NationStates Jolt Archive

I posted this in the other thread, but it wasn't really addressed to anyone in particular so I thought it would make a decent thread starter.

Communism 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 of 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.

I posted this in the other thread, but it wasn't really addressed to anyone in particular so I thought it would make a decent thread starter.

Communism 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 of 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.

Communism can be interpreted and can change (Microwave theory) therefore communism , if taken into consideration can evolve and become a good and just way of government.

Oh hush Vitt, before I spank your Dutch ass.

Communism can be interpreted and can change (Microwave theory) therefore communism , if taken into consideration can evolve and become a good and just way of government.

No, since the basic idea of communism is flawed it will never work.

I posted this in the other thread, but it wasn't really addressed to anyone in particular so I thought it would make a decent thread starter.

Communism 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 of 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.
as a socialist, i value my rights as an individual, but i am willing to subdue those rights if it benefits more people than just myself.

no, i don't see the individual as particularly important. what makes you, 1 person, any more important than the 6 billion others? through simple numbers, the welfare of the 6 billion is more important than the welfare of the one. hence the welfare of society is more important than the individual.

it is because i don't think i am important in the least that means i am more than happy to believe this.
i don't accept killing in the name of society, in the name of communism (why i am not a revolutionist), but these principles of socialism still stand

Oh hush Vitt, before I spank your Dutch ass.

That is not a very effective threat, Sinuhue.

And I am not worried, we capitalists will win you over completely, soon enough.

I posted this in the other thread, but it wasn't really addressed to anyone in particular so I thought it would make a decent thread starter.

Communism 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 of 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.

OK VO. I'll play devils advocate a little.

Society is the structure within which we as individuals live. You could draw a comparison between individuals and society with cells and our body. Now this analogy works quite well as the society/body does not need any specific individuals/cells to exist and functiuon, but it does depend upon the collective effect of these individuals/cells. Now if the analogy works, then it is obvious that the well being of the body is more important than the well being of any cell, hence the well being of the society is more important than the well being of any individual in it. The real question is why would anyone think that the rights of a cell are more important than the rights of the body that supports and nourishes that cell.

The 100 million deaths were not due to communism, they were due to the intolerance and paranoia of dictators. It gets boring to see communism blamed for this.

ps. I am a libertarian, not a communist.

No, since the basic idea of communism is flawed it will never work.

The theory is sound, its the practace is flawed

as a socialist, i value my rights as an individual, but i am willing to subdue those rights if it benefits more people than just myself.

no, i don't see the individual as particularly important. what makes you, 1 person, any more important than the 6 billion others? through simple numbers, the welfare of the 6 billion is more important than the welfare of the one. hence the welfare of society is more important than the individual.

it is because i don't think i am important in the least that means i am more than happy to believe this.
i don't accept killing in the name of society, in the name of communism (why i am not a revolutionist), but these principles of socialism still stand

My entire point is that, if the rights of each single individual are subdued, it is impossible to maintain the rights of the whole.

I will reverse the question to you, if one individual is does not have value, how does six billion individuals have value?

Wow... Communism is flawed because the basic idea of communism is flawed? would you like to back that up at all?

My entire point is that, if the rights of each single individual are subdued, it is impossible to maintain the rights of the whole.

I will reverse the question to you, if one individual is does not have value, how does six billion individuals have value?
that is a very good question, good point.


i'm not saying the individual is entirely without value, hence the sum of the 'value' of many individuals is going to be greater than that of the one.


let me ask you a question. if the individual is indeed so important, what makes him more important than the many?

OK VO. I'll play devils advocate a little.

Society is the structure within which we as individuals live. You could draw a comparison between individuals and society with cells and our body. Now this analogy works quite well as the society/body does not need any specific individuals/cells to exist and functiuon, but it does depend upon the collective effect of these individuals/cells. Now if the analogy works, then it is obvious that the well being of the body is more important than the well being of any cell, hence the well being of the society is more important than the well being of any individual in it. The real question is why would anyone think that the rights of a cell are more important than the rights of the body that supports and nourishes that cell.

To use this analogy, you must first assume that humans cannot exist outside of society. You must also assume that the society is singular entity. Finally, you must make the foremost Communist mistake and assume that an individual human is dispensable. I refuse to make any of those assumptions.

The 100 million deaths were not due to communism, they were due to the intolerance and paranoia of dictators. It gets boring to see communism blamed for this.

My entire point is that communism inherently puts the individual in a subordinate and disposable position, which will always lead to leaders being able to justify massive amounts of oppression and executions in the name of society. It has happened over and over again in every Communist nation, and I cannot imagine that you feel this is just a coincidence.

My entire point is that, if the rights of each single individual are subdued, it is impossible to maintain the rights of the whole.

Funny, the rights of the indivdual have been and are subdued by every government on earth, including capitalist ones, hence the reason you can't go around talking about killing the President, or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, or hitting people in the head with a stick as you walk down the street...

Many cultures stress the community over the individual, and they've been around for thousands of years. The whole idea of individual freedom trumping the state is a relatively novel concept, and one only has to look at the United States to see that it's not necessarily the best idea. We've got this myth of the rugged loner, the isolated cowboy, that is supposedly the ideal of this country, and it just isn't. If people were willing to set aside their own self-centered notions, while accepting some self-responsibility and taking a more active part in the community, we might see a rise in voting turn-outs, a reduction of frivilous lawsuits, and less deterioration of society as a whole.

The theory is sound, its the practace is flawed

Wow... Communism is flawed because the basic idea of communism is flawed? would you like to back that up at all?

You guys might want to read my initial post. I stated that the practice is flawed because the basic nature of Communism is to subdue the individual.

To use this analogy, you must first assume that humans cannot exist outside of society. You must also assume that the society is singular entity. Finally, you must make the foremost Communist mistake and assume that an individual human is dispensable. I refuse to make any of those assumptions.

How do you refuse to assume that humans can not exist out of society. Of course it is possible for an individual here or there to live a hermit life, but these are irrelevant to the point. You were addressing a form of government, i.e. communism. Now a government governs a society. No society means no government. The society in the case of a government is singular, in that it is that collection of humans which are governed by that government.
You refuse to accept that any human is dispensable: would you die for your country? You have to answer no to that. Would you die to protect your family? Again you have to answer no. Individual humans are, unfortuunately dispensable, not just in theory, but by their nature. This attack on communism is based purely on your own specific internal standards, with no support from the external world in any aspect.

My entire point is that communism inherently puts the individual in a subordinate and disposable position, which will always lead to leaders being able to justify massive amounts of oppression and executions in the name of society. It has happened over and over again in every Communist nation, and I cannot imagine that you feel this is just a coincidence.

Not just cmmunism has done this. In fact there has never been a communist state, so the claim is a non starter. There have been socialist dictatorships which have done this. There have also been many right wing capitalist dictatorships (look at South America, or South East Asia) which have done exactly the same. The blame is on the dictatorship not on the economic system adopted by the dictator.
Dictatorship removes value from the individual, not communism.

I posted this in the other thread, but it wasn't really addressed to anyone in particular so I thought it would make a decent thread starter.

Communism 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 of 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.
Communism is based on the idea that all men are equal and need not be exploited by rich corporations or religious leaders. That's the basic concept. Communism will not work on a national level. It's just too many people. Local level communism has worked, in Israel for instance, in the Kibbutzim settlements.

Communism is not based on a good idea, whatsoever ... It sets a precedent that the will of the individual is of lesser importance than the overriding will of the state

no it doesn't. not as a necessary component anyway. firstly, because communism has no state, no system of elite hierarchical rule. secondly, because a major ideological faction of communism explicitly rejects anything like this idea.

let me ask you a question. if the individual is indeed so important, what makes him more important than the many?

Because the many is nothing more than a collection of individuals, when you assume otherwise, you automatically degrade the individual and overvalue the whole.

Because the many is nothing more than a collection of individuals, when you assume otherwise, you automatically degrade the individual and overvalue the whole.
That's not what communism is about! It's about everyone being equal and was brought about by the incredible gaps between the rich and the poor at the beginning of the 20th century.

I have to say that I'm actually of two opposite minds on communism.

First, it is true that communism is flawed and in it's purest, truest form, it could not and would not ever work for the governence of society. The only reason being, that people, and yes, I mean ALL people, are inherently greedy. For a nation or society to be truly communist, there can be no President, Prime-Minister, etc. A true communist nation is run solely by "the people" i.e. a legislature. There's a reason that no nation uses this diagram, and that is the aforementioned inherent greed. Regardless of anything else, one person will always want that little bit of extra power, and that's what makes it deviate from communism.

In theory, however, communism sounds wonderful. No more poor, sick and hungry. No more poverty or overwhelming wage gaps. This, of course though, could not be the case. The closest we, as humans can get to true communism would be socialism, which works very effectively in many countries around the world.

Because the many is nothing more than a collection of individuals, when you assume otherwise, you automatically degrade the individual and overvalue the whole.
yes, society is a colleciton of individuals, and the collective worth of the many is greater than the one. whats the problem with that?

would you rather save one person from a building, or 50?

would you suffer harm, or sacrifice yourself to save 10 other people? how about 50? 100? a million?

the collective is, evidently (from my perspective) more important than the individual.
its actually quite hard for me to concieve it any other way, so i'm afraid i need a fuller explaination of your logic...

That is not a very effective threat, Sinuhue.

And I am not worried, we capitalists will win you over completely, soon enough.
Yeah, I know I'm probably just encouraging you with things like that...

As much as I hate capitalism, I accept that it's not going away, and I will have to fight to make sure that it isn't used as a tool for evil by greedy, stinking hypocrite bastards.

But don't just pick on Communism. All philosophies are inherently faulty.

Communism has never been used entirely by any country thus far, which is the fact that its true idealogy in the real world remains to be seen, if the proper opportunity comes along.

Communism is the idealogy that people are all equal, and that everyone is given equal freedoms, rights, and powers, no matter where they come from or what they believe in, or what they did. Also, Communism is the ideal that the government should watch over and fairly govern these people until the time comes that they can govern themselves equally without government interference, however before that, the government should watch over the populace and make sure things are evenly divided. Communism is a parent that treats his or her children equally.

People are given jobs by the government, and are given the same opportunities usually at the same times as well. People mistake the Marxism, where laborers take over and give equal wages, even though some are lazy. That is not Communism, that is a variation of it.

People usually associate Communism as responsible for killing millions of people, and the reason why they are associated with Communism is because Communism is effective at accomplishing their goals quickly, and they spur the ideal too fast, resulting in the deaths of many people.

OOC: I am far left Communist, so I should know some things about it.

How do you refuse to assume that humans can not exist out of society. Of course it is possible for an individual here or there to live a hermit life, but these are irrelevant to the point. You were addressing a form of government, i.e. communism. Now a government governs a society. No society means no government. The society in the case of a government is singular, in that it is that collection of humans which are governed by that government.

I don't just mean completely outside of society, I mean also living counter to it. With the body analogy, you must assume that people are simply cogs in a machine. That is how Communism views a person, as an entity that should work to improve the whole. It does not allow someone to work on something that is viewed as being counterproductive to society, whereas Capitalism does with the assumption that if they are a visionary they will be blessed with the all the rewards they can take from society, or, if they are simply being unproductive, they will see no reward for their work.

You refuse to accept that any human is dispensable: would you die for your country? You have to answer no to that. Would you die to protect your family? Again you have to answer no. Individual humans are, unfortuunately dispensable, not just in theory, but by their nature. This attack on communism is based purely on your own specific internal standards, with no support from the external world in any aspect.

Both of those questions were addressing whether I felt I was dispensable. My answer to that is yes, I would be dispensable if it were to serve the well being of those I care about. But when society and the government begins to believe that the citizens of the society are dispensable, it opens up a wide avenue for oppression.

The government must stand up for each and every individual in order to protect the whole.

Not just cmmunism has done this. In fact there has never been a communist state, so the claim is a non starter. There have been socialist dictatorships which have done this. There have also been many right wing capitalist dictatorships (look at South America, or South East Asia) which have done exactly the same. The blame is on the dictatorship not on the economic system adopted by the dictator.
Dictatorship removes value from the individual, not communism.

Communism paves the way for the dictator. Seriously, it starts with a militaristic revolution, puts the government over the individual, and even has the added propaganda benefit of being for the proletariat. Tell me that isn't the precise recipe for an authoritarian government.

Individualism versus collectivism is a silly one.

Individualism is inherently bad for society, because people shaft each other constantly. Therefore everyone's standard of life is lowered.

Collectivism values society over the individual, therefore the individual's rights are less strongly protected, so everyone's standard of life is lowered.

that is why we need a happy compromise.

Where men and womyn of all races are given the basics of life (food, shelter, healthcare, protection form those who are stronger) but there is still flexibility for people to compete and find different outlets for their desires.

Communism is based on the idea that all men are equal and need not be exploited by rich corporations or religious leaders. That's the basic concept. Communism will not work on a national level. It's just too many people. Local level communism has worked, in Israel for instance, in the Kibbutzim settlements.

I believe that it has been proven that is not possible for any two humans to be born equal.

However, I freely admit that in close knit societies with entirely benevolent leaders, Communism could support a society. The society would eventually lag behind, but I don't want to get into that.

no it doesn't. not as a necessary component anyway. firstly, because communism has no state, no system of elite hierarchical rule. secondly, because a major ideological faction of communism explicitly rejects anything like this idea.

Communism must begin with a hierarchy simply to revolt and establish itself. This fact alone sets up a system in which the most able leaders are put into a position of power, to which their followers must subjegate themselves.

Communism paves the way for the dictator. Seriously, it starts with a militaristic revolution, puts the government over the individual, and even has the added propaganda benefit of being for the proletariat. Tell me that isn't the precise recipe for an authoritarian government.

that'd be the marxist path to communism, not communism per se. and this was pointed out way back in the 1860s. by the other faction of communists i mentioned before.

I believe that it has been proven that is not possible for any two humans to be born equal.

However, I freely admit that in close knit societies with entirely benevolent leaders, Communism could support a society. The society would eventually lag behind, but I don't want to get into that.
Define "lag behind". I'm not convinced.

Communism must begin with a hierarchy simply to revolt and establish itself. This fact alone sets up a system in which the most able leaders are put into a position of power, to which their followers must subjegate themselves.

except that in actual fact the bolshies had to systematically undermine the egalitarian institutions that sprung up during the russian revolution, after those institutions had done most of the leg work needed to get things off the ground. the hierarchy and putting 'able' leaders into positions of power happened second, not first. revolt and revolution does not necessitate any particular level of hierarchy.

However, I freely admit that in close knit societies with entirely benevolent leaders, Communism could support a society.

actually, the longest lived examples of a system that could be called communism (egalitarian foraging societies) had no leaders with any special social power at all. nor were they particularly close knit. it is actually the loose construction of them and the lack of hierarchy that made the communism-like aspects work as far as i can tell.

I believe that it has been proven that is not possible for any two humans to be born equal.

Really? Yet you live in the U.S.A., so does this mean you believe that the document this country used to declare itself is invalid?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

yes, society is a colleciton of individuals, and the collective worth of the many is greater than the one. whats the problem with that?

would you rather save one person from a building, or 50?

would you suffer harm, or sacrifice yourself to save 10 other people? how about 50? 100? a million?

First off, the choice in your action is the most important thing.

the collective is, evidently (from my perspective) more important than the individual.
its actually quite hard for me to concieve it any other way, so i'm afraid i need a fuller explaination of your logic...

It is just my opinion that for the entire collective's rights to be recognized, the rights of each individual must be recognized. Personal views on whether or not a million people are more valuable than one person does not matter.

Yeah, I know I'm probably just encouraging you with things like that...

As much as I hate capitalism, I accept that it's not going away, and I will have to fight to make sure that it isn't used as a tool for evil by greedy, stinking hypocrite bastards.

But don't just pick on Communism. All philosophies are inherently faulty.

You hate capitalism because you see the insecurity that added rights bring with them, while not recognizing the dangers of forfeiting your rights to the government.

It is just my opinion that for the entire collective's rights to be recognized, the rights of each individual must be recognized. Personal views on whether or not a million people are more valuable than one person does not matter.
fair enough. why do you automatically assume a system that puts collective welfare above that of the individual cannot retain any rights for that individual?

If you do not surrender any freedoms to government, then your freedoms are only as strong as you.

And there is always someone stronger than you.

Communism has never been used entirely by any country thus far, which is the fact that its true idealogy in the real world remains to be seen, if the proper opportunity comes along.

There will never be a proper opportunity. It would require a revolution, and in a post earlier in this thread, I stated why a Communist revolution will always lead to a authoritarian government.

Communism is the idealogy that people are all equal, and that everyone is given equal freedoms, rights, and powers, no matter where they come from or what they believe in, or what they did.

No, Capitalism states that all people have equal rights, freedoms, and powers. Communism states that all people have the rights, freedoms, and powers that society affords them.

Also, Communism is the ideal that the government should watch over and fairly govern these people until the time comes that they can govern themselves equally without government interference, however before that, the government should watch over the populace and make sure things are evenly divided. Communism is a parent that treats his or her children equally.

How does it treat people who don't want to be Communist?

People usually associate Communism as responsible for killing millions of people, and the reason why they are associated with Communism is because Communism is effective at accomplishing their goals quickly, and they spur the ideal too fast, resulting in the deaths of many people.

OOC: I am far left Communist, so I should know some things about it.

As you have pointed out, there has never been a communist who set up a truly communist nation, so I would say that Communists are very ineffective at accomplishing their goals. And how could spurring the communist ideal to fast result in the deaths of many people?

Individualism versus collectivism is a silly one.

Individualism is inherently bad for society, because people shaft each other constantly. Therefore everyone's standard of life is lowered.

Collectivism values society over the individual, therefore the individual's rights are less strongly protected, so everyone's standard of life is lowered.

that is why we need a happy compromise.

Where men and womyn of all races are given the basics of life (food, shelter, healthcare, protection form those who are stronger) but there is still flexibility for people to compete and find different outlets for their desires.

You are right about communism not protecting the individual's rights, but the old "people always work against each other" argument does not hold water with me. People rarely if ever work against someone else, they work for themselves. There are many more instances where people in a capitalistic society will work with others to advance their own position in life, and those that have the better ideas, work harder, or just manage to stumble on to a break will help themselves, and in time help those around them by free interaction of society.

except that in actual fact the bolshies had to systematically undermine the egalitarian institutions that sprung up during the russian revolution, after those institutions had done most of the leg work needed to get things off the ground. the hierarchy and putting 'able' leaders into positions of power happened second, not first. revolt and revolution does not necessitate any particular level of hierarchy.

A revolution needs leadership to unite the working class. The bureaucratic class controls far too many resources for an unorganized mob to unroot it.

You are right about communism not protecting the individual's rights, but the old "people always work against each other" argument does not hold water with me. People rarely if ever work against someone else, they work for themselves. There are many more instances where people in a capitalistic society will work with others to advance their own position in life, and those that have the better ideas, work harder, or just manage to stumble on to a break will help themselves, and in time help those around them by free interaction of society.

Individualism devalues other people, and results in the exploitation of others to further your own needs and wants. For instance, think about where your coffee or chocolate or clothes come from.

Communism is based on the idea that all men are equal and need not be exploited by rich corporations or religious leaders. That's the basic concept. Communism will not work on a national level. It's just too many people. Local level communism has worked, in Israel for instance, in the Kibbutzim settlements.
The Law of Monkey!

I posted this in the other thread, but it wasn't really addressed to anyone in particular so I thought it would make a decent thread starter.

Communism 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 of 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.

The theory was created by Marx and Engels.

Both of whom were academic philosophers.

Neither of whom were leaders of countries

So basically communism is a theory dreamt up by a philosopher who had no ideas of the trials and tribulations of running a country. That is why communism cannot ever be successfully implemented.

as a socialist, i value my rights as an individual, but i am willing to subdue those rights if it benefits more people than just myself.

no, i don't see the individual as particularly important. what makes you, 1 person, any more important than the 6 billion others? through simple numbers, the welfare of the 6 billion is more important than the welfare of the one. hence the welfare of society is more important than the individual.

it is because i don't think i am important in the least that means i am more than happy to believe this.
i don't accept killing in the name of society, in the name of communism (why i am not a revolutionist), but these principles of socialism still stand
What makes me important as a person? The fact that I am a person. I am just as valuable as the rest of humanity combined. For what is humanity but a collection of individuals, without which, there would be no humanity.

