NationStates Jolt Archive

Communism can only work with small groups of like minded people who are self sufficent, or produce enough of a product to trade for what they lack. Every one in the group must contribute to the whole in order for the commune to survive.

I have a simple question that no one has ever been able to answer. How would a large commune or a true communist country deal with those who refuse to work? Not those who can't, but those who are able bodied and of sound mind who believe that society has an obligation to provide for them without contributiting.

Communism can only work with small groups of like minded people who are self sufficent, or produce enough of a product to trade for what they lack. Every one in the group must contribute to the whole in order for the commune to survive.Naturally.

I have a simple question that no one has ever been able to answer. How would a large commune or a true communist country deal with those who refuse to work? Not those who can't, but those who are able bodied and of sound mind who believe that society has an obligation to provide for them without contributiting.Depends. I would vote for the commune to disassociate itself from said people, but the commune might vote to do other things.

Naturally.

Depends. I would vote for the commune to disassociate itself from said people, but the commune might vote to do other things.

If the commune disassocited itself from those who refused to contribute, what would the consiquences be?

If the commune disassocited itself from those who refused to contribute, what would the consiquences be?
Those who refused to contribute would not receive the benefits of the commune and would either have to join another society or subsistence farm/hunt/food gather.

Those who refused to contribute would not receive the benefits of the commune and would either have to join another society or subsistence farm/hunt/food gather.

How is that different then leaving someone homeless because they won't work?

How is that different then leaving someone homeless because they won't work?
Capitalism requires unemployment, communism does not. While in both systems people can choose to not work, capitalism requires people to not work. Leaving someone homeless in capitalism would punish them for the failures of the system. Disassociating yourself from someone in communism would punish them for their own choices.

Those who refused to contribute would not receive the benefits of the commune and would either have to join another society or subsistence farm/hunt/food gather.
Ummmmm, I think it works this way as well:
Those who refused to contribute would not receive the benefits of capitalism and would either have to join another society or subsistence farm/hunt/food gather/beg.

Ummmmm, I think it works this way as well:
Those who refused to contribute would not receive the benefits of capitalism and would either have to join another society or subsistence farm/hunt/food gather/beg.Not all of the people who don't contribute in capitalism are that way because they refuse to.
Furthermore, contributing in capitalism doesn't preclude someone from having to join another society or subsistence farm/hunt/gather/beg in order to survive.

Capitalism requires unemployment, communism does not. While in both systems people can choose to not work, capitalism requires people to not work. Leaving someone homeless in capitalism would punish them for the failures of the system. Disassociating yourself from someone in communism would punish them for their own choices.
That's a crock, dude. You're not being straight with yourself.

That's a crock, dude. You're not being straight with yourself.Are you arguing against my point about capitalism, about communism, or both?

Are you arguing against my point about capitalism, about communism, or both?
You're excusing an undesirable but inevitable condition in one political system, and then blaming the other for it. That's very twisted logic.
If one has a choice to not participate in either system, than it's inevitably their own fault if they don't reap ther respective rewards. You can't blame the system in one scenario, and blame the individual in another. That's a double standard.
If you're going to blame the political system for those that don't benefit from it, you have to blame both, or neither. What's good for the goose...

You're excusing an undesirable but inevitable condition in one political system, and then blaming the other for it. That's very twisted logic.
If one has a choice to not participate in either system, than it's inevitably their own fault if they don't reap ther respective rewards. You can't blame the system in one scenario, and blame the individual in another. That's a double standard.
If you're going to blame the political system for those that don't benefit from it, you have to blame both, or neither. What's good for the goose...
Why couldn't I blame unemployment on a political system that requires unemployment? If a system requires unemployment, then naturally there will be unemployed people.
The other political system doesn't require unemployment, so therefore unemployment isn't necessarily a fault of the system.

How does capitalism require unemployment?

I believe that society has a duty to take care of those who can't work, but I have little sympathy for those who won't.

Another question, if everyone in the commune recieves the same benefits, what incentive is there to take a job that has more stress, or to do a job that is physically more challenging than another?

Why couldn't I blame unemployment on a political system that requires unemployment? If a system requires unemployment, then naturally there will be unemployed people.
The other political system doesn't require unemployment, so therefore unemployment isn't necessarily a fault of the system.
Stop beggin' the question and spit it out already:

Why does capitalism "require" unemployment, in your opinion?

How does capitalism require unemployment?If everyone in capitalism were employed, then wages would go up, due to the fact that employers would have to raise wages in order to attract workers. If wages don't go up, workers will leave the company for another company.

I believe that society has a duty to take care of those who can't work, but I have little sympathy for those who won't.Being unable to work and choosing not to work are two different things.

Another question, if everyone in the commune recieves the same benefits, what incentive is there to take a job that has more stress, or to do a job that is physically more challenging than another?It depends on how the society is structured. But in all societies, the incentive would be because the person would choose the job. Believe it or not, some people are doctors because they want to help people.
Other incentives include, but aren't limited to: getting the praise of your coworkers; getting the praise of the people you serve; having a job that is challenging (some people like challenges); having a job that requires creativity (some people like to be creative).

If everyone in capitalism were employed, then wages would go up, due to the fact that employers would have to raise wages in order to attract workers. If wages don't go up, workers will leave the company for another company.

Being unable to work and choosing not to work are two different things.

It depends on how the society is structured. But in all societies, the incentive would be because the person would choose the job. Believe it or not, some people are doctors because they want to help people.
Other incentives include, but aren't limited to: getting the praise of your coworkers; getting the praise of the people you serve; having a job that is challenging (some people like challenges); having a job that requires creativity (some people like to be creative).

If everyone where employed, then workers would be brought in from other areas. Not an un common practice. I have recieved job offers from all over the country because people with my skills are in high demand and in short supply. This also makes the wages that I can ask for higher.

Alot of people take jobs for the reasons that you list. However, alot of people also only keep high stress jobs becuase of the financial incentive. I myself have given up higher paying jobs because the stress wasn't worth it.

I recieve all the things that you list at my current job, but if I was recieving the same rewards as everyone else, I'd have a less demanding job.

While in both systems people can choose to not work, capitalism requires people to not work. Leaving someone homeless in capitalism would punish them for the failures of the system. Disassociating yourself from someone in communism would punish them for their own choices.

I have a real problem with this statement. I'm sorry to be so vulgar, but there's no other way to put it - this statement is retarded. I've noticed JB raise a few fair points and have some sense in his arguments, but this is just total contradiction:

A homeless person in capitalism starves because he refuses to work - No capitalist will give him free food.
Capitalism is responsible for his suffering.

A homeless person in communism starves because he refuses to work - No communist will give him free food.
Communism is blameless.

Buh?

I've noticed JB raise a few fair points and have some sense in his arguments, but this is just total contradiction
That's what bothered me the most about the statement. JB isn't really a flaky utopiast, he's a bit too cynical for that. He comes off as someone who's done more homework than daydreamin'.
That comment irks me...

JB is at least one of the few proponets of communism that at least try to answer specific questions, but his logic on the last issue is very flawed.

Pure communism is a utopia. Add people... Well, yeah.

Communism does work, it is proven to work in places like Israel in small communities where people trade skills and food. This also happens in some undeveloped countries too. So communism does work in practice, but not on a national scale because of human greed.

And yes it is worse than Nazism...Stalin did kill more people than Hitler you know, and that was only Stalin. And yes, there was anti-semitism to nearly the same degree in Russia as Germany (minus the Holocaust), so you see, Communism is as bad or worse than Nazism if we take the former soviet union or N. Korea as the example.

Graham RV

You have a very fair point which I can't really argue against. But what alternative system do you propose? A dictator is even more likely to compromise the rights of individuals.

This is a big problem for me morally. I believe that government can only be a contract between the individual and a provider, services must be freely purchased. This means that any public government would be out of the question, leaving only anarchy.

I have posted many times arguing against democracy, and for a monarchy, individual owner of government, that is checked constitutionally by the people. It maintains, in theory, a constant contract between the individual citizen and monarch.

The argument has been shouted down for good reason, though, as the ineptitude of society would cause massive swings in power for the monarch, and massive instability in the government. Those committed to freedom would end up dying for those who are complacent.

Communism does work, it is proven to work in places like Israel in small communities where people trade skills and food. This also happens in some undeveloped countries too. So communism does work in practice, but not on a national scale because of human greed.

And yes it is worse than Nazism...Stalin did kill more people than Hitler you know, and that was only Stalin. And yes, there was anti-semitism to nearly the same degree in Russia as Germany (minus the Holocaust), so you see, Communism is as bad or worse than Nazism if we take the former soviet union or N. Korea as the example.

Graham RV

Alot have said, sure communism works, it has been used successfully on a community level. This is true, communism can work where there is low specialization of labor, and short simple distribution chains, in other words, small agrarian communities.

However, it is pointless to say this because communism cannot coexist with industrialism, it becomes overwhelmed by the massive specialisation of labor (people can't work for self sustinence, people cannot share all odd jobs), and the massive distribution of resources (democratic processes break down when there are not common interests and common knowledge involved) that industry relies upon.

Since nearly all of western society is industrial, and returning to agrarian lifestyles is not an option, there is no point in arguing for communism on a community level.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

And as for JB, I would say that he thinks that unemployment within a capitalist system is a market failure, meaning that unemployment is constant because of capitalism. Whereas, in the communism he believes in, there is always work offered, meaning unemployment can only happen at the choice of the individual.

In capitalism -> People are unemployed because of market failures
In communism -> People are unemployed because of personal failures

I don't agree, and even if I did it wouldn't matter, but his logic isn't that shaky.

Can anyone reach this post? I keep getting an error when viewing any page in this thread besides the first. I was wondering if it was a forum thing, or if it had something to do with my browser.

If everyone where employed, then workers would be brought in from other areas.And ultimately what would happen is either everyone in the world is employed and they all ask for higher wages, or too many people would come to the area and there will be unemployment. Either way there cannot be total employment within a capitalist system.

And as for JB, I would say that he thinks that unemployment within a capitalist system is a market failure, meaning that unemployment is constant because of capitalism. Whereas, in the communism he believes in, there is always work offered, meaning unemployment can only happen at the choice of the individual.

In capitalism -> People are unemployed because of market failures
In communism -> People are unemployed because of personal failures
That was actually put well, perhaps better than I could put it (given the misunderstandings people seem to have with my argument.)
For clarification's sake, while "unemployment is constant because of capitalism" is true, I would like to add that this does not mean that the rate of unemployment will be constant, simply that unemployment will always exist. I think what you put means the same thing, but might not be apparent to the average person.

That was actually put well, perhaps better than I could put it (given the misunderstandings people seem to have with my argument.)

I was thinking about my own ideas as to why unemployment exists and had just read up on a marxist explanation, so it was fresh in my head.

On a side note, do Marxists actually use deductive logic in economics, or do they just identify problems and start wondering "How did capitalism screw this up?" It seems the entire nature of the branch is to identify problems that exist in other economic systems, blame it on the other system, and assume communism will do away with the problem.

In other words, how do you know that unemployment is caused by capitalism, what free market factor causes there to be unemployment, and how does communism eliminate it. Remember that simply making sure everyone has a job does not eliminate the problem, it just makes everyone suffer it. (that may be the point, not fixing problems, just dilluting them)

For clarification's sake, while "unemployment is constant because of capitalism" is true, I would like to add that this does not mean that the rate of unemployment will be constant, simply that unemployment will always exist.

Yes, the word constant can cause some confusion. I run into problems with semantics all the time on here, as people will look for any nitpicky detail to refute your statement.

I think what you put means the same thing, but might not be apparent to the average person.

I like to call them normies.

In other words, how do you know that unemployment is caused by capitalism, what free market factor causes there to be unemployment, and how does communism eliminate it. Remember that simply making sure everyone has a job does not eliminate the problem, it just makes everyone suffer it. (that may be the point, not fixing problems, just dilluting them)I would not necessarily say that unemployment is caused by capitalism...after all, unemployment existed long before capitalism did. My point was simply that capitalism, unlike say, feudalism requires unemployment in order to exist.

I realize that you dispute my point here, so I suppose we'll have to start from the beginning. What would prevent people in a system with total employment from asking for more wages? The fear of losing their job would be minimized. Even if one firm goes out of business, those workers would be quickly snapped up by other firms.

I suppose, technically, that simply employing everyone would end the unemployment problem, but I believe that one of the main goals of a communist society should be not only to employ everyone, but to employ them in a job that they would both enjoy and thrive at. Certainly it's possible for the system to just stick people in places randomly, but I would think such a system would be ineffective and probably fail.

If anything Kruschev said was correct, would be this:

"Whether you like or not, history is on our side, we will bury you."

The basic question of Marxism is what makes history move, Marx's answer to the problem is material reality, which points to economics and the means of production. Man is pushed by his own conditions to make change.

History is the progressement of the means of production, getting stronger and more capable to produce more and more over time. Now, the "end of history" is what Marx called Communism.

Suppose the revolution never happens, and capitalism still survives paradoxically. There is a point when the means of production are so advanced by automation and other technologies that supply and demand are meaningless, so what is the point of keeping property relations?

This is the same problem Feudalism had, it found it more and more hard to survive in a world where property relations were evolving into burgeoisie capitalism. Similarly, capitalism will find it harder and harder to survive in the weakening and ultimate destruction of property relationships.

Communism really is the result of the development of the means of production, I doubt I will ever see it in my lifetime, but Socialism is perfectly possible, it has been possible since 1871. But, as history marches on, everything is temporary, ideology is only relative to society, Classical Liberalism has evolved into Neo-Liberalism due the progress of the means of production and their capablities in global commerce, which is an other stage towards a post-industrial society, religon continues to decline as it becomes more and more reactionary.

The only thing that never changes is the material struggle between man and his antagonisms.

Its not a matter if Communism is good, its a matter that Communism is inevitable and coming. Marxism has stood the test of time.

Can anyone reach this post? I keep getting an error when viewing any page in this thread besides the first. I was wondering if it was a forum thing, or if it had something to do with my browser.

I had the same problem in "Communism Revisited".

Communism tends to be a nice ideal that doesn't really work due to the flaws of man; greed and ambition amoungst others

If anything Kruschev said was correct, would be this:

"Whether you like or not, history is on our side, we will bury you."

The basic question of Marxism is what makes history move, Marx's answer to the problem is material reality, which points to economics and the means of production. Man is pushed by his own conditions to make change.

History is the progressement of the means of production, getting stronger and more capable to produce more and more over time. Now, the "end of history" is what Marx called Communism.

Suppose the revolution never happens, and capitalism still survives paradoxically. There is a point when the means of production are so advanced by automation and other technologies that supply and demand are meaningless, so what is the point of keeping property relations?

This is the same problem Feudalism had, it found it more and more hard to survive in a world where property relations were evolving into burgeoisie capitalism. Similarly, capitalism will find it harder and harder to survive in the weakening and ultimate destruction of property relationships.

Communism really is the result of the development of the means of production, I doubt I will ever see it in my lifetime, but Socialism is perfectly possible, it has been possible since 1871. But, as history marches on, everything is temporary, ideology is only relative to society, Classical Liberalism has evolved into Neo-Liberalism due the progress of the means of production and their capablities in global commerce, which is an other stage towards a post-industrial society, religon continues to decline as it becomes more and more reactionary.

The only thing that never changes is the material struggle between man and his antagonisms.

Its not a matter if Communism is good, its a matter that Communism is inevitable and coming. Marxism has stood the test of time.

As long as free men exist and there are places where a man is an individual and not a cog in the hive , Communism cant exist except in the minds of dreamers , or in places where it can be imposed by force .

I realize that you dispute my point here, so I suppose we'll have to start from the beginning. What would prevent people in a system with total employment from asking for more wages? The fear of losing their job would be minimized. Even if one firm goes out of business, those workers would be quickly snapped up by other firms.

Total employment in a free market would be a situation where aggregate labor demand met equilibrium at the whole of the labor force. Consumer demand for goods and services would be great enough that the all available labor would be needed to produce it.

This means that, at full employment, real wages would not be able to rise, as an increase in wages would cause either a drop in employment (the consumer base would not be willing to support a rise in the cost of goods, so there would be a lower demand for labor), or a rise in the cost of goods which would raise the CPI.

So wage increases would not be supported when there is full employment.

I suppose, technically, that simply employing everyone would end the unemployment problem, but I believe that one of the main goals of a communist society should be not only to employ everyone, but to employ them in a job that they would both enjoy and thrive at. Certainly it's possible for the system to just stick people in places randomly, but I would think such a system would be ineffective and probably fail.

1. Employing everyone does not solve the unemployment problem, it just forces up the CPI and lowers purchasing power for everyone.

2. The idea that the labor supply will match labor demand without economic pressure is naive, and you know it. You know that the people cannot just decide what jobs they want and don't want to do.


In my recent shift towards anarchism, I have come to respect some communistic ideals, but the naivety with which communists approach labor issues is astounding and always confirms my belief that communism is not practical.

If anything Kruschev said was correct, would be this:

"Whether you like or not, history is on our side, we will bury you."

The basic question of Marxism is what makes history move, Marx's answer to the problem is material reality, which points to economics and the means of production. Man is pushed by his own conditions to make change.

History is the progressement of the means of production, getting stronger and more capable to produce more and more over time. Now, the "end of history" is what Marx called Communism.

Suppose the revolution never happens, and capitalism still survives paradoxically. There is a point when the means of production are so advanced by automation and other technologies that supply and demand are meaningless, so what is the point of keeping property relations?

This is the same problem Feudalism had, it found it more and more hard to survive in a world where property relations were evolving into burgeoisie capitalism. Similarly, capitalism will find it harder and harder to survive in the weakening and ultimate destruction of property relationships.

Communism really is the result of the development of the means of production, I doubt I will ever see it in my lifetime, but Socialism is perfectly possible, it has been possible since 1871. But, as history marches on, everything is temporary, ideology is only relative to society, Classical Liberalism has evolved into Neo-Liberalism due the progress of the means of production and their capablities in global commerce, which is an other stage towards a post-industrial society, religon continues to decline as it becomes more and more reactionary.

The only thing that never changes is the material struggle between man and his antagonisms.

Its not a matter if Communism is good, its a matter that Communism is inevitable and coming. Marxism has stood the test of time.

