veritable pilgrimages began arriving here from the most distant lands. When the crowds had filled the commons, the Machine parted its metal lips and spoke thus:

“ ‘On the first day of the month of Huskings I shall throw open the jasper portal of the Rainbow Palace, and then any Phool, be he famous or obscure, will be able to go inside and enjoy what awaits him there. Until then, restrain your curiosity, for you will satisfy it amply later on.’

“And verily, on the morning of the first day of Huskings there was a sounding of silver trumpets, and the palace portal opened with a dull groan. The crowds began to pour inside in a torrent three times wider than the highway that connects our two capitals, Debilia and Cretinia. All day long, masses of Phools streamed in, but their numbers on the commons did not diminish, for new ones arrived continually from the interior of the country. The Machine extended hospitality to all: the black robots distributed refreshing beverages and hearty food. This went on for a fortnight. Thousands, tens of thousands, finally millions of Phools had thronged into the Rainbow Palace, but of those who entered, not one returned.

“Some wondered about this and asked where such great numbers of people were disappearing, but these solitary voices were drowned out by the blaring rhythm of marching bands. Robots scurried here and there feeding the hungry and thirsty; the silver clocks on the palace towers chimed; and when night fell, the crystal windows shone with many lights. Finally, as several hundred persons were patiently waiting their turn on the marble staircase, a shrill cry rang out over the lively beat of the drums: ‘Treachery! Listen! The palace is a diabolical trap! Run for your lives! All is lost!’

“‘All is lost!’ the crowd on the staircase cried back, then turned and scattered. No one tried to stop them.

“The following night, several bold Drudgelings stole up to the palace. When they returned, they said that the back wall of the palace had opened slowly and innumerable piles of shiny disks had tumbled out. Black robots had carried the disks into the fields and arranged them in various designs.

“Upon hearing this, the Spiritors and Eminents, who had been meeting in the Plenum (they had not gone to the palace, it being awkward for them to mingle with the crowd), convened immediately, and, wishing to solve the enigma, summoned the learned constructor. Instead, his son appeared, downcast, and rolling a large, transparent disk.

“The Eminents, beside themselves with impatience and indignation, reviled the absent scientist and called down curses on his head. They questioned the youth, ordered him to explain the mystery of the Rainbow Palace, and tell them what the Machine had done with the Phools who entered it.

“‘Besmirch not my father’s memory!’ the youth exclaimed. ‘In building the Machine he faithfully abided by your requirements; once he put it into operation, however, he knew no more than any of us how it would act – the best proof of which is the fact that he himself was among the first to enter the Rainbow Palace.’

“‘And where is he now?’ the Plenum cried with one voice.

“‘Here,’ the youth replied sorrowfully, pointing to the shiny disk. He glared at the elders, and thus, stopped by no one, went his way, rolling his metamorphosed father before him.

“The members of the Plenum trembled with both rage and fear; later, however, they came to the conclusion that the Machine would surely not harm them, so they sang the Phoolian anthem, and thus fortified in spirit, set out together from the city. Presently, they found themselves before the iron monster.

“‘Scoundrel!’ cried the eldest of the Eminents. ‘You have deceived us and violated our laws! Cease operating at once! What have you done with the Phoolian people entrusted to you? Speak!’

“No sooner had he finished than the Machine stopped its gears. The smoke cleared in the sky and complete silence followed. Then the metal lips parted and a thunderous voice boomed out:

“‘O Eminents and Spiritors! You who brought me into being to rule the Phools! I am distressed by the mental confusion and senselessness of your reproaches! First you demand that I establish order; then, when I set to work, you hinder my efforts! The palace has been empty for three days now; everything is at a standstill, and none of you have yet approached the jasper portal, thereby preventing the completion of my task. I assure you, however, that I shall not rest until it is completed!’

“At these words the entire Plenum shuddered and cried:

“‘What order do you speak of, villain? What have you done with our kith and kin in violation of national laws?’

“ ‘What an unintelligent question!’ answered the Machine. ‘What order do I speak of? Look at yourselves, how ill-constructed your bodies are; various limbs protrude from them; some of you are tall, others short, some fat, some thin… You move chaotically, you stop and gape at flowers, at clouds, you wander aimlessly in the woods – there is not the least harmony in that! I, the Voluntary Universalizer of Absolute Order, am transforming your frail, weak bodies into solid, beautiful, durable forms, from which I then arrange pleasing symmetrical designs, and patterns of incomparable regularity, thereby bringing perfect order to the planet…’

“‘Monster!’ cried the Spiritors and Eminents. ‘How dare you destroy us? You trample on our laws, you murder us!’

“In reply the Machine rasped scornfully and said:

“‘Did I not tell you that you cannot reason logically? Of course I respect your laws and freedoms. I am establishing order without coercion, without resorting to violence or constraint. No one entered the Rainbow Palace who did not wish to; but everyone who did enter I transformed (acting on my own initiative), let me repeat, reshaping the material of his body so that in its new form, it will endure for ages. I guarantee it.’

“For some time there was silence. Then, whispering amongst themselves, the Plenum concluded that the law really had not been broken and that things were not so bad as they had first seemed. ‘We,’ the Eminents said, ‘would never have committed such a crime. The Machine is to blame; it swallowed up multitudes of desperate Drudgelings. But now the surviving Eminents will be able to enjoy temporal peace together with the Spiritors, praising the inscrutable decrees of the Great Phoo. We shall keep far away from the Rainbow Palace,’ they told themselves, ‘and no harm will befall us.’

“They were about to disperse again when the Machine addressed them again:

“‘Pay careful attention now to what I say. I must finish what I have begun. I will not compel, persuade, or urge you to do anything; I still leave you complete freedom of initiative. But if anyone wishes to see his neighbor, brother, friend, or other close associate achieve the level of Circular Harmony, let him summon the black robots; they will appear immediately and at his behest escort the designated individual to the Rainbow Palace. That is all.’

“In the silence that followed, the Eminents looked at one another with sudden suspicion and fear. Archspiritor Nolab, in a wavering voice, explained to the Machine that it was gravely in error to wish to remake them all into shiny disks; this would come to pass if it were the Great Phoo’s will, but in order to know His will much time was needed. He proposed to the Machine, therefore, that it put off its decision for seventy years.

“ ‘I cannot,’ replied the Machine, ‘for I have already worked out a precise plan of action for the period that follows the transformation of the last Phool; I assure you that I am preparing for the planet the most glorious fate – existence in harmony. This, I believe, would also befit the Phoo whom you mentioned but with whom I am otherwise unacquainted; could you not bring him also to the Rainbow Palace?’

“It stopped, for the square was now deserted. The Eminents and Spiritors had run off to their homes, where each gave himself up to solitary reflection on his future. The more they reflected, the more apprehensive they grew; for each feared that some neighbor or acquaintance who nursed a grudge against him might summon the black robots. There was no recourse but to act first. Soon the quiet of the night was shattered by cries. Sticking their fear-contorted faces out of windows, the Eminents shouted desperately into the darkness, and the streets resounded with the many-footed tread of iron robots. Sons betrayed fathers; grandfathers, grandsons; brother sent brother to the palace; thus, in a single night, thousands of Eminents and Spiritors melted away to the handful you see before you, alien traveler. The dawn revealed fields strewn with myriads of shiny disks arranged in harmoniously geometric designs. The last trace, this, of our friends and relatives. At midday the Machine announced in a thunderous voice:

“‘Enough. Be so good as to curb your eagerness, O Eminents and remaining Spiritors. I am closing the portal of the Rainbow Palace – but not, I promise you, for long. I have exhausted the designs prepared for the Universalization of Absolute Order, and must think awhile so that I may create new ones. Then you will be able to continue acting of your own volition.’”

With these words the Phool looked at me wide-eyed, and finished more quietly:
“That was two days ago. Gathered here, we wait…”

“O worthy Phool!” I cried, smoothing down my hair, which had stood on end. “Yours is a terrible and incredible story. But, pray, tell me, why you did not rise up against the mechanical monster that annihilated you, why did you let yourselves be forced…”

The Phool jumped up. His whole figure expressed great rage.

“Insult us not, traveler!” he exclaimed. “You speak hastily, so I forgive you… Ponder what I have told you, and you must reach the conclusion that the Machine is abiding by the principle of Civic Initiative, and, though this may seem a little strange, it has done the Phoolian people a valuable service, for there can be no injustice where the law upholds liberty. And what man would prefer the diminution of his freedom to…”

He did not finish, for there was an ear-piercing screech and the jasper portal opened majestically. At this sight all the Phools sprang to their feet and ran up the stairs.

“O Phool, Phool!” I cried, by my companion merely waved his hand at me, saying, “I have no time,” and bounded up behind the others to disappear inside the palace.

I stood for a long while, and then I saw a column of black robots; they marched to the palace wall, opened a hatch, and rolled out a long row of disks that gleamed beautifully in the sun. They rolled the disks to an open field and there completed an unfinished design in some pattern. The palace portal was still wide open; I took a few steps to look inside, but a shiver went down my spine.

The Machine parted its metal lips and invited me in.

“What do you take me for, a Phool?” I replied.

I turned sharply and headed for the rocket, and in a minute was behind the controls, taking off at top speed.

Great!!! Where's that from?

Much like the far right execrates fears of minorities and Jews, the communist left places fear on the masses by making them think that Big business and government are after them. Its paranoid delusion on a massive scale. Thomas Hobbes was correct when he wrote in Leviathan(mp?) that fear is what motivates society. Me and others would rather believe that we have nothing to fear but fear itself

Communist doesn't work, the state can't bear the entire burden of everyone’s lively hood. It’s too expensive to begin with. Communism places the entire civilization and organizes them to one massive collective. Like in the dystopian novel Anthem, the individual cease to exist.
Sure collectivism might of worked well in the hunting farming society, put in the complex world of industrial and internet age. Communism serves no purpose

Can anyone even name a great invention that has come out of a communist country besides Tetris (lol). Completion is what forces business to make better products, its what forces companies to make better medical products or pills. The fierce completion of the computer industry in the early 90's is what created the massive surplus here in America. Take away that completion and you take away the natural progressivism of liberal democracy.


The markets will correct themselves, they can regulate themselves with big government. The invisible hand is still the thing that lifts all of society

Now granted WE SHOULD HAVE SOME SAFTY NETS TO PROTECT US FROM DOG EAT DOG UPTON SINCLAIR WORLD. But their is no need to get rid of the entire house because the kitchen sink is broken

..or luck..

I will put the same challenge to you:

State a reasonable situation in which a person will lose capital due to bad luck in a capitalism. Avoid using fraud as a cause, as that should be illegal in a capitalistic system.

Communism blows, it is the dumbest idea written by a guy who had no life, and for all you who say "Communism hasnt happened yet, only Stalinism has!" Well what about Chinanism, cambodianism, vietnamism, Cubaism. Communism is the most fucked up idea ever brought up. And just by looking at all the countries it hasnt worked it just shows how bad it is.

Communism blows, it is the dumbest idea written by a guy who had no life, and for all you who say "Communism hasnt happened yet, only Stalinism has!" Well what about Chinanism, cambodianism, vietnamism, Cubaism. Communism is the most fucked up idea ever brought up. And just by looking at all the countries it hasnt worked it just shows how bad it is.
sorry but i'm getting sick of reading BS posts like this from people who are misinformed (ie don't know what they're talking about) (nothing personal, you understand). read Marx's work, read Owen's, read this most excellent book by my political philosophy lecturers (linky (http://www.eup.ed.ac.uk/edition_details.aspx?id=11653))
nothing that has been tried in the world is anything close to the end stage in Marx's theory of historical materialism. trust me, or read up on it

You are assuming that accomplishing something for the good of society is not a success, whereas accomplishing something for yourself is. That is a capitalist view. Since the form of communism I advocate cannot come about until the majority are communists, that isn't a problem.

No, I am not assuming that at all. I am assuming that there should be a choice. Capitalism assumes that people have the right to purchase and own what they want, and that people should be determined what they work for and what they are paid.

But that is because in capitalism the bussinesses are aiming to make as much profit for themselves as possible, and therefore would want to fix prices and wages to their advantage. Eliminating money would solve this problem. All you need to do is to change the aim of a business, from making money to providing a service to the community.

Firstly, you must either have the profit incentive to maintain wages and prices at a fair equilibrium or you will have an inefficient market, that is economics.

Secondly, how can any adequate value be assigned to investments that are designed to provide a service to the community?

In my ideal communist world, people would not be forced to work, they would do so by choice. No-one has possession over any of you, but you choose to give your work to everyone else, as they give theirs to you. This gives you an even greater right and responsiblity, as you have the right to not contribute, and to only receive.

I have to think about this, and will respond later.

Why would it be impossible? Why cannot everyone support everyone else?

Because one person may value meat more than potatoes or vice versa. There must be a system by which people will be able to assign a value to goods, otherwise people will be forced to accept things that are of lesser value.

I would want the same sort of people from Halliburton to make that desicion, but under the understanding that they do it for the best interests for everyone, rather than just themselves.

So you agree that there must be expertise. Do you not agree that in order for someone to invest enough to develop the expertise should recieve a greater compensation for their work?

Again, you assume that people's only reward is personal gain, rather than for the good of society.

And yet again you assume that it societal benefit possesses a measurable value.

I believe that on paper Marxism is most likely the most ideal model. However, human nature (that pesky thing) forbids it for every becoming a reality.

The communism that we know today isn't really communism at all its Fascism. Plain and simple. Of course if you would have tried to tell Hitler and Stalin that you would have been shredded to bits through a cheese grater.

ignoring the fact that one is a fictional character, i'll go along with that. so what? their differences are not all that great except on a few particular measures. and those differences will not all favor the same person.


I'm sorry this flew over your head.

Have you ever done hard labor? You know, digging holes, chopping down trees, carrying rocks? I have. I can do it fairly easily. It's not that big a deal to me.

Give that same job to someone like, say, my ex, who, while physically fit, can barely do a pushup, and she'd pass out.

There is a lack of equality there. A drastic lack. She would never be able to produce as much hard labor as I can, and it would be much harder on her than it would on me. And we're both in very average ranges.


btw, nice choice on examples - after all, einstein was a committed socialist.


And?

I'm a socio-capitalist.

I'm all for setups like Canada or Australia.

Communism, on the other hand, just doesn't work in the Marxist sense without being wholly immoral. Do it the way Amish do, minus the occassional kidnapping of kids thing.


ah, yes. because obviously differing hieghts are an injustice that must be abolished. come on, you'll have to do better than that.


It's not the height, bucko, its that, while the pygmy people are as spiffy as the masai, their physical differences are rather pronounced.

Remember, not every single human being is going to be doing a desk job.

And hey, people can have vastly different mental capabilities. Also makes things easier for some people. Gasp. Inequality.

If the guy with 160 IQ is a librarian and Dubya is a librarian, there's going to be inequality. The smarter guy will be catching up on his reading and being nice and casual while Dubya will be puzzling over the DD system.



i'd like you to meet my friend canis familiaris.



Yes. Another example.

Did I say humans were THE most diverse?



but seriously, we have very little genetic diversity in our species.



Individuals still vary vastly. Not everyone is Stephen Hawkings, not everyone is Mike Tyson.



much less than we find between chimps living in the same troop.



Oh bull.

Chimps do have a decent amount of variance, but COME ON.

Hulk Hogan vs. Leonardo Di Caprio?



we can see 'extreme' morphological differences between ourselves partly because of a couple strange founder-effect distributions of pigmentation genes.



Dude, skin isn't even involved in this. The ability to take sun isn't that important when clothing exists.

The difference in strength and mental aptitude is.



but mostly it's because we are built to be able to recognize each other as distinct individuals, and therefore pick up on such things better in our own species than in others.



Yes. Like the difference in being able to lift 30 pounds, or 300 pounds, or in finding trig hard, and finding calculus easy.



not many important ones.



Right. Leonardo DeVinci. Just another guy.



the socially important differences in power, prestige, and access to resources require social exaggeration and a system to defend the privileges of the elite.



You do realize that many European aristocrats were so poor they had to marry rich Americans to keep from being being ruined because their social 'elitism' meant they weren't ABLE to get jobs?