No, society is subservient to the individual, not vice versa.

Really? Yet you live in the U.S.A., so does this mean you believe that the document this country used to declare itself is invalid?

Funny that you use one of the key documents in setting up the most shining example of a capitalism in history as an argument for Communism.

Anyways, that document assumed that people were born with equal, unrepealable rights, being those of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Now Communism presents a very big problem with the second two rights, as it puts very severe limits on both the liberty and the pursuit of happiness in favor of the government. You do not have the liberty to pursue happiness in a Communism when your pursuit is counter to the wills of society.

Funny that you use one of the key documents in setting up the most shining example of a capitalism in history as an argument for Communism.

Anyways, that document assumed that people were born with equal, unrepealable rights, being those of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Now Communism presents a very big problem with the second two rights, as it puts very severe limits on both the liberty and the pursuit of happiness in favor of the government. You do not have the liberty to pursue happiness in a Communism when your pursuit is counter to the wills of society.

I put it to you that you neither have the liberty to pursue happiness if you are denied access to healthcare or education because of the financial situation of your family

Funny that you use one of the key documents in setting up the most shining example of a capitalism in history as an argument for Communism.

Anyways, that document assumed that people were born with equal, unrepealable rights, being those of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Now Communism presents a very big problem with the second two rights, as it puts very severe limits on both the liberty and the pursuit of happiness in favor of the government. You do not have the liberty to pursue happiness in a Communism when your pursuit is counter to the wills of society.

You misunderstand me. Nowhere in that post did I argue for Communism. What I argued against was the statement of yours that I quoted concerning no two people being born equal, which runs counter to the ideals set forward in the Declaration of Independence.

Not to mention, that document is not "a shining example of capitalism" but rather the framework for a representative democracy.

The theory was created by Marx and Engels.

Both of whom were academic philosophers.

Neither of whom were leaders of countries

So basically communism is a theory dreamt up by a philosopher who had no ideas of the trials and tribulations of running a country. That is why communism cannot ever be successfully implemented.
plato said philosophers should rule.

besides democracy was nothing more than a theoretical philosophy once. perhaps capitalism was, too (though it seems to have been something of an evolution, so i'm less sure about that one)

Individualism devalues other people, and results in the exploitation of others to further your own needs and wants. For instance, think about where your coffee or chocolate or clothes come from.

That is patently wrong. Individualism values everyone individually on their own merit. If any devaluation occurs it is not because of individualism, it is because of the actions and abilties of the individual. Individualism states that your experience and actions are as valuable as you can make them.

And my coffee, chocolate, and clothes come from companies who provide me with valuable goods while providing underdeveloped nations with jobs that they would not otherwise have. If the employees of these companies are not paid a fair value for their labor, it is due to government regulation.

I am just as valuable as the rest of humanity combined.
how can the value of the one possibly outweight the value of the many? i'm sorry, i just don't get it :confused:

lets assign numbers. the value of a person is, say, 1 unit of value. if you have 10 people their collective value is 10. the individuals' value is still 1. how can the value of one, in arbitary units, be more than the many? how can the individual be more important than the collective?

plato said philosophers should rule.

besides democracy was nothing more than a theoretical philosophy once. perhaps capitalism was, too (though it seems to have been something of an evolution, so i'm less sure about that one)

yeah, but by philosophers didnt he actually pretty much mean him and his aristocrat budies who leanrt philosophy instead of working?

individualism can be taken too far
collectivism can be taken too far
communism can be taken too far
capitalism can be taken too far

too much individualism? results in selfishness and narcissism.

too much collectivism? results in missing the point that a collective is just that, a collective of individuals (nevertheless, the individual is not more important than two individuals).

capitalism was once the reason why people were oppressed. make a profit? alright, since i'm the individual that controls this mine, i'm far more important than the collective of workers that work in it and therefore I must make more money, so low wages for them and low costs for me.

Communism ended up in a dictatorship. I wouldn't blame russia's problems with stalin on communism as much I would blame them on his utter insanity and paranoia that led to a dictatorship. But still, communism works best in small societies, like a family.

did you know that, for the vikings, the individual was unimportant (your... well... family is the closest word was far more important, due to lack of legal system, this resulted in lots of killing). So it is for a lot of other societies. Putting the individual up front is a very new thing indeed, because what importance does that individual have without the support of all the other individuals about him?

VO, you have said that people's nature is inheriently greedy, but the only charecteristic of human nature is the ability to adapt. Also you keep talking about a violent revolution, when in the communist manifesto it clearly states that the capitalist system will wither away because of its own flaws

I put it to you that you neither have the liberty to pursue happiness if you are denied access to healthcare or education because of the financial situation of your family

I do personally believe that education and healthcare are individual rights, whose protection would be extremely beneficial to our society.

And education is provided for for most who strive to get it.

yeah, but by philosophers didnt he actually pretty much mean him and his aristocrat budies who leanrt philosophy instead of working?
yeah :p

but he did back up this arguement with reasoning, of course. (none of which i can be bothered to remember or look up)

i'm just arguementative this evening ;)

You misunderstand me. Nowhere in that post did I argue for Communism. What I argued against was the statement of yours that I quoted concerning no two people being born equal, which runs counter to the ideals set forward in the Declaration of Independence.

Not to mention, that document is not "a shining example of capitalism" but rather the framework for a representative democracy.

Our nation was set up with a firm belief that property rights are key to the establishment of a free society.

I do personally believe that education and healthcare are individual rights, whose protection would be extremely beneficial to our society.

And education is provided for for most who strive to get it.

Which is a form of socialism. It is not pure capitalist to provide state education. Individualism has to be moderated with some collectivism - stating, for example, that the individual submits to the rule of law to protect the weaker from the stronger, and that the individual submits to a financial burden (like tax or insurance) to pay for others to receive healthcare and an education

I posted this in the other thread, but it wasn't really addressed to anyone in particular so I thought it would make a decent thread starter.

Communism 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 of 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.

This is a load of rubbish. You refer to 'the state'. By that, I presume you mean the majority of people within the state. And of course the will of the majority is more important than the will of a single person, but that does not mean that the majority will always take advantage of the individual, because the majority is made up of individuals who are no more likely to be taken advantage of than anyone else. Communism is about people working together to help one another. What you seem to have in mind is some conspiracy theory about how everyone else is out to get you, which shows a severe lack of empathy and a severe lack of common sense.

VO, you have said that people's nature is inheriently greedy, but the only charecteristic of human nature is the ability to adapt. Also you keep talking about a violent revolution, when in the communist manifesto it clearly states that the capitalist system will wither away because of its own flaws

I don't know about being inherently greedy, but they will work to better their own situation and happiness. If that means gathering wealth then so be it.

As for adapting, everything nature has to adapt or stop existing.

And if Capitalism is going to start whithering away it needs to start getting busy, otherwise Marx is going to wrong.

I don't know about being inherently greedy, but they will work to better their own situation and happiness. If that means gathering wealth then so be it.



So why do some people help others for no personal gain? Or do you find that concept too hard to grasp?

Which is a form of socialism. It is not pure capitalist to provide state education. Individualism has to be moderated with some collectivism - stating, for example, that the individual submits to the rule of law to protect the weaker from the stronger, and that the individual submits to a financial burden (like tax or insurance) to pay for others to receive healthcare and an education

I never claimed to be fully capitalist. I personally believe that insuring the health of individuals will protect individuals from being forced into contracts in times of duress, and an educated workforce is also key to the advancement of the economy.

No, since the basic idea of communism is flawed it will never work.

Communism was born of jealousy: jealousy of the poor man for the rich man's money.

but rather than use the entrepreneurial spirit (or the lottery, I guess.. hehe) to get rich, people thought it would be cool to form a government/pass laws that would TAX THE HELL out of rich people, take away propriety rights and economic freedom, etc... and turn the bulk of that money over to the underpriveleged in an effort to greatly decrease socioeconomic heterogeneity.

the problem with that is... well, here goes:

1)You marginalize talent, and reward sloth/averageness.
2)You, in essence, are stealing
3)You kill the entrepreneurial spirit by taking away most, if not all, of the perks for becoming an entrepreneur. With fewer entrepreneurs, you lose jobs, and the government has to pick up the slack.
4)Production decreases, per-capita income decreases, unemployment skyrockets (why work when you can sit on your couch and love off someone else's work?), prices increase, the economy basically goes in the shitter. Soviet citizens had to wait for hours in line just to get a loaf of bread. Nice way to treat your people.
5)You cannot afford to trade with other countries... your entrepreneurialism and, thus, your ingenuity are shot. YOU MUST CUT OFF TRADE TO SURVIVE AT ALL BECAUSE YOUR PRODUCTS CANNOT COMPETE.

Communism really only could work in a vacuum.

Thankfully, people want to have financial freedom (even some of the lazy ones..), they want to buy nice things and not at exorbitant prices, they want to OWN THINGS, they want to start businesses or have good jobs... so they yearn for the freedom of free enterprise.

and maybe the cycle starts again -- with economic freedom comes the socioeconomic gap ... the poor become jealous... etc.

(abridged version... hehe)

Our nation was set up with a firm belief that property rights are key to the establishment of a free society.

Very smooth, the way you avoided addressing the main part of my post and headed straight for the afterthought...

Yes, and they borrowed heavily from the political philospophy of John Locke, and also from the ideas of Hobbes and Rousseau. Yet, they somehow managed to blatantly ignore one facet that is present in all three political models, which is that monetary gain should be limited.

Communism really only could work in a vacuum.

Not necessarily. Marx himself said that the only way the revolution could occur is if it were universal. So, if the proletariat in all countries rose up as one, then Communism could succeed. So a vacuum isn't necessary, just an unlikely political environment...

Communism was born of jealousy: jealousy of the poor man for the rich man's money.

but rather than use the entrepreneurial spirit (or the lottery, I guess.. hehe) to get rich, people thought it would be cool to form a government/pass laws that would TAX THE HELL out of rich people, take away propriety rights and economic freedom, etc... and turn the bulk of that money over to the underpriveleged in an effort to greatly decrease socioeconomic heterogeneity.

the problem with that is... well, here goes:

1)You marginalize talent, and reward sloth/averageness.
2)You, in essence, are stealing
3)You kill the entrepreneurial spirit by taking away most, if not all, of the perks for becoming an entrepreneur. With fewer entrepreneurs, you lose jobs, and the government has to pick up the slack.
4)Production decreases, per-capita income decreases, unemployment skyrockets (why work when you can sit on your couch and love off someone else's work?), prices increase, the economy basically goes in the shitter. Soviet citizens had to wait for hours in line just to get a loaf of bread. Nice way to treat your people.
5)You cannot afford to trade with other countries... your entrepreneurialism and, thus, your ingenuity are shot. YOU MUST CUT OFF TRADE TO SURVIVE AT ALL BECAUSE YOUR PRODUCTS CANNOT COMPETE.

Communism really only could work in a vacuum.

Thankfully, people want to have financial freedom (even some of the lazy ones..), they want to buy nice things and not at exorbitant prices, they want to OWN THINGS, they want to start businesses or have good jobs... so they yearn for the freedom of free enterprise.

and maybe the cycle starts again -- with economic freedom comes the socioeconomic gap ... the poor become jealous... etc.

(abridged version... hehe)


If the human race can provide food, shelter and healthcare for all, then everything else can be an act of choice. In the future I think we will see more collaborative projects like wikipedia.org and open source software purely because we are prosperous enough not to need to make huge amounts of money to feel happy, we will find it elsewhere.

Communism was born of jealousy: jealousy of the poor man for the rich man's money.

but rather than use the entrepreneurial spirit (or the lottery, I guess.. hehe) to get rich, people thought it would be cool to form a government/pass laws that would TAX THE HELL out of rich people, take away propriety rights and economic freedom, etc... and turn the bulk of that money over to the underpriveleged in an effort to greatly decrease socioeconomic heterogeneity.

the problem with that is... well, here goes:

1)You marginalize talent, and reward sloth/averageness.
2)You, in essence, are stealing
3)You kill the entrepreneurial spirit by taking away most, if not all, of the perks for becoming an entrepreneur. With fewer entrepreneurs, you lose jobs, and the government has to pick up the slack.
4)Production decreases, per-capita income decreases, unemployment skyrockets (why work when you can sit on your couch and love off someone else's work?), prices increase, the economy basically goes in the shitter. Soviet citizens had to wait for hours in line just to get a loaf of bread. Nice way to treat your people.
5)You cannot afford to trade with other countries... your entrepreneurialism and, thus, your ingenuity are shot. YOU MUST CUT OFF TRADE TO SURVIVE AT ALL BECAUSE YOUR PRODUCTS CANNOT COMPETE.

Communism really only could work in a vacuum.

Thankfully, people want to have financial freedom (even some of the lazy ones..), they want to buy nice things and not at exorbitant prices, they want to OWN THINGS, they want to start businesses or have good jobs... so they yearn for the freedom of free enterprise.

and maybe the cycle starts again -- with economic freedom comes the socioeconomic gap ... the poor become jealous... etc.

(abridged version... hehe)

Ok... so what about communists who want to do away with money altogether. How are they trying to get richer?

This is a load of rubbish. You refer to 'the state'. By that, I presume you mean the majority of people within the state. And of course the will of the majority is more important than the will of a single person, but that does not mean that the majority will always take advantage of the individual, because the majority is made up of individuals who are no more likely to be taken advantage of than anyone else. Communism is about people working together to help one another. What you seem to have in mind is some conspiracy theory about how everyone else is out to get you, which shows a severe lack of empathy and a severe lack of common sense..

By state I mean government, whatever governance society has.

Now let me get this, you are arguing for Communism by stating that that those in power will not always take advantage of the those without power. Why not stick with our present system?

And you, as a communist, are telling me, as a capitalist, that I have a paranoia of having people out to get me?

So why do some people help others for no personal gain? Or do you find that concept too hard to grasp?

That is not hard to grasp at all. In fact, if everyone wanted to work for everyone else, then a Capitalist system would have enough charity that there wouldn't need to be a Communist system.

[QUOTE=Frangland]Communism was born of jealousy: jealousy of the poor man for the rich man's money.QUOTE]

The fathers of modern communism came from very affluent familys, so why would they want their own money? its not about money its about how the capitalists get money:exploitation

Ok... so what about communists who want to do away with money altogether. How are they trying to get richer?

The goal of a communist (i would imagine) is not to become rich...

The goal of a communist is to thwart the rich so that (in his thinking...) the poor may rise.

I just think that this is not sustainable.

As for doing away with money... what sort of reward system would you use in its place to get the best out of people? How are you going to reward the guy who takes on the risk of a $50 million loan so that he can pursue his dream of starting (for instance) a toy factory... which, coincidentally, might provide a thousand (or more?) jobs for his fellow citizens?

Very smooth, the way you avoided addressing the main part of my post and headed straight for the afterthought...

I figured it would eventually be evident to you that everyone is born with a different level of ability and a different amount of labor they can contribute or sell. Jefferson would never assume such a blatantly wrong idea, so it must be assumed that he meant equal rights, that of which cannot be taken by government. Included in those bundle of rights: Capital ownership.

Yes, and they borrowed heavily from the political philospophy of John Locke, and also from the ideas of Hobbes and Rousseau. Yet, they somehow managed to blatantly ignore one facet that is present in all three political models, which is that monetary gain should be limited.

There are a couple things that I am torn with, the accumulation of legacies, and the idea that people should only be allowed to buy as much capital as they could put into production and or use personally.

By state I mean government, whatever governance society has.

Now let me get this, you are arguing for Communism by stating that that those in power will not always take advantage of the those without power. Why not stick with our present system?

And you, as a communist, are telling me, as a capitalist, that I have a paranoia of having people out to get me?

The government is controlled by the people. Democratic government is not out to get anyone.

No, I am not presenting that as an argument for communism, I am using it to knock down an argument you were presenting against communism, that by presenting the state as being more important than the individual (which by the way, if you mean the govenment when you say state, is not true), you say that the state will take advantage of the individual and do away with civil liberties. The government has no reason to do that in a democracy.

And yes, I am saying that you are paraniod, and I have heard before what you have said, that communists are paranoid about businesses, and that is simply not true, it is a sweeping generalisation. Communism at its core is about positive messages and building towards an ideal, not about simply trying to take out some enemies.

If Marx said that (roughly paraphrasing) Communism could only really work if it were universal, then he was, in a way, admitting that it could not work in the presence of other models... at least in terms of economy.

Which Soviet products were bought around the world? Rockets? Guns? Vodka? Anything else?

Communism was born of jealousy: jealousy of the poor man for the rich man's money.

but rather than use the entrepreneurial spirit (or the lottery, I guess.. hehe) to get rich, people thought it would be cool to form a government/pass laws that would TAX THE HELL out of rich people, take away propriety rights and economic freedom, etc... and turn the bulk of that money over to the underpriveleged in an effort to greatly decrease socioeconomic heterogeneity.


communism was born from a realisation that capitalism need not be the only economic stytem. a realisation that capitalism makes a large number of people unhappy. that capitalism is used by some to take more reward than they deserve. that, under capitalism, working people are exploited by a minorty of people in power, and that we are reduced to mere animals through the system.


1)You marginalize talent, and reward sloth/averageness.
this is one way of seeing it. another way is that the entire system is more fair to all.

2)You, in essence, are stealing
depends entirely on your perception of property rights. i happen to believe: "the fruits of the earth belong to all men, and the earth itself to no-one" - Rousseau

3)You kill the entrepreneurial spirit by taking away most, if not all, of the perks for becoming an entrepreneur. With fewer entrepreneurs, you lose jobs, and the government has to pick up the slack.
with fewer entrepeneurs in a capitalist economy, yes. but this isn't capitalism is it?
the perks of being an entrepeneur are, if you believe in the above definition of property rights, as many socialists do, stealing from other people. hence the system is unfair.

4)Production decreases, per-capita income decreases, unemployment skyrockets (why work when you can sit on your couch and love off someone else's work?), prices increase, the economy basically goes in the shitter. Soviet citizens had to wait for hours in line just to get a loaf of bread. Nice way to treat your people.
ah this old one. look up altruism. the altruistic spirit of people, as opposed to the greed brough out and utilised by capitalism, means they will effectively be happy to just contribute their bit to society.
and the capitalist economy 'goes in the shitter', yes. the communist economy works entirely differently.
and Soviet citizens were subject to a bloated and corrupt system, riddled with beaurocratic problems. this is not communism. even the state supplying food is not communism, as in the true ideal the state dissolves away.

5)You cannot afford to trade with other countries... your entrepreneurialism and, thus, your ingenuity are shot. YOU MUST CUT OFF TRADE TO SURVIVE AT ALL BECAUSE YOUR PRODUCTS CANNOT COMPETE.
this is why (nearly) all communists agree that the whole world needs to become communist. the two systems are simply incompatible. this is not a negative point.


Thankfully, people want to have financial freedom (even some of the lazy ones..), they want to buy nice things and not at exorbitant prices, they want to OWN THINGS, they want to start businesses or have good jobs... so they yearn for the freedom of free enterprise.


capitalism makes people want things they wouldn't otherwise want. things they don't need or desire except for the fact they've been told do demand these things.
capitalism encourages greed, it runs on greed and selfishness. remove this and people may finally be able to be happy, and get out of the negative spiral of an over-consumerist system

That is not hard to grasp at all. In fact, if everyone wanted to work for everyone else, then a Capitalist system would have enough charity that there wouldn't need to be a Communist system.

If everyone wanted to work for everyone else, we would have subtly become a communist system rather than a capitalist system.

The government is controlled by the people. Democratic government is not out to get anyone.