Yes, your argument makes sense because we can always create more land, more energy, and more resources. We will someday reach a point where we can create something out of nothing, have totally efficient energy creation and conduction, and live in infinitely tall and infinitely wide buildings.

In the future, scarcity as we know it will cease to exist!!!!

And Marxism, in its 125 years of existed has taken a beating. It has been destroyed by capitalism, and would have lost to fascism barring inept fascist leaders. How do you call that standing the test of time?

Communism tends to be a nice ideal that doesn't really work due to the flaws of man; greed and ambition amoungst others

Actually it does work. Just not as a governmental body, as it never truly is intended to be such. Instead, it works as a social system in small communities. One, literally, cannot govern communism. To do such would be to defeat the entire point.


As long as free men exist and there are places where a man is an individual and not a cog in the hive , Communism cant exist except in the minds of dreamers , or in places where it can be imposed by force .


Ah, what a fool. Communism doesn't treat people like cogs, nor need it be forced. That's only governmental "communism". You are confusing the result of Marxism, which is flawed, with all forms of Communism. In a truly Communist society(which do exist, but not as a Government), you are free to do anything you wish. And not in the sense that I'm sure you'll put down as "You're free to do as you wish, as long as it agrees with the Party". You quite literally are free to do anything you want. You are expected to do certain activities, but you are never forced, and there is *rarely* punishment for not doing so.

Ah, what a fool. Communism doesn't treat people like cogs, nor need it be forced. That's only governmental "communism". You are confusing the result of Marxism, which is flawed, with all forms of Communism. In a truly Communist society(which do exist, but not as a Government), you are free to do anything you wish. And not in the sense that I'm sure you'll put down as "You're free to do as you wish, as long as it agrees with the Party". You quite literally are free to do anything you want. You are expected to do certain activities, but you are never forced, and there is *rarely* punishment for not doing so.

Society no longer exists in a form that allows for this.

Ah, what a fool. Communism doesn't treat people like cogs, nor need it be forced. That's only governmental "communism". You are confusing the result of Marxism, which is flawed, with all forms of Communism. In a truly Communist society(which do exist, but not as a Government), you are free to do anything you wish. And not in the sense that I'm sure you'll put down as "You're free to do as you wish, as long as it agrees with the Party". You quite literally are free to do anything you want. You are expected to do certain activities, but you are never forced, and there is *rarely* punishment for not doing so.

Free to do everything except own property, profit from exchanges, use money or trade conventionally. Those are some pretty big exceptions to "anything you wish". Yes, even in utopian, no government communism this has to be true. It might not be enforced by government as such, but if those things happen, you're not living in a communist society.

Freedom to do anything you wish comes with the expectation that nothing you do will have any unwanted, negative affect on other citizens.

The ownership of private property does, because people could use their wealth to, firstly, afford power. Even though the communal vanguards would prohibit the coercion of other citizens to obtain power and form a class system, it is still possible through bribery. If you have more money, even if you "deserve it", whatever that means, you can still use it to take power over your fellow worker. There is no concept of "deserve" in communism. Rather, people get as much as the system can offer them to the point where no one else is hurt by their accumulations. This point is called ownership of private property. The capitalist mode of distribution of private property simpky expands the inherent corruption in properties. The second reason is slightly more difficult for lifelong capitalists to accept, and that is simply that if someone has property, someone else *doesn't*. The worker has no opportunity (if nothing happens to the wealthy person) to use the resources, no matter how much they work for it. Again, this problem is only made worse in capitalism, but is in and of itself an inherent flaw in private property ownership. There is "state-property", which is distributed to civilians, and degrees of anti-theft laws in socialism, but this is because an immediate transition to communism would be impossible. Socialism serves as the medium for this stable transition. If socialism solved all the problems of the general populace itself, the people would find no more reason for further political development.

Profit from trade, and thus trade itself, is far more corrupt and is immediately solved by the lack of profit we see in the socialist phases. The only way you can make profit is by either paying your workers a lesser salary than you get from them in the form of products, or charging your products for a higher price than their use-value to the consumer. Either way, some common man is exploited. Competition does not solve this problem but merely shifts it. When prices are raised, this is out of the greed of the bourgeoisie trying to take as much from the consumers while giving them as little as possible, not because the value of the product was any better. The consumer has a net loss. However, when consumers go to rival companies, the companies will lower their prices. Competitive prices, however, only mean that the workers will have to work harder to attract the same amount of customers, and, thus, receive the same salaries from the boss. In this way, workers are exploited.

In fact, the profits accumulated by the boss may grow into a surplus (they produce faster than they can sell), leading to some workers being fired unfairly. This is bad enough, however, when this happens on a large scale, the boss will actually have less consumers, leading to further surplus, and again, more workers being fired. Eventually, the boss will lose workers, and globalize overseas, where the same thing will happen. The boss himself will eventually be ruined. This is the self-destructive flaw of the capitalist mode of production.

Communism, in it's purest form, is a relatively good system.

When you introduce humans, it gets screwed over.


pretty much ya. If you could just work our some of the kinks (like that eventual decrease in workloads) it would be a great system. I mean why should someone be paid more for sitting on their duff and thinking about things, then the person who does physical work all day long and gets paid less then half of what the first person does? It just doesn't make sense. Equal pay for equal work my friends!

Communism is a dead, flawed, failed, political system responsible for the slaughter of millions.

pretty much ya. If you could just work our some of the kinks (like that eventual decrease in workloads) it would be a great system. I mean why should someone be paid more for sitting on their duff and thinking about things, then the person who does physical work all day long and gets paid less then half of what the first person does? It just doesn't make sense. Equal pay for equal work my friends!

Your thinking is flawed: the person who sits around thinking on their duff is, in fact, working and is probably doing more good for our society than the person who does manual labor. The reason why the thinker is paid more is because our society values his contribution to creating a certain product is greater than he who does manual labor.

By the way, governments are supposed to control people, so you can't say a government is screwed up by the addition of people.

Communism is a dead, flawed, failed, political system responsible for the slaughter of millions.

Right on.

Freedom to do anything you wish comes with the expectation that nothing you do will have any unwanted, negative affect on other citizens.

The ownership of private property does, because people could use their wealth to, firstly, afford power. Even though the communal vanguards would prohibit the coercion of other citizens to obtain power and form a class system, it is still possible through bribery. If you have more money, even if you "deserve it", whatever that means, you can still use it to take power over your fellow worker. There is no concept of "deserve" in communism. Rather, people get as much as the system can offer them to the point where no one else is hurt by their accumulations. This point is called ownership of private property. The capitalist mode of distribution of private property simpky expands the inherent corruption in properties. The second reason is slightly more difficult for lifelong capitalists to accept, and that is simply that if someone has property, someone else *doesn't*. The worker has no opportunity (if nothing happens to the wealthy person) to use the resources, no matter how much they work for it. Again, this problem is only made worse in capitalism, but is in and of itself an inherent flaw in private property ownership. There is "state-property", which is distributed to civilians, and degrees of anti-theft laws in socialism, but this is because an immediate transition to communism would be impossible. Socialism serves as the medium for this stable transition. If socialism solved all the problems of the general populace itself, the people would find no more reason for further political development.

Profit from trade, and thus trade itself, is far more corrupt and is immediately solved by the lack of profit we see in the socialist phases. The only way you can make profit is by either paying your workers a lesser salary than you get from them in the form of products, or charging your products for a higher price than their use-value to the consumer. Either way, some common man is exploited. Competition does not solve this problem but merely shifts it. When prices are raised, this is out of the greed of the bourgeoisie trying to take as much from the consumers while giving them as little as possible, not because the value of the product was any better. The consumer has a net loss. However, when consumers go to rival companies, the companies will lower their prices. Competitive prices, however, only mean that the workers will have to work harder to attract the same amount of customers, and, thus, receive the same salaries from the boss. In this way, workers are exploited.

In fact, the profits accumulated by the boss may grow into a surplus (they produce faster than they can sell), leading to some workers being fired unfairly. This is bad enough, however, when this happens on a large scale, the boss will actually have less consumers, leading to further surplus, and again, more workers being fired. Eventually, the boss will lose workers, and globalize overseas, where the same thing will happen. The boss himself will eventually be ruined. This is the self-destructive flaw of the capitalist mode of production.

If capitalism is so self-destructive, why has it been working in America for so long?

Your thinking is flawed: the person who sits around thinking on their duff is, in fact, working and is probably doing more good for our society than the person who does manual labor. The reason why the thinker is paid more is because our society values his contribution to creating a certain product is greater than he who does manual labor.

By the way, governments are supposed to control people, so you can't say a government is screwed up by the addition of people.

Yeah, by his logic, Thomas Edison is less beneficial to society than Lenny, the guy who installed my shitter. After all, all Edison did was sit around and think, Lenny puts in 8-10 hours of tough labor everyday.

You people don't even know what Communism is. :rolleyes:

The Soviet Union, China and other countries were not Communist, nor Socialist, even Lenin himself wrote about the state of the Soviet Union. Antonio Gramsci, a brilliant Marxist theoritician recognized that the Soviet Union had turned into a state capitalist society, but it was still a good thing to support it anyway, just as the same reason of supporting the French Revolution, it was a progressive movement, it brought Russia out of backward despotism and rapidly industralized the nation by nationalising all possible flows of capital to the state to invest them directly back into the country. Which made Russia and China into the industrial titans that they are today.

The thing is, Socialism is not about nationalisation, its about socialization.

Yes, your argument makes sense because we can always create more land, more energy, and more resources. We will someday reach a point where we can create something out of nothing, have totally efficient energy creation and conduction, and live in infinitely tall and infinitely wide buildings.

In the future, scarcity as we know it will cease to exist!!!!

And Marxism, in its 125 years of existed has taken a beating. It has been destroyed by capitalism, and would have lost to fascism barring inept fascist leaders. How do you call that standing the test of time?

Strawman arguement, I'm talking about the means of production, not global reasources, who said Communism would be on one planet. You fail, as many others to understand the time frame Marx was thinking in.
And you making up shit as well that I never said. If you look at history, it has a lateral path, the further we progress, the faster we progress, our access to enegry (in units of horsepower) is increasing expotentionally, manual labor to slave labor, to regimated labor, steam engines, electricity, nuclear power.

Marxism can't be "destroyed", it is not an ideology, it is an analytical study of how history moves, and man in class society. So far, Marx's theory of history has corresponded to the history of the 20th century (Yes, Marx did talk about situations like the Soviet Union and China).

What was the Soviet Union and China? It was state capitalism, it followed the same path of capitalist nations, expect at a rapid pace. They re-invested state capital back into their own country to further development, then of course, when the revolution was "betrayed" is simply capitalism by nature must open more and more markets, both countries couldn't close theirselves off forever, economics demanded it.

Anyways, stop spewing out shit, you know nothing of Marxism.
As long as free men exist and there are places where a man is an individual and not a cog in the hive , Communism cant exist except in the minds of dreamers , or in places where it can be imposed by force .

Again, strawman arguement (its not even an arguement), the material conditions for Communism do not exist.


If capitalism is so self-destructive, why has it been working in America for so long?

I'm a Marxist, I am not motivated by ideology or have biases, I look at society objectively. I'm not on a left wing or the right wing, any real Marxist would say the same.

Capitalism was the next stage after Feudalism, and has become progressively less and less rational over time. Now IF YOU READ MY POST, you would have your answer. The material conditions have not progressed to a point where capitalism really begins to become a 'obsolete' system.

And to all the "Communists" there, Communism won't have full employment, it will abolish employment, we're talking about abolishing the division of labor when the material conditions to do so appears.

If capitalism is so self-destructive, why has it been working in America for so long?
It works because self-destruction is part of it's structure, for there to be rich people you need poor people, simple as. The states are a brilliant example today of how bad capitalism is, with George Bush exploiting the poor for all they can give him, cos in truth, he's just a business man who became president. And he doesn't give two shits about global warming or Iraq, cos by the time he's not a president, its another president's problem.

Communism, I find it ridiculous that people seem to hate it so much, everyone is equal in 'value', isn't that what we all want? Every life on this life is valuable but wasted due to capitalism and the consumerist new culture that seems to be taking over everyone. Capitalism is also a very selfish societal organisation, people are all the time relying on their money, and people are valued for how much money they have. In communism you won't have this material crap stopping you from living a good life.

I have never lived in a communist/far socialist country, but I can tell you that countries on the left wing are far happier people than those on the right.
Yeah yeah yeah Cuba is poor blah blah - why? Because the states (the money cow) is still blocking trade with them, and they have very little foreign support. No Castro is not keeping all the money, he caused a Revolution, not an Invasion.... *cough-CONTRA-cough*
Also I know that a lot of Cubans are proud of their political system, however I am aware that they have very little political freedom, and perhaps this brings down the reputation of communism and Castro, as people don't know that they are in the better way of life because Castro is censoring the right-wingness.

Strawman arguement, I'm talking about the means of production

And the means of production are space, labor, and resources which were the three things I mentioned. All of them will always be scarce, all of them will always have demand.

who said Communism would be on one planet.

Nobody, but do you know why Communism would spread to other planets? Demand for those means to production, and there will be perpetual demand until all resources are stripped from that planet.

You fail, as many others to understand the time frame Marx was thinking in.

No, I never once mentioned a time frame, there is no time frame that covers a point where there will not be scarcities of space and energy.

And you making up shit as well that I never said. If you look at history, it has a lateral path, the further we progress, the faster we progress, our access to enegry (in units of horsepower) is increasing expotentionally, manual labor to slave labor, to regimated labor, steam engines, electricity, nuclear power.

Oh, so you never said that there would be a point where there would be no demand for the means of production?

There is a point when the means of production are so advanced by automation and other technologies that supply and demand are meaningless, so what is the point of keeping property relations?

Labor will always be scarce, energy will always be scarce, therefore there will always be factors of supply and demand. As long as there is scarcity, there will be a struggle over the distribution of resources.

Marxism can't be "destroyed", it is not an ideology, it is an analytical study of how history moves, and man in class society. So far, Marx's theory of history has corresponded to the history of the 20th century (Yes, Marx did talk about situations like the Soviet Union and China).

So Marxism isn't an ideology? There are many in history who have died for the cause and would simply not believe you.

What was the Soviet Union and China? It was state capitalism, it followed the same path of capitalist nations, expect at a rapid pace. They re-invested state capital back into their own country to further development, then of course, when the revolution was "betrayed" is simply capitalism by nature must open more and more markets, both countries couldn't close theirselves off forever, economics demanded it.

Let me direct you to the definition of capitalism:

capitalism means an economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated

So as you can see, state capitalism is impossible. Government, being a public entity, cannot privately own the means of production. Since the government owns the means to production, there is public ownership of the means of production. That fits into some category of economic system... but what was it?

Nevertheless, you have shown successfully how capitalism defeated communism in their short time on Earth together.

By the way, I never mentioned China or the USSR, which certainly weren't communistic states, however they were founded upon communistic ideals, with marxist plans. The fact that they all turned into pseudo-communistic dictatorships, totalitarians that hid behind the nationalism that communism causes, is not a coincidence. It is communists like you who like to act like communism really had nothing to do with those travesties, so you invent a paradoxical phrase so you can blame it on capitalism and act like there is no blood on your hands.

Capitalism can claim the revolutions based on individualism in Britain, France, and the United States that ushered in a new era of freedom and liberalism, communists can claim the revolutions based on the collective in Russia, China, and Cuba.

Anyways, stop spewing out shit, you know nothing of Marxism.


Seems to be a rather nonsensical statement considering that you read one post that had nothing to do with the tenets and structures of marxism.

It works because self-destruction is part of it's structure, for there to be rich people you need poor people, simple as.

Even if this argument had any logical sense("Capitalism works because it is self-destructive" is a ridiculous statement, you never link why a wealth gap is self-destructive) your assumption is economically incorrect.

The states are a brilliant example today of how bad capitalism is, with George Bush exploiting the poor for all they can give him, cos in truth, he's just a business man who became president. And he doesn't give two shits about global warming or Iraq, cos by the time he's not a president, its another president's problem.

Thats what I like to see, not only is this also not a logical argument, but you blame George Bush on capitalism. (Enter a million communists who will say that George Bush is the result of capitalistic implementation, yet Castro, the Soviet Union, and People's Republic of China are not results of socialistic implementation.)

[QUOTE]Communism, I find it ridiculous that people seem to hate it so much, everyone is equal in 'value', isn't that what we all want? Every life on this life is valuable but wasted due to capitalism and the consumerist new culture that seems to be taking over everyone. Capitalism is also a very selfish societal organisation, people are all the time relying on their money, and people are valued for how much money they have. In communism you won't have this material crap stopping you from living a good life.[/QUTOE]

All live is not equal in 'value.' It is your government rendering of equality that so terrifies capitalists. Since a person's value to society cannot be artificially brought up, other members must be brought down.

And its this material crap that you are getting rid of that IS the good life.

I have never lived in a communist/far socialist country, but I can tell you that countries on the left wing are far happier people than those on the right.


So, how do you come to this conclusion? In the past 5 years, I've spent 18 weeks in Russia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, and Macedonia. I would NOT describe them as happier than the average person in the USA. Heck, I've read opinion pieces in english language papers from Russia describing their society as suffering from a national depression.

Although I must admit that there's a bunch of neurotics in the USA too and most of them hang-out on internet forum's spouting off unprovable facts:-)

Free to do everything except own property, profit from exchanges, use money or trade conventionally. Those are some pretty big exceptions to "anything you wish". Yes, even in utopian, no government communism this has to be true. It might not be enforced by government as such, but if those things happen, you're not living in a communist society.

Ugh. Okay, time to go *indepth*.

In Communism, you *can* own property, profit from exchanges, and trade, and infact it is not even looked down upon. Only under *Marxism* is this true. There is a type of Communism which uses a reciprocity system. You own your land, you work your land, you are free to do what you wish. However, you are *expected* to help you fellow community members, but are not *forced* to. However, if you don't, it decreases your chances of your community members helping you in the future. You are not *forced*, but if you don't, it will effect you.

Communism, in the Marxist sense, can only exist in a *perfect* world. However, there are others form, which do not inolve collectivism.

Also, under the form which does involve Collectivism(on the non-governmental type) the people usually join *voluntarily*. Thus, they are not oppressed.


So, how do you come to this conclusion? In the past 5 years, I've spent 18 weeks in Russia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, and Macedonia. I would NOT describe them as happier than the average person in the USA. Heck, I've read opinion pieces in english language papers from Russia describing their society as suffering from a national depression.