And, bucko. Alanis Morisette is not destroying the country. She's got some serious bills, she's got some serious prestige, she's, gasp, harmless.

There are ways to control the rich and popular without stealing from them.



in societies with different systems of social exaggeration, we have seen much lower levels of inequality, all the way down to near perfect egalitarianism.


Like, Canada and Australia?


our society is actually one of the most unequal ones ever to exist - and it's not because we as a population are all that genetically different than any other human groups.


*chuckles*

Yes. We're so much worse than the various fuedal systems. Or the various self-dubbed communist states, or Rome, or whatever Middle Eastern cultures are full of castes you're born in to no matter what you do.

Because, you know, my family sure didn't go from hunting deer to boating around on weekends in a single fricking generation. Nope. Definately not. No social mobility at all.


and therefore we must have a class of people who does the shit work for us all the time and on top of that is poorly paid and despised, right?


Here's the thing. There are some people who can't really do anything else, often because their parents were selfish dipwads who gave birth to children for reasons other than to make them as happy as possible.

I utterly despise the farmer who has a kid because he needs another farm hand.

As for their pay, no, I don't support them being screwed over. I don't support unregulated economies. That's why I'm not so sad about living in the democratic socialist republic of the united states of America. Yes, there's still much corruption, and thanks to religious BS and educational issues, the country is heading backwards right now, but damned if the 90s weren't great, and damned if I'm not looking foreward to working hard and getting what my NATURAL talents bring me.



got any relevant genetic differences between them? they have all of the same capacities, except for those directly related to the skewed height distribution. but so what?



As we all know, being smaller never has any effects whatsoever on your physical abilities compared to other human beings. Basketball is proof of this.

People have differences. This makes them more suited for different roles. Mugsy is a -amazing- basketball player, but he's not the guy you use to get the slam dunk.

Next you'll suggest that there's no difference between me and my Egyptian roommate, even though I prefer 68F, and he prefers 76. Clearly, we're going to have an equal time working in a meat locker.



no, it held true before the widespread use of reliable birth control and the liberation of women among the wealthier classes.



Which came about via education, gasp. Notice that trailor parks are still littered with kids.



it's more than that. the differences in power, wealth, and prestige are completely tied up with social rules and norms - rules and norms that were not handed down by god and have varied over time.


If you start pulling a religious argument... UGH.

Religion is what people used to GET these stupid ideas of 'elite' status that wasn't based on real worth. Oh, look at me, I'm the King, 'cause God says so!

All you're saying is that the society right now is full of crap. This is true. Human society is always full of crap. Humans are a crappy species. They have wars and revolutions instead of just discussing things.


they are also connected to control of the state and the use of force, or the threat of it. these things do not just magically distribute themselves, their particular distribution is entirely contingent on particular social constructs.

Yes. The kind of social constructs that happen when revolutions are the way things change.

skipping most of this. i just don't see why minor genetic differences in the particular kinds of things people might be good and bad at have any importance at all. its not as if it doesn't average out for the most part. nor do we divide up resources based on any particular genetic strengths and weaknesses except in an arbitrary and inconsistent way. plus, you seem to be mixing nature and nurture all over the place. but anyway,

Oh bull.

Chimps do have a decent amount of variance, but COME ON.

Hulk Hogan vs. Leonardo Di Caprio?

see "Extensive Nuclear DNA Sequence Diversity Among Chimpanzees" by Henrik Kaessmann, Victor Wiebe, and Svante Paabo.
Science, Vol. 286, No. 5442. (Nov. 5, 1999), pp. 1159-1162.

which shows genetic variance is 4 times greater among chimps than it is among the worldwide human population, with most of that being concentrated in the central african chimps (this is specifically for a particular non-coding sequence, but that probably gives us a a solid picture of the overall level of variation in the whole thing).

I'm talking morphology.

It's a good idea, I myself hold socialist beliefs but people are too greedy and ego-centric to make it work, right. Therefore, it is easilly corrupted by our greed. I personally prefer anarcho-socialism to the statist/authoritarian variety as it's basicly a few people controlling too much.

I'm sorry this flew over your head.

Have you ever done hard labor? You know, digging holes, chopping down trees, carrying rocks? I have. I can do it fairly easily. It's not that big a deal to me.

Give that same job to someone like, say, my ex, who, while physically fit, can barely do a pushup, and she'd pass out.

There is a lack of equality there. A drastic lack. She would never be able to produce as much hard labor as I can, and it would be much harder on her than it would on me. And we're both in very average ranges.

Which is why jobs would not be given out at random. People would still have to try out for good jobs. People would be assessed for what their best job could be, and tried out for it first, based on what society needs and the person can give. If the person wants a different job, he or she can try out for it. If there isnt a large surplus already, and the person can do it, they can switch.

Its not as thought people are picked out of a hat with names written on paper. Not everyone is identical in a communist state, there just arent great differences in wealth and social status.

Which is why jobs would not be given out at random. People would still have to try out for good jobs. People would be assessed for what their best job could be, and tried out for it first, based on what society needs and the person can give. If the person wants a different job, he or she can try out for it. If there isnt a large surplus already, and the person can do it, they can switch.

Its not as thought people are picked out of a hat with names written on paper. Not everyone is identical in a communist state, there just arent great differences in wealth and social status.

That is the exact reason why communism will not work. Also, the idea of a government enforcing this system, to me, just seems like a government doing way more than a government is there to do. Much like the U.S. spreading democracy to Iraq, weather it is correct or not, it is beyond the purpose of what a government is created for.

That is the exact reason why communism will not work. Also, the idea of a government enforcing this system, to me, just seems like a government doing way more than a government is there to do. Much like the U.S. spreading democracy to Iraq, weather it is correct or not, it is beyond the purpose of what a government is created for.

What is the exact reason? You didnt put any emphasis on any part of my message.

Which is why jobs would not be given out at random. People would still have to try out for good jobs. People would be assessed for what their best job could be, and tried out for it first, based on what society needs and the person can give. If the person wants a different job, he or she can try out for it. If there isnt a large surplus already, and the person can do it, they can switch.

Its not as thought people are picked out of a hat with names written on paper. Not everyone is identical in a communist state, there just arent great differences in wealth and social status.

Uh huh. No 'great' differences, eh? Seed of hypocrasy.

So. How do you expect to get people to do the sewer jobs? And how are they going to be considered equal in status to the people discovering the laws of quantum physics?

So. How do you expect to get people to do the sewer jobs? And how are they going to be considered equal in status to the people discovering the laws of quantum physics?

standard answer - use technology to minimize the undesirable jobs as much as possible, see if anybody actually prefers to do the work that's left, and if that isn't enough to cover it the quantum physicists get to take on their fair share of the load.

What is the exact reason? You didnt put any emphasis on any part of my message. I put bold tags on the last sentence. Anyway, this is the part I was refering to

'Not everyone is identical in a communist state, there just arent great differences in wealth and social status.'

If person A and person B are different, they should not be treated like they are the same.

Communism removes incentive for people to go above and beyond the minimum requirement in order to be succesful. It's like natural selection in reverse.

standard answer - use technology to minimize the undesirable jobs as much as possible, see if anybody actually prefers to do the work that's left, and if that isn't enough to cover it the quantum physicists get to take on their fair share of the load.

Where is this technology? You think if they haven't created the technology to clean people's toilets and collect the garbage by now, that they can just suddenly make it appear?

Most quantum physicists aren't real good at hard labour [so I assume from their puny pencil-neck geek appearences] so why make them do it and give half their work to a guy who didn't finish high school? Communism is an inefficient system, yet people seem to think they'll be able to produce technology at a better rate than we currently do?

Standard answer - sucks.

standard answer - use technology to minimize the undesirable jobs as much as possible, see if anybody actually prefers to do the work that's left, and if that isn't enough to cover it the quantum physicists get to take on their fair share of the load.

1) Where is this sewerbot 9000? Won't this all just make people who can't do higher stuff nigh-useless drags on society?

2) So you're going to force people to do work they have no interest in doing when they can be doing more important stuff? Do the suckier people get forced to do physics in the mean time?

Bergeronism. Agh.

Oh please do tell how you aim to end the evil in human nature? Honestly are you people that naive that you think you can change the way people are from the moment they are born?

When was the last time you had to teach a young child how to be bad? Oh thats right, you don't teach them how to be bad, you teach them how to be good...what a freaking amazing concept. If we're born with inherent evil then it is impossible to change this, case closed. Saying anything else is ludicrous and idealistic at best.


Quite simply. You create democracy. By having everyone invested in the decision making process at all times, one person's cruelty and selfishness is counteracted by another, and eventually you just get a big group of people making compromises that work for everyone, just not perfectly for them. That actually sounds pretty good. Communism was never built on the idea that people are perfect and nice. Capitalism creates communism, and capitalists are, in my opinion, assholes. It would make sense if some of that carried into communism. But by having a democracy with everyone needing to care, you can take the selfishness away with all the counter-weights of your fellow comrades.

If you really think about it, why would I want you to prosper from your greed if I get less? So if I think you're a prick, I'll just vote to oppose you, and argue against your proposals. In the end we'll meet at a fair compromise, somewhere in the middle. Direct democracy is necessary for communism to work, and if it follows the course of revolution that was set out for it, then eventually it will end up there.

Don't listen to the Americanized bullshit answers that think communism requires an economy that is planned by a party elite. There is a big difference between the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and communism (which has no government that can be spoken of).

1) Where is this sewerbot 9000? Won't this all just make people who can't do higher stuff nigh-useless drags on society?

2) So you're going to force people to do work they have no interest in doing when they can be doing more important stuff? Do the suckier people get forced to do physics in the mean time?

1) we are already in the process of automating all sorts of stuff. why would we stop? boring repetitive work sucks. hard dirty work sucks. in a society being run by and for everyone instead of an elite, you bet we'd be getting rid of as much of it as possible. and why would they be drags on society? there are lots of other things that people can do, and we are always coming up with new ones. besides, we work too much as it is.

2) well, do you want to live in a society where the garbage gets taken away? if so, and there aren't enough people signing up to do it for you, you'd best help out. no force necessary.

Yes, this is where a democracy is nice.

Of course, the trick is to not force people who want to stick to capitalism. Individual rights and all.

The amish prove that communistic practices can survive fine in capitalism.

Can capitalism survive in communist states?



So, what do you intend to do with the capitalists?

Kill them? Imprison them? Enslave them?

Pretty much. We really don't care about the capitalists. I've already started to dehumanize them in the event that I can start molotoving their houses and stuff.

No, capitalism cannot survive, but by Marx's revolution, no one will want it to by the time the revolution rolls around. Except for maybe .2% of all the people in the country, but they are the wealthy.

Marx also doesn't give a shit about individual rights. In one of his essays, he analyzes individual rights as they are indoctrinated into you, and came to the conclusion that all they do is seperate men into little balls, rolling around but completely seperate from each other. The right to own property screws over everyone except yourself. It screws your workers, and it doesn't build a community. Marx doesn't believe in the Enlightenment view of Natural Rights. He wants there to be freedom, freedom to enjoy yourself and do what you want, but economic "freedoms" are what enslave the worker.

So yeah, we don't care about your conception of rights. We want to say, fuck, move, and do whatever we want in that respect, but if it hurts someone else, then we don't want it to be a "right". A "right" that hurts someone elses chances to thrive (the right to own property) isn't a right at all. If it causes someone elses slavery, then how is it a "natural right"?

*snip*


I like your signature, you even beat me as a leftist. Damnit.

1) we are already in the process of automating all sorts of stuff. why would we stop? boring repetitive work sucks. hard dirty work sucks. in a society being run by and for everyone instead of an elite, you bet we'd be getting rid of as much of it as possible. and why would they be drags on society? there are lots of other things that people can do, and we are always coming up with new ones. besides, we work too much as it is.

2) well, do you want to live in a society where the garbage gets taken away? if so, and there aren't enough people signing up to do it for you, you'd best help out. no force necessary.

1. We work too much as it is? I can see why you support communism. As for the rest, do you know why we are always coming up with new jobs? We have an economy that creates them. The only reason there will be work under communism is because people will become so lazy and uninspired to work that it will take 10 people to do the job of 1 regular person in the same amount of time.

2. We already live in a society that takes out our garbage without us having to do it ANY of the time. We want to sacrifice this for communism why?

Pretty much. We really don't care about the capitalists. I've already started to dehumanize them in the event that I can start molotoving their houses and stuff.

and then the survivors go off to the gulag, eh?

Marx also doesn't give a shit about individual rights.

true. which is a big part of why the fight broke out between my ideological ancestors and the marxists - they had authoritarian tendencies all the way back to the beginning.

But that is because in capitalism the bussinesses are aiming to make as much profit for themselves as possible, and therefore would want to fix prices and wages to their advantage. Eliminating money would solve this problem. All you need to do is to change the aim of a business, from making money to providing a service to the community.Eliminating money? How old are you? Do you even know what money is? There's no real way to eliminate it. Destruction of government issued currency would only result some other form of money, and it would probably be much more reliable. But even if you could eliminate money, there would still be prices.

Everything about communism is one big lie. Communists speak of tolerance and compassion, let they slaughter Christians, Jews, and Muslims. They speak of racial equality, yet they do everything they can to instigate racism, incite riots, and provoke racial wars. They speak of equality, yet they send well-to-do people to gulags and massacre their families. They denounce imperialism, yet embrace Soviet and Chinese imperialism wholeheartedly. They go absolutely apeshit whenever a right-wing government kills somebody, yet remain eerily quiet when a left-wing government does the same.


big C thank you! Big C! Because a non-party communist is not the same as a corrupt party Communist. And you can't expect us to not want to riot. Come on Roach! We're fucking revolutionaries! We all entertain thoughts of sniping world leaders, burning down big white buildings that have been burned down before *coughing wildly* and ending capitalism in the prettiest of fashions (bloodily, at the end of a shotgun). It's the same with any group of revolutionaries. And what's your complaint about us going ape-shit when a right-wing government kills someone and being quiet when one of ours does? A right-wing government hurts us comrades. A left-wing one probably helps by getting some rich bastard out of our way. It's all Machiavellian in the world of politics. However we can further our ideas. We aren't liberals, getting pissy at every injustice in the world, because, frankly, some people will have to die in order for our revolution to happen. And if they end up being your bourgeoise friends and family, well, tough shit for standing in our way. Not that I don't like you Roach. I read your posts and find you mildly amusing at the same time your ideology enrages me, it's the same with all you libertarians. Just we have an agenda. We have a revolution to push, and that means some people will get hurt.

In my ideal communist world, people would not be forced to work, they would do so by choice. No-one has possession over any of you, but you choose to give your work to everyone else, as they give theirs to you. This gives you an even greater right and responsiblity, as you have the right to not contribute, and to only receive.How is that responsibility. You're guaranteed to survive and you don't have to do anything. Such a system wouldn't last a day.



Why would it be impossible? Why cannot everyone support everyone else?
Even if everyone was perfectly willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the groups, they wouldn't know how to do it. Without a market, there's no way to determine the demand for goods and services.

I visit these forums, I hope to make some sort of impact on the minds of the young people who frequent them, but when I read stuff like you've written, I start to lose hope. I'm not trying to insult you, but I can't understand where you get your ideas or how you've apparently managed to learn nothing about economics. I suppose it's not your fault.

..or luck..
You don't think luck should play a role in determining success?

Eliminating money? How old are you? Do you even know what money is? There's no real way to eliminate it. Destruction of government issued currency would only result some other form of money, and it would probably be much more reliable. But even if you could eliminate money, there would still be prices.


No, money is only good if bartering is done. In communism, you take your information to your nearest dispensary, say "I'm hungry, I need 4,000 calories a day, and I don't like spinach" and you get your 4,000 calories a day. No trading is ever done in a communist society. Why would you need it if you're just going to get what you need anyway?

Money is only good when bartering and trade happens. No trade means no money. No prices either. No buying, just getting what you need based on your own individual requirements, plus a CD player, plasma TV, and some other nice little luxuries. Do you want a free car based on the lifestyle you have to live? So do I! What a coincidence!

As much as I advocate just getting what you need, there will be some nice luxuries in a communist country. And because people will choose which factories they want to get these goods from, they can be of *very* high quality. It would make sense. Cars that last a good thirty years if well maintained, rather than the pieces of crap we have to buy now.