No, I am not presenting that as an argument for communism, I am using it to knock down an argument you were presenting against communism, that by presenting the state as being more important than the individual (which by the way, if you mean the govenment when you say state, is not true), you say that the state will take advantage of the individual and do away with civil liberties. The government has no reason to do that in a democracy.

Tell that to gays, women, and just about any ethnicity other than whites that have inhabited the US since its inception.

And yes, I am saying that you are paraniod, and I have heard before what you have said, that communists are paranoid about businesses, and that is simply not true, it is a sweeping generalisation. Communism at its core is about positive messages and building towards an ideal, not about simply trying to take out some enemies.

What am I paranoid of? That some communists will kick me out of my minimum wage job?

I figured it would eventually be evident to you that everyone is born with a different level of ability and a different amount of labor they can contribute or sell. Jefferson would never assume such a blatantly wrong idea, so it must be assumed that he meant equal rights, that of which cannot be taken by government. Included in those bundle of rights: Capital ownership.

Trust me, I'm nowhere near being an egalitarian. It's all I can do to maintain some modicum of good manners when it comes to discussion of that topic. However since "born" and "created" could be used interchangably, then according to the document "All men are born equal." Yes, I realize Jefferson meant this in the scope that all should be treated equally under law, with no one person having more rights than any other, but you didn't clarify and I love to pick on overlooked details.

There are a couple things that I am torn with, the accumulation of legacies, and the idea that people should only be allowed to buy as much capital as they could put into production and or use personally.

Fair enough. I'm also of the belief that those in the legislature should only be paid according to what the average income is for the state they represent...that would be a fair incentive to look after the economic interests of one's constituents.

OK, going back to the basic idea behind the systems:

capitalism (the ultimate one): no social regulations, children working in mines, 14 hour work day, no insurance, famine,...

Now, what is the basic idea behind capitalism, to get as rich as possible on the expense of the other people, once on local or national level, today on a global.
This leads to inequality and oppresess the rights of the workers since is practicly inpossible to progress! So we are oppressing the right of an iduvidual, those who have the money have the power and other just get screwed.

Now if logic that one system in practice opresses ones rights, well then capitalism by your logic can't exsist, but we know that this is not true ergo your logic is flawed.

And for the end comunism does not oppresses induvidual as such it just makes you as rich (or poor) as the rest of the society so if you wan't to get rich make society rich.

The only thing comunisem lacked was adaptation to situations (becouse of dictatorship), now most capitalist countries were democratic so the could adept.

Back from a RL interlude.

I don't just mean completely outside of society, I mean also living counter to it. With the body analogy, you must assume that people are simply cogs in a machine. That is how Communism views a person, as an entity that should work to improve the whole. It does not allow someone to work on something that is viewed as being counterproductive to society, whereas Capitalism does with the assumption that if they are a visionary they will be blessed with the all the rewards they can take from society, or, if they are simply being unproductive, they will see no reward for their work.
For society to function the people are just cogs in the machine. This is the principle on which all representative government works. The leaders are leaders because of the role they occupy in the society, not because of who they, as individuals are. If it becomes important who is the president before the office of president has power, then you are back to a "divine right of kings" philosophy. Equally it does not matter who sweeps the street, so long as t=he street is swept, nor does it matter who puts out the fires, so long as they are extinguished. You get the picture. Individuals do not matter, at all. This is not a description of communism it is a description of a society where the person is not identified directly with the position in society. I.E. any post feudal society.
The second point, about reward for effort etc. is the reason I think that communism will not work. It has nothing to do with the rights of the individual, it has to do with the motivation the driving force behind the individual that causes them to function. Back to the body analogy, if all the cells stopped doing anything, the body dies. For me this is why communism fails, it signs its own death warrant when it removes the profit motive.

Both of those questions were addressing whether I felt I was dispensable. My answer to that is yes, I would be dispensable if it were to serve the well being of those I care about. But when society and the government begins to believe that the citizens of the society are dispensable, it opens up a wide avenue for oppression.
Well I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that you are an individual. (You may be a colony of ants, but that would also be an individual on our scale I suppose). If you are not more important than the welfare of others, then the government has no reason to hold that any one person is more important than the welfare of all. It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of recognition of a fact. The society wil continue if a few individuals die, many individuals will not continue if the society dies. (Some few would survive to create the next society)

The government must stand up for each and every individual in order to protect the whole.
No. The government must treat all indivisduals equally if it is to be fair. It does not have to defend one individual if in doing so it places another at risk. If in defending one it places two others at risk it has an obligation not to defend that one. The government must protect the whole. It is responsible for the society. The individuals have to protect themselves by their actions.
They are responsible for themselves.

Some how our roles have inverted here. It is a socialist position to argue that the government has a duty to protect each individual, rather than the individual being responsible for himself. Communism being an extreme form of socialism holds this to be true.


Communism paves the way for the dictator. Seriously, it starts with a militaristic revolution, puts the government over the individual, and even has the added propaganda benefit of being for the proletariat. Tell me that isn't the precise recipe for an authoritarian government.
I will tell you that far more capitalist dictators have come to power that way than socialist ones. Please seperate armed revolution from communism. Armed revolution has never yet resulted in communism.
Marx and Engels argued that communism could only come to pass through armed revolution. In this they may have been wrong. They were looking at the world from the position of subjects in a non democratic state. With democracy, communism could arise through the ballot box, rather than through the ammo box.

I have said my piece, and I did state at the start that I was playing devils advocate. I actually think that communism is a nice ideal that is doomed to failure because it disregards human nature.

If Marx said that (roughly paraphrasing) Communism could only really work if it were universal, then he was, in a way, admitting that it could not work in the presence of other models... at least in terms of economy.

Which Soviet products were bought around the world? Rockets? Guns? Vodka? Anything else? Thats why theres a thing called socialism which is the phase between gobal communism and capitalism

1)You marginalize talent, and reward sloth/averageness.

Not true. As long as there is flexibility in what role you take. I have not chosen my career in the health system for money, I could earn much more elsewhere, my talent is being exploited in one of the best possible places for society.

Trust me, I'm nowhere near being an egalitarian. It's all I can do to maintain some modicum of good manners when it comes to discussion of that topic. However since "born" and "created" could be used interchangably, then according to the document "All men are born equal." Yes, I realize Jefferson meant this in the scope that all should be treated equally under law, with no one person having more rights than any other, but you didn't clarify and I love to pick on overlooked details.



Fair enough. I'm also of the belief that those in the legislature should only be paid according to what the average income is for the state they represent...that would be a fair incentive to look after the economic interests of one's constituents.

That last is a pretty good idea. Maybe they could keep the free postage perk. lol

If everyone wanted to work for everyone else, we would have subtly become a communist system rather than a capitalist system.

You seem to misunderstand the basic principle of Communism, which is private capital ownership. If people decide on their own to give capital to charity, then it is a capitalism. If they never have any to give, then it is a communism.

The goal of a communist (i would imagine) is not to become rich...

The goal of a communist is to thwart the rich so that (in his thinking...) the poor may rise.

I just think that this is not sustainable.

As for doing away with money... what sort of reward system would you use in its place to get the best out of people? How are you going to reward the guy who takes on the risk of a $50 million loan so that he can pursue his dream of starting (for instance) a toy factory... which, coincidentally, might provide a thousand (or more?) jobs for his fellow citizens?

The goal of a communist is for everyone to be equal. The term 'rich' is no longer applicable.

I would not use a reward system, I would rely on people's motivation to act in the interest of society on their own, which I know, does not exist that much now, but I believe can exist one day.
Lmao... you used an example of someone who was risking a '$50 million loan', and asking how in a society without money he could have the incentive to take that risk. Hmmm, I'll let you think about that for a while to work out why that would no longer be a problem.

Look, my nation is a liberal socialistcommunity that is thriving well. The idea of communism is not flawed. The idea is that all humans are equal. In a capitalism, all humans are not equal.Their are classes and a rich poor gap in a capitalism.Their are the CEOs who can sack the working class any time they want for any reason. The CEOs make lots of money, the white collars get by OK, and life sucks for everyone else. Communisms don't have to be dictaterships, either. To be a communist nation, you just need a command economy. Like said early by someone else, the idea is not flawed, but sometimes the practice is.

You seem to misunderstand the basic principle of Communism, which is private capital ownership. If people decide on their own to give capital to charity, then it is a capitalism. If they never have any to give, then it is a communism.

The basic principle of Communism is private capital ownership? I think you mean Capitalism. Actually, is that why you're against Communism so much? You've just got the two of them mixed around?
First of all, giving money to charity is against the principles of capitalism, in that it damages your own personal private owneship of capital. In communism, giving capital is not neccesary, as you can give the things that people need straight to them.

By the way, i openeded a communist o nly region. Please contact me to join.

OK, going back to the basic idea behind the systems:

capitalism (the ultimate one): no social regulations, children working in mines, 14 hour work day, no insurance, famine,...


Capitalism has also created: colonialism, 7 day work week, class privilege, the drug wars, the massacre of the paris commune, slavery, aparthied, anti-union laws, trench warfare, mustard gas, the great depression, fascism, nazism, the mafia, racism, WW2, plastic surgery, the destruction of the ozone layer, evironmental degregation, and the rape of the third world

Communists are able to expose the evils of capitalism quite effectively, however their alternatives can't be declared realistic. Communism is a utopian concept that can never be achieved nor upheld. Thus, the system proven to be most successful yet still compassionate is capitalism with socialist reform. In principle, communism is flawless. The flaw exists only within humans. I believe most of the political debate in today's world revolves around what is too idealistic and what needs to be done in the name of ethics.

To quote a Polish proverb, "In capitalism, man exploits man. In socialism (of which communism is a form), the reverse is true."

Just a comment: Unless you live in a communist country, and PARTICULARLY if you live in the US (like myself) I would heartily suggest that you read Marx and Engel's Communist Manifesto before saying another word in this debate. Unfortunately, communism is just the big "red hordes" in America and much of the capitalist world. Nowhere, for instance, in my high school, was communism taught in a fair way. Capitalism was stressed. This stands to reason, as those who make the cirriculum have to maintain their grip on society, which relies on a continued bourgeois society.

Seriously, just read the Manifesto, THEN talk about how much you hate communism, X, Y, or Z. It's really tiring to hear petty capitalists talking shit about communism without any real knowledge of the theory.

Finally, one other thing: In answer to general comments about how communism goes against "human nature" of greed. This is absolutely false. The concept of "enlightened self-interest" lies directly at the heart of modern communist, anarchist, or socialist theory. Syndicalist, too, I would think, but I don't have enough knowledge of the concept to say for certain.

Ok, all his argument is irrelevant. COMMUNISM IS NOT A FORM OF GOVERNMENT! It is a form of society where people live in small COMMUNEs and support each other. There are many examples throughout history of these true communist societies, many of which were very successful. Now, Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, and Pol Potism are different. They take the guise of being compassionate to the lower classes to seize power and then rule with the iron-fisted philosophy of the leader of the revolution.

Ok, all his argument is irrelevant. COMMUNISM IS NOT A FORM OF GOVERNMENT! It is a form of society where people live in small COMMUNEs and support each other. There are many examples throughout history of these true communist societies, many of which were very successful. Now, Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, and Pol Potism are different. They take the guise of being compassionate to the lower classes to seize power and then rule with the iron-fisted philosophy of the leader of the revolution.

Yes and no. It's not a government in the traditional sense of the word, but it is a way that people are governed, even if it is by the party rather than by the government.

And yes, I have read some of Marx's works.

Just a comment: Unless you live in a communist country, and PARTICULARLY if you live in the US (like myself) I would heartily suggest that you read Marx and Engel's Communist Manifesto before saying another word in this debate. Unfortunately, communism is just the big "red hordes" in America and much of the capitalist world. Nowhere, for instance, in my high school, was communism taught in a fair way. Capitalism was stressed. This stands to reason, as those who make the cirriculum have to maintain their grip on society, which relies on a continued bourgeois society.

Seriously, just read the Manifesto, THEN talk about how much you hate communism, X, Y, or Z. It's really tiring to hear petty capitalists talking shit about communism without any real knowledge of the theory.

It ought to be taught from a neutral perspective in our schools in order to combat ignorance, but the odds of an agenda such as that succeeding are slim because of widespread lack of knowledge and close-mindedness toward communism. In the US, it's a dirty word. We still have yet to get over the red scare and widespread idiocy that communists are enemies.

It has to be taught in a neutral sense, correct, but Capitalism has tried so hard (America mostly) to attempt and crush communism into the ground that is would be very difficult to do so.

The basic principle of Communism is private capital ownership? I think you mean Capitalism. Actually, is that why you're against Communism so much? You've just got the two of them mixed around?
First of all, giving money to charity is against the principles of capitalism, in that it damages your own personal private owneship of capital. In communism, giving capital is not neccesary, as you can give the things that people need straight to them.

I meant to type public instead of private, stupid typo, nothing more.

Charity has no affect on Capitalism for good or bad. Unless the recipient eats the money, the money will be recycled into the economy as he purchases goods and services.

I thought that in communism, one got what he/she needed and nothing more. That would dispel the opportunity for individual charity.

I meant to type public instead of private, stupid typo, nothing more.

Charity has no affect on Capitalism for good or bad. Unless the recipient eats the money, the money will be recycled into the economy as he purchases goods and services.

I thought that in communism, one got what he/she needed and nothing more. That would dispel the opportunity for individual charity.

No, not really. The government decides what everyone gets, and usually that is limited to nothing more than the basic neccessities.

Yes and no. It's not a government in the traditional sense of the word, but it is a way that people are governed, even if it is by the party rather than by the government.

In Marxist theory, this is correct. A party of the proletariat is supposed to govern the people through the principles of Marxism (which really isn't communism, but is related).

In practice, however, no "communist" government has governed according to Marxist principles, let alone communist ones, because the dictator has always used the seemingly progressive ideals to justify iron-fisted rulership and control by a select few leadership. It is the nature of man to aspire to be "more equal" than anyone else, and this is why communism is impossible to achieve through a revolutionary who then gains power to instill society with communist principles. Every "communist" government proves this point, beginning with a revolutionary who becomes a ruthless dictator.

I posted this in the other thread, but it wasn't really addressed to anyone in particular so I thought it would make a decent thread starter.

Communism 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 of 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.

You, like many who know absolutly nothing about communism (only what you hear through the capitalist lens), automatically assume Russia, China et al. are the only way communism can run. You forget that Communism has a social element as well, and that many advocate the elimination of the state or the implementation of democracy. Unfortunatly for the world, Stalin beat out Trotsky.

Communism will never work since humans are inheritly greedy and the majority will only work well to insure self gain, withour that reward, most people have to be forced to work and then do as little as possible since they see no purpose (self gain) in the work

Seeing that this arguement is crap and full of the regular run of the mill "Communism doesn't work since because people are lazy and greedy" which I'm tired of explaining....I'll be inviting you all to try up against some very, very knowledged Communists and Anarchists.

www.revleft.com are the boards of probably the biggest radical left wing forums in the net; see you in "opposing ideologies".

If you really interested in hearing some good in-depth argueing points, or just a Communist trying to find your own kind; try out the forums there.

1) I find myself hearing Christian preachers everytime I hear the hard-line communists making their little speaches. I find that telling.

2) I personally prefer a socialistic capitalist system. Somewhere between Australia, non-thumper America, and Canada.

3) America is no longer a purely capitalist country. It's been shifting towards socialistic capitalism for centuries. If you have issues, take it up with Africa, where the pure capitalist situation is still going on.

4) I'm not of the stereotype the hard-line commune-ists here are blathering on about. I know that Stalinism isn't Marxism and so forth. So keep that BS to yourselves in regards to me. It's as annoying as the Christians who say "Well you just don't WANT to be restricted by morals!" and so forth.

5) Oh Bast, Jesus, Buddha, and IPU, PLEASE, stop using the goddamn buzzwords like some brainwashed psychos. It's as stupid as when republicans make the argument-by-accusation-of-being-a-pinko-commie-liberal. Grow up, dammit.

6) If you have to have a revolution in a democratic country, guess what, you're already going against the wishes of the majority of people. This makes you tyrants, and hypocrites. If you want to change democratic society, change it with votes, not bullets, or prove yourself no better than Stalin and Co.

7) It is true that, in a capitalist society, you tend to have marketers trying to convince you that you need garbage that you really don't. This includes a personal clothing style, hair conditioner, acne medication, the arts, history, many of the sciences, fun of any form, recreational sex, gun ownership, decoration, dating, flavorful food, pets, personal for-fun computers and internet, marriage, card games, hop scotch, recreational drugs of ALL forms, et cetera. All of this is superfluous to continued existance. It's also damned hard to equally hand it out to all people (how do you guarantee equality in sexual relations? Who gets). It also usually burns many many calories and thus harms the community as a whole, because it means you're wasting resources. Note: Socialism does not eliminate the ability to gain more than you need. Only communism does this.

8) Communism, unless it has some sort of weird, Catholic-like "indulgence" system, also vastly limits what you can do in your spare time, especially with nature. If I catch a fish and eat it, I'm breaking communist doctrine, because I had an extra fish that nobody else had, unless there is a loss to make up for this. If this is ignored, it becomes very easy for someone to gain an advantage in life by fishing on their breaks, whittling wood in to shapes, et cetera.

9) Specific Friendships are, logically, illegal in communism. Friendship is part of how capitalist societies got to their current state. People worked together more strongly than with others, and so gained synergetic benefit. Things like giving your best friend a loan without interest, while you would charge someone else for it, et cetera.

10) One of the most presented ideas here on communism is that the entire planet, after being forced in to this new form of government, will develop, with no exception, absolute altruism towards everyone else on the planet, equally, regardless of any of who they are. This is a very strong assumption to make, since capitalist countries are equally insistant on spreading their idealogy, and yet so many other mentalities pop up within it. I need to see evidence before I accept the notion that the communist society can do this more readily than the capitalist societies have when, in theory, since they are 'bad', and are not altruistic, they would be willing to use harsher methods than the 'altruistic' communists.

10a) It has not been shown why the world-wide, bloody, forceful revolution is required to make everyone altruistic, instead of simply a long-term idealogical effort within the current systems. America has gotten more socialist over the years, and thus, closer to communist ideals. It has been done with much less (not no) bloodshed and force than revolution requires. I don't think fair treatment requires killing millions of people and essentially enslaving at least a billion people (being frugal: I wager the numbers would be much worse than that).

11) Communist societies exist within capitalism, as do other forms of society. Amish are an example of this. They're not Marxist, certainly, but they are extremely close to the communist ideal. They have not had to create a revolution. They just did their thing. Capitalist societies cannot, on the other hand, be abided by in world-revolution-based communist society, nor, indeed, the existance of any non-communist society on the planet, ever again. This includes tribal peoples and so forth. Everyone loses the society they grew up on. Indeed, even the Amish will lose their seperation from society.

11a) It has not been shown why communism can't simply exist within other forms of society, or make their own seperate state. There is no requirement for them to compete with other nations, they only have to survive on their own. Since communism isn't superficial and materialistic like capitalism is, they don't need to advance as fast as we do anyways, nor can altruistic people care if someone else is at an advantage to them (that makes them selfish). What does a true communist care if some guy in another country has a mansion, or a robot dog? Their concern is only with what is required to live. They wouldn't WANT a robot dog, so they wouldn't care that one existed.

12) It has been stated that, in a communist country, there will be no crime of any form. One wonders how this is honestly possible. For those who agree that it isn't possible, how does a communist country punish criminals for, say, rape, that would matter in a country where only what you need is given?

13) How will communism deal with the fact that humans are not biologically equal? Some people are smarter, stronger, faster, more agile, more energetic, better adapted for their environment, et cetera. I, for instance, would have a much easier time in the field than my roommates. I'm from much hardier stock. I would have an advantage in most situations, in fact, as I'm (very) slightly better than average in most areas. I even process food better than most, and thus weigh more than many people who eat more than I do. How will this inequit be dealt with?

14) What do you do with people who are born or become through accident much less useful than average? The insane?

15) Do you allow people to seek to move the country away from communism? Are they allowed to democratically vote in the return of a capitalist or other non-communist system? Where do their freedoms end?