Although I must admit that there's a bunch of neurotics in the USA too and most of them hang-out on internet forum's spouting off unprovable facts:-)

First, the way he worded his statement, it is technically true. Take a look at countries from the far right here: Germany, Soviet Union, China, etc. The far Right is considered as being more or less "Fascist". "Communist"(Or other system relating to theoretical communism) would be on the far Left. The US on this system is fairly moderate. With his statement, it would be a fallacy to claim that US is a good example of the "right", as it is moreso the "middle". So, basically, you were trapped by the rhetorics of his statement.

Rakiya, Russia indeed is experiencing a huge depression. Ever stop to wonder why? Could it have been the dent in the economy that the socialist system caused? Not at all. In fact, the Soviet era, economically speaking, was the most productive time period for the country. Get this... China under Mao Tse-Tung was also extremely productive, economically speaking. Nowadays, after these countries have adopted capitalist economies, the workers are being undercompensated to the point where work will often not meet their basic necessities and they will not work. As of recently, 1/3 of all Russians live below the poverty level. This is only RECENTLY. It was the capitalist takeover of the socialist mode of production that ruined the countries' economies.

As for the brutality of the communistic regimes of the past, they are only so for reasons that modern-day communists can easily attribute to fundamental flaws in their ORIGINAL revolutions. These countries were not founded the way that Marx had intended. Marx criticized those who would encourage a socialist revolution when the working class was not yet enough mature to develop class consciousness and accept this revolution. Because of this, all of the revolutions had to be led by militant, minority-backed revolutionaries who found it necessary to crush dissent, since the workers had not matured to the point where they would understand the necessity in ending the capitalist system. This was, of course, horrible, and I know of no true communist who encourages undemocratic, one-party means of conducting politics. So, if we truly had countries that were founded on communist principles, we would not see the same situations unfold. These situations are a result of the corruption of the revolution that Marx himself had warned of--All of the atrocities are caused by anti-Marxism!

Since a person's value to society cannot be artificially brought up, other members must be brought down.

Tell me why a socialist system cannot exist whereby this is false, and everyone's quality of life is improved by the dynamic planning of the economy to maximize productivity, or to meet the needs of the workers through their wages and prevent unfair exploitation thereof by the rulers? You capitalists are so closed-minded, you follow this idea that whatever can go wrong in communism will, and any of the mistakes of the past cannot be consciously corrected and still stay true to communist principles, and yet you dismiss all of the flaws in your own system and claim the sheer strength of the system will nullify them.

And yes, President Bush has certainly encouraged capitalism in this country by promoting globalization (the iraq war was a huge gain for oil-companies and their investors, this money, of course, coming from the insufficient wages of the oil workers) and privatization of very delicate services, like social security.

Tell me why a socialist system cannot exist whereby this is false, and everyone's quality of life is improved by the dynamic planning of the economy to maximize productivity

First off, an economy that is centrally planned will be very inefficient and will not come close to maximizing productivity, but that isn't what I am talking about.

All inherent personal labor value is variable, be it due to intelligence, strength, charm, or simply willpower and dedication. This means that either of two things must occur:

1. The individual must be disallowed from expending his labor as he sees fit or in the quantity he wants to.

2. The individual will not be reimbursed for his labor.

or to meet the needs of the workers through their wages and prevent unfair exploitation thereof by the rulers?

By their rulers?

You capitalists are so closed-minded, you follow this idea that whatever can go wrong in communism will, and any of the mistakes of the past cannot be consciously corrected and still stay true to communist principles, and yet you dismiss all of the flaws in your own system and claim the sheer strength of the system will nullify them.

I would say Pot Kettle Black, if I weren't adverse to asinine generalizations and mischaracterizations.

You ignore the possibility of trade.

Since the possibility doesn't exist, I couldn't have ignored it. There is no reason for communists to trade, no profit to be made.

The Berlin Wall was an attempt to keep the people in the non-Communist U.S.S.R. Not sure what that has to do with this debate.

It was an attempt to deal with the practical problems of communism in East Germany.

Of course I can say there will be a priori agreement, why would people vote for the communist society if they didn't agree with it?

There is no reason to agree with it, you've certainly not posted a persuasive one.

I'm not saying that people will change.

I know that, however, for your idea to work, they will need to.

You're the one who is arguing that governments are corrupt and that that was the flaw in Marx's ideas. If this is true then laissez-faire is impossible, as the government will always seek to have more power than it has.

Not a logical conclusion. Marx argued for unlimited state power, a laissez-faire system will have to place huge checks and balances on government, and we can chose from a huge list of possible checks and balances.

I don't have to explain anything. Your question was with regard to the Manifesto, and I don't need to defend it except for a few parts of it.

You do have to explain why there is a practical basis for your idea that an entire community can take power collectively, which is an idea that Marx used. The arguments against both are the same, so the responses should be.

Only if allowed to.

But they will be allowed to. Look, even in little classroom groups for a team problem solving, some leader comes to the fore, and the group follows. It is natural.

No, individuals with resources decide how resources will be expended on the open market.

They have to sell, which means they have to persuade people to buy, which means that the people decide, they vote with their wallets.

Under your way, a majority will not be able to get what it wants if it doesn't meet the conditions of the minority (in this case the seller of an object). How is the majority getting its way less democratic than the minority getting its way?

The seller needs many things, and he must exchange what he has for what he wants.

Of course it did. The only reason an individual owns it is based upon the law. Remove that, and society is returned what naturally belongs to it.

Government enforcement of property rights does not translate to orignal government ownership.

The same group of people is both the supplier and the distributor of an object. Where is the middleman here?

The millions of uninvolved people who get a vote on whether I eat chicken or beef.

Note-I was not saying that Stalin wasn't communist because he killed communist, but he wasn't communist AND he killed Communists. His very actions towards gaining near-infinite power pretty much destroy an premonition that he was communist. Also, I was pointing out your flawed statement that implied that only Communists kill, which is quite wrong.

He was communist, however, he was a communist who understood communism and humanity. His actions and methods were an attempt to reconcile the two.

Not all socialists must kill or impose through terror or fear. Do not confuse Communism with Socialism, as the two are quite different, and not interchangeable. Same goes with Facsism and Socialism. Not to mention the fact that you seem to be missing every time I say it is that Communism is used in small, voluntary groups. It only "must" be imposed in the State form, which Communism cannot exist in, pretty much by definition. The system is good, just not as a government.

True, Fascists impose socialism through deception, the old old story of give up your liberty in exchange for security. Fascism is a form of socialism.

And that has to do with what I said how? Communist communities do exist. This is not "theoretical" statement, it is a statement of fact. Under the system of "economy" used in such Communist communities, if a person needs something, such as food, then others may give them food so as to ensure that these people remain comfortable. This is not a gift, however. It is something of a loan. The receiver is not usually required to give back, but usually does for social pressures. Nobody wants to be seen as a cheapskate. Not only that, but they give back in interest, so as to gain favorable views from the community. Thus is the economy of Communism. The system which is practiced today in small communities.

A barter economy? You do know why that no longer exists, right?

None of which are of any Communist doctrine.

You talk theory, I talk practice, and the killing fields etc are the practice.

However, these people do not elevate themselves to godlike status, and usually do not abuse their "power"(which is usually influential and not direct) as you see in State-Governments(see Stalin). Also, they do not view themselves as the "elites" who must be seperated from the common man(usually). They use their power to ensure that the community is stable, resolving conflicts and such. They do not govern(usually).

And this contests my point how, exactly? It doesn't. It underlines my point, and don't tell me they don't abuse their power without facts to back it up.

Perhaps I should have iterated more: The people at the "top" are not truly at the "top". They do not have infinite power over the community, and do believe they deserve such. They see themselves as equals among the community: Thus, the ideals of Communism are still intact.

They do have power, they do influence, and even directly command the group. Whether or not they see themselves as Men Of The People is irrelevant. The ideals of communism are not intact.

Don't go piece by piece, you must look at it as a whole.

It certainly is a hole!

And Communism has not *always* been posited as such.

Yes it has.

Democracy and Republics are a rather light form of Socialism.

No, they aren't. Democracy, and Republicanism are political ideas only, they do not speak to economy (except in the sense that both favour individual rights, and therefore property rights, aligning them towards capitalism)

Communism does work, it is proven to work in places like Israel in small communities where people trade skills and food.

Ye Olde Kibbutzim argument. The Kibbutzim were subsidised by the Israeli government (and by rich Jews before independence).

So communism does work in practice, but not on a national scale because of human greed.

Firstly, greed means wanting wealth that you aren't entitled too, which means you must make the argument that there is no entitlement for the wealthy being wealthy, so what is really meant by "greed" is simple self interest, and the interests of our families. Secondly, what is wrong with the peaceful persuit of material self-interest through voluntary transactions (capitalism)?

On a side note, do Marxists actually use deductive logic in economics, or do they just identify problems and start wondering "How did capitalism screw this up?" It seems the entire nature of the branch is to identify problems that exist in other economic systems, blame it on the other system, and assume communism will do away with the problem.

Damn, exactly the words I was looking for! Cheers man! I will take your point further, Marxists also take strengths of capitalism, and spin them into flaws (like over-production, and recessions)

Suppose the revolution never happens, and capitalism still survives paradoxically. There is a point when the means of production are so advanced by automation and other technologies that supply and demand are meaningless, so what is the point of keeping property relations?

This is why Star Trek is communist, however, your point would require the "repeal" of the laws of thermodynamics, and conservation of energy.

Its not a matter if Communism is good, its a matter that Communism is inevitable and coming. Marxism has stood the test of time.

His basic premise is rubbish! Several of the "flaws" he points to are actually strengths. His remarks on the nature of the various people (workers, professionals, capitalists) are nothing more than hackneyed hogwash of the sort that could only be produced by an ivory tower academic who had never worked a day in his life.

I had the same problem in "Communism Revisited".

Perhaps Chinese communists are afraid their people will read anti-communist posts :D

would have lost to fascism

In way, it did lose, and decisively so. Whatever one has to say for or against fascist regimes, they tend to come into power legally, and get and retain popular support from a broad spectrum of society. This, however, only shows that the fascists are better at packaging socialist economics than communists. They appeal to notions of folk community, of nation with ancient and noble history (even if it is made up!), and in economics, they don't threaten to take away the property of capitalists, they promise to uphold it, providing of course that the capitalists surrender their right to control their property.

The ownership of private property does

No, it doesn't. It does a great deal of good.

Profit from trade, and thus trade itself, is far more corrupt and is immediately solved by the lack of profit we see in the socialist phases. The only way you can make profit is by either paying your workers a lesser salary than you get from them in the form of products, or charging your products for a higher price than their use-value to the consumer.

Use-value? (at least you didn't say utils). Profit from trade is the reason it happens. The way you get profit is selling something you can convince people to buy,

The Soviet Union, China and other countries were not Communist, nor Socialist, even Lenin himself wrote about the state of the Soviet Union

Refuted, about 46 pages ago.

Soviet Union had turned into a state capitalist society

State-capitalism is the same as socialism, without the touchy-feely rhetoric. In my experience, the term "state capitalism" tends to be used as a swear word, and a convenient bin in which to dump the inevitable failures of socialism in order to rationalise a continuing devotion to a failed, disasterous system.

And you making up shit as well that I never said. If you look at history, it has a lateral path, the further we progress, the faster we progress, our access to enegry (in units of horsepower) is increasing expotentionally, manual labor to slave labor, to regimated labor, steam engines, electricity, nuclear power.

The no-math mentality. That we gain more access to energy (a process which happened in the marketplace) does not mean that we will gain access to unlimited energy. There's no logical progression from 1 to 2 to 3 to infinity.

The thing is, Socialism is not about nationalisation, its about socialization.

And if my aunt had a thingie, she'd be my uncle. Nationalisation, and socialisation is a distinctiong without a difference.

There is a type of Communism which uses a reciprocity system. You own your land, you work your land, you are free to do what you wish. However, you are *expected* to help you fellow community members, but are not *forced* to. However, if you don't, it decreases your chances of your community members helping you in the future. You are not *forced*, but if you don't, it will effect you.

That is not communism, that is capitalism! You merely changed a few words around ("trading" is replaced with "helping")

Rakiya, Russia indeed is experiencing a huge depression. Ever stop to wonder why? Could it have been the dent in the economy that the socialist system caused? Not at all. In fact, the Soviet era, economically speaking, was the most productive time period for the country.

Read this: http://www.cato.org/special/berlinwall/crane1982.html

The Soviet Union had bread lines, capitalist countries have 100 different varieties of bread.

Get this... China under Mao Tse-Tung was also extremely productive, economically speaking.

A sign of this productivity being ... tens of millions of people starving to death.

By that definition, Africa is the most productive, successful continent on Earth!

looks bad on paper and works even worse in practice?
Communism is absurd.
I agree with both statements. Nazism is worse though.

Yeah yeah yeah Cuba is poor blah blah - why? Because the states (the money cow) is still blocking trade with them, and they have very little foreign support.

I thought communism was the perfect system, and would provide the peoples' needs no matter what :rolleyes:

The US can trade with Cuba, as can every other country in the world. Of course the problem is that Cuba has (since Killer Kommie Kastro got in) nothing worth trading for.

No Castro is not keeping all the money, he caused a Revolution, not an Invasion.... *cough-CONTRA-cough*

KKK is a multi-billionaire, and the Contras weren't invaders, one can hardly invade one's own country, it is however interesting that you sympathise with a group guilty of genocide.

Also I know that a lot of Cubans are proud of their political system

Really?! They get locked up for criticising it, for ridiculous terms!

I am aware that they have very little political freedom, and perhaps this brings down the reputation of communism and Castro

KKK can't allow the Cuban people to have freedom, he would be held responsible for his 46 years of constant failure.

as people don't know that they are in the better way of life because Castro is censoring the right-wingness.

That makes no sense.


Why is it that when ever anyone criticises communism they either:


Get insulted, or
Have some absurd communist cliche thrown at them?

He was communist, however, he was a communist who understood communism and humanity. His actions and methods were an attempt to reconcile the two.



Wrong. He was not Communist. He likely understood Communism very well, but this does not make him Communist. You are mixing what he called himself and what he did. He was more closely *Fascist*. He used the "communist" guise to gain power, but almost everything that he had done was strictly *uncommunist*. I'm not talking "Theoretical" Communist(I.E. Utopian Marxism), I'm talking real-life Communism, which is FAR different than what he perpetrated.


True, Fascists impose socialism through deception, the old old story of give up your liberty in exchange for security. Fascism is a form of socialism.


For all your talk about actions, not words, you seem to ignore the fact that people such as Stalin performed acts of Fascism, not acts of "communism". Oh well... one can't be expected to remain consistent.


A barter economy? You do know why that no longer exists, right?

Huh. Interesting how you don't know the difference between a barter system and a reciprocity system. They are extremely different. Learn the difference, then come back.


You talk theory, I talk practice, and the killing fields etc are the practice.

However, there are Communist communities which don't practice such. Your assertion of this is flawed in the fact that you lumped such actions as being inherently communist, however fact proves you wrong. Communism does not require such- only when one tries to enforce this upon the masses. Which is not how Communism can work. It can work, but only by a voluntary community.


And this contests my point how, exactly? It doesn't. It underlines my point, and don't tell me they don't abuse their power without facts to back it up.

I didn't say they didn't abuse their power, however in such small groups it is difficult to greatly abuse your power and still remain as such. Also, it is quite hard to abuse influential power than it is to do so with absolute power.


They do have power, they do influence, and even directly command the group. Whether or not they see themselves as Men Of The People is irrelevant. The ideals of communism are not intact.

They don't see themselves as Men Of The People, as the term is abstract and meaningless, really. They see themselves as men of the community, a vital part to ensure the stability, as is *everyone* in said community. What I was saying is that their power is *usually* limited to that of what their position is meant for. Also, in such societies, there are as many positions to fill as there are people, and every position is important.


It certainly is a hole!


Poor play on words, and poor debating skills. Good for you.


Yes it has.

No. No it hasn't. Communism, according to Marx, has. However, there are *other* forms of communism. And not all want them to be world wide systems.


No, they aren't. Democracy, and Republicanism are political ideas only, they do not speak to economy (except in the sense that both favour individual rights, and therefore property rights, aligning them towards capitalism)


Socialism is social system in which the people control society. Democracy refers to a society controlled by the people. Republics to a lesser extent. Note I said *socialism* here, not *communism*. In basic, easy to understand terms. And communism(note the lower case "c") does not always refer to an economic system, but also a social system. Remember such.


Firstly, greed means wanting wealth that you aren't entitled too, which means you must make the argument that there is no entitlement for the wealthy being wealthy, so what is really meant by "greed" is simple self interest, and the interests of our families. Secondly, what is wrong with the peaceful persuit of material self-interest through voluntary transactions (capitalism)?


However, as past has shown, unregulated capitalism is not exactly *peaceful* or *voluntary*. Capitalism must be closely(closely, not strongly) regulated for it to be beneficial.


Damn, exactly the words I was looking for! Cheers man! I will take your point further, Marxists also take strengths of capitalism, and spin them into flaws (like over-production, and recessions)


Actually, overproduction IS a flaw in Capitalism. Ask an economist what happens when there is a surplus. Answer: It's not a good thing. You do not want to overproduce, you want to reach equilibrium, in which supply equals demand. If you produce a surplus, it is a waste and you lose money, if you produce a deficit it drives prices up, and is not good for teh consumer. Of course, this is a flaw in all Economics, but is quite evident in Capitalism due to people wanting to produce more product more efficiently.


This is why Star Trek is communist, however, your point would require the "repeal" of the laws of thermodynamics, and conservation of energy.

Damn, beat me to the punch on this one. I was going to say the exact same thing.


His basic premise is rubbish! Several of the "flaws" he points to are actually strengths. His remarks on the nature of the various people (workers, professionals, capitalists) are nothing more than hackneyed hogwash of the sort that could only be produced by an ivory tower academic who had never worked a day in his life.


Marx's basic premise wasn't rubbish, it was idealistic. A bit to much so to be applicable in real life. Many of the flaws were infact flaws, but this was so because many of the flaws are inherent in economics themselves(but some are more prevalent in Capitalism, such as over-production; which I assure you is not good). I must say, though, that the poster's assertion of "Marxism is inevitable" is rather naive.