How is that responsibility. You're guaranteed to survive and you don't have to do anything. Such a system wouldn't last a day.


Even if everyone was perfectly willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the groups, they wouldn't know how to do it. Without a market, there's no way to determine the demand for goods and services.

I visit these forums, I hope to make some sort of impact on the minds of the young people who frequent them, but when I read stuff like you've written, I start to lose hope. I'm not trying to insult you, but I can't understand where you get your ideas or how you've apparently managed to learn nothing about economics. I suppose it's not your fault.


Contrary to popular belief, most people don't want to be lazy. There's a cultural stigma to it, and most laziness at work is caused by a dislike of the crap you are doing. The reason I'm lazy at work, I hate my job. This is most people's reason for laziness at work and at home. In a communist society, you are compelled to do work that you enjoy (with crappy jobs getting extra benefits, so that people actually do those). If you like teaching, be a teacher! If you like solving disputes and debating, be a lawyer! If you want to organize, work as a Union organizer! If you like working with your hands, make cool crap with tools! If you like shooting cows in the head, be a farmer!

The reason I personally think a communist economy would thrive, is that it encourages people to work because they want to. I personally get fired up when I get to negotiate deals between politicians (I'm in a class here in college that is an exact simulation of Congress), this being a useful skill in a communist country where there are lots of individual interests, I would be making a contribution to society at the same time that I work as hard as I can (because, frankly it's quite a bit of fun). Most people are passionately interested in doing something or another, but most people also are forced to work in order to feed their family. The job they want to do may not give them substantial income, so they choose to work a boring job that pays well. Like accounting. Or managerial work. Their laziness does not stem from an intrinsic desire to be lazy (if humans were intrinsically lazy, we never would have advanced as a species, we would be walking around, grabbing berries off of bushes and shooting small mammals.) Their laziness stems from a disdain for the boring job that they have to do. And possibly hating their boss (another thing that won't exist in a communist economy).

If you like the job you're doing (or are coerced into doing a boring job for more luxuries) wouldn't you work harder, regardless of the money? A teacher doesn't become a teacher to make money. Neither does a lawyer. Nor a doctor. They do so because they want to help people.

A market is not necessary if people can democratically choose what they want created. Communism, being the democratic control of society and the economy, will be able to understand supply and demand based on the issues the individual people begin to have. If cars start breaking down, it will be easy to tell that mechanics are needed, or car output needs to be increased. If oil runs scarce, then it will be easy to tell that there is a need for other fuel sources, or hybrid cars. If scientists (whose research is supported by society) find some new technological advancement, then if it is supported by society, someone will start to create it.

Think of this economy not as one based on the goodwill of people. Because that isn't the case. This economy is one that thrives on people's own ideals and motivators. It allows goods to be a motivator, but more than anything, it allows for the creative expression of your own unique talents and interests. And that is better incentive than any mansion or fat check.

So, what do you intend to do with the capitalists?

Kill them? Imprison them? Enslave them?Pretty much. We really don't care about the capitalists.:upyours: Beautiful. :upyours:

Quite simply. You create democracy. By having everyone invested in the decision making process at all times, one person's cruelty and selfishness is counteracted by another, and eventually you just get a big group of people making compromises that work for everyone, just not perfectly for them. That actually sounds pretty good. Communism was never built on the idea that people are perfect and nice. Capitalism creates communism, and capitalists are, in my opinion, assholes. It would make sense if some of that carried into communism. But by having a democracy with everyone needing to care, you can take the selfishness away with all the counter-weights of your fellow comrades.

If you really think about it, why would I want you to prosper from your greed if I get less? So if I think you're a prick, I'll just vote to oppose you, and argue against your proposals. In the end we'll meet at a fair compromise, somewhere in the middle. Direct democracy is necessary for communism to work, and if it follows the course of revolution that was set out for it, then eventually it will end up there.

Don't listen to the Americanized bullshit answers that think communism requires an economy that is planned by a party elite. There is a big difference between the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and communism (which has no government that can be spoken of).

Here's the trick with democracies: It's all based on who can convince the most people that they're right, not who actually IS right.

Athens.

I've seen the photos of my grandparents (murdered before I was born) and their children.

They were beaten to death with axe handles by Communists. But first, they were told that the crime was being an intellectual (they were teachers). Then they were bound with barbed wire (including the children) and beaten to death.

It's not propaganda.


I'm calling you out on that one, Bullshit.

No, money is only good if bartering is done. In communism, you take your information to your nearest dispensary, say "I'm hungry, I need 4,000 calories a day, and I don't like spinach" and you get your 4,000 calories a day. No trading is ever done in a communist society. Why would you need it if you're just going to get what you need anyway?

Money is only good when bartering and trade happens. No trade means no money. No prices either. No buying, just getting what you need based on your own individual requirements, plus a CD player, plasma TV, and some other nice little luxuries. Do you want a free car based on the lifestyle you have to live? So do I! What a coincidence!

As much as I advocate just getting what you need, there will be some nice luxuries in a communist country. And because people will choose which factories they want to get these goods from, they can be of *very* high quality. It would make sense. Cars that last a good thirty years if well maintained, rather than the pieces of crap we have to buy now.
You're bad at math aren't you?

Here's the trick with democracies: It's all based on who can convince the most people that they're right, not who actually IS right.

Athens.


Anything wrong with that? At least people will have the opportunity to make a reasonable decision. In communistic democracy, all groups are brought to the table for decision making, and decisions don't have to be made based on a yes or no vote.

And remember,

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
-Winston Churchill

At least you won't have someone to tell you what is best for you.

1) we are already in the process of automating all sorts of stuff. why would we stop? boring repetitive work sucks. hard dirty work sucks. in a society being run by and for everyone instead of an elite, you bet we'd be getting rid of as much of it as possible. and why would they be drags on society? there are lots of other things that people can do, and we are always coming up with new ones. besides, we work too much as it is.

2) well, do you want to live in a society where the garbage gets taken away? if so, and there aren't enough people signing up to do it for you, you'd best help out. no force necessary.

1) How soon do you expect education and research to be fully automated so everyone gets an equal break from work? And who works too much as is? I thought you were all bitching about lazy CEOs.

2) I'm a writer, and an artist. I'd just get some fanbois of some sort to take my trash out for me in exchange for some half-ass story with five-minute sketches. Evil capitalist that I am.

You're bad at math aren't you?


I'm an Econ minor and got straight A's in math throughout high school. That's how it works. Communism is based on what each individual needs. Your needs are tailored based on the work you do, your size, your family, any medications you might need, how far you have to drive to work, yadayadayada. Plus some incentives if you have a crappy job that has to get done. Communism does not give each individual the same thing. I'm 6'3 and have an incredibly fast metabolism, and I don't expect my 5'4 girfriend to eat the same amount that I do. Sure, it may be rationed (in the sense that you can't go to the dispensary and take all the bread) but at least it is enough.

Contrary to popular belief, most people don't want to be lazy. There's a cultural stigma to it, and most laziness at work is caused by a dislike of the crap you are doing. The reason I'm lazy at work, I hate my job. This is most people's reason for laziness at work and at home. In a communist society, you are compelled to do work that you enjoy (with crappy jobs getting extra benefits, so that people actually do those). If you like teaching, be a teacher! If you like solving disputes and debating, be a lawyer! If you want to organize, work as a Union organizer! If you like working with your hands, make cool crap with tools! If you like shooting cows in the head, be a farmer!


Wow. Benefits. Almost like.. perks.

...Like you get if you move in to being higher up in a company...

...Like in capitalism...

Just with more stink.

And bucko: Not everyone is actually GOOD at what they would like to do. I wonder how many teenagers will opt for being porn stars...


The reason I personally think a communist economy would thrive, is that it encourages people to work because they want to. I personally get fired up when I get to negotiate deals between politicians (I'm in a class here in college that is an exact simulation of Congress), this being a useful skill in a communist country where there are lots of individual interests, I would be making a contribution to society at the same time that I work as hard as I can (because, frankly it's quite a bit of fun). Most people are passionately interested in doing something or another, but most people also are forced to work in order to feed their family. The job they want to do may not give them substantial income, so they choose to work a boring job that pays well. Like accounting. Or managerial work. Their laziness does not stem from an intrinsic desire to be lazy (if humans were intrinsically lazy, we never would have advanced as a species, we would be walking around, grabbing berries off of bushes and shooting small mammals.) Their laziness stems from a disdain for the boring job that they have to do. And possibly hating their boss (another thing that won't exist in a communist economy).


Mn hmn.

Yeah.

No such thing as lazy slobs who collect government checks so they can watch football or soap operas all day long.

No such thing as people who work just so they can play video games. Nope.


If you like the job you're doing (or are coerced into doing a boring job for more luxuries) wouldn't you work harder, regardless of the money? A teacher doesn't become a teacher to make money. Neither does a lawyer. Nor a doctor. They do so because they want to help people.


People tend to become teachers because they failed at something else in life. Obviously, there are a large number of people who truly do want to teach, but the number of people who fall in to the phrase "Those who can't, teach." is huge.


A market is not necessary if people can democratically choose what they want created.


Which takes mounds of research and so forth.


Communism, being the democratic control of society and the economy, will be able to understand supply and demand based on the issues the individual people begin to have. If cars start breaking down, it will be easy to tell that mechanics are needed, or car output needs to be increased. If oil runs scarce, then it will be easy to tell that there is a need for other fuel sources, or hybrid cars. If scientists (whose research is supported by society) find some new technological advancement, then if it is supported by society, someone will start to create it.


...You suggest this isn't true already?


Think of this economy not as one based on the goodwill of people. Because that isn't the case. This economy is one that thrives on people's own ideals and motivators. It allows goods to be a motivator, but more than anything, it allows for the creative expression of your own unique talents and interests. And that is better incentive than any mansion or fat check.

So. A consumer culture. Like in capitalism.

And mansions are nice. Are you saying that communism is anti-mansion?

I'm an Econ minor and got straight A's in math throughout high school. That's how it works. Communism is based on what each individual needs. Your needs are tailored based on the work you do, your size, your family, any medications you might need, how far you have to drive to work, yadayadayada. Plus some incentives if you have a crappy job that has to get done. Communism does not give each individual the same thing. I'm 6'3 and have an incredibly fast metabolism, and I don't expect my 5'4 girfriend to eat the same amount that I do. Sure, it may be rationed (in the sense that you can't go to the dispensary and take all the bread) but at least it is enough.

What if I want to dine on caviar?

1) How soon do you expect education and research to be fully automated so everyone gets an equal break from work? And who works too much as is? I thought you were all bitching about lazy CEOs.

2) I'm a writer, and an artist. I'd just get some fanbois of some sort to take my trash out for me in exchange for some half-ass story with five-minute sketches. Evil capitalist that I am.


CEO's are only lazy in the sense that they make a profit off of the labor of others. They aren't really lazy, just think of them as really, really large parasites.

Do you find it difficult to feed yourself? Are you living in a crappy studio apartment with most of your money going into your neurotic cat? Do you have lots of talent and ability and no fame or fortune to show for it? If so, then you are one of the thousands of other artists and writers that will benefit from at least having to not worry about paying for your cat. Fame and respect are the only things you would need to worry about in a communist country.

1) How soon do you expect education and research to be fully automated so everyone gets an equal break from work? And who works too much as is? I thought you were all bitching about lazy CEOs.

2) I'm a writer, and an artist. I'd just get some fanbois of some sort to take my trash out for me in exchange for some half-ass story with five-minute sketches. Evil capitalist that I am.


CEO's are only lazy in the sense that they make a profit off of the labor of others. They aren't really lazy, just think of them as really, really large parasites.

Do you find it difficult to feed yourself? Are you living in a crappy studio apartment with most of your money going into your neurotic cat? Do you have lots of talent and ability and no fame or fortune to show for it? If so, then you are one of the thousands of other artists and writers that will benefit from at least having to not worry about paying for your cat. Fame and respect are the only things you would need to worry about in a communist country.

CEO's are only lazy in the sense that they make a profit off of the labor of others. They aren't really lazy, just think of them as really, really large parasites.

Do you find it difficult to feed yourself? Are you living in a crappy studio apartment with most of your money going into your neurotic cat? Do you have lots of talent and ability and no fame or fortune to show for it? If so, then you are one of the thousands of other artists and writers that will benefit from at least having to not worry about paying for your cat. Fame and respect are the only things you would need to worry about in a communist country.

Hate to break your bubble, but I'm from a well-off, but certainly not rich family.

I'm going to be just fine in this oh so evil capitalist world.

Nice thing about being lucky enough to be born slightly stronger than average and notably smarter than average, and coming from a family with those same traits.

You want to talk socialistic capitalism, I'm all for it.

But you're going to have a hard time convincing me that capitalism is inherently wrong when my family can go from lower class to upper middle class in the span of a generation.

You can't prey on non-existant fears. I'm only screwed if I suffer both vast brain damage and become crippled.

And CEOs can, and have, been quite useful and quite hard working. Say what you want about Bill Gates, but he's not sitting on his ass getting fat, even though he can stop now and never work another day in his life.

And hell, man. Everyone makes a profit off of other people.

If I sell books, someone else has to bind the book, and someone else has to make the paper, and someone else has to chop the tree down, and someone else has to get the tree planted and cared for so it can be grown, and someone else has to research how to do so, and someone has to research how to teach people how to look at things in a way to allow for this, and so on and so forth.

Wow. Benefits. Almost like.. perks.

...Like you get if you move in to being higher up in a company...

...Like in capitalism...

Just with more stink.

And bucko: Not everyone is actually GOOD at what they would like to do. I wonder how many teenagers will opt for being porn stars...



Mn hmn.

Yeah.

No such thing as lazy slobs who collect government checks so they can watch football or soap operas all day long.

No such thing as people who work just so they can play video games. Nope.



Not everyone likes working. And for those people can go the craptastic jobs that give better benefits, so they can have more video games. Think of these benefits not as incentives to move up, but incentives to fill out the ranks of a boring job that just has to be done.

People tend to become teachers because they failed at something else in life. Obviously, there are a large number of people who truly do want to teach, but the number of people who fall in to the phrase "Those who can't, teach." is huge.


What's the point of attacking an example so trivial as this one? Instead lets sub teacher in for College Professor. Another low-pay job that's really only for people who want to learn all their lives. The point I was making was that not everyone works a job to make money, and if money wasn't a consideration, most people would do what they enjoyed, or what they were good at (which works the same way. Most people don't want to do a job that they can't do. Most people fall into career fields that stroke their ideals or their skills, if they are given the education necessary to choose.)

Which takes mounds of research and so forth.


Or just people saying "Oooh!! Flying cars are frickin' sweet! I want one!" or "Damn! My local dispensary had to start rationing gasoline, maybe we need to save our gas somehow!"


...You suggest this isn't true already?

If it does the same thing in our economy is not the issue. Communism will naturally do some of the same things based on needs (if it didn't than it would be screwed). Communism is the democratic control over our economy. The advantage being that a business can no longer lay off massive amounts of workers to raise profits. It seeks to be better (and to eliminate class, but our argument hasn't gotten that sophisticated yet.)


So. A consumer culture. Like in capitalism.


No, not a consumer culture. The incentive is not the goods recieved. It is the free expression of one's own desires to live according to what one does best. It's a free society in the sense that ours is (without rich people though) but where people do not have to worry about their personal survival.


And mansions are nice. Are you saying that communism is anti-mansion?
In the sense that they are excessively large with barred gates for keeping your neighbors away? Yeah, I'd say communism is pretty anti-mansion. Don't be a smartass.

Not everyone likes working. And for those people can go the craptastic jobs that give better benefits, so they can have more video games. Think of these benefits not as incentives to move up, but incentives to fill out the ranks of a boring job that just has to be done.


Either way, not everyone is equal. It's just that people who have smellier jobs are now above those who do more fun work. You've failed to create equality, just a different set of classes.


What's the point of attacking an example so trivial as this one? Instead lets sub teacher in for College Professor. Another low-pay job that's really only for people who want to learn all their lives.


Or who want to travel, or are misanthropes.

Or can't make it in the normal workforce.