16) How will someone be punished if they are 'caught capitalizing'?



There's much else to say, but I think that'll do for now.

Seeing that this arguement is crap and full of the regular run of the mill "Communism doesn't work since because people are lazy and greedy" which I'm tired of explaining....I'll be inviting you all to try up against some very, very knowledged Communists and Anarchists.

www.revleft.com are the boards of probably the biggest radical left wing forums in the net; see you in "opposing ideologies".

If you really interested in hearing some good in-depth argueing points, or just a Communist trying to find your own kind; try out the forums there.

The initial post has nothing to do with laziness nor greed. It addressed the problem of Communism as being a degradation of the individual.

You, like many who know absolutly nothing about communism (only what you hear through the capitalist lens), automatically assume Russia, China et al. are the only way communism can run. You forget that Communism has a social element as well, and that many advocate the elimination of the state or the implementation of democracy. Unfortunatly for the world, Stalin beat out Trotsky.

1] The only thing that was different between Trotsky and Stalin is that Trotsky wanted the revolution to be worldwide, while Stalin believed that Communism would work in one country.

2] As for the social aspect of Communism, when a society reaches the point where people are completely willing to live and work for the betterment of the whole, capitalism provides outlets for them to do that, and therefore Communism will still be unnecessary.

3] Whether the revolution comes about peacefully or violently, the individual is still subjegated to the whole, and is therefore at extreme risk of oppression.

No, not really. The government decides what everyone gets, and usually that is limited to nothing more than the basic neccessities.

And you believe this would be a good way to go? Communists always rail against Capitalism, saying that it degenerates the worker into a slave of the corporation. Would not Communism only give you a new master?

Good question, Incenjucarania, particularly the parts about the worldwide revolution. I suppose this explains why I'm an anarchist (an anarcho-socialist, obviously) rather than a Communist. I will give my views on the matter.

I, as I just said, don't believe that communism need require a worldwide revolution, or even a revolution at all. It would be wonderful if countries would simply let people/groups secede from them. This seems to be to be the first step. Unfortunately, countries don't want to, and armed revolution seems to be an alternative (though not one I believe in). It is possible to have communism via the ballot box, of course, you would have the people in the minority who do not want communism. I believe that everyone who is living under communism should want communism, and that those who don't should be able to live under their own systems. Alas, this is a pipe dream.

As far as the Amish go, I'm not too familiar with how they run things. (And I should know, as they're in my state.) If they still pay taxes and submit to the laws of PA/the U.S., then they aren't quite separate enough, however it is a start.

As far as human nature goes, you can have two opinions: either human nature is malleable and people can resist greediness, and people can overcome their natures, and therefore communism is possible. Or human nature is static and people are greedy, and cooperation is more vital to survival than competion is, and therefore communism is possible. (Sorry for the run-on sentences.) But either way, communism is possible.

The enlightened self-interest part that was mentioned by other posters is very important. I firmly believe in the concept of direct democracy. I believe that the purpose of democracy is to ensure that everyone has the same amount of power. In capitalism, money is power, and therefore my idea of democracy cannot exist under capitalism. It is precisely my enlightened self-interest that leads me to this conclusion: I don't want anyone to have more power than I do. The only way to ensure this is to also ensure that I have no more power than others.

As an anarchist, I believe that there is a difference between personal and private property. Personal property is acceptable, private property is not. I will go into further detail about the differences, and even about things that can be both personal and private depending on the situation if asked, but I don't think it's necessary at the moment.

As far as profit goes: profit isn't the only incentive that people have for doing what they do, or even the biggest one. I'd be willing to bet $100 (or more) that if an extensive survey were taken, people would rank being valued and appreciated at their jobs and enjoying them higher than they would rank how much money they earn.

As far as technology goes: Capitalism is great at filling demands, however it is better at coming up with useless stuff and then creating the demand for them. So naturally you would have more inventions under capitalism than under communism. However, under communism, a higher percentage of (perhaps even all of the) inventions would be useful and help make things easier for society.

There is more, but I think I've typed enough for one post. Discuss (or ignore, as is your choice.)

The enlightened self-interest part that was mentioned by other posters is very important. I firmly believe in the concept of direct democracy. I believe that the purpose of democracy is to ensure that everyone has the same amount of power. In capitalism, money is power, and therefore my idea of democracy cannot exist under capitalism. It is precisely my enlightened self-interest that leads me to this conclusion: I don't want anyone to have more power than I do. The only way to ensure this is to also ensure that I have no more power than others.


Money is power in any economic system. Whoever decides where money goes will automatically have power. So in a direct democratic communism the majority will have an overwhelming amount of power.

Money is power in any economic system. Whoever decides where money goes will automatically have power. So in a direct democratic communism the majority will have an overwhelming amount of power.
Ah, I see I forgot to mention that money would be abolished. However you do have a point about the dictatorship of the majority. I think, ideally, that if people were to set up a communist system that they would have a Constitution of some sort. One that protects the rights of the minorities and helps to ensure that no groups are singled out for mistreatment. Of course, you could argue "what would make the people uphold that Constitution?" with which I would reply "what makes people uphold any Constitution?" Quite simply put, the will of the people to uphold a Constitution is what makes people uphold it. Any Constitution could be gotten rid of if the people don't want it.

Ah, I see I forgot to mention that money would be abolished. However you do have a point about the dictatorship of the majority. I think, ideally, that if people were to set up a communist system that they would have a Constitution of some sort. One that protects the rights of the minorities and helps to ensure that no groups are singled out for mistreatment. Of course, you could argue "what would make the people uphold that Constitution?" with which I would reply "what makes people uphold any Constitution?" Quite simply put, the will of the people to uphold a Constitution is what makes people uphold it. Any Constitution could be gotten rid of if the people don't want it.

Money only represents goods and resources. To abolish money does not resolve the problem of the haves and have nots. Under a communist system, the dictatorship by majority extends into economic issues as well. When the populous is given control over investment and spending through direct democracy economic minorities could feel unfair economic regulations.

For example, in an industrial nation like ours, or most of Western Europe, what keeps the majority from determining that farmers don't deserve the wages that factory workers do?

Money only represents goods and resources. To abolish money does not resolve the problem of the haves and have nots. Under a communist system, the dictatorship by majority extends into economic issues as well. When the populous is given control over investment and spending through direct democracy economic minorities could feel unfair economic regulations.

For example, in an industrial nation like ours, or most of Western Europe, what keeps the majority from determining that farmers don't deserve the wages that factory workers do?
Ideally it would be written into the Constitution that everyone gets the same wages.

Ideally it would be written into the Constitution that everyone gets the same wages.

That just isn't acceptable. No one would be willing to work highrise construction without hazard pay, likewise there would be no miners were there not benefits to it. I am not going to say that people only work for money, but there are definitely specific careers that people would not enter into willingly without specific benefits.

I want to disagree to the first post, because the idea of communism is not against the rights of the individual but for the rights of everyone. it just does not include the possibility of supressing the minor as it is allowed in capitalist states. also, in a land where everyone is equal, everyone got the same rights - so it does not supress the individual because it supports the mass.

greez
the fron

I want to disagree to the first post, because the idea of communism is not against the rights of the individual but for the rights of everyone.

It removes property rights and economic autonomy. You cannot take away rights from the individual without taking away rights from everyone.

it just does not include the possibility of supressing the minor as it is allowed in capitalist states. also, in a land where everyone is equal, everyone got the same rights - so it does not supress the individual because it supports the mass.

When everyone is equal, nobody has any rights. Equality can only be maintained by government through the suppression of the individual, so to maintain total equality, the government must also totally suppress the individual.

I'm wondering if anyone is going to bring more to this argument than what you can learn in a high school history class. If you're going to just spout off some crap about why you think someone elses ideology is wrong, then at least back it up with something a bit more convincing than your opinions on human nature, or which is more important, the individual or the state. Otherwise you're just another broken record.

Good question, Incenjucarania, particularly the parts about the worldwide revolution. I suppose this explains why I'm an anarchist (an anarcho-socialist, obviously) rather than a Communist. I will give my views on the matter.


Thank you for a calm, non-sensational response.

Notably, I myself am for the IDEA of anarchy, far more than communism. I just recognize that there's no way in hell it would work because humans are such idiotic pricks.


I, as I just said, don't believe that communism need require a worldwide revolution, or even a revolution at all. It would be wonderful if countries would simply let people/groups secede from them. This seems to be to be the first step. Unfortunately, countries don't want to, and armed revolution seems to be an alternative (though not one I believe in).


Aye. Succession is extremely difficult. Though Isreal did it.


It is possible to have communism via the ballot box, of course, you would have the people in the minority who do not want communism.


This is where that individual vs. society thing comes up.


I believe that everyone who is living under communism should want communism, and that those who don't should be able to live under their own systems. Alas, this is a pipe dream.


Agreed. Especially since kids aren't going to be social clones of their parents, no matter how hard one tries.


As far as the Amish go, I'm not too familiar with how they run things. (And I should know, as they're in my state.) If they still pay taxes and submit to the laws of PA/the U.S., then they aren't quite separate enough, however it is a start.


Well, seeing as they still do benefit from the existance of the rest of the country (They're in no danger of being conquered, et cetera), I figure their property taxes make sense. Their kids also have the option to go out in to the rest of the country should they choose a different life, without legal issue.


As far as human nature goes, you can have two opinions: either human nature is malleable and people can resist greediness, and people can overcome their natures, and therefore communism is possible. Or human nature is static and people are greedy, and cooperation is more vital to survival than competion is, and therefore communism is possible. (Sorry for the run-on sentences.) But either way, communism is possible.


-You have to show that competition isn't healthy for the overall benefit of the species. I, myself, thrive on competition, for example. Indeed, I do my best work when I'm angry. If I was in an uncompetative state, I wouldn't be half as useful, or a quarter as artistic.

-You have to show that overcoming greed requires communism.

-You have to show that the methods of 'overcoming' a person's nature are beneficial. Freedom of thought is valued by many.


The enlightened self-interest part that was mentioned by other posters is very important. I firmly believe in the concept of direct democracy. I believe that the purpose of democracy is to ensure that everyone has the same amount of power.


The trick is, this was tried in Athens. You have to have a massively educated populace, and a populace that doesn't have anyone stupid enough to fall for a sales pitch, and a majority that doesn't have anything against any minority. This eliminates the grand majority of the planet throughout all of history.


In capitalism, money is power, and therefore my idea of democracy cannot exist under capitalism.


Just to throw a notion out:

In a democracy, voting is the final power. Money just lets a minority compete with the majority, and influence them, in a way, balancing things out.

The trick is to keep the populace educated, so that they don't fall for anything negative, and don't elect people solely on how good their fireworks or acting ability are.

Remember, much of the unfairness and corruption in America's early history is because people let their votes be purchased, right off the boat from another country.


It is precisely my enlightened self-interest that leads me to this conclusion: I don't want anyone to have more power than I do. The only way to ensure this is to also ensure that I have no more power than others.


This would eliminate all forms of office.

It is neccessary for me to have less power over the roads than the guy running the road construction project. If I can just show up on the site and tell him to stop, then there's an issue.

People need to have full SELF power, and power within their position. The trick is to keep them from being able to extend it in a way that is negative towards others that can't be voted out.

Say, if Bill Gates could buy a senatorship.

Further, it is impossible to have equity in power. I'm strong than average, and smarter than average. I have more power than the average person. This cannot be eliminated without some sci-fi weirdness.


As an anarchist, I believe that there is a difference between personal and private property. Personal property is acceptable, private property is not. I will go into further detail about the differences, and even about things that can be both personal and private depending on the situation if asked, but I don't think it's necessary at the moment.


This is where you get issues like, who gets to decide how you raise your kids, or your cat, and what keeps someone from painting something you find offensive on your house.

Private property lets people control their own lives, rather than giving up that control to other people. It is assumed that an individual knows themselves better than the government does.


As far as profit goes: profit isn't the only incentive that people have for doing what they do, or even the biggest one.


Hierarchy of needs.


I'd be willing to bet $100 (or more) that if an extensive survey were taken, people would rank being valued and appreciated at their jobs and enjoying them higher than they would rank how much money they earn.


Heh, you need $100 as an incentive to do a survey? :D

And you have to keep in mind, people will write down what they THINK is true, not neccissarily what IS true.

I, thankfully, do know that I'm more interested in money than appreciation. My dad is the opposite, but that's because he has enough power via skill that he can work for any construction company he wants. He can quit a job if a boss looks at him wrong, and get an offer within 48 hours. So he can be a bitch. Me, I thrive on adversity, so I might actually aim TOWARD a place where I have a reason to cuss.


As far as technology goes: Capitalism is great at filling demands, however it is better at coming up with useless stuff and then creating the demand for them.


This is a social issue which can be addressed within capitalism.

One can be convinced of a false need in communism, as well. All that is required is that someone decides they want something, and, since they have to get the majority to want it to get it, they start marketing the idea to people until everyone has them, and thus, so do they.


So naturally you would have more inventions under capitalism than under communism. However, under communism, a higher percentage of (perhaps even all of the) inventions would be useful and help make things easier for society.


Here's the thing. Where does this end? Does the government get to decide whether or not I can have a certain kind of fun?

If a woman wants an amazing orgasm, is she not allowed to have a closet full of sex toys?

If I think swords are cool, am I not allowed to own a sword and learn how to fence?

If I like video games, am I not allowed to have one?

Communism takes away the individual's power of choice in how they spend their time.


There is more, but I think I've typed enough for one post. Discuss (or ignore, as is your choice.)

I have tons more, as well. Haven't even gotten in to gun ownership, heh.

Still, thanks for a lack of buzzwords.

I'm wondering if anyone is going to bring more to this argument than what you can learn in a high school history class. If you're going to just spout off some crap about why you think someone elses ideology is wrong, then at least back it up with something a bit more convincing than your opinions on human nature, or which is more important, the individual or the state. Otherwise you're just another broken record.

That was an absolutely unhelpful post.

One can't even tell which side you're arguing at, much less gain any benefit from your existance.

I'm wondering if anyone is going to bring more to this argument than what you can learn in a high school history class. If you're going to just spout off some crap about why you think someone elses ideology is wrong, then at least back it up with something a bit more convincing than your opinions on human nature, or which is more important, the individual or the state. Otherwise you're just another broken record.

Enlighten us, smart guy.

I really would like to hear some answers from the hard-line communists who feel they need to takeover the world for the good of democracy.

No, since the basic idea of communism is flawed it will never work.


That is the very same problem with democracy. According to worst-case logic, it will never work because individuals will become too inherently greedy, and the system will fall into anarchy. Result? That has not happened. Communism is not based on the indiscriminate control of a few trigger-happy revolutionaries, such as myself. It is based on the premise that when you give somebody the access to democracy (pure communism requires direct democracy over all affairs) and restrict their ability to control the labor of others, then you have a society that, due to its classless nature, is built around the premise of everyone getting good, fair treatment, not great, mind you, because that would require the subjugation of others. The idea is not to give society overwhelming control, for that would require the submission of someone to the will of another, and that is what communism tries to escape from. It is to give society enough control to act effectively as a governmental entity, but one that is fluid and always adapting. The individual is given the ability to work as they please. As I've expressed in other threads, it gives you the ability to do what you are good at, without having to take money into consideration.

Marx's critique on individual rights is that of negative rights. A negative right gives one the ability to take control over others. Marx equated all the "rights" of the enlightement as being created by the bourgeoisie to subjugate government control to the bourgeoisie, and to further control the worker. Now it may seem as if Marx does not advocate certain fundamental rights. The rights to free speech and expression. The right to assemble. But Marx's society, a democracy, requires that such rights be present. The exception in rights are those that can subjugate another. To illustrate:

communism does not allow for the freedom to pursue and own bourgeoisie property. Marx does, however express that individually-owned property (shops and homes) is not a bad thing, so our society can allow for this. Just not massive factories and industrial armies owned by a single capitalist.

communism does allow for freedom of expression. Communist society is democratic, and an essential tenent of democracy is the right to express. Though it is not tantamount. This right may be waived though, depending on the value of the individual. It may be that the voice of the individual just doesn't carry any formal weight, because free discussion would be necessary.

communism requires freedom of assembly. Communist society would not be democratic without this right. Naturally, community assembly would be tantamount to functioning democracy. Once again, this right may circumvent the prior right to express oneself.

communism does not require, but will probably include (depending on whosever interpretation) freedom to practice one's own religion. This will have to occur in most societies, but won't be necessary in some western countries, and won't be necessary for the society to function. It may help to instill a sense of community, but the freedom to practice religion will probably have to stop where democracy begins. Anyhow, individuals would be able to practice it.

Now this is not a biased analysis of the rights and freedoms allowed to the people. I analyzed the society and this is what it seems to require. Now, some may protest the exclusion of some of these rights. Probably more will be allowed for the individual, but the democratic society-government will not allow on principle the right to express oneself for the purposes of delegation. But really, is it that precedent setting that your neighbor gets the chance to debate and vote that they need a Porsche? Not really. Individually, you will have to be able to voice your concerns.

Now I have to go into political science mode. I am a Poli Sci major, after all. There are multiple branches of political ideology right now. For most of history the only thoughts were communistic/socialistic and conservative. Now conservative does not mean death cult neo-fundies or any of that crap. In fact, most modern day, fundamentalist US conservatives are actually liberals. I will show you why.

Conservatives are somewhat related to communists in a few senses. They believe that society is a complicated web, interknit, with every action having an impact. They believe (and it is a prudent belief) that society and government need to change as slowly as possible. This does not mean they are opposed to change. Oh no! They realize society has to slowly change with government. If a large problem comes up, then quick changes will be necessary, but must take care to not damage society. If government and society change too fast, then there will be a collapse. It rejects the atomistic conception of society (which I will illustrate shortly) They are opposed to communists because communists seek to make an incredibly fast change all at once. But on the other hand, they are similar, by desiring the society to be preserved.

Liberalism is all-encompassing today. Some effects of liberalism will be felt in communism. It started as an idea around 350 years ago. Liberalism has caused many huge changes, some that have been helpful, others that have been disasterous. Liberalism in most senses is change for the sake of change. All Americans and most Europeans are liberals, in the sense that they wish massive, quick governmental changes rather quickly. The idea was built on a fundamentally flawed conception of society: The atomistic conception. Basically, think of us all as little marbles. Not tied together in any way. The choice of one of us does not impact any of the others. This is where the ideals of individual rights, particularly property come from. Now this movement has been bourgeoisie from the beginning. It has propelled society into enormous scientific and cultural advances, but at the same time, has created industrial technology that is no longer manageable by us. Liberalism put capitalism into full swing, and though this has made you and I very well off, it also grows beyond us. Capitalism has reached every portion of the entire globe, created industrial waste that will never be cleanable. Put us into a global climactic emergency. Caused billions of people to sprout up, out of inhospitable and barren climates. It eats up our resources and makes us continue to multiply, eating up more resources. Marx predicted exactly what capitalism was going to do in his Manifesto, and now we live in its shadow.

Anywho, enough about Capitalism. Liberalism was great for solving a few, key problems that needed drastic changing. It abolished feudalism and allowed for democracy to exist. But it changes so quickly that it ends up hurting the social make-ups of society. It has caused more wars, death, and revolution than any pre-existing ideology. Liberalism allowed for Nazism, Stalinism, dictatorships, Fascism, revolution, civil war, all the deaths of "Communism" would not be able to kill as many people as Liberalism. By being built around an idea that one person will never hurt another, it has. Modern day Conservatives are really just liberals. Wanting to make drastic changes to win a political "victory" while being so shortsighted to see the damage it would cause. The biggest gains made by liberalism though, have been those that democratize. The biggest gains are the ones that level the playing field, like banning slavery, or suffrage, or civil rights.

America talking about "what would the founder's think" is real Conservatism. And our government has been preserved by functioning in a very conservative manner. That's why our Constitution has only been amended a couple of times. Why national legislation has to be voted on 3-9 times in order for it to become law, with the most important things having to be voted on 9 times (constitutional amendments). Oftentimes our society has been helped by reforms, but our individualism has led to the selfish legislation that will only harm.