Perhaps Chinese communists are afraid their people will read anti-communist posts :D

Okay...


No, it doesn't. It does a great deal of good.


Yes, yes it does. And not all forms of communism require to you give away your property.


State-capitalism is the same as socialism, without the touchy-feely rhetoric. In my experience, the term "state capitalism" tends to be used as a swear word, and a convenient bin in which to dump the inevitable failures of socialism in order to rationalise a continuing devotion to a failed, disasterous system.

Actually, there is no such thing as a State-Capitalism. There is a State run economy, but almost by definition there is no such thing as a State Capitalism. The closest thing to that would probably be a form of Fascism.


The no-math mentality. That we gain more access to energy (a process which happened in the marketplace) does not mean that we will gain access to unlimited energy. There's no logical progression from 1 to 2 to 3 to infinity.


To do such would defy the laws of physics.


That is not communism, that is capitalism! You merely changed a few words around ("trading" is replaced with "helping")

Learn the meaning of "reciprocity". No actual trading(I give you this for that) is involved. It is not capitalism, for the people are not seeking profit. Although, often times there is a "profit" of sorts, but is not directly sought after, nor is this bargaining involved. It is system of "I help you now, so that you can help me later". Reciprocity is not trade. Learn the difference. An amateur Anthropologist(who's field does involve the study of this) would easily tell you the difference, the same as an economist.


Read this: http://www.cato.org/special/berlinwall/crane1982.html

The Soviet Union had bread lines, capitalist countries have 100 different varieties of bread.

However, when you are trying to feed people, it'll cost more to make 100 different kinds of bread then just one. Not to mention waste involved in making the varieties which did not sell. This argument is double-edged. It can be seen as both good and bad.

Wrong. He was not Communist. He likely understood Communism very well, but this does not make him Communist. You are mixing what he called himself and what he did. He was more closely *Fascist*. He used the "communist" guise to gain power, but almost everything that he had done was strictly *uncommunist*. I'm not talking "Theoretical" Communist(I.E. Utopian Marxism), I'm talking real-life Communism, which is FAR different than what he perpetrated.

He did nothing Fascist. The only difference between a fascist and a practical communist is that the fascists leave the appearance of private ownership (they do however exercise all the real powers of ownership in terms of controlling the use and exchange of property)

That he used lots of force doesn't make him a fascist, it makes him a dictator who knew what communism needed in the real world.

For all your talk about actions, not words, you seem to ignore the fact that people such as Stalin performed acts of Fascism, not acts of "communism". Oh well... one can't be expected to remain consistent.

Rubbish. His use of terror was entirely a communist act, and is not inheriently fascist (unless you are using fascist as a general purpose, meaningless insult)

Huh. Interesting how you don't know the difference between a barter system and a reciprocity system. They are extremely different. Learn the difference, then come back.

Your explaination showed no real difference, merely a greater element of warm fuzzy feelings.

They don't see themselves as Men Of The People, as the term is abstract and meaningless, really. They see themselves as men of the community, a vital part to ensure the stability, as is *everyone* in said community. What I was saying is that their power is *usually* limited to that of what their position is meant for. Also, in such societies, there are as many positions to fill as there are people, and every position is important.

You still haven't produced one thing that would refute, or even contest my point. In representative democracies such as exist all over the Western world, there are limits on power, and the leaders have limited responsibilities which are spelled out.

As I said, irrelevant non-objection.

No. No it hasn't. Communism, according to Marx, has. However, there are *other* forms of communism. And not all want them to be world wide systems.

Rubbish, communists always go on about the inevitability of communism, nad its superiority to all other systems.

Socialism is social system in which the people control society.

No, that's democracy. Socialism is an economic system in which the state exercises control over all economic activity, either by stealing all property (communists), or telling people how to use their property with laws and regulations (fascists)

However, as past has shown, unregulated capitalism is not exactly *peaceful* or *voluntary*. Capitalism must be closely(closely, not strongly) regulated for it to be beneficial.

Regulation is principly a tool of big business (increasing regulatory burden tends to squeeze more marginal producers), and it was big business that called for it originally.

A free market is voluntary, regulation is not voluntary, nor is it peaceful (perhaps you would like to tell me how it is "peaceful" to have armed policemen storm your business for violating some trifling regulation which should never have been imposed in the first place)

In any case, your point is yet another irrelevant non-objection.

Actually, overproduction IS a flaw in Capitalism. Ask an economist what happens when there is a surplus. Answer: It's not a good thing. You do not want to overproduce, you want to reach equilibrium, in which supply equals demand. If you produce a surplus, it is a waste and you lose money, if you produce a deficit it drives prices up, and is not good for teh consumer. Of course, this is a flaw in all Economics, but is quite evident in Capitalism due to people wanting to produce more product more efficiently.

Overproduction means that there is choice for consumers, and extra if circumstances make it necessary. Trying to tailor production to the exact needs is impossible, as they are too complex for central planners to find out. This caused a failed harvest in the Soviet Unioin, and shortages throughout its existance.

Production is kept under control through a free market price system with supply and demand.

Marx's basic premise wasn't rubbish, it was idealistic.

His basic premise was that society was, and would move increasingly into two warring classes. He totally missed the rise of the middle class (already in motion at the time he wrote his rubbish), and failed to predict that workers in capitalist systems would become capitalists themselves. A brief look around a capitalist nation shows that he got it wrong, there are millions of workers who:


Own stock
Have investment properties
Have savings and/or insurance policies, which are invested


Actually, there is no such thing as a State-Capitalism. There is a State run economy, but almost by definition there is no such thing as a State Capitalism. The closest thing to that would probably be a form of Fascism.

Don't tell me there is no such thing as state-capitalism, tell the people who use the term as a convenient dumping rgound for the failures of communism.

A state-run economy is socialism, whether or not there is state ownership.

The difference between communism and fascism is that fascists have thought more about the concept of ownership. Communists took it to mean simply name on the deed, so to gain control of the economy, they had to steal all the property. Fascists came to the realisation that name on the deed was simply name on the deed. Ownership carries certain powers (like controlling how you use the property, or the right to exchange it, or to derive benefit from its use). and the Fascists realised that they could take these powers through government methods or regulation, legislation, and bureaucratisation, while leaving the name on the deed.

Learn the meaning of "reciprocity". No actual trading(I give you this for that) is involved. It is not capitalism, for the people are not seeking profit.

You mean people will give up their property, for no benefit whatsoever?

You're talking through your hat. It is barter, with more touchy-feely words.

It is system of "I help you now, so that you can help me later". Reciprocity is not trade. Learn the difference.

As I said, barter with people holding hands singing Kumbayah. There is no real difference.

An amateur Anthropologist(who's field does involve the study of this) would easily tell you the difference, the same as an economist.

Appeal to authority fallacy. Besides, your [very] amateur anthropoligist seems more interesting in romanticising the Noble Savage, than actually understanding their ways.

However, when you are trying to feed people, it'll cost more to make 100 different kinds of bread then just one. Not to mention waste involved in making the varieties which did not sell. This argument is double-edged. It can be seen as both good and bad.

It is not double-edged. I can always get bread when I need it, even on a Sunday evening (which is the worst time to buy bread), and there is enough for me to know that I can simply saunter in, and 7pm on a Sunday and be able to get bread. I know I don't have to queue for hours on end to get a sliced loaf. In the Soviet Union, they did have to queue. They queued because they knew that bread was in short supply, and if you didn't get in early, you went home breadless. Buying bread on a Sunday evening is definately not something you could do in a centrally planned economy.

You are arguing your theory against facts, and that's a losing formula. The fact is that under a capitalist system, with many bakers providing many more varieties in competition, keeps bread on the table at good prices, and with a good selection for every taste. Central planning, which does avoid overproduction, brings only constant shortages.

(And frankly, over-production is better than under-production, and your pointing to over-production twice, without considering the inevitable shortages of any socialist system, is simply poor debating, an example of the perfect solution fallacy)

Total employment in a free market would be a situation where aggregate labor demand met equilibrium at the whole of the labor force. Consumer demand for goods and services would be great enough that the all available labor would be needed to produce it.

This means that, at full employment, real wages would not be able to rise, as an increase in wages would cause either a drop in employment (the consumer base would not be willing to support a rise in the cost of goods, so there would be a lower demand for labor), or a rise in the cost of goods which would raise the CPI.

So wage increases would not be supported when there is full employment.In order for this to happen the economy would be neither growing nor shrinking. To my knowledge this is impossible. Has this ever happened, and for how long did it last?

1. Employing everyone does not solve the unemployment problem, it just forces up the CPI and lowers purchasing power for everyone.This would only be the case if the individual employed consumed more than he produced.

2. The idea that the labor supply will match labor demand without economic pressure is naive, and you know it. You know that the people cannot just decide what jobs they want and don't want to do.No, people can't decide what jobs they want to do, society will have to have some say in it. But society would (I'd assume) do everything in its power to ensure that people have both a job that they like and that they're good at. If an individual seems to have both the desire and the capacity to be a doctor, and society has a need for another doctor, then society will train that individual to be a doctor. While there will be some adapting to the system, the system would also adapt to the individual.
This simply isn't the case with capitalism - the individual must do all of the adapting. (Except for marketing execs and the like, who have the power to create demands...but that's a whole other topic.)

In my recent shift towards anarchism, I have come to respect some communistic ideals, but the naivety with which communists approach labor issues is astounding and always confirms my belief that communism is not practical.I disagree that I am being naive. I believe that the economic incentive with regard to employment is overstated. As Kropotkin put it: "Work is not repulsive to human nature, overwork is."

(Incidentally, I created a couple of threads on this topic, but they were poorly received, unfortunately. I should have added more buzzwords in the thread titles.)

Since the possibility doesn't exist, I couldn't have ignored it. There is no reason for communists to trade, no profit to be made.But there are reasons for communist societies to trade.

It was an attempt to deal with the practical problems of communism in East Germany.There wasn't communism in East Germany.

There is no reason to agree with it, you've certainly not posted a persuasive one.

I know that, however, for your idea to work, they will need to.You don't actually think I'm the only communist in the world, do you?

Not a logical conclusion. Marx argued for unlimited state power, a laissez-faire system will have to place huge checks and balances on government, and we can chose from a huge list of possible checks and balances.There can never be enough checks and balances. That's the point.

You do have to explain why there is a practical basis for your idea that an entire community can take power collectively, which is an idea that Marx used. The arguments against both are the same, so the responses should be.The arguments aren't the same. Marx forgot an important step - democracy. He believed that communism could work without democracy. It can't.
Therefore, the community would take power collectively by voting for the system that they want.

But they will be allowed to. Look, even in little classroom groups for a team problem solving, some leader comes to the fore, and the group follows. It is natural.And what happens when two "leaders" clash over an idea? They have to persuade the other that their idea is right.

They have to sell, which means they have to persuade people to buy, which means that the people decide, they vote with their wallets.

The seller needs many things, and he must exchange what he has for what he wants.Not at all, the seller doesn't have to sell. He could choose to maximize the utility of the product that he has if he doesn't think he's getting enough money for it.
Money, on the other hand, only has a use when exchanged for something else. The person with money must exchange it in order to get any use out of it.

Government enforcement of property rights does not translate to orignal government ownership.No, but individual ownership of property rights comes from government enforcement of property rights. Laws were passed saying that individuals could own private property. The problem with this is that laws are meant to protect rights, not create them, and the latter is what happened in this case.

The millions of uninvolved people who get a vote on whether I eat chicken or beef.Hm. I'd be willing to bet that if you started to raise cattle in your yard, your neighbors would complain about the smell, right?

But there are reasons for communist societies to trade.

No, there aren't. There's no economic incentive.

There wasn't communism in East Germany.

I have already made the point that theoretical communism is irrelevant, East Germany had practical communism.

There can never be enough checks and balances. That's the point.

That is not the point, that is a logical fallacy.

The arguments aren't the same. Marx forgot an important step - democracy. He believed that communism could work without democracy. It can't.
Therefore, the community would take power collectively by voting for the system that they want.

I don't see that a difference exists. Communism can't work with democracy, it will fail, and if there's democracy, there are means for holding to account the leaders who failed.

And what happens when two "leaders" clash over an idea? They have to persuade the other that their idea is right.

Are you trying to tell me that an argument, or a power struggle supports your theory?

Not at all, the seller doesn't have to sell. He could choose to maximize the utility of the product that he has if he doesn't think he's getting enough money for it.

You mean that someone in the paper trade doesn't have to sell paper in order to buy the food he likes? Perhaps he will eat the paper? If he doesn't think he's getting enough money, he can try to economise, or raise his prices. Or find something else to do.

Money, on the other hand, only has a use when exchanged for something else. The person with money must exchange it in order to get any use out of it.

What has that to do with anything. You've actually showed why money is good, it makes things a lot easier.

No, but individual ownership of property rights comes from government enforcement of property rights.

No, they don't. They are backed by government, government being an institution to protect liberties, not dole them out.

Laws were passed saying that individuals could own private property.

No, they weren't. Laws were passed saying that an individual's right (pre-existing) to own property couldn't be infringed by either state, or other individuals. It is a different thing entirely.

The problem with this is that laws are meant to protect rights, not create them, and the latter is what happened in this case.

That is not the problem, and passing the laws did not create the rights. The 5th Ammendment of the US Constitution does not say "You have the right to property", it says "No person shall ... be deprived of ... property ... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

You do see the negative tone of not infringing rights, rather than the postiive tone of granting them. It was an act of recognition.

No, people can't decide what jobs they want to do, society will have to have some say in it. But society would (I'd assume) do everything in its power to ensure that people have both a job that they like and that they're good at. If an individual seems to have both the desire and the capacity to be a doctor, and society has a need for another doctor, then society will train that individual to be a doctor. While there will be some adapting to the system, the system would also adapt to the individual.

What right has the individual to force everyone to adapt to him, in order for him to do business?

As Kropotkin put it: "Work is not repulsive to human nature, overwork is."

Define "work" and "overwork". You see, an animal will exert himself only to the extent of his survival, and reproduction. A hungry lion won't expend energy to kill 10 antelope because he only needs one. There must be a reason for an organism to do more work, in humans the reasons tend to be either inward (altruism, or fun) in a few cases for specific types of work, and outward (economic in the main) in the vast majority of cases. Kropotkin is actually agreeing with Vittos Ordination.

Ah great a poll. Worse than Nazism yep that was me. I'll qualify. Nazism is a terribly bad idea that is so reviled I doubt anyone will ever get the chancce to try it again. Communism is almost as bad and still not so reviled that people don't still think we should give it another shot. Case in point look around these forums. "How many times do you see people saying But if we tried real Nazism not the twisted version Hitler used!' Nope I don't see it eather.
You mean if people tried real socialism, not "nazism", and real socialism does work (when not by a sadistic dictator).

No, there aren't. There's no economic incentive.Of course there is. Another country would have something that the communist society would want.

I have already made the point that theoretical communism is irrelevant, East Germany had practical communism.Your point would only be valid if East Germany were moving towards communism as opposed to away from it.

That is not the point, that is a logical fallacy.Not at all. No government can ever be trusted. The only effective "check and balance" that can be put onto a government is to eliminate it entirely.

I don't see that a difference exists. Communism can't work with democracy, it will fail, and if there's democracy, there are means for holding to account the leaders who failed.Communism requires democracy. And once again, I never said anything about leaders.

Are you trying to tell me that an argument, or a power struggle supports your theory?My theory doesn't require that everyone hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

You mean that someone in the paper trade doesn't have to sell paper in order to buy the food he likes? Perhaps he will eat the paper? If he doesn't think he's getting enough money, he can try to economise, or raise his prices. Or find something else to do.Someone in the paper trade could burn it for fuel, or make it thick and use it for shelter, or do other things with it to use its utility if he doesn't feel he's getting enough money for it.
Money, once again, has no use unless exchanged for something.

What has that to do with anything. You've actually showed why money is good, it makes things a lot easier.It means that the very nature of buying and selling puts more power into the hands of the seller than the buyer.

No, they don't. They are backed by government, government being an institution to protect liberties, not dole them out.In this case, the government did dole them out.

No, they weren't. Laws were passed saying that an individual's right (pre-existing) to own property couldn't be infringed by either state, or other individuals. It is a different thing entirely.Rights need to have a basis. Upon what basis is there the right to own property?

That is not the problem, and passing the laws did not create the rights. The 5th Ammendment of the US Constitution does not say "You have the right to property", it says "No person shall ... be deprived of ... property ... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

You do see the negative tone of not infringing rights, rather than the postiive tone of granting them. It was an act of recognition.Certainly. Property rights based upon use already existed. The government, however, expanded the definition to include property you don't use, or use indirectly.

What right has the individual to force everyone to adapt to him, in order for him to do business?Society is a utility used by individuals to further their own goals. That's the purpose of society. The society that I propose is meant to be adaptable in order to better further an individual's goals.
Certainly, there can be societies which don't adapt to the individual, but those societies will also fulfill fewer of that individual's goals.

Define "work" and "overwork". You see, an animal will exert himself only to the extent of his survival, and reproduction. A hungry lion won't expend energy to kill 10 antelope because he only needs one. If the hungry lion can be manipulated into expending enough energy to kill one antelope that he would ordinarily use to kill 10, he will.

In order for this to happen the economy would be neither growing nor shrinking. To my knowledge this is impossible. Has this ever happened, and for how long did it last?

It could occur within a growing or shrinking economy (probably not in a depression, though). Although within a growing economy, there would be a stickiness to labor where the labor needed would not be filled. But theoretically either the labor force could be growing, supporting the growth, or the labor force could be more productive.

This would only be the case if the individual employed consumed more than he produced.

Yes, which is what I assumed.

No, people can't decide what jobs they want to do, society will have to have some say in it. But society would (I'd assume) do everything in its power to ensure that people have both a job that they like and that they're good at. If an individual seems to have both the desire and the capacity to be a doctor, and society has a need for another doctor, then society will train that individual to be a doctor. While there will be some adapting to the system, the system would also adapt to the individual.
This simply isn't the case with capitalism - the individual must do all of the adapting. (Except for marketing execs and the like, who have the power to create demands...but that's a whole other topic.)

I don't see how the system can adapt, and I don't see how it is beneficial.