The point I was making was that not everyone works a job to make money, and if money wasn't a consideration, most people would do what they enjoyed, or what they were good at (which works the same way. Most people don't want to do a job that they can't do. Most people fall into career fields that stroke their ideals or their skills, if they are given the education necessary to choose.)


Here's the thing. Not everyone who wants to do something is any good at it, and not every thing is WORTH anything.

Literature brings entertainment. Booger statues.. not as much.


Or just people saying "Oooh!! Flying cars are frickin' sweet! I want one!" or "Damn! My local dispensary had to start rationing gasoline, maybe we need to save our gas somehow!"



Clearly, wanting and having are the same thing.



If it does the same thing in our economy is not the issue. Communism will naturally do some of the same things based on needs (if it didn't than it would be screwed). Communism is the democratic control over our economy. The advantage being that a business can no longer lay off massive amounts of workers to raise profits. It seeks to be better (and to eliminate class, but our argument hasn't gotten that sophisticated yet.)


1) Laying off people is sometimes an important thing. Sometimes people are just no longer useful. It's the dying in the streets that's the issue.

2) You've not said anything that eliminates class, only changes it.


No, not a consumer culture. The incentive is not the goods recieved. It is the free expression of one's own desires to live according to what one does best. It's a free society in the sense that ours is (without rich people though) but where people do not have to worry about their personal survival.


One's desires are TV and cookies.

And what's wrong with being rich?

Compared to most people, I'm rich. I do absolutely no harm. I even help people just because I feel like it.

You just sound jealous.


In the sense that they are excessively large with barred gates for keeping your neighbors away? Yeah, I'd say communism is pretty anti-mansion. Don't be a smartass.

So you're not allowed to express yourself with a big house and a keep out sign?

Some of us ENJOY solitude, and lots of room to decorate.

What won't you restrict, eh?

I'm an Econ minor and got straight A's in math throughout high school. That's how it works. Communism is based on what each individual needs. Your needs are tailored based on the work you do, your size, your family, any medications you might need, how far you have to drive to work, yadayadayada. Plus some incentives if you have a crappy job that has to get done. Communism does not give each individual the same thing. I'm 6'3 and have an incredibly fast metabolism, and I don't expect my 5'4 girfriend to eat the same amount that I do. Sure, it may be rationed (in the sense that you can't go to the dispensary and take all the bread) but at least it is enough.
You should be aware then, that many of the other self-described communists say that everybody gets the same thing. Before you guys get together to kill us capitalists, make sure you all agree on what you want.

You should be aware then, that many of the other self-described communists say that everybody gets the same thing. Before you guys get together to kill us capitalists, make sure you all agree on what you want.

Well I think they at least agree that they want to kill people who have better jobs and better stuff than they do.

Hate to break your bubble, but I'm from a well-off, but certainly not rich family.

I'm going to be just fine in this oh so evil capitalist world.

Nice thing about being lucky enough to be born slightly stronger than average and notably smarter than average, and coming from a family with those same traits.

You want to talk socialistic capitalism, I'm all for it.

But you're going to have a hard time convincing me that capitalism is inherently wrong when my family can go from lower class to upper middle class in the span of a generation.

You can't prey on non-existant fears. I'm only screwed if I suffer both vast brain damage and become crippled.

And CEOs can, and have, been quite useful and quite hard working. Say what you want about Bill Gates, but he's not sitting on his ass getting fat, even though he can stop now and never work another day in his life.

And hell, man. Everyone makes a profit off of other people.

If I sell books, someone else has to bind the book, and someone else has to make the paper, and someone else has to chop the tree down, and someone else has to get the tree planted and cared for so it can be grown, and someone else has to research how to do so, and someone has to research how to teach people how to look at things in a way to allow for this, and so on and so forth.

I'm in the exact same economic situation that you are. My family own stock, businesses, my uncle is the CFO of a multi-national company making millions a year.
But Marx talks about my group of people in his Manifesto. There will be a rank of the Bourgeoisie who breaks off because they know the Proletariat holds their future in their hand.

I hate to break it to you, but not everyone is nearly as well off as us. Even if here in America things are going peachy keen, elsewhere in the world capitalism is destroying countries, paying tiny wages, uprooting cultures, assassinating union members, and much more. And really, communism isn't about capitalism sucking, it's about capitalism stealing and sapping profit from each of us. Plus significantly more, if you want to find out, read the Manifesto. Example: My dad is a computer programmer, and a damn good one. He wrote the security base for Freightliner's website and network, all on his own. Now he works as a contractor for a company called Sogeti. Sogeti hired him because he independently won them the Freightliner contract, which Freightliner paid Sogeti $100 an hour for my dad's work. My dad was then paid $35 an hour for the work that he did. Now, my dad was not given any resources by Sogeti, he was getting screwed out of his $100 an hour worth of work, while his bosses were making a profit on the money that he brought in.

Granted, my dad's bosses aren't lazy folk, not at all. But they are not working for all of their money. They get paid because of the profits of others. Bill Gates may work hard, and be a cool guy, but does he work at such a super-human rate that he is actually worth $49 billion dollars? I mean, if he was really working for all that money, he'd have to be attatched to a nuclear power plant or something! No. He's getting paid by the profits that his company makes. And profit is the stealing of the value of each individual worker. Every worker makes a significant profit for their boss (or they get fired) and this profit is value that they generated, and most of it is skimmed off by someone who may work only a little bit harder than them.

If you think you are benefiting from capitalism as a writer, you should look into how much your publisher makes off of you.
My girlfriend's dad was a political writer named Jim Keith, and he, like most others, got 7% of the retail value of his books. Now assuming printing costs of 60%, which is about average, his publishing company made 33% profits on his work. He was getting only 21% of the TOTAL value of his work, and so do you. You may think life is so good for you right now, but thinking about how some sap is stealing 79% of what you are worth really kicks most people in the teeth.

You may not have a problem with capitalism, you may think it is nice, but if you think about communism's potential, how it could make sure that you got a fair share of your worth, then you would definitely like it more.

But I doubt you will even decide to read the Manifesto, or any of the ideas that Marx expresses in his works. He also goes into how capitalism is unstable, over-consuming, reduces wages to next to nothing (if left unrestrained), all of which have proved true. Many people think it's spooky how accurate Marx has been in forecasting the advancement of capitalism. He seems to have a great grasp on it, and his analysis of it isn't favorable.

...
You're high. Most doctors and lawyers wouldn't have become doctors or lawyers if they didn't earn so much. People become nurses and firefighters to help people. Just what sort of economics are you learning anyway?

Well I think they at least agree that they want to kill people who have better jobs and better stuff than they do.


We do know what we want. And the only people we want to hurt are the capitalists. Everyone else is the Proletarian. Do you make a wage? Then you are a member of the Proletariat. Are you a CEO or major shareholder, making your money off of profits? Then you are the Bourgeoisie. Almost all of us fall into the category of the Proletariat. Like it or not.

You're high. Most doctors and lawyers wouldn't have become doctors or lawyers if they didn't earn so much. People become nurses and firefighters to help people. Just what sort of economics are you learning anyway?You reckon? I know lots of people who are in medicine because they love the practice of healthcare. A friend of mine has been a nurse, a tattoo artist and a buddhist monk. He just loves the practice of medicine. I have no desire to be rich, I really really love the challenges presented by medicine and interacting with people etc.

Trust me, the only GOOD doctors are motivated by much more than money. I can't speak for lawyers, but if I wanted money I would have gone into commerce. :rolleyes:

We do know what we want. And the only people we want to hurt are the capitalists. Everyone else is the Proletarian. Do you make a wage? Then you are a member of the Proletariat. Are you a CEO or major shareholder, making your money off of profits? Then you are the Bourgeoisie. Almost all of us fall into the category of the Proletariat. Like it or not.
Wage earners are the proletariat. CEOs earn wages. Interesting.

You're high. Most doctors and lawyers wouldn't have become doctors or lawyers if they didn't earn so much. People become nurses and firefighters to help people. Just what sort of economics are you learning anyway?


I have personal experience with people from both fields. Most lawyers take the job out of a desire for justice, or to get paid to argue (which is my reason for going into that field). Practicing medicine is the most complicated, expensive, and longest pain in the ass career around. Plus malpractice insurance makes it difficult to make much money at it anyway. Expensive, is an understatement. My aunt is a doctor, and she spent 25 years paying off her debts. Not to mention that doctors live around 15 years shorter than most other people. There are very few advantages to becoming a doctor. The vast majority of doctors spend the rest of their lives paying off their college debts, and there is really no monetary advantage for them. Why do they do it? Because it's a noble career and it helps people.

I'm an Economics minor and a Poli Sci major, I'm learning Economics to further understand how a communist economy would work. So far it seems like a pretty stable economic model.

I hate to break it to you, but not everyone is nearly as well off as us. Even if here in America things are going peachy keen, elsewhere in the world capitalism is destroying countries, paying tiny wages, uprooting cultures, assassinating union members, and much more. And really, communism isn't about capitalism sucking, it's about capitalism stealing and sapping profit from each of us. Plus significantly more, if you want to find out, read the Manifesto.
plus, i like this site http://www.altruists.org/ideas/economics/problems/capitalism/
http://www.altruists.org/ideas/economics/problems/the_money_system/
http://www.altruists.org/ideas/society/consumerism/

Example: My dad is a computer programmer, and a damn good one. He wrote the security base for Freightliner's website and network, all on his own. Now he works as a contractor for a company called Sogeti. Sogeti hired him because he independently won them the Freightliner contract, which Freightliner paid Sogeti $100 an hour for my dad's work. My dad was then paid $35 an hour for the work that he did. Now, my dad was not given any resources by Sogeti, he was getting screwed out of his $100 an hour worth of work, while his bosses were making a profit on the money that he brought in.
yeah my parents are in exactly the same boat. they run a marketing agency and recently won a tendered contract on a fairly large project. but, same as your dad, they're being paid about £50k to do the actual work, while another agency - the one working directly with the client - is being paid £300k to do fuck all and just delegate. it annoys me like hell. you can just say, 'its just the way the system works, therefore its fair', but it doesn't have to be this way - it can be more 'fair' or just - and thats what believing in socialism is all about, to me.

yeah my parents are in exactly the same boat. they run a marketing agency and recently won a tendered contract on a fairly large project. but, same as your dad, they're being paid about £50k to do the actual work, while another agency - the one working directly with the client - is being paid £300k to do fuck all and just delegate. it annoys me like hell. you can just say, 'its just the way the system works, therefore its fair', but it doesn't have to be this way - it can be more 'fair' or just - and thats what believing in socialism is all about, to me.
Yup. My dad's in IT and he works for a company, that hires him out to other companies. He gets paid a fair bit, but the company he works for makes money for shit AND make him work really long hours and he's on call all the time.

Wage earners are the proletariat. CEOs earn wages. Interesting.


Their benefits are based off of the successes of the company. Massive amounts of stock, and many are allowed to write their own wages.

Though that is true. The modern Bourgeoisie has changed a bit since Marx's time. Up until recently, the industrial capitalist owned the company, and because of this, they controlled the company account, and owned all the profits that didn't go to the shareholders. Nowadays, CEO's don't usually own companies, that job is done by the Corporate Board of Directors and the stockholder. In any sense though, CEO's gather benefits in the same manner as the Industrial Capitalist Bourgeoisie, therefore they become the modern Bourgeoisie.

Anyhow, I will be going to sleep now, I hope I've tweaked a few opinions. Probably not, but no one comes into these forums to change their minds anyway. Goodnight Preebles, goodnight Pure Metal, you guys can keep up the good fight. Until next time

Fluffles for all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Goddamit. Someone shoot the people who make jolt already. Deleted a fricking acre of text.

Since good ol piece of shiz worse forum system I've ever run in to in all my years online Jolt decided to shove my post up its ass to be digested South Park style... the short response:

1) I'm an English major. I intend to sturdy Marx's works. He's a literary figure more than he is a political one. The guy had a literary background more than anything else. There's even a whole field called Marxist criticism which is much more interesting that Marxist ideals themselves. They, too, are easily found flaw in, but they're popular yet.

2) Your dad is a putz if he works for a company he feels treats him unfairly with that ungodly skill of his. Tell him to go freelance if he wants the entire profit. It's a damned obvious answer.

3) I'm well aware of the prices of publishing. I feel that, while I sure would like more money, they're fair. If I find they're too harsh, I'll start my own damned publishing company like a big boy instead of whining about it and wanting to kill people over it. It's how adults handle things. Work instead of violence and whining.

4) Marx's ideas are half outdated. Most of its in other countries. The capitalist world is more ruled by Machiavellian ideas, which is ironic, since The Prince was most likely written to show how corrupt people are, rather than to train them how to be corrupt.

--

As usual, the person who works for themselves is ignored by all of this.

2) Your dad is a putz if he works for a company he feels treats him unfairly with that ungodly skill of his. Tell him to go freelance if he wants the entire profit. It's a damned obvious answer.


Yeah, because it's all so easy? :rolleyes:

Oh, and I'm not a Marxist.

Its great, now where has that statue gotten too...

Yeah, because it's all so easy? :rolleyes:

Oh, and I'm not a Marxist.

You realize how ironic that statement is with all this "They don't earn it" stuff.

You realize how ironic that statement is with all this "They don't earn it" stuff.
No, it's not. See, in a better world, we wouldn't need the middleman in cases like that. However in our very flawed society it is HARD for someone like my dad to find a job independently. Anyway, they certainly aren't doing a job worth the millions they make and it i an UNNECESSARY job in the first place. It's just that the companies that hire IT people (and others) have decided that they will mainly (or solely) outsource their IT.

No, it's not. See, in a better world, we wouldn't need the middleman in cases like that. However in our very flawed society it is HARD for someone like my dad to find a job independently. Anyway, they certainly aren't doing a job worth the millions they make and it i an UNNECESSARY job in the first place. It's just that the companies that hire IT people (and others) have decided that they will mainly (or solely) outsource their IT.

In your version the government is the middle man.

Work is hard. Oh no. You might break a sweat!

If he can't compete, he should get out a loan and train more.

The US is getting so much outsourcing because our national education level has dropped. Hell, South Korea is the scientific hotspot in the world right now. South fricking KOREA.

Prosperity comes through a superior position. If your dad is a better enough programer than his competition, they'll pay his price.

If not, then he should improve until he is.

2) Your dad is a putz if he works for a company he feels treats him unfairly with that ungodly skill of his. Tell him to go freelance if he wants the entire profit. It's a damned obvious answer.
this goes for my parents, too. and they DO work 'freelance' (they own their own company). but, guess what, they still get taken for a ride by other money-grabbing bastards, they have no lives whatsoever. the wake up every day at 5am, get to their desks at 6, work through the day till the post goes at 7.30pm, then have some food, watch some tv, after the news finishes at 10.30pm they go back to work till midnight, then go to bed and do it all over again the next day. its not a life! they're stressed, my dad is suffering blood pressure & heart problems due to that, they haven't had a holiday together in... at least 5 or 6 years. it sucks. no, they are not 'bad' at business (my dad was marketing manager for schweppes back when they used to own coca-cola, amongst other great jobs), or just out of luck.
they only have one life each and i hate to see them waste it, trapped in this capitalist hole, one which will bring them no happiness, no joy, and potentially health problems and an early demise.
but there's nothing they can do about it, and they are not the only ones in this position

sorry, rant over

Man has had to work hard just to survive ever since the invention of agriculture. No work, no food. But now with modern technology taking over more and more work we have to rethink that ancient wisdom, and find a new paradigm to share the pie, now that work is losing its value. To everyone's horror, it will sound a bit like Communism -- everyone gets a slice just for being alive, a guaranteed annual minimum income. This is already being implemented in Brazil and Peru. In the future this will be universal. Of course, the 'Capitalists' will be horrified with everybody having a easily for nothing, but to hell with them I say.

Minimum requirement works just fine in social capitalism.

"Here's food, water, shelter, clothing, and access to education. You want cable TV? Go work for it."

Of course, there's the issue of people making kids so they can leech off of them. But that's unrelated to economic groups, and rooted more in humans being jackasses.

And bucko, we had it even harder BEFORE agriculture. Healthier for the survivors, but harder.