Communism is valuable because it holds society above the individual. But only barely. The individual has been freed from their personal chains. They get a chance to work not for survival, but for their friends and families. It is far safer, and the work incentive comes from being able to do whatever you are good at, freely, without anyone to direct you from above. In one sense, it takes the best from liberalism. By taking unjust authority away, and by making no man inferior to another, it liberates the way liberalism does. But on the other hand, it holds society dear. It takes the best from Conservatism. It is a system created on unity, not forced unity though. It does not allow for an individual to take advantage of society as a whole, does not allow for rapid changes made independent of the values of the people. In this sense, it is the best of both worlds.

I hope you read all of this, and I don't really think it will change anyone's mind. Just if you value the opinion and conclusion of someone who studies politics, you will think a bit on this.

Communism is valuable because it holds society above the individual. But only barely. The individual has been freed from their personal chains. They get a chance to work not for survival, but for their friends and families. It is far safer, and the work incentive comes from being able to do whatever you are good at, freely, without anyone to direct you from above..

Agreed. :fluffle:

Agreed. :fluffle:


I'm gonna fluffle you, you little hottie :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Geez, why would anyone have to BUMP! This awesome thread?

That just isn't acceptable. No one would be willing to work highrise construction without hazard pay, likewise there would be no miners were there not benefits to it. I am not going to say that people only work for money, but there are definitely specific careers that people would not enter into willingly without specific benefits.If no individuals want to do a particular job, and if the job can't be divided up between the members of society, then society (and therefore individuals) don't think that job is very important.

If no individuals want to do a particular job, and if the job can't be divided up between the members of society, then society (and therefore individuals) don't think that job is very important.


And in a communist society, there really isn't anything wrong with a little bit of hazard incentive, or sanitation incentive. Whatever will make society run smoothly.

Communism is flawed in that it doesn't let people become rich, and as we all know, only the hardest working and most superior individuals become rich whilst the laziest are poor. Take my grandfather for instance. At 16, he joined the navy as a marine during world war 2 and after that came back home to work as a postman. He lived in poverty all his life. Obviously this is proof that he was lazy and stupid - what kind of fool would join a countries defence force at the cost of his own welfare? Who cares if the country gets taken over and opressed, all that matters is the individual and maybe as an individual he'd have gained more by becoming a turncoat.

Then you take a shining example of a human like George Bush. He was born into a rich family - proof that God loves him better than everyone else and that he is a superior being. This doesn't take away from the fact however that he worked harder than any person who claims to have 'worked hard' in a factory or farm or other inferior unimportant jobs. After all, how else would he become president? It's not as if he'd be just given everything on a platter is it?

*Note: For people who don't recognise sarcasm, this is it.

Communism is flawed in that it doesn't let people become rich, and as we all know, only the hardest working and most superior individuals become rich whilst the laziest are poor. Take my grandfather for instance. At 16, he joined the navy as a marine during world war 2 and after that came back home to work as a postman. He lived in poverty all his life. Obviously this is proof that he was lazy and stupid - what kind of fool would join a countries defence force at the cost of his own welfare? Who cares if the country gets taken over and opressed, all that matters is the individual and maybe as an individual he'd have gained more by becoming a turncoat.

Then you take a shining example of a human like George Bush. He was born into a rich family - proof that God loves him better than everyone else and that he is a superior being. This doesn't take away from the fact however that he worked harder than any person who claims to have 'worked hard' in a factory or farm or other inferior unimportant jobs. After all, how else would he become president? It's not as if he'd be just given everything on a platter is it?

*Note: For people who don't recognise sarcasm, this is it.


*Clapping heartily*

Communism is about everyone beeing exactly equal, which is a good idea, it really is. However, not only does communism make everyone equal, people are also treated exactly the same, which is a different thing entirely. So, for instance, a chimney sweeper would be getting paid the same as a brain surgeon. Also, in communism, power is given to a small elite, and power corrupts. This elite get ever ritcher, while the rest of the nation gets ever poorer. This is what means communism can never work. It is a contradiction in itself.

Thank you for a calm, non-sensational response.

Notably, I myself am for the IDEA of anarchy, far more than communism. I just recognize that there's no way in hell it would work because humans are such idiotic pricks.
You're welcome. While I can be sensational, I think it's best to debate without it, if you plan to change anyone's mind. As far as anarchism goes, it's exactly why people are such idiotic pricks that I want it.


Aye. Succession is extremely difficult. Though Isreal did it.

True, though they used terrorism on a massive amount to do so, something I'd like to avoid.

This is where that individual vs. society thing comes up.
Right. Of course, ideally if a group of people felt that the situation was so unbearable, they could simply secede and try their own country out.


Well, seeing as they still do benefit from the existance of the rest of the country (They're in no danger of being conquered, et cetera), I figure their property taxes make sense. Their kids also have the option to go out in to the rest of the country should they choose a different life, without legal issue.That's true, too. I was actually thinking of how one would go about seceding in a democratic manner, and what they have is the first step. Paying taxes is totally fair in their case.


-You have to show that competition isn't healthy for the overall benefit of the species. I, myself, thrive on competition, for example. Indeed, I do my best work when I'm angry. If I was in an uncompetative state, I wouldn't be half as useful, or a quarter as artistic.

-You have to show that overcoming greed requires communism.

-You have to show that the methods of 'overcoming' a person's nature are beneficial. Freedom of thought is valued by many.

I'm sure that within a communistic society, there could be a certain amount of competition. Obviously there would, I mean if two guys like the same woman (or man), they'd be competing for affections. Society could work the same way, if there are only enough resources to support a certain amount of people who want to be writers, only the ones who are most entertaining would be writers, others would have to find new jobs. (While this does seem to argue against the idea that people would get to do what they want for a living under communism/anarchism, most people are interested in several things and therefore would have several options to pick from.)

I don't think that overcoming greed requires communism. However, in communism/direct democracy the effects of a person's greed are minimized, as they don't have power over anyone else.

I totally support freedom of thought. Only through dissention comes progress.

The trick is, this was tried in Athens. You have to have a massively educated populace, and a populace that doesn't have anyone stupid enough to fall for a sales pitch, and a majority that doesn't have anything against any minority. This eliminates the grand majority of the planet throughout all of history.
Oh, I realize that a dictatorship of the majority could easily rise in a direct democracy. Ideally, of course, some forethought would be put into it, and perhaps a Constitution would be drafted that everyone would follow. You might wonder what would make people follow the Constitution, but really the only thing that makes people abide by a Constitution is their will to do so. This is true for any Constitution.

Just to throw a notion out:

In a democracy, voting is the final power. Money just lets a minority compete with the majority, and influence them, in a way, balancing things out.

The trick is to keep the populace educated, so that they don't fall for anything negative, and don't elect people solely on how good their fireworks or acting ability are.

Remember, much of the unfairness and corruption in America's early history is because people let their votes be purchased, right off the boat from another country.Oh, yes, voting is the final power, however money can influence a person's vote. In one way, as you said, via vote buying. There are other, (slightly) less insidious ways as well, such as advertising for a particular candidate/issue. And, yes, of course people would have to be well educated, but I did notice that while you appeared to believe that people would be educated enough to not fall for a ploy in a representative democracy, you expressed doubt that they would be educated enough for a direct democracy. Or perhaps that's just how I read it. :P


This would eliminate all forms of office.
Pretty much, yes. However, there could be delegates, if necessary. I will explain the difference between a delegate and a representative or some other position if you'd like.

It is neccessary for me to have less power over the roads than the guy running the road construction project. If I can just show up on the site and tell him to stop, then there's an issue.This is true, but unless the guy running the road construction project got all the materials himself, he is most likely using society's resources. What probably would have happened is that during one of society's meetings, it was decided that a road would be built, and who would build it out of all of the volunteers. Of course it would be silly for you to tell him to stop unless society held another meeting and made that decision.

People need to have full SELF power, and power within their position. The trick is to keep them from being able to extend it in a way that is negative towards others that can't be voted out.

Say, if Bill Gates could buy a senatorship.

Further, it is impossible to have equity in power. I'm strong than average, and smarter than average. I have more power than the average person. This cannot be eliminated without some sci-fi weirdness.
I agree that people should be able to use their positions using their best attributes. I don't think everything needs to be spelled out to the letter. There is nothing wrong with having people with specialized knowledge, either. A doctor is free to give you advice, but you are free to reject it.


This is where you get issues like, who gets to decide how you raise your kids, or your cat, and what keeps someone from painting something you find offensive on your house.

Private property lets people control their own lives, rather than giving up that control to other people. It is assumed that an individual knows themselves better than the government does.
Ah, here is where we get to the difference between private and personal property. As this post is getting quite long, I will give a very very simplified explanation. Personal property is property that you use. (Use is a relative term, I would think something would have to be used at least a majority of the year to be your personal property.) This is totally fine. Private property is property that you own, but do not use. This isn't fine. I will explain further if asked.


Hierarchy of needs.
In most cases, one's basic needs would be met, it would be the more complex ones that are unmet.


Heh, you need $100 as an incentive to do a survey? :D

And you have to keep in mind, people will write down what they THINK is true, not neccissarily what IS true.I wouldn't have the time to do a survey that is as far reaching as I'd like. :D But it is true that people might not be totally honest.

I, thankfully, do know that I'm more interested in money than appreciation. My dad is the opposite, but that's because he has enough power via skill that he can work for any construction company he wants. He can quit a job if a boss looks at him wrong, and get an offer within 48 hours. So he can be a bitch. Me, I thrive on adversity, so I might actually aim TOWARD a place where I have a reason to cuss.
I'm sure an anarchist society could find something adverse for you to do. :D


This is a social issue which can be addressed within capitalism.

One can be convinced of a false need in communism, as well. All that is required is that someone decides they want something, and, since they have to get the majority to want it to get it, they start marketing the idea to people until everyone has them, and thus, so do they.
This is true, but communism doesn't encourage false needs, like capitalism does.

Here's the thing. Where does this end? Does the government get to decide whether or not I can have a certain kind of fun?

If a woman wants an amazing orgasm, is she not allowed to have a closet full of sex toys?

If I think swords are cool, am I not allowed to own a sword and learn how to fence?

If I like video games, am I not allowed to have one?

Communism takes away the individual's power of choice in how they spend their time.This goes back to personal property vs. private property.

I am inclined to agree with Jello Biafra. Although I have to ask, what's wrong with saying you are a communist? I mean, I want the same thing as you, in the end, so what's your opinion about why you want to remain an anarchist?

I am inclined to agree with Jello Biafra. Although I have to ask, what's wrong with saying you are a communist? I mean, I want the same thing as you, in the end, so what's your opinion about why you want to remain an anarchist?I don't mind saying I'm a communist, however it's not quite accurate. But it works if I don't want to get too specific. However, I don't believe that the end justifies the means, which is why I don't advocate violence to achieve my goals. (Violence in defensive situations is acceptable, though.)

I don't mind saying I'm a communist, however it's not quite accurate. But it works if I don't want to get too specific. However, I don't believe that the end justifies the means, which is why I don't advocate violence to achieve my goals. (Violence in defensive situations is acceptable, though.)


Oh darn. I do advocate violence :(
I always believed that the end justified the means.

Oh darn. I do advocate violence :(
I always believed that the end justified the means.
So you see the difference between us. :) Of course, I live in a society that is (at least somewhat) democratic. If I lived in a dictatorship I might think otherwise.

So you see the difference between us. :) Of course, I live in a society that is (at least somewhat) democratic. If I lived in a dictatorship I might think otherwise.


So do I, but I'm not optimistic about where this "democracy" is going.

Damn, this thread kicked ass until just a little while ago :(
No one ever responded to my really long post. :(

Damn, this thread kicked ass until just a little while ago :(
No one ever responded to my really long post. :(
Lol. I'm sure someone will. It's 6AM here, it must only be 3AM there. Give 'em some time. :)

Capitalism has reached every portion of the entire globe, created industrial waste that will never be cleanable.


I more or less agree with the rest of what you've stated, so I'll focus on what I don't agree with.

Here. You need to show how this would automatically not happen with communism for the statement to be valid. It's akin to saying that capitalism is to blame for STDs. Perhaps, perhaps not. Show it.


Put us into a global climactic emergency.


This is debatable in regards to capitalistic cause. Despite what they say, nature isn't about cycles, it only seems like it on a very limited scale. Ice ages have existed, as have supertropical ages where jungles stretched up to what is now arctic.

Again, you need to show how this would automatically not happen under communism.


Caused billions of people to sprout up, out of inhospitable and barren climates.


Um.

Capitalism is responsible for... eskimos and sex?


It eats up our resources and makes us continue to multiply, eating up more resources.


I'm sorry, are you suggesting that communists don't/won't have sex?

While I agree that growth-based economies are stupid, they're caused more by religion and ignorance, last I checked.


Marx predicted exactly what capitalism was going to do in his Manifesto, and now we live in its shadow.


His predictions didn't come out fully. He described many features, yes. But he didn't predict the modern situation. Capitalism has blended with socialism, and the two seem to work together very well. You have the advances of capitalism, with the safety nets of socialism.


Communism is valuable because it holds society above the individual.


It holds the majority above the individual, technically.

Planet-wide, that majority is religious.

Many people would most likely be screwed in one way or another.


But only barely.


Uh huh...


The individual has been freed from their personal chains.


What chains do I have?

I have much more freedom than -anyone- could have in a communist country.

Are you going to free me from the chains of having a computer and books and a boat and a playstation? From being able to visit the woman I love who lives on nearly the exact opposite side of the planet?

What chains are you breaking?


They get a chance to work not for survival, but for their friends and families.


I had a friend who was cold. So I sent her a heater.

I already work for my friends and family.


It is far safer, and the work incentive comes from being able to do whatever you are good at, freely, without anyone to direct you from above.


My primary skill is arguing.

My other skills are actually worth something.

Nobody is going to direct me except an editor who will give me a second opinion.

And large jobs WILL have people in charge, or they won't get done.


In one sense, it takes the best from liberalism. By taking unjust authority away, and by making no man inferior to another, it liberates the way liberalism does. But on the other hand, it holds society dear. It takes the best from Conservatism. It is a system created on unity, not forced unity though.


Um. Hello? Revolution?


It does not allow for an individual to take advantage of society as a whole, does not allow for rapid changes made independent of the values of the people. In this sense, it is the best of both worlds.


If you agree with the notion that society is dear. I don't.

Most of humanity sucks.


I hope you read all of this, and I don't really think it will change anyone's mind. Just if you value the opinion and conclusion of someone who studies politics, you will think a bit on this.

Well-written. Lots of rhetoric and little tricks though.

Jello: Jolt ate my reply, and I need some sleep, so I'll give it another go tomorrow.

Jello: Jolt ate my reply, and I need some sleep, so I'll give it another go tomorrow.
That sucks, in the bad way. Thanks for being willing to give it another shot in the face of adversity. :)

I more or less agree with the rest of what you've stated, so I'll focus on what I don't agree with.

Here. You need to show how this would automatically not happen with communism for the statement to be valid. It's akin to saying that capitalism is to blame for STDs. Perhaps, perhaps not. Show it.


It is already apparent about capitalism furthering the demise of our world's resources, that much is apparent. I could never offer a guarantee about communism not creating hazardous wastes, but the best answers I could give are that the revolution may have caused at least a few people to die, worker's generally do not like working in toxic environments, and since they control things, they're the boss about their hazardous chemicals, democratic processes will make environmental problems rise up to the surface, and due to a lack of over-consumption (communsism guaranteeing only what you need)


This is debatable in regards to capitalistic cause. Despite what they say, nature isn't about cycles, it only seems like it on a very limited scale. Ice ages have existed, as have supertropical ages where jungles stretched up to what is now arctic.

But it remains debatable. Debate equates to both sides having valid points, you made no decent claim. The point is not about the naturality or not, that isn't being debated. The point was that global warming (as was just shown in USA today, a few days ago) does in fact exist, and this is pointed to directly by our factory and vehicular emissions. This can't be proven for communism, I'll make no promises, but with society having the power necessary to do so, communism could limit, probably greatly, the use of fossil fuels.



Um.

Capitalism is responsible for... eskimos and sex?

No, capitalism has permitted the existence of millions more in the middle east. Pretty inhospitable if you asked me. This was one of Marx's claims though. Capitalism has brought together workers in places that have little use for agricultural reasons (I.E. cities). Also the Agricultural Revolution and subsequent agricultural advances have greatly increased our growing potential. Not that this is a bad thing, just that now we have 6.5 billion people in this crazy world, numbers that, just recently, have started growing exponentially.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that communists don't/won't have sex?


No, I don't suggest that. Just birth-control will become more available if it is free from your local communist dispensary. Easier access without profit in mind. It probably won't help a lot, but it would help to slow population growth. At least until technology picks up enough to allow us to live sustainably with a large population such as ours.


While I agree that growth-based economies are stupid, they're caused more by religion and ignorance, last I checked.

Agreed


His predictions didn't come out fully. He described many features, yes. But he didn't predict the modern situation. Capitalism has blended with socialism, and the two seem to work together very well. You have the advances of capitalism, with the safety nets of socialism.


I don't think he thought the labor movement would do so well. Anyhow, he still would be true if you look on the international scale. America and Europe benefited enough from capitalism and had a large enough labor force that they could make those gains without too much trouble. In fact, Fordism (the idea of paying your workers well so they could buy your crap) was a leading cause of America's present prosperity. Anyhow, I think technology made it possible as well for this to exist, something Marx couldn't yet envision. I won't say he was dead right, just scary right.


It holds the majority above the individual, technically.

Planet-wide, that majority is religious.

Many people would most likely be screwed in one way or another.


The societies that are the most religious are the ones that have not yet been fully brought into capitalism. America, more or less, is no longer religious. We may have a religious movement, but we don't have crusades anymore, or an all-powerful catholic church. Even Islam really isn't that strong anymore. After the world becomes entirely encompassed by capitalism, with one nearly all-powerful world culture, that is when communism will be a reality, and I doubt large, organized religion will last that long.




What chains do I have?

I have much more freedom than -anyone- could have in a communist country.

Are you going to free me from the chains of having a computer and books and a boat and a playstation? From being able to visit the woman I love who lives on nearly the exact opposite side of the planet?

What chains are you breaking?



Here I see that you are relatively short-sighted. Just because you have complaints doesn't mean others do. Anyhow, I could give you the entire spiel on this one, but that will take too long. So I'll give you the gist of it. Your posessions are not what bind you down. Class society and profit are the Proletarian chains. Think of it like this: Your company CEO is the boss of all the affairs of his company, along with some stockholders. Everyone below him has to work for him, and do his bidding, in a way. After all the management filters through the decision and it comes time for you, you are still being dictated to by some prick sitting in a big office. Essentially, your dictator for 40 hours a week of your life. Now, you have to succumb to a dictator, because if you don't, you will lose your house. Every day you go to be some paid slave to someone else. And if that isn't enough, but your local government gets most of their funding from these guys. So, your local dictator is having his interests represented in your real government! Doesn't seem fair when the people who vote for their senator see less of him than some business lobbyists!
You may well have those 32 hours on the weekend to yourself (or to the needs of your lawn) to play with your crap, but if you (not you personally, you're a writer) try to take back all the hours of your life, boom, no more house, wife, car, savings, and suddenly you're back at square one again.

Now, if you want to talk freedom, communism gives you at least 40 hours per week more freedom than capitalism. Why? Because you don't have to work to eat. That's taken care of. You get to work because you are good at it. You use your abilities (like debating, and I plan on using my principle skill in real life) to produce whatever you want. And you are more free with your government/society too. Sure, you may not have as much crap, but really, you have so much more time for enjoying your crap! Plus, work is based on what you want to do. That's way more freakin freedom.



I had a friend who was cold. So I sent her a heater.

I already work for my friends and family.



Yes, but does everything you create get enjoyed by them? Didn't think so.

My primary skill is arguing.

My other skills are actually worth something.

Nobody is going to direct me except an editor who will give me a second opinion.