I disagree that I am being naive. I believe that the economic incentive with regard to employment is overstated. As Kropotkin put it: "Work is not repulsive to human nature, overwork is."

I've seen that qouote many times and it doesn't fly with me. Overwork is subjective, so it is easy to say that people just don't want to be overworked, because there is no definition of overworked. I would say that the level of overworking is relative to the amount of benefit one recieves from said labor. This means that receiving wages according to one's need would cause people to only work enough to pay for what that need is.

And I am not talking about whether people will work or not, I am talking about specialisation and labor distribution.

He did nothing Fascist. The only difference between a fascist and a practical communist is that the fascists leave the appearance of private ownership (they do however exercise all the real powers of ownership in terms of controlling the use and exchange of property)

Oh, so the only difference between a Fascist and Stalin is that fascists have control, but they make it seem that they don't. Gotchya. Huge difference, I suppose.


That he used lots of force doesn't make him a fascist, it makes him a dictator who knew what communism needed in the real world.

However, the fact that he had absolute control, and his actions as a leader were more so aligned with *fascism*. He wanted *power*. He *used* the idea of communism to *gain* power.


Rubbish. His use of terror was entirely a communist act, and is not inheriently fascist (unless you are using fascist as a general purpose, meaningless insult)

Huh, I don't recall saying that terror is inherently fascists. I was referring to his governmental policies. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. And fascism isn't an insult.

[guote]
Your explaination showed no real difference, merely a greater element of warm fuzzy feelings.
[/quote]

Alright, I explained it poorly, but if you want to know:

In reciprocity, everybody works(at doing what they wish, not what they are told to do). Usually, people are farmers, and usually the goal is *sustinence* farming. However, as the world works, sometimes a person would get a bad crop, or their "job" isn't providing. Thus, members of the community help said person by "gifting" them food and supplies and what not, not necessarily for the survival of the individual, but for the community as a whole. There is no system of "I give you A if you give me B" involved. Now, the person whom was "gifted" is *expected* to somehow return the "gift", as not doing such would created disfavor in the community, and thus lowers your chances of being helped in the future. Also, one would tend to give back more than what one received, so as to gain favor with community members. Thus is Reciprocity. Of course, there is bartering, but it is not predominent, and it is *rarely* done as a form of sustinence.


You still haven't produced one thing that would refute, or even contest my point. In representative democracies such as exist all over the Western world, there are limits on power, and the leaders have limited responsibilities which are spelled out.

As I said, irrelevant non-objection.

No, no it's not. You seem to be dead set that a Socialist society cannot be "democratic", which it most assuredly can.


Rubbish, communists always go on about the inevitability of communism, nad its superiority to all other systems.


Uh, no. You are referring to "Communism" as in the governmental control system. I am referring to "communism" as in the social structure that is used by small communities to ensure the survival of said communities. These communist are communists not because they say they are, but because their actions are similar to communism. Infact, many such groups probably have no heard of "Communism" due to isolation. To reiterate: They are communist because of how their structure works.


Regulation is principly a tool of big business (increasing regulatory burden tends to squeeze more marginal producers), and it was big business that called for it originally.

Regulation also destroys monopolies(whom in the past ten to use browbeat methods to take out competitors), alows for safe workplaces, and gets workers fair pay. Laissez-faire is inherently flawed and does not work as intended.


A free market is voluntary, regulation is not voluntary, nor is it peaceful (perhaps you would like to tell me how it is "peaceful" to have armed policemen storm your business for violating some trifling regulation which should never have been imposed in the first place)

Yeah, a free market is, especially when monopolies tend to use thugs to break down competitors and you work 80 hours a week just to feed your family, in conditions which would horrify even the most "Libertarian" of libertarians. Not to mention that you tend to use the extreme examples of everything, ignoring the fact that there are varying degrees.


In any case, your point is yet another irrelevant non-objection.


No, no it wasn't. My point was the fact that you are using an extremely one-sided viewpoint, and seeing all the flaws of one system, and ignoring the flaws of the system which suits you.


Overproduction means that there is choice for consumers, and extra if circumstances make it necessary. Trying to tailor production to the exact needs is impossible, as they are too complex for central planners to find out. This caused a failed harvest in the Soviet Unioin, and shortages throughout its existance.

No, overproduction means waste. And overproduction does not equal choice. There is a huge difference between overproduction and competition. Producers would rather underproduce than overproduce. I however did not say that equilibrium can be reached, however it is *strived* for by any business. Also, I pointed out the fact that your idea of "overproduction is good" is quite false, as it creates *waste*, cutting into a companies profits.

If you overproduce, that means that your product does not sell(market saturation). If your product does not sell, you lose profit.

Underproduction is better than overproduction in Consumer economies.


Production is kept under control through a free market price system with supply and demand.


Yes, but that doesn't mean the entire system is kept under control, only the actual trading. Regulation must be inplace so that smaller competitors are able to get their product out, and to ensure that fair trade is intact.


His basic premise was that society was, and would move increasingly into two warring classes. He totally missed the rise of the middle class (already in motion at the time he wrote his rubbish), and failed to predict that workers in capitalist systems would become capitalists themselves. A brief look around a capitalist nation shows that he got it wrong, there are millions of workers who:


Own stock
Have investment properties
Have savings and/or insurance policies, which are invested



No objection here. His ideas were idealistic, and only worked in his "perfect" world.


Don't tell me there is no such thing as state-capitalism, tell the people who use the term as a convenient dumping rgound for the failures of communism.

Exactly. Communism cannot exist in the governmental form, for one, due to it's nature as being non-governmental, and two due to conflicts of people(which is not a flaw of people). Communism, however, can exist as a social structure of small groups of either isolated and/or voluntary groups.


The difference between communism and fascism is that fascists have thought more about the concept of ownership. Communists took it to mean simply name on the deed, so to gain control of the economy, they had to steal all the property. Fascists came to the realisation that name on the deed was simply name on the deed. Ownership carries certain powers (like controlling how you use the property, or the right to exchange it, or to derive benefit from its use). and the Fascists realised that they could take these powers through government methods or regulation, legislation, and bureaucratisation, while leaving the name on the deed.


Referring to Marxist Communism, yes. Referring to social communism(a very different thing), not so. There is a difference.


You mean people will give up their property, for no benefit whatsoever?


Oh, there is a benefit, and it all involved planning for the future. They recognize that in the future, they may have problems also, so that by doing such people gain favor, increasing the odds of getting food and what not in the future if they need it. Also, the receiver is *expected* to pay the other person back sometime in the future somehow. They don't give their property away for no reason.


You're talking through your hat. It is barter, with more touchy-feely words.

No, not it's not. There is no "I give you A if you give me B".


As I said, barter with people holding hands singing Kumbayah. There is no real difference.

It is not bartering.


Appeal to authority fallacy. Besides, your [very] amateur anthropoligist seems more interesting in romanticising the Noble Savage, than actually understanding their ways.


Uh, no. There is no "romantacizing" here. There is a huge difference between reciprocity and barter. It is apparent that you can not "understand" their ways, as you cannot see the difference, or refuse to see the difference. Anthropologists could tell you the difference, because the system of reciprocity is very evident in human past, and one would know this if they actually understood the ways of human past.


It is not double-edged. I can always get bread when I need it, even on a Sunday evening (which is the worst time to buy bread), and there is enough for me to know that I can simply saunter in, and 7pm on a Sunday and be able to get bread. I know I don't have to queue for hours on end to get a sliced loaf. In the Soviet Union, they did have to queue. They queued because they knew that bread was in short supply, and if you didn't get in early, you went home breadless. Buying bread on a Sunday evening is definately not something you could do in a centrally planned economy.

However, in terms of labor, there is always a short of "Demand" for labor than their is for supply. Not everybody can succeed, as there is not infinite demand. Thus, not all people can afford said bread. In communism(The social structure, not the Governmental form), you produce your own bread, and you tend to give the excess to those who may need it. Other people produce other types of breads, and they help you as well if you need it.


You are arguing your theory against facts, and that's a losing formula. The fact is that under a capitalist system, with many bakers providing many more varieties in competition, keeps bread on the table at good prices, and with a good selection for every taste. Central planning, which does avoid overproduction, brings only constant shortages.

No, I'm arguing with what anybody who knows anything about what they are talking about would tell you. Under a capitalist system, a truly 100% capitalist system, it is very difficult to keep bread at the table, as the average man can barely make enough to make ends meet, and cannot afford any selection at all. There MUST be regulation. Now, I am not saying that there must be Central Planning, or that it is a good thing either. You tend to put words in my mouth which I specifically spoke against(I do not advocate government Communism, for the last bloody time). Your debating skills are poor because you use a one-side point of view, considering only the facts that help your argument, while ignoring others, do not actually read what I have posted, and frankly put words in my mouth which I specifically spoke against.


(And frankly, over-production is better than under-production, and your pointing to over-production twice, without considering the inevitable shortages of any socialist system, is simply poor debating, an example of the perfect solution fallacy)

Depends on who's point of view you are take here. The producers: Underproduction. Comsumer: Overproduction.

Underproduction drives prices up, and is relatively waste-less. Overproduction drives prices down, and causes a good deal of waste.

And your way of presenting only shortages of any socialist system without considering the goods is poor debating. I'm very well considering the shortages. You should read my post more closely. You, on the other hand, are considering only the shortages.

It could occur within a growing or shrinking economy (probably not in a depression, though). Although within a growing economy, there would be a stickiness to labor where the labor needed would not be filled. But theoretically either the labor force could be growing, supporting the growth, or the labor force could be more productive.But if there is a demand for labor, wouldn't the price of labor go up?

Yes, which is what I assumed.Okay, fair enough. This may or may not be the case. I would assume that people could produce more than they can consume, but of course I can't prove it.

I don't see how the system can adapt, and I don't see how it is beneficial.You don't see the benefit of being able to do whatever it is that you want to do with your life? I suppose if you already are, you wouldn't need a system like I propose. Most of us, unfortunately, do not have the option in the current system.

I've seen that qouote many times and it doesn't fly with me. Overwork is subjective, so it is easy to say that people just don't want to be overworked, because there is no definition of overworked. I would say that the level of overworking is relative to the amount of benefit one recieves from said labor. This means that receiving wages according to one's need would cause people to only work enough to pay for what that need is.I would agree, if need also implies a certain amount of fulfilled wants (in a material sense). I don't believe that the running of society would use up too many extra resources, and so the other resources would go back to the people, either to fulfill their immediate needs, to invest in society, or to trade for what society wants. (The goal is to be as self-sufficient as possible, but isolation isn't necessary.)

And I am not talking about whether people will work or not, I am talking about specialisation and labor distribution.I would think that if society has a need for specialization, then people will either do it themselves or convince others to do so. If no one can be convinced to do something, then nobody must think it's important enough.

But if there is a demand for labor, wouldn't the price of labor go up?

Of course, but I was assuming that growth must come from the labor end. If we have full employment, the only way the economy can grow is if the labor force increases, be it through education or population increase.

Okay, fair enough. This may or may not be the case. I would assume that people could produce more than they can consume, but of course I can't prove it.

It is entirely possible, but it wouldn't last long, as the producers would stop producing the extra portion. This means that there would be layoffs or decreased wages.

You don't see the benefit of being able to do whatever it is that you want to do with your life? I suppose if you already are, you wouldn't need a system like I propose. Most of us, unfortunately, do not have the option in the current system.

I don't see that happening in any system. Even when we assume that shit jobs are shared by everyone, the lack of specialization would cause twice as much time to be put into those jobs compared to a capitalist system. This means that, even though people will be able to choose the work they do, people will have to work much harder for self-sustinence than they do now.

I would agree, if need also implies a certain amount of fulfilled wants (in a material sense). I don't believe that the running of society would use up too many extra resources, and so the other resources would go back to the people, either to fulfill their immediate needs, to invest in society, or to trade for what society wants. (The goal is to be as self-sufficient as possible, but isolation isn't necessary.)

I would say that the running of society would have as much overhead as the businesses do in a capitalist society because I do feel that the profits that companies recieve are near the amount needed to keep them in existance.

I would think that if society has a need for specialization, then people will either do it themselves or convince others to do so. If no one can be convinced to do something, then nobody must think it's important enough.

How can someone convince others to do jobs that they don't want to do? I thought that was the central problem with capitalism, that people can get others to do work that they don't want to do?

Oh, so the only difference between a Fascist and Stalin is that fascists have control, but they make it seem that they don't. Gotchya. Huge difference, I suppose.

The fascists had economic control without ownership.

However, the fact that he had absolute control, and his actions as a leader were more so aligned with *fascism*. He wanted *power*. He *used* the idea of communism to *gain* power.

Equating fascism with a love of power shows the superficiality of your arguments and knowledge.

Huh, I don't recall saying that terror is inherently fascists. I was referring to his governmental policies. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. And fascism isn't an insult.

Collectivisation is hardly fascist (in fact, fascists tend to protect farm ownership, part of the folk community balderdash).

In reciprocity, everybody works(at doing what they wish, not what they are told to do). Usually, people are farmers, and usually the goal is *sustinence* farming. However, as the world works, sometimes a person would get a bad crop, or their "job" isn't providing. Thus, members of the community help said person by "gifting" them food and supplies and what not, not necessarily for the survival of the individual, but for the community as a whole. There is no system of "I give you A if you give me B" involved. Now, the person whom was "gifted" is *expected* to somehow return the "gift", as not doing such would created disfavor in the community, and thus lowers your chances of being helped in the future. Also, one would tend to give back more than what one received, so as to gain favor with community members. Thus is Reciprocity. Of course, there is bartering, but it is not predominent, and it is *rarely* done as a form of sustinence.

It has the essential features, and inefficiencies of barter, with none of the incentives.

You seem to be dead set that a Socialist society cannot be "democratic", which it most assuredly can.

It can be started that way, it cannot that way, it must either lose the democracy, or the socialism. Why? Because socialists assume a great responsibility, and utterly fail because of the economic problems with socialism. So, they must lose democracy to keep socialism, or keep democracy, and the socialists get voted out, thereby losing the socialism.

Regulation also destroys monopolies(whom in the past ten to use browbeat methods to take out competitors),

Actually, regulation has created monopolies, and oligopolies.

alows for safe workplaces, and gets workers fair pay.

Which is better donw with simple contract, and enforcement thereof, rather than creating a massive bureaucracy.

Laissez-faire is inherently flawed and does not work as intended.

Its main failure is government not enforcing contract.

Yeah, a free market is, especially when monopolies tend to use thugs to break down competitors and you work 80 hours a week just to feed your family, in conditions which would horrify even the most "Libertarian" of libertarians. Not to mention that you tend to use the extreme examples of everything, ignoring the fact that there are varying degrees.

What makes you think that is "free-market"?

No, no it wasn't. My point was the fact that you are using an extremely one-sided viewpoint, and seeing all the flaws of one system, and ignoring the flaws of the system which suits you.

It is an irrelevant non-objection. It doesn't even contest my point, let alone disprove it.

No, overproduction means waste. And overproduction does not equal choice. There is a huge difference between overproduction and competition.

Operproduction is a part of competition., and in terms of waste, how could you aviod it, while fulfilling the needs of the people?

Central planning won't help, it always produces shortages. Your "recripocity" system removes a lot of incentives, and reduces us to sustenance levels anyway.

If you overproduce, that means that your product does not sell(market saturation). If your product does not sell, you lose profit.

It simply means your price goes down.

Yes, but that doesn't mean the entire system is kept under control, only the actual trading. Regulation must be inplace so that smaller competitors are able to get their product out, and to ensure that fair trade is intact.

The whole point is that the system doesn't have to be under control. Small competitors get pushed out by regulation because it will reduce their profitability.

Oh, there is a benefit, and it all involved planning for the future.

Central planning being so successful :rolleyes:

You haven't described a benefit.

They recognize that in the future, they may have problems also, so that by doing such people gain favor, increasing the odds of getting food and what not in the future if they need it. Also, the receiver is *expected* to pay the other person back sometime in the future somehow. They don't give their property away for no reason.

They'd be better off in a market system.

However, in terms of labor, there is always a short of "Demand" for labor than their is for supply.

No, there isn't. Labour shortages do happen.

communism(The social structure, not the Governmental form), you produce your own bread, and you tend to give the excess to those who may need it. Other people produce other types of breads, and they help you as well if you need it.


You mean, no rational division of labour. How is that a better system than capitalism?

That won't work, for the simple reason that not everyone knows how to make everything they need, those with the specific talents cannot realise them because they are building their own mud hut, and growing their own crops.

Under a capitalist system, a truly 100% capitalist system, it is very difficult to keep bread at the table, as the average man can barely make enough to make ends meet, and cannot afford any selection at all.

You aren't talking about real capitalism, only Marx's caraciture of it. Your point is disproven by the fact that I make more than other people. My boss could (in your theory) decide to pay me almost nothing, but he doesn't, he pays me a competative rate. Regulations can't be what forces him to do that, as I get well above the minimum wage. It is competition, my skills are in demand, they therefore command higher fees.

Underproduction drives prices up, and is relatively waste-less. Overproduction drives prices down, and causes a good deal of waste.

And your way of presenting only shortages of any socialist system without considering the goods is poor debating. I'm very well considering the shortages. You should read my post more closely. You, on the other hand, are considering only the shortages.

We don't need to consider the waste, producers do consider it, and try to keep their production at the right level. Shortages create economic chaos, especially if the government intervenes.

Your point would only be valid if East Germany were moving towards communism as opposed to away from it.

Commie revisionism does not an argument make. They were moving towards communism.

Not at all. No government can ever be trusted. The only effective "check and balance" that can be put onto a government is to eliminate it entirely.

Have you ever heard of the "perfect solution fallacy". It is argument which you, and other communist apologists have used constantly. It basically entails you saying that my solution isn't perfect, it is therefore wrong.

Someone in the paper trade could burn it for fuel, or make it thick and use it for shelter, or do other things with it to use its utility if he doesn't feel he's getting enough money for it.

Paper for shelter? You're talking through your hat. The paper seller has to adapt to the market, which means adapting to the customers.

It means that the very nature of buying and selling puts more power into the hands of the seller than the buyer.

Buyers can fire everyone in a company, and utterly ruin the place by simply deciding to spend money elsewhere. They can force firms out of business. Sellers can't force buyers in.

In this case, the government did dole them out.