We just couldn't keep our pants on is the problem, so we ended up with way too much of a population, so everyone had to spread out to keep from starving, so people keep getting pushed in to sucky places.

Take some anthro courses already.

Man has had to work hard just to survive ever since the invention of agriculture. No work, no food. But now with modern technology taking over more and more work we have to rethink that ancient wisdom, and find a new paradigm to share the pie, now that work is losing its value. To everyone's horror, it will sound a bit like Communism -- everyone gets a slice just for being alive, a guaranteed annual minimum income. This is already being implemented in Brazil and Peru. In the future this will be universal. Of course, the 'Capitalists' will be horrified with everybody having a easily for nothing, but to hell with them I say.
exactly. there is no longer a need to fight for resources. with modern technology, there IS enough for everyone. not, perhaps, to fulfil everyone's demands (economic definition), but certainly enough to fulfil all the needs. these desires are inflated by rampant consumerism - do we really need that new 42 inch plasma-screen TV? will it really enrich our lives?
there's a valley in california i visited in 2002 which, so said the tourist information brochure, was so fertile it produces each year enough food to feed 98% of the world's population. we do not need to fight for resources in the same way as the past, and we need to redefine what it is we want, we need, and what is important in life.

and btw, a guarenteed annual minimum income has been in place, in some form, in most of the west for quite a while now. the welfare state pays out unemployment benefits and pays your mortgage if you are unable to support yourself - hence a guarenteed minimum income of sorts

this goes for my parents, too. and they DO work 'freelance' (they own their own company). but, guess what, they still get taken for a ride by other money-grabbing bastards, they have no lives whatsoever. the wake up every day at 5am, get to their desks at 6, work through the day till the post goes at 7.30pm, then have some food, watch some tv, after the news finishes at 10.30pm they go back to work till midnight, then go to bed and do it all over again the next day. its not a life! they're stressed, my dad is suffering blood pressure & heart problems due to that, they haven't had a holiday together in... at least 5 or 6 years. it sucks. no, they are not 'bad' at business (my dad was marketing manager for schweppes back when they used to own coca-cola, amongst other great jobs), or just out of luck.


And.. you're saying they're incapable of getting a different job?

Why did they even start working for this company and accept these hours?

I mean hell, my dad quits companies if they so much as talk back at him wrong.


they only have one life each and i hate to see them waste it, trapped in this capitalist hole, one which will bring them no happiness, no joy, and potentially health problems and an early demise.


Getting along in capitalism requires you being able to say "Screw this job, I'm getting a better one."


but there's nothing they can do about it, and they are not the only ones in this position

sorry, rant over

Why can't they do anything about it?

exactly. there is no longer a need to fight for resources.


Not for basic food, no. The ag industry is one of the most corrupt on the planet this side of oil. If communists went and revolutionized them, I'd clap. People get treated worse than slaves there, because they're wholly expendable (Like in the older days of American industry), and masses are wasted. I agree with you here. I just don't agree that luxury goods should be treated the same as required-for-life ones.


with modern technology, there IS enough for everyone. not, perhaps, to fulfil everyone's demands (economic definition), but certainly enough to fulfil all the needs. these desires are inflated by rampant consumerism - do we really need that new 42 inch plasma-screen TV? will it really enrich our lives?


If someone can work hard enough for other people to make it worth their effort to design and build one, are they to be denied it?

I agree, materialism goes too far too readily, but playing Mortal Kombat on a big screen is still damned fun. And fun is still a good thing.


there's a valley in california i visited in 2002 which, so said the tourist information brochure, was so fertile it produces each year enough food to feed 98% of the world's population. we do not need to fight for resources in the same way as the past, and we need to redefine what it is we want, we need, and what is important in life.


Yep. Ag industry burns or dumps most of its product, because it keeps tax money rolling in. Socialism gone horribly wrong. One of the big tricks is that someone will pretend to be a bunch of small farmers, when they're really owned by one large group, to get the small farmer bonuses. It's sick stuff.


and btw, a guarenteed annual minimum income has been in place, in some form, in most of the west for quite a while now. the welfare state pays out unemployment benefits and pays your mortgage if you are unable to support yourself - hence a guarenteed minimum income of sorts

Yep. I'm all for that.

Socialist capitalism is a great set up. Nobody dies, everyone has access to education, but you get to decide by your own actions whether you go beyond just surviving, and how far you want to go.

Fairness via survival without limitations.

And.. you're saying they're incapable of getting a different job?

Why did they even start working for this company and accept these hours?

I mean hell, my dad quits companies if they so much as talk back at him wrong.



Getting along in capitalism requires you being able to say "Screw this job, I'm getting a better one."



Why can't they do anything about it?

Do you have any comprehension of how HARD it is to change jobs, especially when you're pushing fifty, as my dad is? You have such rose coloured glasses on...

Fuck's sake, my bother, who has an honours in Economics spent like a year and a half looking for a job, and all he could get was an ACCOUNTING job, which isn't actually his field... AND he has to work long shitty hours.

Face it, companies exist to make profits, thus they squeeze as much as they can out of their workers, making it nearly impossible to find a job that has good working conditions. Apparently Australians work the longest hours in the developed world. Great, huh?

Socialist capitalism is a great set up. Nobody dies, everyone has access to education,
So then you believe that all education should be free?

And.. you're saying they're incapable of getting a different job?

Why did they even start working for this company and accept these hours?

lets see, firstly i said its their own company, so they didn't exactly start working for it. they started it back in '86 or so. secondly, they're a bit old to get new work (they have tried) - my dad is 55, my mum 53, they are now unemployable at professional level.
these are the hours they have been dealt. this is what they have to work in order to earn enough to live. they have been consistantly backed into corners by others who seem to lie, cheat and do whatever it takes to get ahead - forcing my parents into this unfavourable position.

don't get me wrong, they don't make that bad a living out of it. its complicated...
before the (tory engineered) recession of 92, their company was worth about £4m, which is not bad. they had a lot of european clients. when Black Wednesday hit (caused, at first, by some asshole who wanted to make a lot of money by selling shitloads of sterling on the currency market) all the european clients went dead. they had an employee who embezzled from them, a client who effectively stole £50k, another who (wrongfully) tried to sue for fraud (it never got past the first hearing, but damaged my parents reputation badly) just for the money. the housing market slump, the first one in over a century, of '95, under the tory government agian, meant that we had to sell our very nice house for at least £100k under what it would have been worth. from that time they still have so many debts, caused, for the most part, by other people trying to take more than they deserve - over-aggressive people trying to screw over some rare honest people. these debts mean that most of what they earn goes straight back out again in repayment. they are partly victims of circumstance, but also of other people. capitalism actively encourages these sort of people to screw over others when they can - 'nice guys finish last' after all. if you want to get ahead you've got to be prepared to 'bend the rules' and 'not let anyone stand in your way'.
the fact is, if one person earns money, it takes money away from someone else (unless you're a bank...). if that money is earned in an unjust way, then i say the system is unjust if it allows that to continue.
i'm quite bitter about the whole matter, as you may be able to tell

Do you have any comprehension of how HARD it is to change jobs, especially when you're pushing fifty, as my dad is? You have such rose coloured glasses on...


My mom had a nearly-fatal issue with her original job, in her late forties.

She worked her way up again from working at JC Pennies, to working at Longs Drugs carrying around heavy objects all night, and, at 51 or so, got in to a job in a loan office where the boss actually serves his employees wine (I kid you not, nice, crazy-ass rich guy, sadly dying from lung cancer now, though) on Fridays.

And my mom got like Cs in her one semester attempt at college.

I have an adaptable, adept family, is all. Luck is a bitch. But its either that, or Burgeronville. I'll stick with luck.


Fuck's sake, my bother, who has an honours in Economics spent like a year and a half looking for a job, and all he could get was an ACCOUNTING job, which isn't actually his field... AND he has to work long shitty hours.


My dad got an AA degree in electronics. Is making his fortune in construction instead. But he loves his job. He actually likes work better than home.

I can't count how many times he's said he wishes he could fire us when we're building houses on weekends and during the summer.


Face it, companies exist to make profits, thus they squeeze as much as they can out of their workers, making it nearly impossible to find a job that has good working conditions. Apparently Australians work the longest hours in the developed world. Great, huh?

Sounds like Australia is behind the US and Canada then. We used to kill people in the factories by the droves, all ages. Thank goodness we got past that stage. Back then, Communism might have actually had a point.

There's a progression for these things. The early stages suck HARD. I really do wish we had a better way to get to the situation my family enjoys.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm considering moving to Australia to get away from the religious right's corruption of the US, and, also, because I have an ex down there who could use a friend.

So maybe I can write an article about how crappy your stage of capitalism is compared to the crappiness of US capitalism, hmn?

And bucko: Not everyone is actually GOOD at what they would like to do. I wonder how many teenagers will opt for being porn stars...


BUCKO! Are you Kurt Angle?

BUCKO! That's awesome.

BUCKO!

So then you believe that all education should be free?

Eh. I like the way they do it with medicine in Australia. You get a free ride, but you owe them a few years of service. If you don't want to do it their way, pony up the dough.

But I think the country should, at the very least, pony up the cash for someone wanting to take GE and get an AA, so long as they don't slack off too damned much. Higher education improves the country in more than just jobs.

lets see, firstly i said its their own company, so they didn't exactly start working for it. they started it back in '86 or so. secondly, they're a bit old to get new work (they have tried) - my dad is 55, my mum 53, they are now unemployable at professional level.



Um. There's a legal age limit as to when you can get a new job?

True, sounds like they should have done it earlier.. but...



these are the hours they have been dealt. this is what they have to work in order to earn enough to live. they have been consistantly backed into corners by others who seem to lie, cheat and do whatever it takes to get ahead - forcing my parents into this unfavourable position.


I'm sorry, but how is people being asses capitalism's fault?

People are asses no matter the form of government.


don't get me wrong, they don't make that bad a living out of it. its complicated...
before the (tory engineered) recession of 92, their company was worth about £4m, which is not bad. they had a lot of european clients. when Black Wednesday hit (caused, at first, by some asshole who wanted to make a lot of money by selling shitloads of sterling on the currency market) all the european clients went dead. they had an employee who embezzled from them, a client who effectively stole £50k, another who (wrongfully) tried to sue for fraud (it never got past the first hearing, but damaged my parents reputation badly) just for the money. the housing market slump, the first one in over a century, of '95, under the tory government agian, meant that we had to sell our very nice house for at least £100k under what it would have been worth. from that time they still have so many debts, caused, for the most part, by other people trying to take more than they deserve - over-aggressive people trying to screw over some rare honest people. these debts mean that most of what they earn goes straight back out again in repayment. they are partly victims of circumstance, but also of other people. capitalism actively encourages these sort of people to screw over others when they can - 'nice guys finish last' after all. if you want to get ahead you've got to be prepared to 'bend the rules' and 'not let anyone stand in your way'.



Mn. This is why insurance is nice, and why I like my career choice. Low chance of becoming a millionaire, but low risk involved.

Some jobs are gambles.

I also will have no need to be an ass or accept people being an ass to get ahead. Someone screws with me, I flip them off and go elsewhere. I will, of course, plan for my future, but in something more stable than a small business.



the fact is, if one person earns money, it takes money away from someone else (unless you're a bank...). if that money is earned in an unjust way, then i say the system is unjust if it allows that to continue.
i'm quite bitter about the whole matter, as you may be able to tell

Yes.

But it sounds like you were robbed, not capitalized.

In the wild, chimps will knock each other over the head and steal each other's food, if its worth the trouble.

They're not capitalists.

They're just selfish asses like the average human.

Mind you, I'm sorry for your plight. There's a section of my family that never rose above circumstances. My dad and grandpa have also been cheated by an uncle of mine, and my grandpa did the same to my dad before (Yet, out of family loyalty... no hard feelings.. and my dad kept everyone from going bankrupt, and now everyone's fairly well off. We'd be tens of thousands further ahead otherwise though).

Unfortunately, your folks got in to a high-risk, nasty-demand situation. My dad avoided those, my mom avoided those, and I'll avoid those. Those are also the best situations to end up rich. But. It's a huge ass gamble.

And if you do get rich, everyone wants to revolt on your ass.

Not for basic food, no. The ag industry is one of the most corrupt on the planet this side of oil. If communists went and revolutionized them, I'd clap. People get treated worse than slaves there, because they're wholly expendable (Like in the older days of American industry), and masses are wasted. I agree with you here. I just don't agree that luxury goods should be treated the same as required-for-life ones.
agreed on the ag. read below about luxuries....


If someone can work hard enough for other people to make it worth their effort to design and build one, are they to be denied it?

I agree, materialism goes too far too readily, but playing Mortal Kombat on a big screen is still damned fun. And fun is still a good thing.

if there were no side-effects of that then, no, i wouldn't deny anybody anything. the problem is the big picture. its not just about freedom of choice. much as i'd love to say 'everybody, do whatever you like, consume whatever you like', there are side-effects.
and these are general unhappiness. the world is not a happy place. most people hate their jobs, depression and suicide rates are rising, ramant consumerism and materialism are not actually either making people's lives better, or making people happier. its a superficial happiness - you are only happy when you buy that 42" TV because you want it, and you only want it because you've been told you want it. not just through advertising, but through the whole system - its inherently believed in the west today that buying new & bigger & better things is good and will bring joy. does it really? ask yourself at a fundamental level whether these material things actually make you happy. you may be suprised to find that, acually, they don't. you only want them because you are expected & told to want them, fulfilling these wants brings a form of joy, but not happiness. do you actually want, or need, these things in the first place? i came to this realisation about a year ago and i'm much happier for it. its not a 'rejection of worldly goods' or anything so religiously puritanical, but just a realisation that what is 'the norm' isn't so great




Socialist capitalism is a great set up. Nobody dies, everyone has access to education, but you get to decide by your own actions whether you go beyond just surviving, and how far you want to go.

Fairness via survival without limitations.
but people aren't truly happy. i'm not saying under communism things would be better, but what we have now isn't the ideal

Great!!! Where's that from?
Stanislaw Lem.

agreed on the ag. read below about luxuries....

if there were no side-effects of that then, no, i wouldn't deny anybody anything. the problem is the big picture. its not just about freedom of choice. much as i'd love to say 'everybody, do whatever you like, consume whatever you like', there are side-effects.
and these are general unhappiness. the world is not a happy place. most people hate their jobs, depression and suicide rates are rising, ramant consumerism and materialism are not actually either making people's lives better, or making people happier. its a superficial happiness - you are only happy when you buy that 42" TV because you want it, and you only want it because you've been told you want it. not just through advertising, but through the whole system - its inherently believed in the west today that buying new & bigger & better things is good and will bring joy. does it really? ask yourself at a fundamental level whether these material things actually make you happy. you may be suprised to find that, acually, they don't. you only want them because you are expected & told to want them, fulfilling these wants brings a form of joy, but not happiness. do you actually want, or need, these things in the first place? i came to this realisation about a year ago and i'm much happier for it. its not a 'rejection of worldly goods' or anything so religiously puritanical, but just a realisation that what is 'the norm' isn't so great


So. Marketing. Is why Capitalism is evil.

Mind you, I agree that marketing is screwed up. I've taken a class in it, and felt ill the entire time.

But marketing is just a feature that can be reformed or eliminated.

I, myself, utterly ignore commercials. I usually channel surf during them, or read something on my computer.



but people aren't truly happy. i'm not saying under communism things would be better, but what we have now isn't the ideal

People all have different wants.

I want a library full of good books. It's as pointlessly material as owning a big TV, it's just better for my brain.

Why should anyone get to decide what people are allowed to find joy in?

lets see, firstly i said its their own company, so they didn't exactly start working for it. they started it back in '86 or so. secondly, they're a bit old to get new work (they have tried) - my dad is 55, my mum 53, they are now unemployable at professional level...
I guess what you're saying is "Capitalism sucks because my parents are capitalists (marxist definitions) and they have to work too hard."
That's different.

No, I'm saying that if you feel that theft from this point is bad, then the theft that happened previously must be acceptable. You can have three viewpoints:

1) The theft of the Natives' land was bad. This situation must be rectified. Being that the only way to rectify this is further theft, either through monetary compensation through taxation or by directly giving the land back to the Natives. Of course, there is no way to accurately determine who "should" have the land now. I could go into how I feel this situation could be resolved further if you like, but I think this is enough for now.