And large jobs WILL have people in charge, or they won't get done.


Well my primary skill is the same as yours. Still though, you get to use your uselful skills as you see fit. And just because you are an exceptional case, doesn't mean that other people aren't lorded over by their bosses. Nothing wrong with having somebody to direct activities, it is natural to have someone who knows more in an authoritative position. But in communism, you get to make choices at your workplace. You can vote and pick your managers and things, and the highest up in your company is society (who directs production) which is really just you anyway. No one taking your labor and you never again benefiting from it.


Um. Hello? Revolution?


That's the biggest reason that conservatives have a problem with communism.

If you agree with the notion that society is dear. I don't.

Think of society not as a weird, creepy entity, and think of it as a democratic government. I guess I should use a different word. Sub populus in with society. That is more accurate.


Most of humanity sucks.

It seems like most people are great when you get to meet them, just outside of the realm of their existence they become pricks. That's why a lot of the people here on Nationstates are jerks to each other. Most people here are nice in real life. Like Eutrusca. He's a nice old fart. But I can't stand him on these forums. Anyhow, people are great when they aren't thinking about their own interests. A community-cultured populus would help to change your outlook on humanity, and that's what communism seeks to provide.

Well-written. Lots of rhetoric and little tricks though.
None actually. I was just pulling from out of my thoughts. Though I appreciate that you liked it. Political Science has gotten my cogs working lately.

Is this the only political discussion thread that's any good?

Seeing as I was on holiday for two weeks... I'd say yes. Nice to meet you, Stop Banning Me Mods, I believe we will have some great discussions in the near future. That was an interesting and thorough explanation.
An idea for a next post, though: "state the difference between communism and democracy". Tried it before, got spammed by Good-vs-Evil frontliners - nuff said, I believe. But I believe I can expect a nice discussion with the likes of you. After all - the only real difference between communism and democracy is the lack of an actual (not: factual) economic ideology in the latter, isn't it? Just probing, you don't need to answer ;)

Seeing as I was on holiday for two weeks... I'd say yes. Nice to meet you, Stop Banning Me Mods, I believe we will have some great discussions in the near future. That was an interesting and thorough explanation.
An idea for a next post, though: "state the difference between communism and democracy". Tried it before, got spammed by Good-vs-Evil frontliners - nuff said, I believe. But I believe I can expect a nice discussion with the likes of you. After all - the only real difference between communism and democracy is the lack of an actual (not: factual) economic ideology in the latter, isn't it? Just probing, you don't need to answer ;)

I think you're kind of right, but if you break it down I don't think that they are really comparable. It's a little like saying 'what is the difference between wheels and cars?' That's for the reason that you alluded to, which was that communism (in theory, I assume we're talking about) uses democracy as part of its overall system. Communism is democracy plus its economic system.

Which is exactly where one of its flaws lies. In a true democracy the people would have to be able to choose a non-communist economic system. If they did, it wouldn't be communism, I think we can all agree. In which case communism is defined by its economic system, and could exist either when a democracy chose communism or when a dictatorship enforced it, which is how most people would understand communism. Marx didn't envisage it that way, but that's the way things have been in practice.

To sum up: No democratic system can have a built-in economic system. They cannot logically go together.


Because you don't have to work to eat. That's taken care of. You get to work because you are good at it. You use your abilities (like debating, and I plan on using my principle skill in real life) to produce whatever you want.

Sadly, if no one shovels sh*t and cleans toilets then we'd all be wading in crap and would die of horrible diseases. Communism cannot mean everyone doing what they want on the basis of what they're good at or what they want to do. Who is 'good at' cleaning toilets? And if you could find such people, isn't it rather unfair to make them do it just because they're good at it? And what about people who aren't good at anything? I know a few. Or would they just get the easy-but-horrible jobs, like cleaning toilets? So then it's meritocratic? Like pure capitalism, funnily enough.

Basically, things still have to get done in practice. Communism would still mean someone would have to organise who did the nasty jobs, and then you have a 'dictator' just as much as in capitalism. Or if there wasn't such a person then society would more or less collapse.

To sum up: No democratic system can have a built-in economic system. They cannot logically go together.
Indeed, but that doesn't seem to stop those capitalists who envelop every single (even mildly) anti-capitalist argument as an "assault on the democratic principles". As it is with many of these discussions, it's mostly semantics... Borderskirmishes, if you will. In essence, democracy is, as you stated, "the people choose" on a given decision (where "people" in Greece meant "rich and free persons of the male sex", and in the modern world ranges from "everybody even if they don't care" over "some who do care" to "the ones that don't get shot" and "the ones that hope their vote will count as they don't vote for the correct a.k.a. Republican one"). But who brings on the decisionchoices? The sovjet system says something like "the subjects of said proposal choose" (usually in a labourous environment). But when is someone considered a "subject"? The big discussion is: what is considered "people", "persons", "choice", etc... Both systems seem to think they know what is best for the people, since it's the people who decide (and they can't be wrong, now, can they? pfft). If people get to choose what they want, that doesn't necessarily mean they choose what they need. And deciding what people need, most often results in said people not getting what they want. It's an eternal paradox, that automatically results from "offering a choice". In my personal opinion, most people can only choose if they get non-biased information. In any other case, people just can't choose. Sadly, most of the time commercials and propaganda make it so that it actually IS "any other case".
In essence, true democracies don't exist - just as true communist regimes don't exist. They have an inherent paradox that cannot be circumvented unless the metaprinciples are altered - rendering said system no longer "true" to its essence, thus invalid. Most modern day democracies are, in fact, aristocracies or peoples-dictatorships. And still too may are outright money-ocracies.

And another thing - "freedom of choice", you know, that concept democracies seem to hold dear, is also most often implemented in such a way that there's only one or a very limited choice. Consider that people were given the choice to implement communism - did that ever happen? And when it happened, was communism not represented as such, that it was a very obvious bad choice?

Consider the following: the following choice is given to "the people":
1 - only one health-insurance product, always the same content and spread, and the cost based on age and risk status, but at a greatly reduced financial cost for the subscriber due to the fact that there is only one product. A professional instrument in the field of healthcare decides about the content of the insurance. Subscription is obligatory. [In essence, a monopoly of the state]
2 - many different health-insurance products, held by competing agencies, but because of the limited funds per company, at a slightly increased cost. Subscription is not obligatory, but healthcare is reserved only for subscribers (emergency healthcare is open for everyone). [In essence, a capitalist system]
What will the outcome of this choice be? It's not that evident... Presuming that poor people will choose the first, and rich the second might not be correct...

Sadly, if no one shovels sh*t and cleans toilets then we'd all be wading in crap and would die of horrible diseases. Communism cannot mean everyone doing what they want on the basis of what they're good at or what they want to do. Who is 'good at' cleaning toilets? And if you could find such people, isn't it rather unfair to make them do it just because they're good at it? And what about people who aren't good at anything? I know a few. Or would they just get the easy-but-horrible jobs, like cleaning toilets? So then it's meritocratic? Like pure capitalism, funnily enough.

Basically, things still have to get done in practice. Communism would still mean someone would have to organise who did the nasty jobs, and then you have a 'dictator' just as much as in capitalism. Or if there wasn't such a person then society would more or less collapse.

Indeed, the flaw in his post. Communism actually makes a global decision for the labourers - they don't get to choose what they want to do. If an economic projection estimates that 10% of the people should be in agriculture, then that is what will happen. Forced, if need be, since there is no "free market" to make agriculture "more attractive" by increasing the profits. On the other hand, small-scale communist systems have a higher productivity ratio if they are considered as small units that can "trade" with others. Hence, what happens then is a purely "economic" system - economy, in essence, makes it so that specialisation increases profit with a given labour-input. Farmer A can grow max 100 ton oat on his land or only 10 ton wheat, farmer B max 100 ton wheat or 10 ton oat. They both need oat and wheat. If they work apart from each other, they have to make difficult choices and get a lose-lose situation either way. If they trade, they can both have 50 tons oat and 50 tons wheat, a win-win situation. THAT is the true meaning of economy, the true meaning of profit. Not the rise of stock-prices or dividend returns. If this system is handed over to the capitalist "free market", it most often becomes perverted by systems that try to make their product more profitable by A) eliminating competion (a concept that does NOT exist in communism), or B) decreasing cost (technological innovation if it's intended good, sacking labourers if otherwise), or C) convincing people their product is best (by, most often, lying about it).

In the case of shovelin s**t: the people that do this, are also forced to do this in democracies - not just in communism.

Both communism and (capitalist-fueled) democracy have serious flaws. The problem is almost always a lack of respect for individual choices (even in democracy!), IMHO

No, since the basic idea of communism is flawed it will never work.

I both disagree and agree with the statement, in that.
Communism will not work in it's current forms and methodologies, as they are incompatible with all forms of current government, and sociopolitical structures.
However true communism can work if properly prepared and rationilised, which would be very had to do.

First of all, no visible socio-political structures are truly compatible with true communism, therefore an new communist state would have to be set up.
Second, try and set up a communist nation state with the yanks running around invading people.
Third, each citizen would have to not only support this communist state, but also agree to suspend certain individual rights to factor in the communist dogma/structure.
Assuming this all occurs, a means of income must be established via trade or investment, all citizens would then be stripped of all earnings and then have the total amount re-distributed though out the community/nation.
then resentment must be headed off as those who work would invariably support lazy bastards that would do nothing. this would require a police/military force, but if true communists, these police/others could have no power, and hence do nothing without violating the communist principles.
The above is the problem with all communist nations, if all are equal, then no-one is in charge, so therefore anarchy reigns, or you become an Stalinist dictator and stamp them with your authority/army.

I am going to chop up your post to make some points. If you made a statement and I chopped it out, consider us to be in at least moderate agreement.

That is the very same problem with democracy. According to worst-case logic, it will never work because individuals will become too inherently greedy, and the system will fall into anarchy.

I am a strong believer in direct democracy, and personally think that selfishness is not as inherently bad as the connotation of the word would have one believe. My problem with communism is not greed, nor human nature.


It is to give society enough control to act effectively as a governmental entity, but one that is fluid and always adapting. The individual is given the ability to work as they please. As I've expressed in other threads, it gives you the ability to do what you are good at, without having to take money into consideration.

Here is another problem I have with Communism. You say that society will be classless, but jobs just simply aren't classless. Even if you take money out of it, a doctor has a much more fulfilling job than a janitor or a coal miner. To further complicate things, there are far fewer social and economic roles for doctors than there are for janitors. So who decides who fills the economic role of a janitor and the doctor, because nearly everyone would choose doctor if given the choice. (and don't argue against the specifics either, Doctor = White Collar Job, Janitor = Blue Collar Job)

communism does not allow for the freedom to pursue and own bourgeoisie property. Marx does, however express that individually-owned property (shops and homes) is not a bad thing, so our society can allow for this. Just not massive factories and industrial armies owned by a single capitalist.

It would not be possible, in a Communistic society, for small shops to exist. Either they offer goods and services at levels equal or higher than government issued goods and services, and fail due to economic pressures. Or they offer goods and services at prices lower than the government and continue to grow until government issues regulations against them.

In fact it would be unlawful in a communistic society for the shop to actually set their own prices.

communism does allow for freedom of expression. Communist society is democratic, and an essential tenent of democracy is the right to express. Though it is not tantamount. This right may be waived though, depending on the value of the individual. It may be that the voice of the individual just doesn't carry any formal weight, because free discussion would be necessary.

So in a communistic government, the society defines the value of an individual? My whole argument so far is that Communism undervalues the individual, and that proves it.

This is not a biased analysis of the rights and freedoms allowed to the people. I analyzed the society and this is what it seems to require. Now, some may protest the exclusion of some of these rights. Probably more will be allowed for the individual, but the democratic society-government will not allow on principle the right to express oneself for the purposes of delegation. But really, is it that precedent setting that your neighbor gets the chance to debate and vote that they need a Porsche? Not really. Individually, you will have to be able to voice your concerns.

It's nice to see that someone agrees that a communistic society will eschew individual rights in favor of the state, but it is disheartening that that person is fine with a limitation of individual rights. When I, or someone of my opinions, gets "silenced" by your communistic government, you will understand where I am coming from.

Liberalism allowed for Nazism, Stalinism, dictatorships, Fascism, revolution, civil war, all the deaths of "Communism" would not be able to kill as many people as Liberalism.[/QUOTE]

Now you say that liberalism is based around individual rights, yet that liberalism is responsible for all of modern society's dictatorships? I find that to be a really bad jump in logic.

By being built around an idea that one person will never hurt another, it has.

I cannot believe that is a tenet of liberalism. My personal view of liberalism, is that it stands for personal responsibility, making sure that if someone is harmed, it is by their own actions, and not those of others. Communism for example, seeks to prop up those who cannot benefit from society at the expense of those who can. An employer who hires a worker has done nothing to harm that worker, especially in a free market economy, which insures that the worker is paid a wage that is equal to the utility they provide.

It is far safer, and the work incentive comes from being able to do whatever you are good at, freely, without anyone to direct you from above.

No, every person is going to have a superior. It is impossible for a factory to be run without bosses. There will always need to be individuals who organize the labor towards a common goal.

In communism's case society is given the power as boss, and that is a scary situation for anyone who doesn't agree with society's views.

In one sense, it takes the best from liberalism. By taking unjust authority away, and by making no man inferior to another, it liberates the way liberalism does. But on the other hand, it holds society dear. It takes the best from Conservatism. It is a system created on unity, not forced unity though. It does not allow for an individual to take advantage of society as a whole, does not allow for rapid changes made independent of the values of the people. In this sense, it is the best of both worlds.

What about society makes it so valuable, that the individual should be held responsible to it?

If no individuals want to do a particular job, and if the job can't be divided up between the members of society, then society (and therefore individuals) don't think that job is very important.

I think we can assume that there are dangerous and undesirable jobs that must be done, so who decides how these jobs are divided up?

Communism is flawed in that it doesn't let people become rich, and as we all know, only the hardest working and most superior individuals become rich whilst the laziest are poor. Take my grandfather for instance. At 16, he joined the navy as a marine during world war 2 and after that came back home to work as a postman. He lived in poverty all his life. Obviously this is proof that he was lazy and stupid - what kind of fool would join a countries defence force at the cost of his own welfare? Who cares if the country gets taken over and opressed, all that matters is the individual and maybe as an individual he'd have gained more by becoming a turncoat.

Then you take a shining example of a human like George Bush. He was born into a rich family - proof that God loves him better than everyone else and that he is a superior being. This doesn't take away from the fact however that he worked harder than any person who claims to have 'worked hard' in a factory or farm or other inferior unimportant jobs. After all, how else would he become president? It's not as if he'd be just given everything on a platter is it?

You have not proven or disproven anything. If you have done anything, it is shown that you approach this argument from an emotional standpoint and not from a reasonable standpoint. You used one example that actually helps capitalism by pointing out that people will work for the good of others in a capitalist system. And then used an extreme situation that really has absolutely no bearing on the argument at hand.

So, do I just come online at the wrong time?

I think my major problem with Communism is that it is based on the idea of bring the middle and upper classes down to the lower classes not the other way round. Now i'm not say capitalism is better. I think this is were socialism comesin to play. It is pointless to bring everyone down with no ability to raise your self up and become better of. but you also need a system were the disadvantaged have the ability to move up. ie. help with health care, education and the like so they can make something of themselves. In communism you just have everyone living just above the poverty line great if you were poor as hell but it kinda sucks even if you were lower middle class.

bump

I have to agree with Vittos Ordination on this one... As a capitalist, I believe that the communist/socialistic ideals of that "the group is more important than the state" are rightous in their own context, but they are also doomed on a grand scale. I admit that true communist/socialists who would share all of their possessions with the rest of the world are more generous than I could ever be, I must stick to the principles of human nature and realism that doom socialist economies.

Basic human nature is to better one-self. Though there are a lot of different ways to do this, the main one seems to be either material or economic. Within every government there is corruption. However, since a strict code of equality is followed in socialist economies, the corruption is greater noticed. I'm sure that the corruption is inheiretly the same in both systems, but it is more noticable in a system that demands equality.

Again, I am not trying to attack the communist principles; while everyone is entitled to their opinions, mine just happens to be for a capitalist system.

I think we can assume that there are dangerous and undesirable jobs that must be done, so who decides how these jobs are divided up?
Well, in that case, society would decide how much those jobs would need to be done, and then everyone in society would do the job, for perhaps 1 or 2 hours per week.

Too big a thread to read from start to finish. Sorry if this has been beat to death already.

Communism won't succeed because people want to be rewarded for their efforts. That's it. Society has always failed without some sort of property rights. That hasn't guaranteed the success of a society, but it definitely dooms it. Practically speaking, I wouldn't produce nearly the quality of work if I knew it wouldn't lead to a raise, a bonus, a promotion, or retention at a time of layoffs. Communism doesn't offer that kind of recognition. Or any other kind, does it? People that are rewarded by self-satisfaction are usually outside the economic system, anyway.

Too big a thread to read from start to finish. Sorry if this has been beat to death already.

Communism won't succeed because people want to be rewarded for their efforts. That's it. Society has always failed without some sort of property rights. That hasn't guaranteed the success of a society, but it definitely dooms it. Practically speaking, I wouldn't produce nearly the quality of work if I knew it wouldn't lead to a raise, a bonus, a promotion, or retention at a time of layoffs. Communism doesn't offer that kind of recognition. Or any other kind, does it? People that are rewarded by self-satisfaction are usually outside the economic system, anyway.Communism rewards people, just not monetarily.

Communism rewards people, just not monetarily.
So hard work gets you another chicken? My point is that people are not selfless and never will be.

Communism rewards people, just not monetarily.
well said

money need not be the only measure of value, of happiness or worth
money is an artificial construct, and blindly following & accepting it as the only or 'true' measure of these values is not 'thinking outside the box'. whats more important: happiness or money?
following a zero-sum monetary system just leads to a negative spiral of human happiness, especially coupled with rampant consumerism.

There was a time when you got a medal for shooting commies - now all you get is a speeding ticket

well said

money need not be the only measure of value, of happiness or worth
money is an artificial construct, and blindly following & accepting it as the only or 'true' measure of these values is not 'thinking outside the box'. whats more important: happiness or money?
following a zero-sum monetary system just leads to a negative spiral of human happiness, especially coupled with rampant consumerism.
Maybe so, but I don't think you can get a society to run on happiness. People are vain and they want recognition and reward.

Too big a thread to read from start to finish. Sorry if this has been beat to death already.

Communism won't succeed because people want to be rewarded for their efforts. That's it. Society has always failed without some sort of property rights. That hasn't guaranteed the success of a society, but it definitely dooms it. Practically speaking, I wouldn't produce nearly the quality of work if I knew it wouldn't lead to a raise, a bonus, a promotion, or retention at a time of layoffs. Communism doesn't offer that kind of recognition. Or any other kind, does it? People that are rewarded by self-satisfaction are usually outside the economic system, anyway.
A decent argument against communism, unlike the invisible hand argument, which simply does not apply to some communist ideologies. I think that whenever you put a limit on how much someone can own (or effectively own in the case of communism) you limit their desire to work. This belief, however, is merely intuitive. We really need to have scientific studies for this sort of thing.

A decent argument against communism, unlike the invisible hand argument, which simply does not apply to some communist ideologies. I think that whenever you put a limit on how much someone can own (or effectively own in the case of communism) you limit their desire to work. This belief, however, is merely intuitive. We really need to have scientific studies for this sort of thing.
I don't know if this really does lend itself to scientific study. Not unless you consider economics to be science :). Empirical results aren't always satisfying, but they're easy to relate.

1. Look at kibbutzes. They are always running at a loss and need the Government of Israel to subsidize them.

2. Consider the Pilgrims in the Mass Bay Colony. There was no private ownership in that colony at the beginning. No one worked hard and the Indians had to bail them out. Later, some land was alloted to each family for a garden and the survival rate went up.

Really? Yet you live in the U.S.A., so does this mean you believe that the document this country used to declare itself is invalid?

i'm pretty sure he/she meant that we are not born with equal amounts of talent/drive/intelligence etc.

if we are given freedom, some will be more successful than others

Communism 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 of 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.