No, they didn't. If they had, they'd have said "You are allowed to own stuff", not "Your right to stuff won't be infringed"

Certainly. Property rights based upon use already existed. The government, however, expanded the definition to include property you don't use, or use indirectly.

Now you're definately talking through your hat. Property rights have nothing to do with use. They have everything to do with ownership of your own body, and therefore the fruits of your labour, and therefore that which you get in exchange for it.

Society is a utility used by individuals to further their own goals. That's the purpose of society. The society that I propose is meant to be adaptable in order to better further an individual's goals.
Certainly, there can be societies which don't adapt to the individual, but those societies will also fulfill fewer of that individual's goals.

You haven't understood the question. What right has the individual to impose positive obligations on others. (Positive obligation means "You will do this", negative means "You will not do this", or "you will not infringe")

If the hungry lion can be manipulated into expending enough energy to kill one antelope that he would ordinarily use to kill 10, he will.

Exactly, he needs to be provided with an incentive to do more than he needs to do for survival.

55 pages and this argument is still not dead? :rolleyes: :confused:

You are truly a frustrating person.

The fascists had economic control without ownership.

So they decided what was made and sold, but technically didn't have control of the property on paper. Such a huge differnce.


Equating fascism with a love of power shows the superficiality of your arguments and knowledge.

I wasn't trying to equate fascism with love of power. Putting words in my mouth.


Collectivisation is hardly fascist (in fact, fascists tend to protect farm ownership, part of the folk community balderdash).


Ah, however the effect is almost exactly the same. They don't own it on aper, but they own practically own it.


It has the essential features, and inefficiencies of barter, with none of the incentives.


No, it does not have the essential features of barter. You don't trade. You don't barter. There is no market. And there is plenty of incentive. It's called social favor. If you produce a surplus, you spread the wealth so to speak. This not only gains you favor with the community, but also ensures your own survival as it strengthens the community. You seem to be forgetting that humans cannot exist by themselves, here.


It can be started that way, it cannot that way, it must either lose the democracy, or the socialism. Why? Because socialists assume a great responsibility, and utterly fail because of the economic problems with socialism. So, they must lose democracy to keep socialism, or keep democracy, and the socialists get voted out, thereby losing the socialism.

And what if the "socialists" get voted in? Huh. Your entire arguments entirely relies on the idea that the socialists will undoubtedly get voted out, which is not the case all the time.



Actually, regulation has created monopolies, and oligopolies.

And so does Laissez-faire. With no regulations, those who can afford it can have their competitors "taken out". History repeats itself.


Which is better donw with simple contract, and enforcement thereof, rather than creating a massive bureaucracy.

You know, it's really funny that people think that bureaucracies are inefficient, but compared to other systems, they are really quite efficient. Bureaucracies set a system of rules and regulations to be followed, other systems actually work less efficiently because there is not a system that can be followed.


Its main failure is government not enforcing contract.

By doing thus, it not longer is laissez-faire. Regulation.


What makes you think that is "free-market"?

History.


It is an irrelevant non-objection. It doesn't even contest my point, let alone disprove it.

No, it does not contest. It was a statement telling of your flawed logics towards debate.


Operproduction is a part of competition., and in terms of waste, how could you aviod it, while fulfilling the needs of the people?

As a producer, in a capitalist society, you are not tyring to fulfill the needs of the people. You are trying to earn maximum profit. Producers do not want overproduction, because it lowers their profits.


Central planning won't help, it always produces shortages. Your "recripocity" system removes a lot of incentives, and reduces us to sustenance levels anyway.

I didn't say Central Planning. That, once more, is you putting more words into my mouth. I said "Planning for the future", as in the INDIVIDUAL has the future in mind. Also, I am not saying that "reciprocity" can work on a global scale, which it can't. You keep putting words in my mouth. You decide to not read what I actually said. So, in nice bold print:

There are reciprocity societies today. These communities tend to be small, close knit, and isolated. It does not reduce us to sustenance levels, as I did not say that all people should adopt a reciprocity system. And there is incentive to produce more. You know why? The more you produce, the more you can give away. The more you give away the more favor you gain. The more favor you gain, the betterAlso, this system is not inherently worse than Capitalism. There are benefits to this system, such as reduced stress, less work, and less worrying of the future, as you can rely on others to help you if you need it.


It simply means your price goes down.


If you product is not selling, your prices go down. If your prices go down, your profit margin decreases. It is not in the interest of the producer to lose profit, thus overproduction is undesirable. This is basic economics.


The whole point is that the system doesn't have to be under control. Small competitors get pushed out by regulation because it will reduce their profitability.

And small competitors will get pushed out in unregalated by browbeat or by not being able to compete with larger competitors. The past tends to repeat itself.


Central planning being so successful :rolleyes:

Goddammit. I said nothing about Central Planning. I said about future planning, of the INDIVIDUAL. You keep putting words into my mouth, and you fail to understand anything that I have said.


You haven't described a benefit.

Reduced stress, less work, and less worrying of the future. Not to mention a very close-nit society, which runs quite smoothly. It works in real life. Humans have been using this system for thousands of years. s


They'd be better off in a market system.

No. No they wouldn't. In such small communities, a market system would be detrimental to them, as nobody would be able to acquire to goods needed for survival. The population of such communities is to small to sustain a market society. And infact, when many such groups are introduced to market system, they refuse it. They like their reletively simple lifestyle.


No, there isn't. Labour shortages do happen.


Rarely, and only in either communities with small populations, or in professional jobs. In general, however, there will usually be a shortage of demand for labour. It's just like any other resources(If you don't view labor as a resource, you need to take economics).


You mean, no rational division of labour. How is that a better system than capitalism?

You are not competing with one another. Your only true goal is providing for oneself. Under this system literally everyone can succeed, under Capitalism, there must be people who fail, due to the nature of it.


That won't work, for the simple reason that not everyone knows how to make everything they need, those with the specific talents cannot realise them because they are building their own mud hut, and growing their own crops.

I think I may have found the problem. I think you are confusing "more advanced" with "better". Study anthropology. You will understand that "more advanced" is not better, and has it's disadvantages. As for not realizing their talents, I find this hardly so. Once you actually study these societies, instead of looking down upon them because they are "less advanced", you find that they enjoy their lives. Their system is relatively simple, stress free, and leaves more time for liesure. And many of them do have talents that they realize. Talents that are useful to them and their society. They know how to build a mud hut, but that only takes a couple days. They don't spend all their time with such work, and nor do they with crops. In such systems, only a fraction of the day needs to be devoted to tasks such as crops and food gathering. Also, there is very little need for anything, as food, shelter, and clothing are all provided for by one's family. If you need something, as the neighbors. They'll probably have it.


You aren't talking about real capitalism, only Marx's caraciture of it. Your point is disproven by the fact that I make more than other people. My boss could (in your theory) decide to pay me almost nothing, but he doesn't, he pays me a competative rate. Regulations can't be what forces him to do that, as I get well above the minimum wage. It is competition, my skills are in demand, they therefore command higher fees.

Crack a history book, open to the industrial revolution. Good for producers and consumers, terrible until regulated for the workers(granted jobs were created, which was about the only good thing going for workers). You get payed well as a result of past regulations of business. If such had not, you would get payed next to nothing because everybody else would still be paying next to nothing.

By the who, what is it that you do?


We don't need to consider the waste, producers do consider it, and try to keep their production at the right level. Shortages create economic chaos, especially if the government intervenes.

Controlled shortages are great for producers. Prices are driven up, as demand is greater than supply. People want, and with fewer product than buyers, you can charge much more, creating higher profit. Basic economics.

Sad to see how few people understand what communism is. No country was communist. Russia and China are/were state capitalism. They functioned as capitalism with a lot of state ownership.
Communism is the inevitable economic form where everything is owned by the people, currency isnt needed, and everyones need is supplied for equally. It is total global unification.
Socialism is the period between capitalism and communism. It has some state ownership, reforms upon reforms. Cuba, Venezuala, Russia at times, Nam, and pre 80s china were socialist but the latter 3 were warped versions.
Communism needs democracy or it isnt equal. Although if a revolution were to occur there would be a short period of the dictatorship of the proletariat to preserve the revolution. Most likely if Trotskey succeeded Lenin we would see democracy and we may see it after Castros death.
We consistantly go towards communism becuase we find faults in our system and we change them. Its pretty disgusting how much we altered capitalism just to have it like it is today, says a lot about the system.

This should have been an option.

I agree with these guys I haven't truly experianced communism but its an awsome idea on paper but dosn't work in the real world sadly. Capitalism works but then hell depends on your definition of works.

You are truly a frustrating person.

I choose to take that as a compliment.

So they decided what was made and sold, but technically didn't have control of the property on paper. Such a huge differnce.

So, you're saying (rightly) that there is virtually no difference between practical communism and fascism, and then turn around and say that Stalin therefore must have been a fascist.

No, it does not have the essential features of barter. You don't trade. You don't barter. There is no market. And there is plenty of incentive. It's called social favor. If you produce a surplus, you spread the wealth so to speak. This not only gains you favor with the community, but also ensures your own survival as it strengthens the community. You seem to be forgetting that humans cannot exist by themselves, here.

Yes it does. You give stuff out so you can get stuff from other people, you might call it "social favour", but it is simply barter. It has the same basic inefficiency as barter, namely the difficulty of "double-coincidence", he must have something another wants, and the other must have something he wants.

And what if the "socialists" get voted in? Huh. Your entire arguments entirely relies on the idea that the socialists will undoubtedly get voted out, which is not the case all the time.

Irrelevant. Their economic policies are rubbish, they will fail, and make the whole nation poorer. The people will hold the government responsible for this, and rightly so. If democracy is in place, the people have a means by which they can hold the government to account. They can vote it out, and therefore socialism goes. If socialism is to be preserved inspite of its failure, then democracy must go.

It doesn't matter how they got in. All that matters is the incorrect basis of their policies, and their inevitable failure.

The basic cause of the failure is that socialism isn't a positive economic system, it is merely a reaction to capitalism, and an attempt to negate it, driven by the false belief that the prosperity that exists under capitalism can be maintained without it.

You know, it's really funny that people think that bureaucracies are inefficient, but compared to other systems, they are really quite efficient. Bureaucracies set a system of rules and regulations to be followed, other systems actually work less efficiently because there is not a system that can be followed.

You can't be serious. Bureaucratised systems are incredibly inefficient.

By doing thus, it not longer is laissez-faire. Regulation.

That is not regulation. Enforcing contract rights is not regulation because there is no compulsion, except to respect the rights of others, an unregulated system simply means that anyone can peacefully persue his interests provided he does not violate the rights of others. Regulations either compel people to do thing they do not believe are in their best interests, or prohibit the peaceful persuit of self-interest.

It was a statement telling of your flawed logics towards debate.

Providing examples which illustrate my point demonstrates my "flawed logics"? You have a funny way of demonstrating it.

As a producer, in a capitalist society, you are not tyring to fulfill the needs of the people. You are trying to earn maximum profit.

You are implying that the statements are different. The only way a producer can profit is by meeting peoples needs and wants. If his products do not meet needs and wants, then no one will buy them because they will not need or want them.

There are benefits to this system, such as reduced stress, less work, and less worrying of the future, as you can rely on others to help you if you need it.

Everyone having to produce all his own requirement means less work? That is nonsense.

And small competitors will get pushed out in unregalated by browbeat or by not being able to compete with larger competitors. The past tends to repeat itself.

You are not referring to regulation. Enforcement of people's rights does not equal regulation.

Goddammit. I said nothing about Central Planning. I said about future planning, of the INDIVIDUAL. You keep putting words into my mouth, and you fail to understand anything that I have said.

Individuals and firms plan for the future under capitalism.

You are not competing with one another. Your only true goal is providing for oneself. Under this system literally everyone can succeed, under Capitalism, there must be people who fail, due to the nature of it.

As I said, no rational division of labour. Your system fails to take into account the differences between human talents. Part of the reason for the very high standard of living we enjoy is specialisation and the division of labour. People can do those tasks for which they are best suited, and trade what they produce for what they want and need.

Once you actually study these societies, instead of looking down upon them because they are "less advanced", you find that they enjoy their lives. Their system is relatively simple, stress free, and leaves more time for liesure. And many of them do have talents that they realize.

More romanticisation. Not once have you produced a fact.

They know how to build a mud hut, but that only takes a couple days. They don't spend all their time with such work, and nor do they with crops. In such systems, only a fraction of the day needs to be devoted to tasks such as crops and food gathering. Also, there is very little need for anything, as food, shelter, and clothing are all provided for by one's family. If you need something, as the neighbors. They'll probably have it.

Really? There is a great need for food, shelter and clothing, and they will have to spend a lot of time trying to get it. There is no reason to make things easier because no one will profit from it.

You've not shown that it will be better. You've proposed a system that has all the essential features of barter, with some "higher" sounding words, and then admitted that it will mean going back to a primitive tribal state.

You get payed well as a result of past regulations of business. If such had not, you would get payed next to nothing because everybody else would still be paying next to nothing.

Don't you read?! My line of work has no government mandated award (wage level), and I get paid above the minimum wage. Mind telling me how government regulation ensures I'm paid more than next-to-nothing, when what I do get is well above minimum wage? If what you were saying was true, I would only get the minimum wage, and my employer would be grumbling about having to do it.

Again, how does government interference increase my pay, when it is already well above the minimum wage?

I'm in IT, and where I live, the market is pretty crowded.

For someone who tells me to read up on economics, you don't understand it well.

Marxist communism is good on paper, but can and will never be acheived in a large scale manner. dont even get me started on socia anarchism or watever the heck left wing ppl are up to these days

Communism is the inevitable economic form where everything is owned by the people, currency isnt needed, and everyones need is supplied for equally. It is total global unification.

Inevitable? Why?


We consistantly go towards communism becuase we find faults in our system and we change them. Its pretty disgusting how much we altered capitalism just to have it like it is today, says a lot about the system.

Yes, we find faults in our system and change them. We don't change them so that they go closer to communism though.

I choose to take that as a compliment.


God for you.


So, you're saying (rightly) that there is virtually no difference between practical communism and fascism, and then turn around and say that Stalin therefore must have been a fascist.


Practical *Marxism*. Very different things. There are other forms. What I had said is that many of Stalin's policies were mostly fascist.


Yes it does. You give stuff out so you can get stuff from other people, you might call it "social favour", but it is simply barter. It has the same basic inefficiency as barter, namely the difficulty of "double-coincidence", he must have something another wants, and the other must have something he wants.


But you do not trade. I suppose if you stretch the meaning, it can *technically* be barter, however it is not referred to as such due to major differences, which either you cannot see or are ignoring, and thus I will not reiterate them.


Irrelevant. Their economic policies are rubbish, they will fail, and make the whole nation poorer. The people will hold the government responsible for this, and rightly so. If democracy is in place, the people have a means by which they can hold the government to account. They can vote it out, and therefore socialism goes. If socialism is to be preserved inspite of its failure, then democracy must go.


Last I heard Norway was fairly socialised, and has one of the highest standard of livings in the world. Your falacy is that you equate the failures of some socialists to mean that all socialist will fail.


It doesn't matter how they got in. All that matters is the incorrect basis of their policies, and their inevitable failure.


There are socialist countries which are doing quite well today.


You can't be serious. Bureaucratised systems are incredibly inefficient.


Yes, they are. Read the entire post. Compared to other systems, Bureaucracies are rather efficient. Without them, there is no system of getting anything done. True, there are some circumstances which are other wise, however the vast majority of the time it is better to have a Bureaucracy than not.




Providing examples which illustrate my point demonstrates my "flawed logics"? You have a funny way of demonstrating it.

No, by saying that all information against your point is rubbish, and implying that your system has no flaws at all, is flawed logics. You're cherry picking, basically.


You are implying that the statements are different. The only way a producer can profit is by meeting peoples needs and wants. If his products do not meet needs and wants, then no one will buy them because they will not need or want them.

However, the producer does not necessarily want to try to meet the needs of all people, just many people. If you try to meet the needs of all people, then you will inevitably overproduce, cutting into your profits. If you try to meet the needs of only a part of the consumer base, instead of the entire base, then you can maintain, and actually increase, profit revenue.

Overproduction is not a good thing for producers. It cuts into profits.



Everyone having to produce all his own requirement means less work? That is nonsense.


Compared to the average person in American society, it is. You seem to think that they must provide everything they need(Food, shelter, clothing, etc) every day. Which is untrue. They may spend a good deal of time for a few days making clothing and shelter, and preparing the fields, but once that is all done, there is actually very little work that needs to be done. Also, the tasks that do need to be done are split among the family(perhaps I should have iterated the Extended-families usually found in these systems). Not everybody needs to do everything to provide for themselves. Each person only spends a small part of the day doing whatever they do.


Individuals and firms plan for the future under capitalism.

And why can they not under socialism or communism(the social structure, not the governmental form). There are verying forms.


As I said, no rational division of labour. Your system fails to take into account the differences between human talents. Part of the reason for the very high standard of living we enjoy is specialisation and the division of labour. People can do those tasks for which they are best suited, and trade what they produce for what they want and need.


I really should have iterated the extended families. And before I move on, this is not "my system", this is a sytem which exists today. I didn't create this as a theoretical system out of the blue, such people do exist. And they live quite comfortably. Back to division of labor, various tasks are divided among people of the family, with different people doing different tasks.



More romanticisation. Not once have you produced a fact.

My point was, no system is inherently better. These people exist today, isolated from much of the rest of the world. Their system works. It has worked. It ensures the survival of these communities for hundreds of years. Humans have been using this system for thousands of years. It is a tried and proven system, which ensures the survival of a small community of people.


Really? There is a great need for food, shelter and clothing, and they will have to spend a lot of time trying to get it. There is no reason to make things easier because no one will profit from it.

You imply that the only reason why things can be made easier is due to incentive of profit. However, there are other incentives. Such as a smaller personal work load, and producing more product. Granted, there is less incentive to make much more than you need, but why would you in such a society? In such societies, there is little need to make a profit off of what you make, because all you really want is what you need.


You've not shown that it will be better. You've proposed a system that has all the essential features of barter, with some "higher" sounding words, and then admitted that it will mean going back to a primitive tribal state.

I didn't mean to say that it was better. I said it has advantages. As for me proposing, once again it is not my system. It is a system that has been used for thousands of years.