2) The theft of the Natives' land was acceptable. This means that further theft is also acceptable, as it's possible to find an acceptable reason for theft.

3) The theft of the Natives' land was bad. However, further theft would be bad, too. This means that all of the gains from the theft of the Natives' land are perfectly acceptable, and therefore it's acceptable to benefit from theft.

Of course, if you can come up with another scenario (other than total apathy) I'd love to hear it.

Wait... "Native's land"? I thought you didn't believe in the ownership of land. You can't have it both ways.

What Communism fails to recognize is that wealth is nothing more than a symbol of status. And since status is relative, so is wealth.

A stockbroker in Manhatten may have much more "physical money" than a Yanamamo Tribal Leader. But the Yanamamo tribal leader holds more status in his society. He therefore, relatively speaking is more 'wealthy' than the stockbroker.

Global ineqaulity is a myth. Yes people in the developing world have less money, but it is also cheaper to live there. People in Ethiopia may not have running water, but having running water is less of a "must have" status symbol in that culture.

Also if in a Communist society, everyone makes the same amount of money. Then stoners who dropped out of high school would have the same status as swats that sit in dark rooms studying maths all day.

Ideally you need a compromise between Communism and Capitalism that recognizes hard work and intelligence but that allows all people equal oppurtunities to demonstrate those qualities. Something we definately do not have in any country in the world.

Wait... "Native's land"? I thought you didn't believe in the ownership of land. You can't have it both ways.

He was assuming ownership of land to try and show me that I must justify some sort of theft. He never actually espoused land ownership.

Global ineqaulity is a myth. Yes people in the developing world have less money, but it is also cheaper to live there. People in Ethiopia may not have running water, but having running water is less of a "must have" status symbol in that culture.


Are you serious? You are going to tell me that Ethiopian communities have the ability to get running water but just don't want it?

Since good ol piece of shiz worse forum system I've ever run in to in all my years online Jolt decided to shove my post up its ass to be digested South Park style... the short response:

1) I'm an English major. I intend to sturdy Marx's works. He's a literary figure more than he is a political one. The guy had a literary background more than anything else. There's even a whole field called Marxist criticism which is much more interesting that Marxist ideals themselves. They, too, are easily found flaw in, but they're popular yet.

2) Your dad is a putz if he works for a company he feels treats him unfairly with that ungodly skill of his. Tell him to go freelance if he wants the entire profit. It's a damned obvious answer.

3) I'm well aware of the prices of publishing. I feel that, while I sure would like more money, they're fair. If I find they're too harsh, I'll start my own damned publishing company like a big boy instead of whining about it and wanting to kill people over it. It's how adults handle things. Work instead of violence and whining.

4) Marx's ideas are half outdated. Most of its in other countries. The capitalist world is more ruled by Machiavellian ideas, which is ironic, since The Prince was most likely written to show how corrupt people are, rather than to train them how to be corrupt.

--

As usual, the person who works for themselves is ignored by all of this.


Problem with working for yourself? Individual costs remain so high that you can't compete with the lower-prices that chain stores can offer. That's how Wal-Mart has been ending the Mom and Pop stores left and right. No one wants to shop where prices are 20% higher in order to make a profit.

My dad actually did quite Sogeti when we all moved to Germany two years ago. He made some bank that year.

No Marxist is going to whine at you that their job sucks, and that's why they want communism. Marxists generally aren't out on their own accord. They see that things could be much better for all of us, and work solely for the good of the Proletariat. That's the premise of our campaign. To work for the masses. To work for those who don't get to send lobbyists to persuade congressmen to vote a certain way.

Capitalism is political too, not just economic. A country that has capitalism is built to serve the capitalists. They become the political elite. And that means that they get a disproportionate amount of political and economic benefits. Isn't our country supposed to take care of everyone equally? To represent us equally? Any disgruntled politically-minded person could name a million reasons as to why the elite run this country, and someone who really looks hard sees that our elite control the government affairs of many other countries, just by the political sway our companies have. In Malaysia, a nationwide Electronic Worker's Union was going to be set up. It had overwhelming popular support. But the US owned companies said to the government "If you allow this Union to form, we will take our work elsewhere." So despite the majority opinion, the tiny minority won their desire, and were then able to roll back union power with legislation that they introduced.

nothing that has been tried in the world is anything close to the end stage in Marx's theory of historical materialism. trust me, or read up on it

This is because the end stage in Marx's political theory is an impossible dream. The reason communism has only ever been implemented in its most basic preliminary forms is that these forms utterly destroy the nation on which communism is being attempted, long before the worker's paradise scenario has a chance to kick in.

Are you serious? You are going to tell me that Ethiopian communities have the ability to get running water but just don't want it?

No, if they dont have it, that probably means they cant get it rather than dont want it. But they are probably living just as happy a life as you, even though you probably have it.

It may be an important social custom to meet at the river and chat whilst washing clothes and bathing.

I personally believe in anarchy. I know anarchy is impossible, but I believe that any progress towards anarchy is a step in the right direction.

Is your utopian anarchy the "everybody has to share" anarchy or the "every man for himself" libertarian anarchy?

There are times when I feel that the latter would be a good state of human existance. In practice I'm a libertarian capitalist, since like you say, anarchy is an impossible situation to maintain.

Is your utopian anarchy the "everybody has to share" anarchy or the "every man for himself" libertarian anarchy?

There are times when I feel that the latter would be a good state of human existance. In practice I'm a libertarian capitalist, since like you say, anarchy is an impossible situation to maintain.

A perfect free market/society anarchy, where no one has any power over the market or society. I figure it would probably be impossible, but if stock ownership continues to grow and governments around the world start backing out of international trade, we could come close to achieving the economic side of it.

Gobal ineqaulity is a myth. Yes people in the developing world have less money, but it is also cheaper to live there. People in Ethiopia may not have running water, but having running water is less of a "must have" status symbol in that culture.First off, I'm pro-capitalism, whatever that means.

People in Ethiopia who don't have running water are worse off than people in Ohio who do, because it helps prevent the spread of disease. Hell, it probably has the single greatest positive effect on life expectantcy (as long as you know how to wash yourself). If you didn't have running water you'd probably understand that it's much more than a status symbol.

Then again, I'm a firm believer that value is subjective, so if you don't value life-expectancy, running water might not be that important to you. But even if you look at it that way there's still a way to measure relative wealth because the in Ethiopia and the guy in Ohio can both participate in the global market where it should become clear that Mr. Ohio has much more leverage if they're competing for any of the same things.

In general, wealth is much more than a status symbol. I desire much more wealth that what I have now, but I don't much care much for status. I'm more interested in toys and capital. I would really love to have enough money to build an amature race car or 2 and the cash to put together a small metal shop.

Some people say that religion and communism are incompatible. Opinions, anyone?


Hmmm, interesting thought. First of all, I would just like to say that I agree with communisms ideologies, however, I realize that it doesn't work in practice and would never support a communist leader.

Now, I don't think religion and communism are compatible because the ideals of communism are that everyone is equal. You cannot have an equal religious group... otherwise, you get a dictatorship, or an authoritarian government. Religion being controlled within communism defeats the purpose.

A perfect free market/society anarchy, where no one has any power over the market or society. I figure it would probably be impossible, but if stock ownership continues to grow and governments around the world start backing out of international trade, we could come close to achieving the economic side of it.

Yeah, it would be great. However, in practice, as I'm sure you'll conceed, the government simply has to step in to stop thieves and murderers. I think libertarian capitalism is about as close as you can get to free market anarchy without having the old "rape pillage and burn" scenario.

I think that true Communism is the best kind of government, unfortunately true Communism has never been achieved by man and democracy is the best government that we can sustain, though that last part is starting to look doubtful.

Yeah, it would be great. However, in practice, as I'm sure you'll conceed, the government simply has to step in to stop thieves and murderers. I think libertarian capitalism is about as close as you can get to free market anarchy without having the old "rape pillage and burn" scenario.

Yeah, I agree, we would need a judicial system and a system that determines the guidelines that the judicial system follows, but that should be the only need for government intervention into society, whatsoever. That would not particularly counter a free market anarchy, Adam Smith believed that theft was the worst possible crime, and the allowance of such would destroy the free market.

First off, I'm pro-capitalism, whatever that means.
People in Ethiopia who don't have running water are worse off than people in Ohio who do, because it helps prevent the spread of disease. Hell, it probably has the single greatest positive effect on life expectantcy (as long as you know how to wash yourself). If you didn't have running water you'd probably understand that it's much more than a status symbol.
Then again, I'm a firm believer that value is subjective, so if you don't value life-expectancy, running water might not be that important to you.
Exactly! 300 years ago, almost noone had running water, and diseases were much more prevalent. But that does not neccesarily mean that people were less happy or wished they lived longer. It was normal to die earlier and have diseases, people accepted it and got on with their lives.

But even if you look at it that way there's still a way to measure relative wealth because the in Ethiopia and the guy in Ohio can both participate in the global market where it should become clear that Mr. Ohio has much more leverage if they're competing for any of the same things.
Yes, but generally speaking the man in Ohio only comes into direct contact with the man in Ethiopia if he is on holiday, and even then their contact will likely be a short excange of goods at a market or a hotel desk. In this short period of contact, the Ethiopian may feel a moment of envy, but it will disipate in about 24 hours. Then the Ethiopian man will get on with thinking about his own loved ones and life.

In general, wealth is much more than a status symbol. I desire much more wealth that what I have now, but I don't much care much for status. I'm more interested in toys and capital. I would really love to have enough money to build an amature race car or 2 and the cash to put together a small metal shop.
If you lived in Ethiopia, you would also have goals, but they would be much more modest. One of them might well be as simple as having a bathroom with running water. But that does not mean that you would feel any less fullfilled and happy when you achieved this goal than you would be with the amature race car in Ohio.

Problem with working for yourself? Individual costs remain so high that you can't compete with the lower-prices that chain stores can offer. That's how Wal-Mart has been ending the Mom and Pop stores left and right. No one wants to shop where prices are 20% higher in order to make a profit.


Wal*Mart also tends to break the law. The issue is that we have officials who can be bought off, which, guess what, happens in a communist state too, because people tend to like having extra resources, like chimps who share meat, even though the calories really aren't significant enough to matter. People like the spice, and that spice brings power.

And by the by. I don't shop Wal-Mart. I know about their illegal and generally deranged practices, so I don't shop there.

The problem is that too many people don't care.

That isn't a capitalist issue, that's a human moral issue. I likes my money, but I'm not an ass like the average human is.

I also avoid buying Nabisco products because they're owned by tobacco companies. And I LOVE their products. But I stopped buying them as soon as I found out that they helped keep Joe Camel and such in business.


My dad actually did quite Sogeti when we all moved to Germany two years ago. He made some bank that year.


There ya go.


No Marxist is going to whine at you that their job sucks, and that's why they want communism. Marxists generally aren't out on their own accord.


Then where's all these rich Marxists in yachts, aside from the people who want to be in charge?

Or do you suggest they all give their money to people already and are already living on equal terms with the rest of the work force?


They see that things could be much better for all of us, and work solely for the good of the Proletariat.


That explains the utter lack of homeless people in the world today. Good job.


That's the premise of our campaign. To work for the masses. To work for those who don't get to send lobbyists to persuade congressmen to vote a certain way.


Why can't people just work for themselves and just avoid hurting others?


Capitalism is political too, not just economic.


Depends on the system set up. Lobbyists and bribe money and such are what screw it up. Politicians should be lacerated for accepting monies. Alas, democracy lets the people with the biggest voice make the rules, and our biggest voice is Christians.


A country that has capitalism is built to serve the capitalists.


Good thing we moved towards Social Capitalism.


They become the political elite.


Mostly because Christians can be convinced to help rich jackasses in to power.


And that means that they get a disproportionate amount of political and economic benefits.


Yep. Corruption sucks. We should do something about it. Since it plagues every single form of government. You rub my back, I'll rub yours, works in every system.


Isn't our country supposed to take care of everyone equally?


In theory. Though its taken generations to get anywhere near this because most humans in the US were asses, and still are. Good ol' doctrines of Predestination.


To represent us equally?


Yep. Which is why I focus on keeping the religious pricks from taking away so much freedom.


Any disgruntled politically-minded person could name a million reasons as to why the elite run this country, and someone who really looks hard sees that our elite control the government affairs of many other countries, just by the political sway our companies have.


Yep. Because idiots keep voting these people in.


In Malaysia, a nationwide Electronic Worker's Union was going to be set up. It had overwhelming popular support. But the US owned companies said to the government "If you allow this Union to form, we will take our work elsewhere." So despite the majority opinion, the tiny minority won their desire, and were then able to roll back union power with legislation that they introduced.

I'm all for proper unions, capitalist concepts that they are. My dad's in the carpenter's union. Sweet retirement set up. He can retire, make money from retirement, and then work and make money ANYHOW.

Mmnnn, Mammon.

Nobody seems to have mentioned the Berlin Wall (the search thread feature is handy for a 30 page topic). In a utopian society you wouldn't need a wall to keep people in. If it was so perfect, why did people risk their lives to get out? Capitalist countries have no laws agaisnt leaving, but people come back because they like it.

Many people try to say it was badly used. That may be true, and in fact the USSR has a very brief period of prosperity right after the Revolution ended and before Lenin died. He instituted a lighter form of commuinsm, one which allowed for enterprise. Then a year later he died, Stalin took power and turned it into a totalitarian state.

This might make you think that it could work, but the problem is that you always need a leader. How can you have a ruler when everyone is supposadely equal? You could have anarchy, in which case some opportunist would seize power, or you could try a benevolent autocrat. Aboslute power corrupts absolutely, any leader would soon become corrupt and run the country into the ground.

It has collapsed everywhere except for North Korea and China. For all intensive purposes China is practically capitalist, they're only keeping the dictatorship part, and the economy of North Korea is in shambles while South Korea prospers.

Great idea, but doesn't work because people are lazy. Why become a doctor when you can get paid the same for sweeping floors?

...Here's a thought.

How exactly does a communist country punish someone?

Money isn't important, and time isn't important because you always have a job, or can loaf as you desire.

So. Marketing. Is why Capitalism is evil.

Mind you, I agree that marketing is screwed up. I've taken a class in it, and felt ill the entire time.

But marketing is just a feature that can be reformed or eliminated.

I, myself, utterly ignore commercials. I usually channel surf during them, or read something on my computer.
not what i'm saying, but marketing is an element. its just part of the system - is it really so hard to grasp that people only want so many of these things because they are expected to, its 'the norm', and they are told to? looking past this you can realise that these things aren't actually what people want or what will really bring happiness, as all the cycle of endless (superficial & artificial) wants brings is a vicious circle of unhappiness and nonfulfillment



People all have different wants.

I want a library full of good books. It's as pointlessly material as owning a big TV, it's just better for my brain.

Why should anyone get to decide what people are allowed to find joy in?
first, its a superficial and artificial 'joy' that leads only to more unhappiness (not in consumption, but in the system and methods used to attain that 'joy')
second, i'll admit, in a rare moment of honesty on these forums, that i don't know the answer to this. i don't have any authority to tell others what to do - i'm not forcing my opinion down anyone's throat, or, indeed, saying 'you should do this and not this', but merely expressing my opinion. my opinion is that the current system only serves to bring more unhappiness, in general, in the long run, by promoting - and running solely on - consumerism; and that 'true' happiness is found elsewhere outside of this automatically-accepted norm. unfortunatley i haven't found what that is yet :p


I guess what you're saying is "Capitalism sucks because my parents are capitalists (marxist definitions) and they have to work too hard."
That's different.
no, i'm saying my parents are a good example of how so many people have to 'work too hard' for not enough reward, as others, in their greed, take advantage of some to get ahead. i'm saying that too many people in this world are made unhappy by their work, and too few realise there is more to life than just accepting you're born, go to a 9-5 (or frequently more hours for many, many people, at least here in the UK), retire and die. this is the norm, the system, and it is making people unhappy accross the world. what is more important - human happiness or economic progress?

...Here's a thought.

How exactly does a communist country punish someone?