What are you talking about? Communism is a good idea that simply doesn't work, because it's impossible to create a communist society, because it requires that no state exists, and therefore, everyone in the world has to be communist in order for communism to work. Also, rights are not being given up, because under communism people are entitled to things not available under capitalism.

Well, in that case, society would decide how much those jobs would need to be done, and then everyone in society would do the job, for perhaps 1 or 2 hours per week.

So people will be forced to do those jobs? What happens when you have a group of untrained people being forced to work on a highrise construction?

well said

money need not be the only measure of value, of happiness or worth
money is an artificial construct, and blindly following & accepting it as the only or 'true' measure of these values is not 'thinking outside the box'. whats more important: happiness or money?
following a zero-sum monetary system just leads to a negative spiral of human happiness, especially coupled with rampant consumerism.

Note that I have not debated this point so far in this thread. I have assumed that eventually people will be motivated to work through self-actualisation and selflessness.

But saying that money is an artificial construct is a half truth. Money is an invention of man, but it was invented to make bartering and trading easier. Money represents possessions, and to get rid of money still leaves possessions, and the quest for possessions is as old as civilization at least. In fact, society would not have existed were there not a quest for possessions. You cannot say that trading and bartering to improve one's well being is an artificial construct, and that is what money facilitates.

A decent argument against communism, unlike the invisible hand argument, which simply does not apply to some communist ideologies. I think that whenever you put a limit on how much someone can own (or effectively own in the case of communism) you limit their desire to work. This belief, however, is merely intuitive. We really need to have scientific studies for this sort of thing.

The modern interpretation of the invisible hand is the result of profit motivation. So if there is no profit motivation there is no invisible hand, likewise if there is a profit motivation there will be an invisible hand.

In fact the original definition of the invisible hand is that people are led by it to improve their own self worth, so Myrmidosia is saying that there is an invisible hand.

What are you talking about? Communism is a good idea that simply doesn't work, because it's impossible to create a communist society, because it requires that no state exists, and therefore, everyone in the world has to be communist in order for communism to work.

So the government will use communism as a justification to subdue capitalist individuals, while communists will stand by according to their ideology. Once again, the society over the individual leading to oppression.

Also, rights are not being given up, because under communism people are entitled to things not available under capitalism.

How about the biggest right of all, property rights?

OK, this is only about the "human nature" thing:

No it is not in the human nature to be greedy, we are brought up to be greedy and want stuff for ourselfs. So if socialization, first and second, would eliminate the concept of "private ovnership", greedyness and other stuff that hurt communism the we take away this barrier and it is not impossible anymore becouse, unfortunetly our society is not that far, yet.

Ow, property right is not the biggest one, I allways thought it was a right to live.

Greetings

OK, this is only about the "human nature" thing:

No it is not in the human nature to be greedy, we are brought up to be greedy and want stuff for ourselfs. So if socialization, first and second, would eliminate the concept of "private ovnership", greedyness and other stuff that hurt communism the we take away this barrier and it is not impossible anymore becouse, unfortunetly our society is not that far, yet.

Ow, property right is not the biggest one, I allways thought it was a right to live.

Greetings

1) Human nature has not been studied in a controlled environment due to ethical issues. As such, we can only study chimps and history and make assumptions. As such, unless you're making a statement based on that information, you're full of bull.

2) Many people feel that life is useless without happiness. Slaves get to be alive. That doesn't mean they're alright. I'll stick to the old saying, "Give me liberty, or give me death." and add, "I'm a better shot than you are, biznitch."

1. What possessed the author create this thread?
2. I think we already knew Communism didn't work
3. We don't care

I posted this in the other thread, but it wasn't really addressed to anyone in particular so I thought it would make a decent thread starter.

Communism 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 of 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.
You really need to do some reading up on anarcho-communism. The freedom of the individual (as long as that individual is not infringing on the freedoms of another individual) is sacrosanct. There is NO hierarchical authority, no state. Society is organised from the bottom up.

You're clearly referring to the Marxist-Leninist model of authoritarian scialism leading to the eventual achievement of anarchy, which, yes, can lead to all sorts of nasties. Hence my opposition to it.

well said

money need not be the only measure of value, of happiness or worth
money is an artificial construct, and blindly following & accepting it as the only or 'true' measure of these values is not 'thinking outside the box'. whats more important: happiness or money?
following a zero-sum monetary system just leads to a negative spiral of human happiness, especially coupled with rampant consumerism.

Oh good lord.

The whole "Money is evil" thing is saying that food, water, and labor are Evil.

Money represents the work you have done, and allows you to walk away with it in your pocket, without worrying that it'll rot before you can use it.

Oh good lord.

The whole "Money is evil" thing is saying that food, water, and labor are Evil.

Money represents the work you have done, and allows you to walk away with it in your pocket, without worrying that it'll rot before you can use it.

Actually money represents what you get paid after your employer has extracted your surplus labour from you.

In a barter type economy you'd have everything you make, and the ability to trade it for things you need/want.

Well, in that case, society would decide how much those jobs would need to be done, and then everyone in society would do the job, for perhaps 1 or 2 hours per week.

As has been pointed out, this is nuts.

While I don't feel that over-specialization is a good thing, a degree of specialization is very important with the myriad tasks there are in the world.

I do not want a damned heart surgeon who doesn't eat, drink, breath, and shiz heart surgery.

Oh good lord.

The whole "Money is evil" thing is saying that food, water, and labor are Evil.

Money represents the work you have done, and allows you to walk away with it in your pocket, without worrying that it'll rot before you can use it.
That's really only true if you subscribe to the Labor Theory of Value. Thing is, there are some serious problems with the Labor Theory of Value. What about things into which the same amount of labor is put which have different prices?

And I could even offer a counter-example. I can put all the labor I want into playing video games. But nobody is going to pay me for that, are they?

Actually money represents what you get paid after your employer has extracted your surplus labour from you.

In a barter type economy you'd have everything you make, and the ability to trade it for things you need/want.

No, in a barter economy you use your boss's oven to make ten loaves of bread, and get to take home two of them.

[QUOTE=Incenjucarania]No, in a barter economy you use your boss's oven to make ten loaves of bread, and get to take home two of them.[/QUOTEThere ARE no bosses in an anarcho-communist world. So you are completely wrong. I'm off to tutor... I have no boss either, yay!

That's really only true if you subscribe to the Labor Theory of Value. Thing is, there are some serious problems with the Labor Theory of Value. What about things into which the same amount of labor is put which have different prices?

And I could even offer a counter-example. I can put all the labor I want into playing video games. But nobody is going to pay me for that, are they?

Same amount of labor+scarcity of that labor+cost to the laborer=More money.

There are few doctors in the world, because it costs a great deal of money to get that training, and much of someone's life where they would otherwise be earning money doing unskilled labor. Doctors also have to use costly instruments and rooms, select nurses, keep in practice, and, on top of all that, they have to deal with legal matters and their own health matters.

A doctor, thus, has many more costs to deal with before hand, so they get more money for it. It is, essentially, interest due them for all the prior risks they took (there's no guarantee of graduation medical school, or of not getting sued). It doesn't matter if the doctor spends the exact same amount of calories and amount of hours. That doctor also devoted countless hours to be able to do that, which you owe their ass for if you want their services.

Thus, your argument is a rather bad one.

As for games. People gain no benefit from your playing video games. Why would they pay for it? Doctors benefit you, thus, you pay them.

[QUOTE=Incenjucarania]No, in a barter economy you use your boss's oven to make ten loaves of bread, and get to take home two of them.[/QUOTEThere ARE no bosses in an anarcho-communist world. So you are completely wrong. I'm off to tutor... I have no boss either, yay!

I said barter economy, bucko.

End... The... Stupidity...

*dies*

One thing to say: There has NEVER, EVER been a truly communist country. Becasue a truly communist country is a democracy (look at Karl Marx's original Communist Manifesto), the countries that have been said to be communist have been dictatorships, and that means that they are not truly communist countries.

[QUOTE=Preebles]

I said barter economy, bucko.
Well you knew full well that I was referring to a barter economy within an anarcho-communist society.

1) Human nature has not been studied in a controlled environment due to ethical issues. As such, we can only study chimps and history and make assumptions. As such, unless you're making a statement based on that information, you're full of bull.


Yes my statements are based on many of sociological and psyhological studies and theories, the show that primary socialization is a time where most of our values are formed and since personal possesion is a VALUE not a nature given instinct therefore we learn that we need more to be happy, I can tell you authors for those studies if you want.

Secndoly going back to human instinct, well most of the psychological theories claim that our instincts although present can, or even better, are suppressed or at least controled, once again the first and second socialisation we learn how to do this. Sp we can conclude that the need for possesion is not in our "nature" but in our society.

To change this is of course right now impossible since those values are in each and everyone of us and parents trasmit those values on their children even without knowing it.

Hope this explains it.

2) Many people feel that life is useless without happiness. Slaves get to be alive. That doesn't mean they're alright. I'll stick to the old saying, "Give me liberty, or give me death." and add, "I'm a better shot than you are, biznitch."

What I meant here was that without beeing alive no other right can exists, ok I agree that other rights are important, but right for property defenetly isn't one of them!

And also right to property is important to OUR colture there are some coltures how even don't know the concept of private ownership!

Greetings

You really need to do some reading up on anarcho-communism. The freedom of the individual (as long as that individual is not infringing on the freedoms of another individual) is sacrosanct. There is NO hierarchical authority, no state. Society is organised from the bottom up.


Anarchy (even Anarcho-Communism) is nothing more than a complete free market capitalism.

In fact any system that combines anarchy and communism would be completely unfeasible. If there were ANY desenters that did not want a communal society, there would have to be a hierarchy that would make sure they either paid their dues to society, or operated completely free of it.

So people will be forced to do those jobs? What happens when you have a group of untrained people being forced to work on a highrise construction?
Yes, and no. There will be people who think that those jobs are necessary, and therefore they would be doing them without any force necessary. There will be people who don't want to do the job (we'll say job "A"), so they might feel that they're forced to do job "A". Of course, they would have the option of leaving the society and either joining another one or subsistence farming/fishing/food gathering.
Another option would be for those people to not do those particular jobs, but would do other jobs that nobody would want to do but everyone would agree needed to be done (such as trash collection or sewage working) more often than the people working job "A". This option could also apply to specialized jobs, such as highrise construction, for the people willing to get the necessary training and willing to put up with the hazards.

As has been pointed out, this is nuts.

While I don't feel that over-specialization is a good thing, a degree of specialization is very important with the myriad tasks there are in the world.

It would only apply to the jobs that nobody wanted to do and couldn't be convinced to do on a full-time basis, such as highrise construction or trash collection. There could be exceptions made for certain jobs, such as doctors, if there is just too much demand for them in their regular profession. I do not want a damned heart surgeon who doesn't eat, drink, breath, and shiz heart surgery. Do you really think anyone is *that* wrapped up in their job?

"Communism doesnt work becuase people like to own things."
-Frank Zappa.

I think that sums that up nicely.

People do like to own things because of the selfish side of humanity, but they also like to share things because human beings are equally capable of kindness and cruelty.

I'm a socialist rather than a communist, and I'm in favour of redistribution of wealth, fully nationalised public services, etc, coupled with democratic, accountable government (and by democratic government, I mean something much more democratic than the first past the post system which currently exists in Britain and the US, in which you basically have a choice of 2 leaders who are almost exactly the same). I'm quite sceptical about whether government-less society could ever actually work, nature abhorring a vacuum and all (the idea of anarcho-capitalism is terrifying, all that global power and no responsibility!). I also don't believe in revolution as a good idea except for in the most extreme circumstances.

As has been pointed out, this is nuts.

While I don't feel that over-specialization is a good thing, a degree of specialization is very important with the myriad tasks there are in the world.

I do not want a damned heart surgeon who doesn't eat, drink, breath, and shiz heart surgery.


I keep saying, specialization is a possibility, even for shittastic jobs. Just give a little hazard incentive (e-coli or falling from highrise, whatever)

I can figure it in this way:

Labor theory of value specifies that demand also has a hand in generating value, thus different prices on certain goods, like diamonds, which are really not that hard to find, just in extremely high demand.

So the shittastic jobs of cleaning toilets will go up in value if no one wants to work them. But demand for the labor will continue to remain. Thus society, in order to quell demand, will raise the value of that form of labor, to create the workforce necessary to lower demand (which inevitably would push the cost up more. Demand is a larger, albeit artificial stimulant to the value of something. Thus Dutch tulips were selling for hundreds of dollars each at their peak.) Society will need to offer incentives for those jobs. After a workforce had been established with incentive goods, then they can maintain those, or lower them after demand has dropped. It isn't in the least bit classist. It's just economics, and economics will still apply in a communist economy.

Oh, and to clarify, the society I speak of is not a Marxist-Leninist one. It is, in fact the Anarcho-Communist model.

1 child dies every 2.4 seconds from malnutrition, waterborne disease or curable illness. So, given that "communism" has killed 100 million people, just how many has capitalism killed?

If Americans (this isn't an attack on America or Americans, it just happens that the information I have was gathered in America, for Americans. The same data can probably be extrapolated to most western nations on a per capita basis) reduced their meat consumption by just 10% we could easily feed the whole world.

But, where's the profit in that?

Yes, and no. There will be people who think that those jobs are necessary, and therefore they would be doing them without any force necessary. There will be people who don't want to do the job (we'll say job "A"), so they might feel that they're forced to do job "A". Of course, they would have the option of leaving the society and either joining another one or subsistence farming/fishing/food gathering.
Another option would be for those people to not do those particular jobs, but would do other jobs that nobody would want to do but everyone would agree needed to be done (such as trash collection or sewage working) more often than the people working job "A". This option could also apply to specialized jobs, such as highrise construction, for the people willing to get the necessary training and willing to put up with the hazards.
Italics above are mine. I forgot quotes are always italicized. Bolding is mine.
Where would the territory come from that will be used for hunting and farming? What would limit the existence to subsistence only and not allow it to expand into a Capitalist society? Seems like an opportunity quite a few would take advantage of.

One thing to say: There has NEVER, EVER been a truly communist country. Becasue a truly communist country is a democracy (look at Karl Marx's original Communist Manifesto), the countries that have been said to be communist have been dictatorships, and that means that they are not truly communist countries.
And that very statement says something about the feasiblity of such a society. Something like 'it won't work'.

You're all going to end up socialists anyway, or your children or grandchildren are.

Any economist can tell you that growth capitalism is finite. Once you've capitalized all the markets, how do you continue making a profit? If you can't continue making a profit, what are you going to give to your shareholders?

You're all going to end up socialists anyway, or your children or grandchildren are.

Any economist can tell you that growth capitalism is finite. Once you've capitalized all the markets, how do you continue making a profit? If you can't continue making a profit, what are you going to give to your shareholders?

shiny things?

You're all going to end up socialists anyway, or your children or grandchildren are.

Any economist can tell you that growth capitalism is finite. Once you've capitalized all the markets, how do you continue making a profit? If you can't continue making a profit, what are you going to give to your shareholders?
I really hesitate to believe economists. They're kind of like weathermen. They can tell if it's currently good or bad, but have no clue about long term trends. The growth and decline of internet based services just caught them completely by surprise. The Fed can't prevent recessions or inflation. If they could see the future accurately, it wouldn't be a challenge.

The answer to the question is that new sources of wealth will be discovered. Space flight, off planet mining... Who knows?

1 child dies every 2.4 seconds from malnutrition, waterborne disease or curable illness. So, given that "communism" has killed 100 million people, just how many has capitalism killed?


They die of those causes in Communist countries, too.

We're talking about overt killing - you know, where the government decides that a huge section of the population is a threat, and kills them off. A good example is the common Communist policy of executing intellectuals who are not members of the Party during a takeover - including their families. Or executing farmers who don't want to be collectivized - and then forcing city dwellers to somehow, magically, become skilled farmers - and intentionally entering a sudden condition of mass starvation.

How many modern governments that are representative democracies or democratic republics (i.e., modern non-Communist, non-dictatorship, non-totalitarian governments) have committed wholesale murder of sectors of their own population in order to establish that government?

Now ask the same question about our modern experience with Communism.

They die of those causes in Communist countries, too.
but in the ideal of communism, they wouldn't. no one would. thats the whole equality point of it.
this is why communists are always so eager to distance themselves from "communist" countries such as the USSR or China, as they don't meet the ideal. any communist would argue that those countries are not actually communist, but some god-awful mix of totalitarianism and socialism.

sure you can, under a capitalist-socialist mixed system, such as we have now, try to ensure nobody starves to death (etc) through judicious use of 'rights', but the point is in communism the whole system is geared to ensure this equality, not just tacked on to the system when morality suddenly becomes an issue

but in the ideal of communism, they wouldn't. no one would. thats the whole equality point of it.
this is why communists are always so eager to distance themselves from "communist" countries such as the USSR or China, as they don't meet the ideal. any communist would argue that those countries are not actually communist, but some god-awful mix of totalitarianism and socialism.

sure you can, under a capitalist-socialist mixed system, such as we have now, try to ensure nobody starves to death (etc) through judicious use of 'rights', but the point is in communism the whole system is geared to ensure this equality, not just tacked on to the system when morality suddenly becomes an issue
The problem is getting to the ideal.

You can't do that without killing people, at least by the current methods of revolution. Wholesale killing.

Find another way to get there - you haven't shown me one.

And socialism is not communism.

The problem is getting to the ideal.

You can't do that without killing people, at least by the current methods of revolution. Wholesale killing.

Find another way to get there - you haven't shown me one.

And socialism is not communism.
actually communism is socialism.

anyway, there is another method of getting to the ideal other than mass violence, revolution and governmental mass-murder. Robert Owen, and many socialists, while not proposing Marx-esque communism, believe that society can literally be educated over time to accept communism. an evolution rather than Marxist revolution.
if you remove all the aspects in life, and all the characteristics of people, that cause (what he called) "anti-social behaviour" ( he was writing in the 1700s :rolleyes: ) through the use of a 'national programme for the formation of character' (mass education), then people could be taught altruism. once that doctrine is prevalent in society, communism is almost the logical choice of government & economic system. if that makes sense...

some would argue its brainwashing. but then, is capitalism not guilty of the same? (yes it is, look beneath the surface...)

The law of the jungle states that only the fittest survive.

It is true that nowadays, "fittest" is viewed differently-- either measured in monetary units or societal ranking-- instead of physical strength. We can attribute this to the fact that it is becoming more and more true that money is more important than muscle. With money you can buy muscle, or mechanically reproduce it.

Which brings me to my point: There has to be some balance, and in this case the balance is not achieved through equality but through heirarchy. The proletariat balances the bourgeoisie on their shoulders-- not the most flattering description, I know-- and they pave the roads to consumerism. (Think of them as a superhero with an unappreciated sidekick.)

Without class distinctions, however, everyone is expected to think, look and act the same way. Food will be equally distributed, at the expense of those who work harder or have bioloically large appetites. Pretty soon without the motivation to work everyone will start shirking their duties, or merely working to reach a quota that they can potentially surpass.

Now tell me that this is good. A nation mired in its own stagnated citizens who are trapped in a society that promises: When the lives of a few more million people can be ameliorated, then so will yours; in the meantime, bear this.

And no, communism is not socialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1932/commsoc/ch02.htm).

I'm new to the forum here, so I'm taking the liberty of jumping in.

From an anthropological perspective, the type of government a society is able to achieve depends on three basic factors: 1. population; 2. availability and allocation of resources; 3. development of tools/technology.

The Enga "forest people" of the Congo are a small, nomaidc, subsistence-based foraging society with primitive tools and little to no contact with the outside world. They are for the most part egalitarian (a "primitive", if you will, form of communism-- which in this form actually works).

The BaMbuti are also foragers, but are more technologically developed and have larger and more sedentary populations. Tribe members thus have the means to compete for a position as a "Big Man", or leader. Although, because resources are largely shared and allocated equally in this non-stratified society, the "Big Man" does not wield significant power, but must work very hard to earn his position regardless.