As for tribal state: Yes, it would in a sense. However, I have not said that we SHOULD. I am saying that it is a different system than what we have, and that it works. Also, don't confuse "more advanced" with better. "More advanced" has disadvantages.


Don't you read?! My line of work has no government mandated award (wage level), and I get paid above the minimum wage. Mind telling me how government regulation ensures I'm paid more than next-to-nothing, when what I do get is well above minimum wage? If what you were saying was true, I would only get the minimum wage, and my employer would be grumbling about having to do it.

Again, how does government interference increase my pay, when it is already well above the minimum wage?

Read closely please. I said a result of *past* regulations. Past regulations required wages to go up(among other things). When this happened, producers could not afford to have as many workers, thus they had to find cheaper ways(Machinery) to produce, and find people who were better suited for the jobs. This led to more competition in the workplace, as people needed to be more skilled to get the fewer jobs in the workplace. As more and more people become more skilled, competing producers had to increase their wages in order to get the most skilled workers as possible. Thus is how regulation has effected you. I'm not saying that it affects you today(which it indirectly does), but without regulations of the past, you likely would not be making what you do today.


I'm in IT, and where I live, the market is pretty crowded.

Can I have a point here?

however it is not referred to as such due to major differences, which either you cannot see or are ignoring, and thus I will not reiterate them

What major differences? People give stuff in order to get the stuff they need.

Last I heard Norway was fairly socialised, and has one of the highest standard of livings in the world. Your falacy is that you equate the failures of some socialists to mean that all socialist will fail.

No attempt at socialism has succeeded. What has helped Norway last so long is firstly, the fact that they are in NATO, and have the bulk of their defensive burden taken by others, and secondly, they have huge oil reserves, providing necessary cash. Neither condition is permanent.

Yes, they are. Read the entire post. Compared to other systems, Bureaucracies are rather efficient. Without them, there is no system of getting anything done. True, there are some circumstances which are other wise, however the vast majority of the time it is better to have a Bureaucracy than not.

No, they aren't. Bureaucracies stifle initiative, innovation, and logical solutions. They are not efficientm and they impose vast costs.

No, by saying that all information against your point is rubbish, and implying that your system has no flaws at all, is flawed logics. You're cherry picking, basically.

Where have I said I advocated a perfect solution. I advocate the best solution.

However, the producer does not necessarily want to try to meet the needs of all people, just many people.

Why should he have to?

Each person only spends a small part of the day doing whatever they do.

Ha! Under the primitive conditions that your system requires, they must spend all day working just to get the basics. As I said, you're3 romanticising the savage, without really thinking of his condition.

Back to division of labor, various tasks are divided among people of the family, with different people doing different tasks.

Do you know what a rational division of labour is? It means that people with particular talents can concentrate on the tasks best suited. You system doesn't allow for that, even a family has many needs, and not all of them will have the talents to fulfill those needs, and non-members of the family can't be relied on under your system, as there is no inducement. No one in my family is a plumber, or a builder, or an electrician. You system would require people to abandon a modern living standard, and go back to the stone age.

Read closely please. I said a result of *past* regulations. Past regulations required wages to go up(among other things). When this happened, producers could not afford to have as many workers, thus they had to find cheaper ways(Machinery) to produce, and find people who were better suited for the jobs. This led to more competition in the workplace, as people needed to be more skilled to get the fewer jobs in the workplace. As more and more people become more skilled, competing producers had to increase their wages in order to get the most skilled workers as possible. Thus is how regulation has effected you. I'm not saying that it affects you today(which it indirectly does), but without regulations of the past, you likely would not be making what you do today.

Sophistry, and it neglects that fact that technology advanced before government started to impose itself on commerce. The urge to find a cheaper way did not start with government, it is natural to try to get the most from the least.

Can I have a point here?

You asked what I was doing. The abundance of IT people where I am would push the price down, and if the regulations actually governed what I am paid, then it would have been far harder to get that job because a minimum wage only works if it is above the market clearing price.

Commie revisionism does not an argument make. They were moving towards communism.Nope. Communism is defined as a classless society. Therefore, in order to move towards communism, the government would have had to be reducing the number of classes.
What the government did, however, is print out money for the proletariat, and then print out special money for itself. The proletariat money had no value, but the government money had value. Furthermore, there were special stores in which only the government and chosen individuals could shop.
This is the creation of more classes, which is the opposite of communism. They were not communist, and they were not moving towards communism.

Have you ever heard of the "perfect solution fallacy". It is argument which you, and other communist apologists have used constantly. It basically entails you saying that my solution isn't perfect, it is therefore wrong.How interesting, considering I've never said the system that I propose is perfect. Unless, of course you're calling me a hypocrite on top of it.

Paper for shelter? You're talking through your hat. The paper seller has to adapt to the market, which means adapting to the customers.Homeless people sleep in cardboard boxes all the time. Cardboard is simply thick paper.

Buyers can fire everyone in a company, and utterly ruin the place by simply deciding to spend money elsewhere. They can force firms out of business. Sellers can't force buyers in.Of course sellers can manipulate the market, it's called advertising.

Now you're definately talking through your hat. Property rights have nothing to do with use. They have everything to do with ownership of your own body, and therefore the fruits of your labour, and therefore that which you get in exchange for it.Who's talking through whose hat? If property laws actually were based upon labor, the Native Americans would have their property, and so would the Aborigines. Unless of course you're saying that systematic murder and theft are legitimate forms of labor.

You haven't understood the question. What right has the individual to impose positive obligations on others. (Positive obligation means "You will do this", negative means "You will not do this", or "you will not infringe")I never said that an the individual could force society to do anything. What I said was that society would be structured in such a way that it would work with the individual to help the individual find a career that he both wants to do and is good at. This is different than forcing society to accept the individual's career choice.

Exactly, he needs to be provided with an incentive to do more than he needs to do for survival.The example I posited did not say that (although I admit the language was confusing.) What I said was that in order to survive in capitalism, "the lion" must expend more energy than he would have to in another system.

Nope. Communism is defined as a classless society. Therefore, in order to move towards communism, the government would have had to be reducing the number of classes.
What the government did, however, is print out money for the proletariat, and then print out special money for itself. The proletariat money had no value, but the government money had value. Furthermore, there were special stores in which only the government and chosen individuals could shop.
This is the creation of more classes, which is the opposite of communism. They were not communist, and they were not moving towards communism.

They were moving towards communism, and fell prey to its main flaw, a basic incompatibility with human nature.

How interesting, considering I've never said the system that I propose is perfect. Unless, of course you're calling me a hypocrite on top of it.

You obviously didn't understand. The commission of the "Perfect solution fallacy" involves pointing out an imperfection in the other argument, and claiming it is wrong because of it.

Homeless people sleep in cardboard boxes all the time. Cardboard is simply thick paper.

So, if a paper merchant doesn't get exactly the price he wants, he should move into a cardboard box? That's more insane than what I thought you were saying.

Of course sellers can manipulate the market, it's called advertising.

Buyers make the decision. What you call market manipulation is merely an attempt to convince people to make a particular decision. Exercising free speech.

If property laws actually were based upon labor, the Native Americans would have their property, and so would the Aborigines. Unless of course you're saying that systematic murder and theft are legitimate forms of labor.

The Native Americans didn't lose their property because they had no right to it. They lost it because it was stolen, and there is no legal means to rectify it. The rights they had were not recognised, or enforced.

You cannot say that because theft exists, property rights are non-existant.

I never said that an the individual could force society to do anything. What I said was that society would be structured in such a way that it would work with the individual to help the individual find a career that he both wants to do and is good at. This is different than forcing society to accept the individual's career choice.

Either you were saying what I said, or nothing at all, because there is no objective difference.

What I said was that in order to survive in capitalism, "the lion" must expend more energy than he would have to in another system.

That is not an accurate statement, in any other system expenditure of extra energy is required, but there is no reason for an individual to do it.

Well, communism would have worked perfectly in theory, if everyone would make an effort. It would be a great system to take out the freeloaders, but if the leaders get a go at it for themselves,... Well, you know what happend...

I haven't bothered to read everything carefully, but it looks as if people are actually trying to defend communism? Um... would anyone care to inform them that we are in the 21st century please?

Of course sellers can manipulate the market, it's called advertising.


There is world of difference between persuasion and force.

Communist will be our last option, otherwise with overpopulation and due to the bad distribution of wealth and resources humans will become extinct. It is a idealistic system, but due to the corruption and paranoia from most human beings it will be hard to implement.

Communism is GREAT in theory. Everybody is equal! But I found out once that, if everybody is equal, everybody is unhappy and poor....

I haven't bothered to read everything carefully, but it looks as if people are actually trying to defend communism? Um... would anyone care to inform them that we are in the 21st century please?
Yes, we are in the 21st century. Ding-dongs never become obsolete.

What major differences? People give stuff in order to get the stuff they need.

There is no system of "I give you A if you give me B". It is "I give you A, with the expectation of you giving me something in the future". There is no actually trade.


No attempt at socialism has succeeded. What has helped Norway last so long is firstly, the fact that they are in NATO, and have the bulk of their defensive burden taken by others, and secondly, they have huge oil reserves, providing necessary cash. Neither condition is permanent.


Once again, Norway is succeeding. Under a capitalist system, they'd be facing the exact same problems with oil and NATO. But, you see it how you like to.


No, they aren't. Bureaucracies stifle initiative, innovation, and logical solutions. They are not efficientm and they impose vast costs.

Bureaucracies bring a form of control and regulation, allowing for tasks to be done consistently and quickly. They may seem inefficient, but without them there is little organization, and things tend to either not work or take a very long time. Now, massive Bureaucracies are not good, but bureaucracies are necessary, and relatively efficient compared to other systems.


Why should he have to?


Look! The point! I was referring to overproduction. I didn't say he had to, infact you were the one who implied that they wanted to. As a producer, you cannot realistically provide an equilibrium, and overproduction cuts into profit margins, thus it is more economically sound to underproduce. However, there are certain circumstance where this is not true(Large corporations whose profits are massive anyway)>


Ha! Under the primitive conditions that your system requires, they must spend all day working just to get the basics. As I said, you're3 romanticising the savage, without really thinking of his condition.

No. No they don't. Under such a system(And ocne more, it is not MY system), people only spend small parts of they day working, and they do not need to do such every day. I'm not romanticising anything, this is true. Compared to our system, which has people working almost all day every day just to make ends meet, their system is quite leisurely. I also get the feeling that you mistakingly used primitive in a way to meen worse. "Advanced" is not necessarily better than "Primitive". There are benefits, but there are also problems(The same goes for the other way around).


Do you know what a rational division of labour is? It means that people with particular talents can concentrate on the tasks best suited. You system doesn't allow for that, even a family has many needs, and not all of them will have the talents to fulfill those needs, and non-members of the family can't be relied on under your system, as there is no inducement. No one in my family is a plumber, or a builder, or an electrician. You system would require people to abandon a modern living standard, and go back to the stone age.

They do not need a plumber, electrition, or builder. Once again, you do not understand the circumstances which this system requires. We need these things due to "Advancement". The problem with advancement is that it creates jobs which *must* be filled in order for the advancement to work.

And I said nothing about people abandoning a "modern" living style. Infact, I said the exact opposite. I am saying there is a *Different* system, which *works*. I specifically said that I did not advocate people giving up their current system for "my"(which it is not) system. You are not reading my entire statements.


Sophistry, and it neglects that fact that technology advanced before government started to impose itself on commerce. The urge to find a cheaper way did not start with government, it is natural to try to get the most from the least.

It did not start, but it did provide incentive for producers. Prior to regulations, the cheapest way to produce alot of goods was to hire large quantities of workers for next to nothing. After regulations, producers needed to find the next best solution, which led to highly mechanized factories and such. The technology existed, but much of it wasn't used due to a relatively higher cost.


You asked what I was doing. The abundance of IT people where I am would push the price down, and if the regulations actually governed what I am paid, then it would have been far harder to get that job because a minimum wage only works if it is above the market clearing price.

I didn't say they governed what you are payed, however. I said that they effected how much you are payed. Had the regulations never been in place, you likely would not be payed as much as you do. They don't govern your pay, but they have effected it(indirectly).

Yes, we are in the 21st century. Ding-dongs never become obsolete.
:D

















:(

There is no system of "I give you A if you give me B". It is "I give you A, with the expectation of you giving me something in the future". There is no actually trade.

That is still barter, the only difference is that payment is replaced with a promise to pay. Its looks more like a halfway house between barter, and the use of money, in fact (money being a promise to pay, read the writing on a US gold note to understand why).

Lets look at this a different way. I fix something for you, and after the job, I intend to get some food. WHen I have completed the job, you don't raid your fridge, and hand me some of the food. You hand me money, a promise to pay. In your case, the promise (I assume) is verbal, in mine, the promise is written on paper.

My way is better for me, as I can redeem that promise with anyone to get the goods I want and need, under yours, I can only redeem it with you, and only for the goods you offer.

I'm suprised you didn't notice this. It was plain.

Under a capitalist system, they'd be facing the exact same problems with oil and NATO. But, you see it how you like to.

You've missed the point. NATO and oil have been able to sustain Norwegian social democracy for a while longer than it can be sustained in France, but, as it has everywhere else it will begin to feel the pressure, and collapse.

Bureaucracies bring a form of control and regulation, allowing for tasks to be done consistently and quickly.

They do nothing quickly. If you're arguing the efficiency of a bureaucracy, you are pitting your theory against facts. Bureaucracies move like glaciers.

I was referring to overproduction. I didn't say he had to, infact you were the one who implied that they wanted to. As a producer, you cannot realistically provide an equilibrium, and overproduction cuts into profit margins, thus it is more economically sound to underproduce. However, there are certain circumstance where this is not true(Large corporations whose profits are massive anyway)

I did originally say that over-production was good for the consumer, and realisticly, over-production for a producer is more feasable then under-production. Producers can realistically provide equilibrium by producing to orders rom people down the line (shops, etc). These shops keep sales records, they know what the demand is, and when it changes. These days, it is even easier to find, and use this information (because it is all on computer).

Under such a system(And ocne more, it is not MY system), people only spend small parts of they day working, and they do not need to do such every day. I'm not romanticising anything, this is true.

You are romanticising them. The lifestyle is actually very hard, nad the only way they wouldn't be working all day for the basics is if nature was obliging enough to provide almost everything within easy reach.

I also get the feeling that you mistakingly used primitive in a way to meen worse.

The constant appeal to primitive societies by socialists and communists shows that they are not out to propose anything good, or positive, they are merely looking to negate capitalism.

And I said nothing about people abandoning a "modern" living style. Infact, I said the exact opposite.

Yedt you've been blithering on about primitive societies, and how what you call a form of socialism (which looks a heck of a lot like basic capitalism, with the removal of some of the basic efficiencies and incentives) works well among primitive societies.

You've missed the point. NATO and oil have been able to sustain Norwegian social democracy for a while longer than it can be sustained in France, but, as it has everywhere else it will begin to feel the pressure, and collapse.
Norway possesses massive reserves of oil wealth. It may not run out for a long time still, and its predicted that Norway has a sizable stake in the oil reserves in the Arctic. That said, it is my belief that Norway will at some point in the near future join the EU, and that may be what ends its current economic system. It will be better off adapting to a freer form of capitalism from now already, as it stands to gain much from EU entry. Norway's main concern about joining is that it will have to deal with workers coming in from abroad, and that foreign fishermen will deplete its rich fish stock. Yet, it still has the ability to limit immigration within the EU, and I guess it could come to deals with the EU to protect its fishing industry.

My view can be paraphrased from the words of one Mark Rosewater.

In communists, I see a group driven to idiocy. Life is hard enough without forcing stupid restrictions upon oneself. Adding insult to injury, their rules protect the weak at the expense of the strong. Such ideas need to be expunged before they can spread.

My view can be paraphrased from the words of one Mark Rosewater.

In communists, I see a group driven to idiocy. Life is hard enough without forcing stupid restrictions upon oneself. Adding insult to injury, their rules protect the weak at the expense of the strong. Such ideas need to be expunged before they can spread.

*SIGH*

This is Totalitarianism in the vein of the U.S.S.R., man. Real Communism is no government and no restrictions.

*SIGH*

This is Totalitarianism in the vein of the U.S.S.R., man. Real Communism is no government and no restrictions.
How exactly is the existence of no government viable?

So, basically communism is anarchism, but is good for everyone instead of bad?

So, basically communism is anarchism, but is good for everyone instead of bad?
I would like someone to explain that.

I would like someone to explain that.

Anarchism is the greatest form of government. It would exist at that one point where all individuals (or a vast majority) recognize that, in order to protect their own freedom, they must respect and protect the freedom of every other individual.

I consider myself an anarchist, but I differ in thinking that property rights are one of those freedoms that we must protect.

I've got no problem with philosophical anarchism, a belief that every individual is better at running every aspect of their own lives than a government or something. I also believe that a mutual respect amongst all people to butt out of each others lives (unless invited in) is also a good thing. But tragically that's not the case, and I don't believe that human nature is particularly flexible.

I don't like communism, for several reasons, the most important being that I have a firm belief in private property rights, and a belief that these rights not only extend to mere personal trinkets, but to all sorts of other nice things as well (the means of production!), like tractors, factory machines and the like. I also don't share very well, I always wanted the blocks in kindergarten, and I'd do anything to get them.

Beyond that, if you specify Marxism, you're not only making a normative statement, but you're also attempting to make an empirical statement, that society will go towards communism. I do not believe that. I believe that society will evolve, and that there is no set path. Society will do what it wants, and there's a very, very, very big chance that it isn't communism.

I'd say something more, and more substantive, but it's 2:30 AM and I spent my day doing stuff.

They were moving towards communism, and fell prey to its main flaw, a basic incompatibility with human nature.At which point they were no longer moving towards communism.

You obviously didn't understand. The commission of the "Perfect solution fallacy" involves pointing out an imperfection in the other argument, and claiming it is wrong because of it.I pointed out an imperfection of your argument, and supplemented my own argument (direct democracy) which does not have that particular imperfection.

So, if a paper merchant doesn't get exactly the price he wants, he should move into a cardboard box? That's more insane than what I thought you were saying.No, I'm saying he has that option.

Buyers make the decision. What you call market manipulation is merely an attempt to convince people to make a particular decision. Exercising free speech.A type of "free" speech that is only open to people with lots and lots of money.