Money isn't important, and time isn't important because you always have a job, or can loaf as you desire.

Well, theoretrically, in an ideal Communist Society there is no crime, so no need for punishment.

...Here's a thought.

How exactly does a communist country punish someone?

Money isn't important, and time isn't important because you always have a job, or can loaf as you desire.

And there is the problem. You can loaf as you desire.
No production=no food=everyone dies.

not what i'm saying, but marketing is an element. its just part of the system - is it really so hard to grasp that people only want so many of these things because they are expected to, its 'the norm', and they are told to?


Like I said, I've taken a marketing course, I know how it works. I'm also not subject to it.

Look in my room, and what will you find? Books. Things I love so much I'm making my career centered around them. Nobody told me I was supposed to love books, I just do. I enjoy the realms of fantasy and thought. I made up stories and songs and junk when I was a kid.

They weren't advertising at me for my love of language dictionaries.


looking past this you can realise that these things aren't actually what people want or what will really bring happiness, as all the cycle of endless (superficial & artificial) wants brings is a vicious circle of unhappiness and nonfulfillment


Technically, happiness is just a chemical reaction.

So the real answer is to have everyone hooked up to machines which constantly flood their brain with endorphines. If you want to cut out the materialism, you need to move on to drugs. Everything else, including love and friendship, are just social and evolutionary structures.

Buuuut, I like my method better.

That people are stupid enough to seek joy in status materialistic status symbols is sad, but it's no more false than any other form of joy.


first, its a superficial and artificial 'joy' that leads only to more unhappiness (not in consumption, but in the system and methods used to attain that 'joy')


The work I'm going to be doing is something I will find joy in. The money I make from it will further be used to give me joy. Joy which, since I'm not effected by advertising, I'm fully aware of and fully able to control.

Your argument only really works if you plan on leaving the non-stupid people alone.


second, i'll admit, in a rare moment of honesty on these forums, that i don't know the answer to this. i don't have any authority to tell others what to do - i'm not forcing my opinion down anyone's throat, or, indeed, saying 'you should do this and not this', but merely expressing my opinion. my opinion is that the current system only serves to bring more unhappiness, in general, in the long run, by promoting - and running solely on - consumerism; and that 'true' happiness is found elsewhere outside of this automatically-accepted norm. unfortunatley i haven't found what that is yet :p


General rule, leaving it up to fate is BS.

Pure, unending happiness is a chemical boost. Scinetific fact.

If you want non-material joy, you have to drug the whole planet, forever.


no, i'm saying my parents are a good example of how so many people have to 'work too hard' for not enough reward, as others, in their greed, take advantage of some to get ahead.


And I'm saying there is probably another option, because my dad can't be the only person on the planet who can find a job he loves, for good, solid pay, with hours that, while occassionally stressful, he doesn't mind. My dad LOVES his job. His problem is coming HOME.


i'm saying that too many people in this world are made unhappy by their work, and too few realise there is more to life than just accepting you're born, go to a 9-5 (or frequently more hours for many, many people, at least here in the UK), retire and die. this is the norm, the system, and it is making people unhappy accross the world. what is more important - human happiness or economic progress?

For those people who let themselves be stuck in a 9-5 job they don't enjoy, all I can say is sucks to be you.

My career path is doing stuff I enjoy, for money, that I can use to do other stuff I enjoy.

My joys include reading, knowledge-gaining, musing about theoretical worlds, argumentation, and dallying with my lady friends in various manners.

What the hell is wrong with any of that?

Well, theoretrically, in an ideal Communist Society there is no crime, so no need for punishment.

...Wow.

I don't even have to argue that point.

It's just too damned obvious.

I haven't followed this argument very long, but I just have something to say:

SOVIET communism is the worst kind of so-called "Communism" ever implemented. First of all, Russia had NO large urban-working proletariat, and there was one party in charge of your entire life, and that was ruled in turn by a dictator: Not very COMMUNE-ist. Russia also had a large proletariat of farmer peasants, not industrial workers before the Revolution. That is not where Marx predicted socialism and communism would arise. Communism as envisioned by Marx is a very good, albeit terribly utopian idea. True communism will not occur in my lifetime (~2060) but probably much later when humans really start changing their thought patterns to those that will accept a communist society. As invisioned by Marx, communism should only take place in heavily industrialized countries, and a communism "government" will arise out of the opression of the industrial working class by the higher-ups. Just as democracy and capitalism arose as a reaction to a kingly rule, so shall communism arise as a reaction to the injustices of capitalism. Face it, capitalism has and still has it's injustices. All industrialized nations are possible candidates. However, true communism isn't a bad idea if carried out properly.

And there is the problem. You can loaf as you desire.
No production=no food=everyone dies.

Actually some of us are smart enough to go hunting and such.

Beats factory work.

...Here's a thought.

How exactly does a communist country punish someone?

Money isn't important, and time isn't important because you always have a job, or can loaf as you desire.

punish for what?

i also would think that there would be social sanctions against someone who seemed to be consistently taking much more than they give and doing so in a flagrant way. that's how human societies always dealt with similar problems. so loafing could only take you so far before people start complaing and stop letting you have anything beyond some bare minimum to keep you from starving to death.

You cannot have an equal religious group... otherwise, you get a dictatorship, or an authoritarian government.

what?

I voted for "It's a nice idea".

Communism was based on a good idea, social equality etc., but it ended up turning into a fascist-like dictatorship.

punish for what?

i also would think that there would be social sanctions against someone who seemed to be consistently taking much more than they give and doing so in a flagrant way. that's how human societies always dealt with similar problems. so loafing could only take you so far before people start complaing and stop letting you have anything beyond some bare minimum to keep you from starving to death.

Punishment for, say, rape.

As for complaints: What stops people from doing that to groups they just don't like, such as is happening with the gay and lesbian marriage rights at the moment?

I've heard several arguments for and against and I am currently undecided. However, in discussing whether communism is good or bad I think the examples of Ganghi's ashram communities in India and the communities of early Christians, prior to Rome's acceptance of the religion should be taken into consideration. As well as several hippie communes within the United States.

Eh. The main issue with Marxist communism is it requires slaughtering countless people and forcing countless others in to a system they don't want.

If the Amish can build nice little communistic communities, why the hell can't the Marxists do the same and leave everyone else the hell alone?

The Amish aren't getting bombed, despite what Marx predicted.

It would be nearly impossible to make apt restitutions to Native Americans, as it would be impossible separate the land that was taken from them from the capital that individuals have invested into that land (not to mention determining which Native Americans will recieve this land).

Our government was very wrong in its actions towards Native Americans, it was theft, and it was immoral. However, the government extended legal property rights to other individuals in good faith and with guarantee, so to force the present owners of the land in question would be the epitomy of a second wrong in the interests of making a right.

Do I think that one group of people can benefit from another's loss through theft? Of course, that is common sense. Do I think that one person's benefit from theft is a justification? Not a chance.
But the point is that if you have a situation, any type of situation, and you have the power to change that situation, and don't, then that must mean that you find the situation to be acceptable.
And back to your original point...if you're a fence (a place where thieves go to sell stolen goods, usually a type of store that sells used items, for those who don't know the term), and you purchase stolen goods, and the police come and confiscate those goods, they aren't obligated to compensate said fence for the investment that he made in purchasing those stolen goods(Unless somehow I'm wrong on the issue). The same principle applies here.
It is correct that it is impossible to determine who gets said land. However, is it possible to ensure that the rightful owner, whoever they may be, gets at least something they're entitled to. You could, for instance, divide the land of the entire United States up and give an equal-sized piece to each person living here. (The intracacies of this I could go into further detail, but I don't think they matter for the point I'm trying to make.) That way, the rightful person who should have the land would have .00000000001% or so of what they should have, as opposed to 0%, which is an infinte amount more. (Gotta love the properties of 0)

But the point is that if you have a situation, any type of situation, and you have the power to change that situation, and don't, then that must mean that you find the situation to be acceptable.

The government has no power to correct the situation. There is no feasible way to return the land to its rightful owners, and even if the possibility did exist, the government would be revoking legal rights to property that it gave out anywhere from 100 to 250 years ago.

So the present situation is only acceptable because there is no other better situation that can be achieved

And back to your original point...if you're a fence (a place where thieves go to sell stolen goods, usually a type of store that sells used items, for those who don't know the term), and you purchase stolen goods, and the police come and confiscate those goods, they aren't obligated to compensate said fence for the investment that he made in purchasing those stolen goods(Unless somehow I'm wrong on the issue). The same principle applies here.

No, the same principle doesn't apply here, as the present owners of the property have established legal rights to the land, owners of a pawn shop who purchase stolen property cannot purchase the legal rights to that property.

It is correct that it is impossible to determine who gets said land. However, is it possible to ensure that the rightful owner, whoever they may be, gets at least something they're entitled to. You could, for instance, divide the land of the entire United States up and give an equal-sized piece to each person living here. (The intracacies of this I could go into further detail, but I don't think they matter for the point I'm trying to make.) That way, the rightful person who should have the land would have .00000000001% or so of what they should have, as opposed to 0%, which is an infinte amount more. (Gotta love the properties of 0)

Now that is a silly idea and you know it. It would be infeasible and would amount to another occurrence of land snatching by the government.

The government should go out of their way to make sure that Native Americans have all they need to continue their own culture, or make a safe, beneficial acclimation into ours. Making direct restitution of the land would be impossible and a case of trying to make a right out of two wrongs.

And accepting the current situation does not mean that I agree with the path that brought us to it.

The government has no power to correct the situation. There is no feasible way to return the land to its rightful owners, and even if the possibility did exist, the government would be revoking legal rights to property that it gave out anywhere from 100 to 250 years ago.
Take for example, the laws that restricted women from owning property. A son and daughter are the sole potential beneficiaries for their father's estate. During the time that laws restricting women from owning property, the son would have inherited 100% of his father's estate. Did making it so that women could inherit property revoke the son's right to inherit 100% of the property?


No, the same principle doesn't apply here, as the present owners of the property have established legal rights to the land, owners of a pawn shop who purchase stolen property cannot purchase the legal rights to that property.
So then your issue of theft is not whether or not it is acceptable, but whether it is legal?


Now that is a silly idea and you know it. It would be infeasible and would amount to another occurrence of land snatching by the government.

The government should go out of their way to make sure that Native Americans have all they need to continue their own culture, or make a safe, beneficial acclimation into ours. Making direct restitution of the land would be impossible and a case of trying to make a right out of two wrongs.

And accepting the current situation does not mean that I agree with the path that brought us to it.
Oh, I agree it's a silly idea, but it's just one of many possible ideas. But the point is: is it acceptable to profit from theft, or isn't it?

I voted for "It's a nice idea".

Communism was based on a good idea, social equality etc., but it ended up turning into a fascist-like dictatorship.

This is to all of the people who voted for the "Nice idea" option.

It is not based on a good idea, whatsoever. It is based on the idea that the society is a valuable entity and is tantamount to the individual. It sets a precedent that the will of the individual is of lesser importance than the overriding will of the state, and therefore will always open up the door for suppression of the individual and oppression over dessenters. The results of communism are obvious, as over 100 million people have been killed by communist governments over the last century.

So by saying that Communism is based on a good idea is, in effect, saying that you do not value your rights as an individual.

Take for example, the laws that restricted women from owning property. A son and daughter are the sole potential beneficiaries for their father's estate. During the time that laws restricting women from owning property, the son would have inherited 100% of his father's estate. Did making it so that women could inherit property revoke the son's right to inherit 100% of the property?

It is neither the son's nor the daughter's right to inherit the property, it is the right of the father (or mother for our more enlightened time) to hand it down. Allowing women to own property gave the father the the true ability to choose who would be the benefactor of his legacy.

What does this have to do with theft?

So then your issue of theft is not whether or not it is acceptable, but whether it is legal?

The legal rights that government gives out are a guarantee of ownership, when I say legal rights, I mean ownership, because ownership is very difficult to define without using a government definition of it.

Oh, I agree it's a silly idea, but it's just one of many possible ideas. But the point is: is it acceptable to profit from theft, or isn't it?

It is not acceptable to directly benefit from theft, however, a great deal of the owners of the land that was formerly the possession of Native Americans had no part in the initial theft and were granted property rights to the land by the the government of the society in which they lived. For the government to take back that land from them would be nothing but a repeating of the crimes of the past.

I see that you've replied to my original reply to this, which I will get to later, but I've thought of a modification.
No, the same principle doesn't apply here, as the present owners of the property have established legal rights to the land, owners of a pawn shop who purchase stolen property cannot purchase the legal rights to that property.
All right, how about in a case where the fence purchases the property and then dies? Someone inherits the property. Then the police come for the new owner (the inheritor). Both people have a legal right to the piece of property:

The original owner has a legal right to not have his property stolen,
the new owner has a legal right to inherit property.

How would you rectify this situation?

Eh. The main issue with Marxist communism is it requires slaughtering countless people and forcing countless others in to a system they don't want.

If the Amish can build nice little communistic communities, why the hell can't the Marxists do the same and leave everyone else the hell alone?

The Amish aren't getting bombed, despite what Marx predicted.


Actually you're confusing Marxist with Leninist and Stalinist.... The Communist Manifesto was written as a guide for a "nice little communistic community" that was being formed in Germany. True Marxism would involve a minimum of violence, because everyone would -want- to become Communist except the petty bourgeiosie, who in Marxism would be a tiny minority before the time was right for Communism.

marxist version of communism: good :)
communism that every1 has tried:bad :sniper:

I see that you've replied to my original reply to this, which I will get to later, but I've thought of a modification.

All right, how about in a case where the fence purchases the property and then dies? Someone inherits the property. Then the police come for the new owner (the inheritor). Both people have a legal right to the piece of property:

The original owner has a legal right to not have his property stolen,
the new owner has a legal right to inherit property.

How would you rectify this situation?

The benefactor cannot pass down property that he himself does not own. The possession, in this situation, still belongs to original owner.

And again, with inheritance, the beneficiary (son or daughter) does not have a right to an inheritance, the benefactor (mother or father) has the right to to give it to them.

The real hate for Communism was promulgated when Truman arrogantly tried to 'contain' Communism for no other reason than it conflicted with the 'American Way'. Yes, this was before Uber eeevil men Stalin and Lenin but really people shouldn't be branding Communism because it differs with Capitalism. Capitalism can also be 'evil'.
At least Communism has a sense of community, rather than the apathetic nature of Capitalism.

The real hate for Communism was promulgated when Truman arrogantly tried to 'contain' Communism for no other reason than it conflicted with the 'American Way'. Yes, this was before Uber eeevil men Stalin and Lenin but really people shouldn't be branding Communism because it differs with Capitalism. Capitalism can also be 'evil'.
At least Communism has a sense of community, rather than the apathetic nature of Capitalism.

Lenin and Stalin were in power long before Truman became President. Stalin had been carrying out mass executions and purges for a decade before Truman became President.

im a communist and my parents are capitalist but they dont mind.
if you are the sort of scum who hate communists just watch the motorcycle diaries (its a true story about Che Guevara) you will change your mind about communism

oh yeah its definately a good thing

Actually you're confusing Marxist with Leninist and Stalinist.... The Communist Manifesto was written as a guide for a "nice little communistic community" that was being formed in Germany. True Marxism would involve a minimum of violence, because everyone would -want- to become Communist except the petty bourgeiosie, who in Marxism would be a tiny minority before the time was right for Communism.

A tiny minority?

They're every single stockholder and business owner, small or large.

You'd be slaughtering millions.

Not to mention the many people, like myself, who don't own companies, but like being able to rise in the world.

Millions, buddy, MILLIONS.

Sudan would be nothing in comparison.

Wake up, man. Massive numbers of workers like being able to become rich from their own efforts. It's a rare happening, sure, but so is love, but we still seek that.

How big of a 'minority' are you willing to kill or force for your own, untried theories?

The real hate for Communism was promulgated when Truman arrogantly tried to 'contain' Communism for no other reason than it conflicted with the 'American Way'. Yes, this was before Uber eeevil men Stalin and Lenin but really people shouldn't be branding Communism because it differs with Capitalism. Capitalism can also be 'evil'.
At least Communism has a sense of community, rather than the apathetic nature of Capitalism.