I could continue for pages along this evolutionary continuum, but I will let you interpolate and zoom to our developed post-industrial societies. These societies have the technology, resources, and population to form capitalist, dictatorial, and (yes, to a point) "communist" forms of government, although the fact is that the latter DOES NOT WORK in these societies. The reason being, they are stratified. In a society where resources are not allocated evenly, which they CANNOT be if the society is to be post-industrial, communism will never work because it relies on the leveling of all of its citizens to the same social and economic plane.

For example (and there are a great many), advanced technology cannot exist without someone conceptualizing the object, someone else designing it, someone else building it, someone else acquiring the resources for it, someone else marketing it, and someone else to pay for it. To make the T-Shirt you're wearing, different strata of society- whether within or outside that nation- had to pick the cotton, whip (figuratively or not) the workers who are picking the cotton, drive the rusty model T to deliver the cotton to whoever is delivering it by another method, make it into a T-shirt at the factory, slap a price tag on it, deliver it to the store, and swipe your Visa at the counter and bag it up for you.

Are these people all on an equal social, intellectual, and economic level? Ha ha! I thought so. Therefore, can they be egalitarian in the way that the Enga are? Didn't think so. Are some strata more exploited than others? Hell, yes. Can they therefore be truly communist? You figure it out.

If you want a communist society, renounce your T-shirts and live in the Congo.

OK, firstly to deal with the developed issuse, i see you are a etno-centirst since you consider us more advanced, perhaps by technology, but on respecting eachother I'd say they are more "advanced" and if technology isn't a value for them whould you still say that we are more advanced? (this type of thinking is called coltural-realitivsm.

OK, now we all know that "ultimate" communism can not work in the real world, OK I accept that. But if you ask most of the people that lived in EX-Yugoslavia they would say they were happy under communist regime (I mean the time of Tito not Milosevic, for those who do not know about the example), although the economic development was slower than in capitalist countries it was still prosperous to a point, another thing people were not totaly equal but the salaries were a lot closer than they are today, social differences were smaller, the health care was free and you had could be shure that after you finish school you'll get a job, wich can't be said for today. So now tell me how this is bad? (I know for all the bad things that were done under Tito but I left them out since flaws of the communisem were already exposed)

Now, let us ask ourselfs how many people are happy in capitalism? So if we could teach the society that happines is gained through helping the society not ourselves and that personal possesion is no longer a important value, what is stopping communism?

Greetings

But CoolDynasty, that brings me back to my point-- without the need to strive harder, people lose motivation to become better and to fulfil their own potential. The reason people were happy in Yugoslavia then was because they didn't need to work too hard to become equal with the bourgeoisie. However, this doesn't mean that they couldn't have done it without communism.

If communism hadn't been introduced to their politics, then obviously, the only way for the proletariat to go was up, and by their own will and hard work. But then communism made it easier for them. What is the point in that?

Rutisia, agreed people stop to strive harder, but why would they have to? I mean, ok, I agree that scientific and technological progress are important but is it really so important that we go as fast as we can? NO! Why wouldn't we stop and be happy? And then do some work. Shure that puts us in worst position than other countries but, hey personal possesion and advanced thechnology are not an important value for us anymore, so lest just go out and have that good ol' coummunist beer. :)

OK, those are my theories about communism, trying to show that it is not Inherently Faulty and could work in some twisted made up world in my mind, that in proper conditions could developed and in my opinion will develop in the future.

Greetings

1 child dies every 2.4 seconds from malnutrition, waterborne disease or curable illness. So, given that "communism" has killed 100 million people, just how many has capitalism killed?

If Americans (this isn't an attack on America or Americans, it just happens that the information I have was gathered in America, for Americans. The same data can probably be extrapolated to most western nations on a per capita basis) reduced their meat consumption by just 10% we could easily feed the whole world.

But, where's the profit in that?

Do you think that if America was communist, it would stop consuming so much and just start giving resources a way to other nations?

Secondly, that is an emotional appeal, not a rational argument. American capitalism has very, very little to do with worldwide starving children.

You're all going to end up socialists anyway, or your children or grandchildren are.

Any economist can tell you that growth capitalism is finite. Once you've capitalized all the markets, how do you continue making a profit? If you can't continue making a profit, what are you going to give to your shareholders?

No, resources are finite. Economic growth is not. As long as there is some level of population growth there will be an increase in demand and an influx in labor, meaning that there will be economic growth.

Even if population does not grow, and the total workforce stays the same, meaning no technological advancement and increase in education levels, the economy will still be maintained, and anyone with the ability to provide utility through their labor will stand to make a profit.

What economists are you speaking to?

Read Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers.
In chapter 6, the main character reflects back to his high school class in History and Moral Philosophy which is an excuse for Heinlein to describe why Communism is Inherently Flawed. Even a democratic communist society would not work.

I think that the best economic system is Capitalist which is "infected" (care to suggest better word choice, Anyone?) with socialist policys, i.e. eliminate extremes of poverty and wealth with progressive taxation and welfare, regulation specifically to prevent corperate abuses/excesses etc.

President of Democracian
Radiated Wastelands

Where would the territory come from that will be used for hunting and farming?
"Ownership" of land would be based upon use of it. They say that there is currently more than enough food right now to feed everyone in the world, and thus more farmland used than is necessary. Therefore the amount of farmland worldwide would decrease. You could say the same about people with large houses: how often do they use all of the rooms in those houses? Chances are not much. So one could use the land however much they wanted, provided they also let someone else use it in such a way that does not hinder the initial use of the land. It would be illegal for someone to "own" land that they do not use. So, in short, there would be territory for people to hunt and farm as not all of the land would be used on a regular basis.
What would limit the existence to subsistence only and not allow it to expand into a Capitalist society? Well, that would depend on which step in the process of transforming society to communism it was. For instance, if the people forming the communist society have only so far succeeded in creating their own city, people could easily come and go from the communist city to the more capitalist society around it, and therefore what I said about subsistence farming would not apply. However, by the end state, when communism has proven itself to be better for everyone and the world has naturally transformed itself to communism, there would be no money. Of course, if you get enough people together who are dissatisfied with the system, they could conceivably create their own capitalist one, but it's unlikely it would last as nobody would work in a capitalist factory with a boss who is skimming profits when they would make more in a communist one. (this is also part of the reason why I believe communism would naturally take over in the first place.) Therefore, the only way a person could get food is to get it themselves, and build their own shelter themselves, and make their own clothing, etc.

Without class distinctions, however, everyone is expected to think, look and act the same way. Food will be equally distributed, at the expense of those who work harder or have bioloically large appetites. Pretty soon without the motivation to work everyone will start shirking their duties, or merely working to reach a quota that they can potentially surpass.
While it can be the case that people would think, look, and act the same way, there's no reason to assume that this would be the case all of the time. There's also no reason to assume that food would be equally distributed, you're forgetting the central tenet of communism: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." People need different amounts of food, therefore people would get different amounts of food.
Furthermore, there's no reason to assume that there would be no motivation to work. Monetary gain isn't the only reason people do anything. There are scores of reasons, some of them egalitarian, some of them not, such as doing something to gain respect.
In addition, there would still be a personal gain factor involved. By increasing the amount of a resource that society has, you increase the amount that you get. So there would still be personal gain involved.

For example (and there are a great many), advanced technology cannot exist without someone conceptualizing the object, someone else designing it, someone else building it, someone else acquiring the resources for it, someone else marketing it, and someone else to pay for it. To make the T-Shirt you're wearing, different strata of society- whether within or outside that nation- had to pick the cotton, whip (figuratively or not) the workers who are picking the cotton, drive the rusty model T to deliver the cotton to whoever is delivering it by another method, make it into a T-shirt at the factory, slap a price tag on it, deliver it to the store, and swipe your Visa at the counter and bag it up for you.Certainly. At one of society's meetings, someone might come up with the idea of making t-shirts, and if society liked the idea, people within the society would volunteer to design, build, and acquire the resources for it. Marketing and paying for it wouldn't apply in a communist society, I don't need to address those concerns.

Are these people all on an equal social, intellectual, and economic level? Therefore, can they be egalitarian in the way that the Enga are? They could easily be.

Question for Communists:

Assuming that the communist state would be "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," would it be the person determining their need or would it be the government?

Em... this is a tough one, both in my opinion, for example a state can set a "norm" or something similar, while it's up to a person to aply for a job where he/she feels most productive. Or something like again in Yugoslavia the thing "self-governing" (think that's how it would be called in english) it ment that local comunities could or even factories could determine ther abilites and work acording to them... well it didn't work out just that way but it is a system that could work.

Ow, I'm not a communist, while my phylospohy comes close, so don't take my words for granted.

Question for Communists:

Assuming that the communist state would be "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," would it be the person determining their need or would it be the government?
It would most likely be a combination of both. Medical science is capable of determining how many calories a person needs, but people like some food and dislike others. Of course, I'd imagine people would get more than what they needed, but filling everyone's needs is just the first step.

It would most likely be a combination of both. Medical science is capable of determining how many calories a person needs, but people like some food and dislike others. Of course, I'd imagine people would get more than what they needed, but filling everyone's needs is just the first step.

So, theoretically, people would be given some medical tests to determine the optimal calorie intake, and then given credits towards food at a local grocery store?

Would that be suitable?

Question for Communists:

Assuming that the communist state would be "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," would it be the person determining their need or would it be the government?
depends. the government could do it, but its susceptible to corruption. the individual could do it, but they are corruptable by greed. in a true altruistic society, it could be either. then again, rememeber that the state dissolves in Marxism.
imo, it should be the individual.

depends. the government could do it, but its susceptible to corruption. the individual could do it, but they are corruptable by greed. in a true altruistic society, it could be either. then again, rememeber that the state dissolves in Marxism.
imo, it should be the individual.
I need a few weeks off. And a new Maybach to see the sights.

No, resources are finite. Economic growth is not. As long as there is some level of population growth there will be an increase in demand and an influx in labor, meaning that there will be economic growth.


But economical growth is irrelevant. If we use up all our resources, having a strong economy isn't going to do us any good.

But economical growth is irrelevant. If we use up all our resources, having a strong economy isn't going to do us any good.

We are not likely to run out of resources any time soon. What about communism makes you assume that resources will be consumed more slowly? Would not everyone work just as hard to improve the well being of society as a whole just as hard as they work to improve their own well being?

So, theoretically, people would be given some medical tests to determine the optimal calorie intake, and then given credits towards food at a local grocery store?

Would that be suitable?Yes, that would be suitable.

Yes, that would be suitable.

Do you not see any problems that would extend from this?

That sort of system seems absolutely abysmal to me.

We are not likely to run out of resources any time soon. What about communism makes you assume that resources will be consumed more slowly? Would not everyone work just as hard to improve the well being of society as a whole just as hard as they work to improve their own well being?

20-50 years for oil gas and coal.

(I think)

Do you not see any problems that would extend from this?

That sort of system seems absolutely abysmal to me.
There are certain problems that could arise, yes, but that is only one possible solution. Another possible solution would be to simply give everyone all of the food that they want.

20-50 years for oil gas and coal.

Really? Seems our corporations need to start churning out products that use alternate energy. There will be a big market for them.

There are certain problems that could arise, yes, but that is only one possible solution. Another possible solution would be to simply give everyone all of the food that they want.

or give them as much as they want of the basics (bread, maize, rice, potatos etc) and then tokens to use on luxuries (like chocolate, ice cream etc) until the system is established

There are certain problems that could arise, yes, but that is only one possible solution. Another possible solution would be to simply give everyone all of the food that they want.

Now that is a system I could go for.

Now that is a system I could go for.
The only problem I could see arising is the potential for there to be a shortage of food. However, as I said, food is perhaps the one thing there's no danger in running out of.

My entire point is that, if the rights of each single individual are subdued, it is impossible to maintain the rights of the whole.

I will reverse the question to you, if one individual is does not have value, how does six billion individuals have value?


100000000000000 pennies by themselves, are of little value, but together, they make quite a large value.

The only problem I could see arising is the potential for there to be a shortage of food. However, as I said, food is perhaps the one thing there's no danger in running out of.

Food inventory shortages would be a major problem. Either inventory would need to be purposefully overstocked and there would be massive amounts of waste, or there will be a strong risk of there being shortages, which would cause demand to rise in turn causing certain people to recieve more valuable goods than others.

100000000000000 pennies by themselves, are of little value, but together, they make quite a large value.

So one person is of little value? I do not like analogies that compare humans to inanimate objects.

Food inventory shortages would be a major problem. Either inventory would need to be purposefully overstocked and there would be massive amounts of waste, or there will be a strong risk of there being shortages, which would cause demand to rise in turn causing certain people to recieve more valuable goods than others.
It is true that there could be massive amounts of waste, but the cool part is that the things that rot the fastest are also the things that make good compost...so it wouldn't be a total waste.

So one person is of little value? I do not like analogies that compare humans to inanimate objects.

capitalism puts no value on individuals either.

Think of all the people in sweat shops and picking bananas because that's what we want to eat?

They had a better life until they switched to cash crops, because of capitalism.

capitalism puts no value on individuals either.

Of course it does. Individuals make better consumers. Capitalism actually promotes individualist thinking, it's what keeps the economy running.

Of course it does. Individuals make better consumers. Capitalism actually promotes individualist thinking, it's what keeps the economy running.
Then how did the concept of "brand loyalty" come about?

capitalism puts no value on individuals either.

Think of all the people in sweat shops and picking bananas because that's what we want to eat?

They had a better life until they switched to cash crops, because of capitalism.

An individual cannot have any more value than what they are born with. Capitalism helps to make sure that an individual's value cannot be depreciated through anything but the individual's own actions and decisions.

Communism works to add false value to individuals by limiting the value of others. The only way this can be a moral system is if every member of the society was willing. That is highly unlikely on a grand scale.

Then how did the concept of "brand loyalty" come about?

Either through the production of better products or through human fallibility.

Then how did the concept of "brand loyalty" come about?
It's a localized phenomena. Capitalism is not about forming a static system, but about competition. Sure, every manufacturer tries to form a loyal army of consumers- but his competitors are just as interested in disrupting that loyalty. An individual customer is easier swayed than a tight group.

Either through the production of better products or through human fallibility.Couldn't human fallibility explain the choice one might make to not be an individual?

Couldn't human fallibility explain the choice one might make to not be an individual?

Yes, it could. What are you getting at?

It's a localized phenomena. Capitalism is not about forming a static system, but about competition. Sure, every manufacturer tries to form a loyal army of consumers- but his competitors are just as interested in disrupting that loyalty. An individual customer is easier swayed than a tight group.I don't know that capitalism is about competition. Certainly competition is what typically happens under capitalism, but a company could be a monopoly and still be capitalistic.

An individual cannot have any more value than what they are born with. Capitalism helps to make sure that an individual's value cannot be depreciated through anything but the individual's own actions and decisions.

Communism works to add false value to individuals by limiting the value of others. The only way this can be a moral system is if every member of the society was willing. That is highly unlikely on a grand scale.

Bollocks. You are not more valuable than a child in a sweat shop. The only difference is where you were born. No-one chooses to work in poverty, they have no-one else to work for.

just look at what capitalism did to the people in many parts of Africa. they used to farm edible crops for their own needs and a little to sell. Now they farm cash crops for fat Americans and Europeans. the thing is, while the bosses get relatively rich, the workers live in poverty because they cannot afford to live. And when a drought hits they all starve, because they are farming stupid crops.

For US.

WE devalue the life of other people for our own convenience.

THAT is capitalism in action.

Yes, it could. What are you getting at?
That by taking advantage of human fallibility, most of the people who seek to create "brand loyalty" are trying to keep people from being individuals through bombardment of the same message over and over, and in that case individuals wouldn't make better consumers.

I don't know that capitalism is about competition. Certainly competition is what typically happens under capitalism, but a company could be a monopoly and still be capitalistic.
That means mutating into a system that is no longer capitalist, as a monopoly no longer relies on market forces to allocate goods and resources and to determine prices. Which is why capitalism still has a need for a government- to prevent the system from such mutations.

I don't know that capitalism is about competition. Certainly competition is what typically happens under capitalism, but a company could be a monopoly and still be capitalistic.
A monopoly, strictly speaking, is not a capitalist, but a post-capitalist entity, as it no longer relies on market forces to allocate goods and resources and to determine prices. This is why capitalism still requires government interference, even if only a minimal one.

Bollocks. You are not more valuable than a child in a sweat shop. The only difference is where you were born. No-one chooses to work in poverty, they have no-one else to work for.

Shitty jobs will have to be performed in Communism, too. How are you at all qualified to say which service or job is more valuable?

just look at what capitalism did to the people in many parts of Africa. they used to farm edible crops for their own needs and a little to sell. Now they farm cash crops for fat Americans and Europeans. the thing is, while the bosses get relatively rich, the workers live in poverty because they cannot afford to live. And when a drought hits they all starve, because they are farming stupid crops.

I don't know the specifics of this particular situation, but I do know that there is a large amount of corporate protectionism that occurs in between the US and third world countries that really hurt any chance of unionized workers and efficient private agricultural companies from competing.

WE devalue the life of other people for our own convenience.

THAT is capitalism in action.

No, it is a principle of the free market that any exchange of value must be voluntary. No individual can devalue another individual.

That by taking advantage of human fallibility, most of the people who seek to create "brand loyalty" are trying to keep people from being individuals through bombardment of the same message over and over, and in that case individuals wouldn't make better consumers.

I said that "brand loyalty" can be caused by human fallibility. That is hardly a decent argument against capitalism.

I don't know that capitalism is about competition. Certainly competition is what typically happens under capitalism, but a company could be a monopoly and still be capitalistic.

I should state right now that I am not capitalist for the sake of capitalism. I believe in the free market and a free society, and in my opinion, the only feasible way about doing that is to insure property rights, along with the various social rights.

Let me citate ol' Uncle Stalin...

"The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic."

The single persons needs is nothing compared to the needs of the people. The only problem, was when Stalin came to power... Face it... He were nearly as bad as Hitler, sending millions to Gulag among other Siberian encampments...

The socialism is pure... Stalin merely twisted it, to desire his own needs...

So if we could teach the society that happines is gained through helping the society not ourselves and that personal possesion is no longer a important value, what is stopping communism?

This forum is not a place for personal affront, but if it was, I would bludgeon you with a 2x4 to demonstrate my point. And what would you do in return? You would fight, wouldn't you? You would try to wrest my 2x4 and use it against me. (unless you were a pussy wimp, in which case I would win, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.)

My point is, if I wanted to kick your ass and had the means (the "personal possession [which by the way you misspelled]", to defeat me you would have to wrench my property and resources or acquire those of your own that surpass mine. Or you could punch me in the face, which would require that you have more physical power and talent than I. In any case, you would have to have some sort of advantage over me.

You're forgetting the simple facts of human nature that: 1. people compete; 2. people are NOT born equal; 3. people (that is, the intelligent and ambitious) strive to rise to the highest apex they are able. Thankfully, not all people are dumb and happy as you would like them to be, which would need to happen in order for a society to be egalitarian and truly communist.

I'll try to put this in the nicest way possible so you peole don't kick me off the forum: you and your moronic cocksucking breed are exactly what's wrong with the world. People like you who would rather suck on the welfare tit than work to make an earnest living for yourself. You lazy slugs who settle for mediocrity are an insult to the human race and a burden upon those of us who are forced to support you with our talent and our sweat. If human beings didn't develop "compassion", you would have died off long ago through simple evolution ("survival of the fittest"), and we would have all been better off.

I should state right now that I am not capitalist for the sake of capitalism. I believe in the free market and a free society, and in my opinion, the only feasible way about doing that is to insure property rights, along with the various social rights.
so the basics of it is that you believe in freedom over equality


you should check out Rawls' work on distributional justice and the veil of ignorance...

Terrap, you are a waste of forum space.

It is a sweet irony to know that you are far too abrasive, and your lack of tact will cause you to fail in the system that you espouse.

so the basics of it is that you believe in freedom over equality
Equality of opportunities- or equality of outcomes?