The Native Americans didn't lose their property because they had no right to it. They lost it because it was stolen, and there is no legal means to rectify it. The rights they had were not recognised, or enforced.

You cannot say that because theft exists, property rights are non-existant.The current system of property rights is invalid because they were based upon a foundation of theft. I can say that the current system is invalid because it couldn't have come about if not for theft.

Either you were saying what I said, or nothing at all, because there is no objective difference.Of course there is. What I'm saying is an example of persuasion within a malleable society. Yours is an example of force.

That is not an accurate statement, in any other system expenditure of extra energy is required, but there is no reason for an individual to do it.The reason that the individual expends the extra energy in capitalism is because he must do so in order to survive.

*SIGH*

This is Totalitarianism in the vein of the U.S.S.R., man. Real Communism is no government and no restrictions.

So when there's no government and me and my friends all mint our own money and use oil and respect eachother's property and defend it from communists who want to take it, nobody will stop us?

Because if the community tries to stop us they're restricting us and governing us.

The current system of property rights is invalid because they were based upon a foundation of theft. I can say that the current system is invalid because it couldn't have come about if not for theft.


So if we started a clean slate, and just ran a market economy after everyone's wealth was redistributed, you'd be happy with that? It would be a system not based on theft (theft by your definition - I'd consider the redistribution of property as theft).

At which point they were no longer moving towards communism.

They were communists, attempting to make communism. That communism is incompatible with reality doesn't make them non-communist. It merely makes them failures. Are communists only communists when they are successful, and not murderous thugs (and if so, how convenient for communist apologists!)

I pointed out an imperfection of your argument, and supplemented my own argument (direct democracy) which does not have that particular imperfection.

Your entire argument against capitalism is that it is imperfect. Your only argument against representative democracy is that it is imperfect because one can never have total checks and balances in a representative democracy. There is no logic behind this argument, because:


You have produced no specifics.
You assume that a perfect solution exists.
That a problem (perceived, or real) in a particular solution makes the solution wrong.


The only effective "check and balance" that can be put onto a government is to eliminate it entirely.

Bollocks. In several systems of government, key freedom have survived the centuries, in spite of attempts by those in government to eliminate them. Clearly, there are effective checks and balances. History has shown this.

No, I'm saying he has that option.

Nevertheless, you are making absurd statements.

A type of "free" speech that is only open to people with lots and lots of money.

Rubbish.

The current system of property rights is invalid because they were based upon a foundation of theft. I can say that the current system is invalid because it couldn't have come about if not for theft.

They are not based on theft.

Of course there is. What I'm saying is an example of persuasion within a malleable society. Yours is an example of force.

Yours is unrealistic. Mine is.

The reason that the individual expends the extra energy in capitalism is because he must do so in order to survive.

The reason any animal does anything is to survive. What we have is something called the division of labour. A man with the talents necessary for an electrician may not have the talents required to farm enough fruit, vegetables, and grain to feed himself and his family. He can do the electrics for his own house, but with a division of labour, and a system of capitalist voluntary trading, he would do the electrics for many houses, in exchanges for money, with which he can get the fruit, vegetables, and grain (and everything else).

What does this mean?

It means that the farmer can farm the vegetables, fruit, and grain, and make it high quality goods. Now, if he tried to do the electrics of his house, he'd probable kill himself, or burn his house down. Instead, he can have effective, safe electrics.

They can do this because they have:


Private property rights
The profit motive
A free market, and
A rational division of labour


The advocates of non-capitalist systems either try to push the false idea that we can have the fruits of capitalism without the supporting ideas, or that we must abandon the standard of living capitalism has provided, and return to nature, return to savagry.

Why communists rail against that which is demonstrably a good thing is beyond me.

Anarchism is the greatest form of government. It would exist at that one point where all individuals (or a vast majority) recognize that, in order to protect their own freedom, they must respect and protect the freedom of every other individual.

I consider myself an anarchist, but I differ in thinking that property rights are one of those freedoms that we must protect.
You mean when humans stop being humans, right? :rolleyes:

You mean when humans stop being humans, right? :rolleyes:

They just have to get a little smarter. I don't know if it will ever happen, but I don't want to right off humanity just yet.

They just have to get a little smarter. I don't know if it will ever happen, but I don't want to right off humanity just yet.
For this to happen, humans would have to cede all ambition, all pride, all greed. Intelligence is not related to any one of these emotions. Getting smarter, if anything, would further enhance them. The option is to either render all humans unintelligent, thereby turning them into robotic, passive beings OR using emotional suppression, thereby stripping them of their very humanity. Whilst suppressing greed and powerlust in statesmen may seem fine, I doubt it would be okay to do so for all humanity.

So if we started a clean slate, and just ran a market economy after everyone's wealth was redistributed, you'd be happy with that? It would be a system not based on theft (theft by your definition - I'd consider the redistribution of property as theft).
Not exactly, because the people who benefitted from the theft in the form of education will still have an unfair advantage over the people who were too poor to be educated. Perhaps if wealth was redistributed and 150 years from now (or whenever everyone alive at the time of redistribution was dead) a market economy was started, that might be fine.

Not exactly, because the people who benefitted from the theft in the form of education will still have an unfair advantage over the people who were too poor to be educated. Perhaps if wealth was redistributed and 150 years from now (or whenever everyone alive at the time of redistribution was dead) a market economy was started, that might be fine.

Education doesn't necessarily equal economic acumen. Plenty of intellectuals earn peanuts because they're no good at working hard, and plenty of uneducated people can work their way up. I'm not American, but when I've been over there I've noticed that lots of Mexican immigrants who've had very little formal education have been able to work their way up in terms of affluence even in very short periods of time, like 5 years. Hard work can make you rich even if you're not educated.

For this to happen, humans would have to cede all ambition, all pride, all greed. Intelligence is not related to any one of these emotions. Getting smarter, if anything, would further enhance them. The option is to either render all humans unintelligent, thereby turning them into robotic, passive beings OR using emotional suppression, thereby stripping them of their very humanity. Whilst suppressing greed and powerlust in statesmen may seem fine, I doubt it would be okay to do so for all humanity.

Anarchism does not require an end to greed, just a mutual respect. When humanity becomes more reasonable, their selfishness will drive them towards anarchy and (I hate to say this) a sense of obligation to collective freedom.

I am not advocating equality, I am advocating absolute freedom, and in order to have that all men must understand the nature of their own freedom. When all men truly comprehend their own freedom, they will finally understand their obligation to stand for the freedom of all others.

Education doesn't necessarily equal economic acumen.

The sheer popularity of Marx at universities proves that!

The sheer popularity of Marx at universities proves that!

How condescending. Remember that just because someone has a different view than yours, does not make it an inferior view. Also, this is a blatant emotional appeal with extremely bias undertones, and a statement completely unrelated to that which you quoted.

In simple, it was a statement of pure bias appeal.

However, as for Marx's popularity in universities, it is likely due to people wanting to have strong connections with ideals or groups. Marx is rather appealing in this sense due to his emotional appeal towards the "common man", and youths wanting to disassociate themselves with older "conservative" members of society, increasing ever more Marx's appeal. Not to mention the passion which the main Marxists of these groups tend to speak with grows appeal.

However, I went through my Marxist period in about 10th grade high school. It was rather fun being the only Marxist in my school(at that time also I was an Authoritarian advocator, those were the days). Now, however, I have a much better sense of the world as a whole, and know very well the problems with the Marxist system.

An authoritarian advocator, eh? That doesn't quite make you a Marxist, does it?

You have to understand that while Marx called for a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", this does not mean at all an authoritarian regime. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a term that in fact emphacized the democracy of the socialist transition, the proletariat would control the government, and their control of the government and the overwhelming support of the working-class populace would prevent any non-proletarian power from assuming control over the workers, and the government would be, by the merits of the proletariat's own democratic applications, guided in a direction that most favors the working class. Socialism emphacizes democracy as sacrosanct to the preservation of the worker's control of the means of production and the prevention of the corruption of the "worker's state", and is the sole medium by which the proletariat can make the transition towards communism.

What are the said flaws in Marxism you've so discovered?

The popularity of Marx among intellectuals underlines the point that education does not necessarily equal economic acumen.

As for support for Marx equating support for the common man. I know at least 100 million reasons why that is nonsensical.

If education meant economic acumen, then there would be no support for Marx because his ideas are utter rubbish.

Stop giving me specious, overstated theses and give me something to back up your claim.

Communism, in my opinion, is a very patriotic system. it inspires the common man, to an equal, and fair share of everything. However, it strongest principal, is it's greatest weakness. A scientist working on a cure to global AIDs, is not going to settle for the same salary, as the guy outside his door, sweeping the hallway.With communism, there is no motivation for the intellectual, and generally richer classes to inspire and work towards innovation. However, it is excellent for the porrer, working class. Industry can flourish, with happy workers, constantly working. But, there is another flaw. Free-market enterprise is an absolute necesity. The state that owns all it's industries, finds itself in complete control, but with the overwhelming burden of expences. Also, you cannot compensate, docks in pay between classes with social benefit. People want money. They want to spend thier money, on what they want. They do not want a "peoples educational system" or a "peoples nursery sytem." Although these benefits are good, they simply do not compensate enough.

All in all, communism is patriotic, with a general good-will in it, but without technological innovation, or free-market enterprise, a nation is doomed to fail.

Anyway, that's my opinion.

Anarchism does not require an end to greed, just a mutual respect. When humanity becomes more reasonable, their selfishness will drive them towards anarchy and (I hate to say this) a sense of obligation to collective freedom.

I am not advocating equality, I am advocating absolute freedom, and in order to have that all men must understand the nature of their own freedom. When all men truly comprehend their own freedom, they will finally understand their obligation to stand for the freedom of all others.
This will never happen. Humans are not predictable. God. What are you gonna do? Force them to respect each other?

Communism, in my opinion, is a very patriotic system. it inspires the common man, to an equal, and fair share of everything. However, it strongest principal, is it's greatest weakness. A scientist working on a cure to global AIDs, is not going to settle for the same salary, as the guy outside his door, sweeping the hallway.With communism, there is no motivation for the intellectual, and generally richer classes to inspire and work towards innovation. However, it is excellent for the porrer, working class. Industry can flourish, with happy workers, constantly working. But, there is another flaw. Free-market enterprise is an absolute necesity. The state that owns all it's industries, finds itself in complete control, but with the overwhelming burden of expences. Also, you cannot compensate, docks in pay between classes with social benefit. People want money. They want to spend thier money, on what they want. They do not want a "peoples educational system" or a "peoples nursery sytem." Although these benefits are good, they simply do not compensate enough.

All in all, communism is patriotic, with a general good-will in it, but without technological innovation, or free-market enterprise, a nation is doomed to fail.

Anyway, that's my opinion.
Patriotic? :rolleyes: Communism in its truest form argues for the abolition of the state in the name of freedom.

An authoritarian advocator, eh? That doesn't quite make you a Marxist, does it?

You have to understand that while Marx called for a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", this does not mean at all an authoritarian regime. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a term that in fact emphacized the democracy of the socialist transition, the proletariat would control the government, and their control of the government and the overwhelming support of the working-class populace would prevent any non-proletarian power from assuming control over the workers, and the government would be, by the merits of the proletariat's own democratic applications, guided in a direction that most favors the working class. Socialism emphacizes democracy as sacrosanct to the preservation of the worker's control of the means of production and the prevention of the corruption of the "worker's state", and is the sole medium by which the proletariat can make the transition towards communism.

What are the said flaws in Marxism you've so discovered?

Ah, perhaps I should have explained a bit better. This is my evolution as a Communist:

Communist Ideals(Equality of Man)->Marxist "Light"(I didn't really know much of Marxist)->Authoritarian under "Communism"(I really wanted to be a National Figure head at the time)->Marxist, under it's true meaning(10th Grade)->Idealist(If only people could work together it would work just fine)->Realistic(It can work, just not likely with large populations).

The flaws of Marxism are not necessarily with the system itself, but with people in general, as well the flaws are also not as large as some people would like iterate or proclaim.

One problem(Which incidently is not the main problem with Marxism, which is how this problem is seen) when dealing with Marxism is the difficulty in organizing people towards the "common good", especially as populations get larger. In smaller populations, it is quite possible for such a system to work, as either the group has not had contact with the global market, and thus their lives are not greatly affected by such, or they voluntarily accept such a system. Also, it is far easier to get 20 people into the mindset of helping one another than it is for 200.

The main problem with Marxism is not greed. Greed can allow for overproduction, which is a good thing in a Communist society. The main problem with Marxism is instead an almost instinctual need for people to be led, and an almost inevitable result of leaders abusive power. Stalin's grasp on Russia is an almost perfect example of such. Stalin's power was made absolute(and thus spelling the end of Marxism in Russia) as a direct result of the German attack on Russia in WWII. He played this, using propaganda to bring forth a feeling of extreme nationalism in the people, whom gave him absolute power so as to protect Russia from German invaders. Most people are cannot or do not want to function without a leader. Thus, when a leader is brougt forth, many times they are almost all to willing to give great power to said leader.

Of course, it can work, however it is quite unlikely to do such.

Ah but don't you think it has something to do with education?
I believe this need for be led has evolved a lot in history throw subsequent class systems. In emperial Japan, the Kamikaze were ready to die for the emperor. In today's backward religious societies some are educated to bomb themselve. Those people think it is natural to give their live for their nation/god, but it is only natural in their society, it is not a human trait.
How many people would do that in countries with real social education?
Many people are commited to their capitalist nation because they've been indoctrinated at school, but Is that the end of history?

Communism, in theory and on paper, can work. Communism in practice cannot.

I agree. I like the ideal of communism but unfortunately people are greedy and selfish and will seize power and wealth for themselves so it doesn't really work.

The system is good but it doesn't take into account human suspectibility to corruption.

How condescending. Remember that just because someone has a different view than yours, does not make it an inferior view. Also, this is a blatant emotional appeal with extremely bias undertones, and a statement completely unrelated to that which you quoted.

In simple, it was a statement of pure bias appeal.

However, as for Marx's popularity in universities, it is likely due to people wanting to have strong connections with ideals or groups. Marx is rather appealing in this sense due to his emotional appeal towards the "common man", and youths wanting to disassociate themselves with older "conservative" members of society, increasing ever more Marx's appeal. Not to mention the passion which the main Marxists of these groups tend to speak with grows appeal.

However, I went through my Marxist period in about 10th grade high school. It was rather fun being the only Marxist in my school(at that time also I was an Authoritarian advocator, those were the days). Now, however, I have a much better sense of the world as a whole, and know very well the problems with the Marxist system.

Also, while I think Marx's view of humanity was woefully optimistic (woeful in terms of its ultimate results) his work in Das Kapital was revolutionary and original when published. Remember the conventional "marginal demand-supply" model that can explain worker power in the labor markets wasn't seriously set forth until William Jevons's Theory of Political Economy (1871) and, more formally and in greater depth, in Leon Walras's Elements of Pure Economics (1874) (both works after the publication of the first part of Das Kapital), and it was many years later that the concept was actually applied to the industrial labor markets to show alternatives to Marx's argument--and even when they initially did that, the "capitalist" economists also got many significant details wrong.

Marx has always been a difficult figure for me to classify. Can someone be a "great thinker" yet draw significantly incorrect conclusions? Certainly Marx raised interesting questions, such as "how can a system in which the minority lives well but inflicts a great deal of suffering on the majority endure?" His answer, though, was in the end obvious, if consistent with then recent history: it cannot endure and will end in revolution.

Add to that, that his psychological insights into what would follow such a revolution were completely ahistorical...that somehow the revolutionaries would establish an egalitarian paradise. That certainly was the goal of the French Revolution and that failed miserably. Not that I fault him completely, as I said, he simply have an overly optimistic view of human nature (or at least human nature such as it is in the western world) and absolutely no sense of market efficiency (as the very concept was invented after Das Kapital was published...and indeed might not have developed but for the desire of economists to find the flaws in Marxist arguments). That he missed the historical events which suggested that the egalitarian model would not be successful, to me, removes him from the "great" thinker list.

I'd give him that he was an original thinker (and that his ideas spurred on some smarter, greater thinkers than himself) but sometimes "original" does not equal "great."

it inspires the common man, to an equal, and fair share of everything.
But people have different productivity levels. This means that an equal share can't be fair and a fair share can't be equal.

But people have different productivity levels. This means that an equal share can't be fair and a fair share can't be equal.

Not that I disagree, but that relies on a particular definition of "fair" (namely that he who produces more deserves more) that not everyone would agree with. If you equate fairness withn justice, then there is a decent Rawlsian argument that differing productivity levels should, all else being equal, have no impact on the "fair" distribution of wealth (in goods and services).

This will never happen. Humans are not predictable.

Why would you make one statement, then, directly after, make a statement that completely refutes the first statement?

Not that I disagree, but that relies on a particular definition of "fair" (namely that he who produces more deserves more) that not everyone would agree with. If you equate fairness withn justice, then there is a decent Rawlsian argument that differing productivity levels should, all else being equal, have no impact on the "fair" distribution of wealth (in goods and services).
Well, I don't know that Rawlsian argument, but if it includes "incentive to progress", then increased productivity should mean increased revenues.

Well, I don't know that Rawlsian argument, but if it includes "incentive to progress", then increased productivity should mean increased revenues.

The Rawlsian argument starts with a thought experiment: Assume that you are looking down on the world before you are born. You do not know who you will be once born, whether you will be rich or poor, black or white, born in America or in Burundi or elsewhere, you do not know whether you will have a high rate of productivity or a low one, etc. Given that veil of ignorance, decide what a "fair" distribution of wealth would be.

One could argue that since you do not know what your personal productivity will be, most people will be risk averse enough to want to hedge against the possibility that they will be a low-productivity individual by erring on the side of equality over having a purely lerit based system of rewards.

There is a counter-argument that I believe in more persuasive, but that is one perfectly valid Rawlsian perspective.

Education doesn't necessarily equal economic acumen. Plenty of intellectuals earn peanuts because they're no good at working hard, and plenty of uneducated people can work their way up. I'm not American, but when I've been over there I've noticed that lots of Mexican immigrants who've had very little formal education have been able to work their way up in terms of affluence even in very short periods of time, like 5 years. Hard work can make you rich even if you're not educated.This is technically true, however if a well educated person wished to work hard, they would be more likely to succeed and prosper than a hard worker of low education.