There was also a revolution-oriented socialist movement going on in the US in response to that jackass free market scenario where people were too stupid to go and start farms instead of work in factories because they were convinced that city life was automatically better.

It is neither the son's nor the daughter's right to inherit the property, it is the right of the father (or mother for our more enlightened time) to hand it down. Allowing women to own property gave the father the the true ability to choose who would be the benefactor of his legacy.

What does this have to do with theft?
I was simply using that as an analogy, albeit it is a poor one.


The legal rights that government gives out are a guarantee of ownership, when I say legal rights, I mean ownership, because ownership is very difficult to define without using a government definition of it.

I see. So are they the same, or do you feel that it is possible for the government to give legal rights to a person who isn't the rightful owner of a piece of property?

It is not acceptable to directly benefit from theftIs it acceptable to indirectly benefit from it?

from the start of this thread people have been saying that communism didnt work in the USSR, they dont seem to realize that the collapse of the Soviet Union wasnt because of Communism, it was because of satellite nations seperating. (BUSH :sniper: )

Actually you're confusing Marxist with Leninist and Stalinist.... The Communist Manifesto was written as a guide for a "nice little communistic community" that was being formed in Germany. True Marxism would involve a minimum of violence, because everyone would -want- to become Communist except the petty bourgeiosie, who in Marxism would be a tiny minority before the time was right for Communism.
Not everyone has to want to become communist, those who don't can live elsewhere.

There was also a revolution-oriented socialist movement going on in the US in response to that jackass free market scenario where people were too stupid to go and start farms instead of work in factories because they were convinced that city life was automatically better.In order to start a farm, you have to have capital, or someone willing to lend it to you. Not everyone has this.

Not everyone has to want to become communist, those who don't can live elsewhere.

I'm already living somewhere.

I call dibs.

im a communist and my parents are capitalist but they dont mind.
if you are the sort of scum who hate communists just watch the motorcycle diaries (its a true story about Che Guevara) you will change your mind about communism

oh yeah its definately a good thing

Che Guevara was a murderer with no respect for human life.

In order to start a farm, you have to have capital, or someone willing to lend it to you. Not everyone has this.

This is where people can, you know, band together.

Unfortunately, in the US, because there was so much racial BS (language barriers are ROUGH), it was fairly hard for people to do so.

Those who did, of course, ended up running companies and such.

Che Guevara was a murderer with no respect for human life.

Well, that does qualify him for a revolutionary communist hero.

Honestly, I think the communist-by-kindness folks are fine. But revolution... I mean, I like killing people who haven't done a damned thing to me too, but it gets old after awhile.

Che Guevara was a murderer with no respect for human life.
Che Guevara is a hero to people all around the world. How dare you call Che a murderer! If anything the Americans are murderers for getting bolivians to kill him! VIVE ERNESTO CHE GUEVARA!!!

Communism in practice is bad. Period. True, the idea and ideals of Karl Marx would work if the world was perfect, but its not. There will always be corrupted people. Period. There will always be people trying to advance themselves over others. Period. In a Utopia, Communism works. In the real world, Communism does not work. Period.

Che Guevara is a hero to people all around the world. How dare you call Che a murderer! If anything the Americans are murderers for getting bolivians to kill him! VIVE ERNESTO CHE GUEVARA!!!

Ernest?

His first name was Ernest?

Ernest?

His first name was Ernest?
yes Ernesto 'Che' Guevara- Che was his nicknames... look it up it will tell you why

This is where people can, you know, band together.

Unfortunately, in the US, because there was so much racial BS (language barriers are ROUGH), it was fairly hard for people to do so.

Those who did, of course, ended up running companies and such.
So then you have to have a group of people who either have capital or have someone willing to lend it to them. Not all groups of people do.

Theory = good.
Practice = bad.

Too bad we're greedy.

I see. So are they the same, or do you feel that it is possible for the government to give legal rights to a person who isn't the rightful owner of a piece of property?

Government pretty much has the ability to hand out legal rights to whomever they want to. However, property rights must be respected for a free and orderly society to exist, so it is imperative for the government to respect the rights of property of the members of society. That means that the government should never take property rights away from someone without at least fair market payment in return, and almost never take property away against someone's will.

Is it acceptable to indirectly benefit from it?

Theft is never acceptable, however, you cannot punish someone for a crime they didn't commit, so yes.

Well I just so happen to be a communist, and while its seen its fair share of corruption(see the ukrainian slaughtering Lenin etcetera) I think it still has life in it(see the once brilliant but now a bit senile Fidel).

I'm already living somewhere.

I call dibs.Yes, but you're not living in a communist area. If you were, you could either work for the communists, or one of three things:

leave,
convince someone else to support you (it's a myth that communists would automatically support a person who doesn't work)
or starve to death.

:sniper: When has it not worked exactly?

Have you ever heard of a little country near Vietnam known as Cambodia?

If you'd like to see what Communism does to people, why not read a book called 'Surviving the Killing fields.' The russians and chinese aren't the only ones who've felt Communism and it is a very ugly happening.

So then you have to have a group of people who either have capital or have someone willing to lend it to them. Not all groups of people do.

This is where communism -is- useful, or, rather, socialism.

You work together. You help each other out. Raise that barn. Then help each other become self-sufficient. Stick it to the man by leaving him to rot in the festering cities, rather than stealing a gun and a bullet (since, if you can't afford food, you sure as hell can't afford a gun).

Yes, but you're not living in a communist area. If you were, you could either work for the communists, or one of three things:

leave,
convince someone else to support you (it's a myth that communists would automatically support a person who doesn't work)
or starve to death.

Trick is, most of the communists on here keep saying they want to take over the world.

Am I supposed to go to Mars to be free?

Government pretty much has the ability to hand out legal rights to whomever they want to. However, property rights must be respected for a free and orderly society to exist, so it is imperative for the government to respect the rights of property of the members of society. That means that the government should never take property rights away from someone without at least fair market payment in return, and almost never take property away against someone's will.I agree that property rights must be respected for a free and orderly society to exist. The question is, of course: what rights to people have with regard to property?


Theft is never acceptable, however, you cannot punish someone for a crime they didn't commit, so yes.Good, I was hoping to get you to admit that it's acceptable to indirectly benefit from theft. You do realize, however, that that opens up a huge can of worms.

Trick is, most of the communists on here keep saying they want to take over the world.

Am I supposed to go to Mars to be free?
<shrug> Marx did say that communism would have to be done worldwide for it to work, however, like some of the other things he said, that isn't true.

I agree that property rights must be respected for a free and orderly society to exist. The question is, of course: what rights to people have with regard to property?

Good, I was hoping to get you to admit that it's acceptable to indirectly benefit from theft. You do realize, however, that that opens up a huge can of worms.

Last I checked, most lifeforms steal.

There's not really any other way to gain inital territory.

Notice how the Native Americans had war before Europeans showed up.

It's just that, now that we're trying to not kill each other as often, we need to be more cooperative on how we share the stolen goods.

<shrug> Marx did say that communism would have to be done worldwide for it to work, however, like some of the other things he said, that isn't true.

Agreed.

All you have to do is do what the Amish did.

They're doing pretty well.

This is where communism -is- useful, or, rather, socialism.

You work together. You help each other out. Raise that barn. Then help each other become self-sufficient. Stick it to the man by leaving him to rot in the festering cities, rather than stealing a gun and a bullet (since, if you can't afford food, you sure as hell can't afford a gun).You're assuming that a group of people would be able to raise that kind of capital. I suppose they might be able to if they set up a charity of some kind, or if they simply have a lot of extra money to spend, but, alas, things don't always work that way.

I do, however, acknowledge that since you believe in social capitalism, and therefore some type of welfare, that that means companies will have to pay their employees more than a subsistence wage, and that they might be able to eventually save up enough money. This, of course, wasn't true back in the 1800s (and won't be true soon if the capitalists have their way)

Last I checked, most lifeforms steal.

There's not really any other way to gain inital territory.

Notice how the Native Americans had war before Europeans showed up.

It's just that, now that we're trying to not kill each other as often, we need to be more cooperative on how we share the stolen goods.What could be more cooperative than giving everyone an equal piece?

Agreed.

All you have to do is do what the Amish did.

They're doing pretty well.
I don't quite recall when they started, however it was most likely before all of the land in the U.S. became owned by someone, and they could simply claim a spot of unowned land.

Che Guevara is a hero to people all around the world. How dare you call Che a murderer! If anything the Americans are murderers for getting bolivians to kill him! VIVE ERNESTO CHE GUEVARA!!!

Explain all of the wonderful things he has done. I believe his biggest accomplishment was becoming Castro's head henchman. Bravo.

Che Guevara is a hero to people all around the world. How dare you call Che a murderer! If anything the Americans are murderers for getting bolivians to kill him! VIVE ERNESTO CHE GUEVARA!!!

Well Che's preference of a geocraphically adventageous base of operations in Bolivia instead of a point where he could interface with the peasent farmers alienated him from the opressed populace. Ironically, Che emphasised the importance of the co-operation and affability with the 'people' in his essay, Guerilla Warfare, and that is was vital for the war effort.

The Bolivians probably didn't need much forcing to try and stop an armed revolution in their country, but yes there probably was American pressure , as there was in most South American countries at that time.

So....VIVE ERNESTO 'CHE' GUEVARA DE LA SERNA!!

guess it would just be better if there is a kind of free market but anyway a working social goverment that takes care of its people... so somes may be richer than other but none may be poor as such... another problem would be to get all the people to work because none state can afford it paying many not-workin people
nevertheless it would also be good if the goverment would take care of the laws in a way that any company that settles down in that country has to take care of its (hard- :rolleyes: ) working employes.
yet you are right saying that none company will settle down then in that country because there are lots of countries that dont do so and it just would be cheaper, but what about the companies not to pay taxes?

so communism is a good idea, but the realization in some countries as seen in germany or china is awful.... like no civil rights as such as the right of communication

so far

A point - Stalin, Mao, Lenin and all these people were not communists in the Marxist sense.
Their ideas were an inversion of the basic premise of Marxism - they believed that they could take a nation, and push it into communism where the proletariate were bosses (which, according to Marx, naturally leads to the final egalitarian utopia).
Marx claimed that when the economic situations were correct, i.e. in a highly developed economy, the proletariate would naturally and inevatably take control.
So as can be seen, the basic principle of Leninism - the party leading the proletariate - is the exact opposite of what Marx claimed would happen.

Hence why it's impossible to 'test' proper Marxist communism - it'll just happen one day when the conditions are right, and any attempt to force it is bound to fail. So it's still a nice idea, and it's still a valid idea, albeit unprovable and irrefuteable!

So look out capitalist countries - some time in a century not so far away the revolution may just break out. Or it may not.

Problem with working for yourself? Individual costs remain so high that you can't compete with the lower-prices that chain stores can offer. That's how Wal-Mart has been ending the Mom and Pop stores left and right. No one wants to shop where prices are 20% higher in order to make a profit.Just because some small operations can't compete with the big boys, doesn't mean this is always the case. Once upon a time, department stores ruled retail and Wal-Mart began with one man. Not only has that company done a number only man smaller retailers they've also destroyed big competitors like sears and K-mart. Don't worry, it won't last forever. They're over-reaching. Wal-Mart has become a massive beast and further growth will likely be quite difficult. In the mean time, it's a good place to shop if money's tight or you need the convienience (24 hours/big selection). Of course, there are often better places to shop for particular items, depending on your needs as a customer and where you live.

My dad actually did quite Sogeti when we all moved to Germany two years ago. He made some bank that year.

No Marxist is going to whine at you that their job sucks, and that's why they want communism. Marxists generally aren't out on their own accord. They see that things could be much better for all of us, and work solely for the good of the Proletariat. That's the premise of our campaign. To work for the masses. To work for those who don't get to send lobbyists to persuade congressmen to vote a certain way.
Whenever someone claims to be looking out for my best interest, I naturally assume their full of shit. Besides, you don't know what I want.

Capitalism is political too, not just economic.All you need for any degree of capitalism is respect for private property rights. You don't necessarily need any sort of government. A country that has capitalism is built to serve the capitalists. They become the political elite. And that means that they get a disproportionate amount of political and economic benefits.When you say 'capitalists', you're talking about those with capital, right? In that case, I would note that
A.) They have much more to lose and
B.)The government shouldn't be something worth owning Isn't our country supposed to take care of everyone equally?Not that I'm aware of.[/quote] To represent us equally?Not sure what you mean by that, but I think the answer's no. Any disgruntled politically-minded person could name a million reasons as to why the elite run this country, and someone who really looks hard sees that our elite control the government affairs of many other countries, just by the political sway our companies have. It's the government itself that has the real sway, with all those guns, tanks, stealth bombers, and reputation. In Malaysia, a nationwide Electronic Worker's Union was going to be set up. It had overwhelming popular support. But the US owned companies said to the government "If you allow this Union to form, we will take our work elsewhere." So despite the majority opinion, the tiny minority won their desire, and were then able to roll back union power with legislation that they introduced.I don't know the all-important details, but it doesn't sound like they did anything wrong here.

Exactly! 300 years ago, almost noone had running water, and diseases were much more prevalent. But that does not neccesarily mean that people were less happy or wished they lived longer. It was normal to die earlier and have diseases, people accepted it and got on with their lives.Whatever. I don't much think people like when their children die before their first (technically second) birthday.


Yes, but generally speaking the man in Ohio only comes into direct contact with the man in Ethiopia if he is on holiday, and even then their contact will likely be a short excange of goods at a market or a hotel desk. In this short period of contact, the Ethiopian may feel a moment of envy, but it will disipate in about 24 hours. Then the Ethiopian man will get on with thinking about his own loved ones and life.They don't need to come in contact with each other. Consider if they both have internet access and are bidding on the same item on eBay. The Ohioan can always beat the Ethiopian. Or that the Ethiopan can't go to Sears and by Levis and Nikes that were made in Asia because he can't afford them. If there are no similar stores where he lives, it's only because he and his fellow Eithiopians couldn't afford to shop there if there was.


If you lived in Ethiopia, you would also have goals, but they would be much more modest. One of them might well be as simple as having a bathroom with running water. But that does not mean that you would feel any less fullfilled and happy when you achieved this goal than you would be with the amature race car in Ohio.There's some truth to what you're saying, but you don't know what makes me happy. It seems you're trying to make excuses for economic inequity. I'm not one to tell you that it's inherently wrong, but there are reasons that the poor in many parts of the world continue to be poor generation after generation. These reasons, these causes are wrong. It is wrong for a government to deny property rights to its citizens while it grants them to foreign corporations. It's wrong for states to sign so-call free trade agreements that put restrictions and controls on the markets within one or more countries. It's wrong for countries like the US to pay for the friendship of despotic rulers around the world who couldn't afford to oppress their people without us. It's wrong for the US to use it's military to forcefully secure resouces for private industry.

The communists are right, there is much injustice in the world. They just don't understand the mechanics of it.

no, i'm saying my parents are a good example of how so many people have to 'work too hard' for not enough reward, as others, in their greed, take advantage of some to get ahead. i'm saying that too many people in this world are made unhappy by their work, and too few realise there is more to life than just accepting you're born, go to a 9-5 (or frequently more hours for many, many people, at least here in the UK), retire and die. this is the norm, the system, and it is making people unhappy accross the world. what is more important - human happiness or economic progress?
What you're talking about doesn't make any case for communism or socialism. See, if you need to work harder to achieve a comfortable standard of living, that is not economic progress. Today, in the US, it is much harder to become successful with a small buisness than it was 100 years ago. This is because of the massive tax rates, voluminous market restrictions, and an inflationary fiat currency system which all exist now but didn't then.

Actually some of us are smart enough to go hunting and such.

Beats factory work.
Hunting is okay under communism, but you have to share with your millions of comrades.

What you're talking about doesn't make any case for communism or socialism. See, if you need to work harder to achieve a comfortable standard of living, that is not economic progress. Today, in the US, it is much harder to become successful with a small buisness than it was 100 years ago. This is because of the massive tax rates, voluminous market restrictions, and an inflationary fiat currency system which all exist now but didn't then.
what i said was a case against capitalism. therefore a case for an alternative, socialism.