NationStates Jolt Archive

The reason I've often heard on this forum for the anti-communist feelings are that communism doesn't work in practise.

Suppose there was a country where a Marxist revolution was sucsessful, and they found a way to prevent their leaders/organizers from becoming dictators (think daily injection of the chemical COMMUNAL 3j9). So the country would function communaly just as Marx intended it to without the corruption and centralization that has plauged former 'communist' countries.

Would capitalists here be in favor of such a country, or would they remain opposed because they feel that capitalism is a superior system of political government?

I think you'd have to extend that series of injections to the rest of the population. Human nature just doesn't support communist principles. People just aren't satisfied with 'enough' and 'sharing'. Some want to excel and be recognized for it, while others are content to contribute nothing.

Yes, but if it were possible for Communism to work in theory perfectly, it would also be possible for pure capitalism to work perfectly.

Yes, but if it were possible for Communism to work in theory perfectly, it would also be possible for pure capitalism to work perfectly.
It isn't already?

It isn't already?

Absolutely not. Capitalism works, but it requires some protections to prevent abuses from occuring. It's preposterous to think that pure capitalism would work at this point in time, given the heavily politcized nature of government involvement in the economy.

It isn't already?

Only for the top 5% of the world population.

True Communism IS possible. Difficult, but possible. You would have to get all the people in the world, who are dedicated to making communism work, in a new place for a new country. Then you'd have to use alot of technology to ensure that everyone has an equal say in the running of the country.

The reason I've often heard on this forum for the anti-communist feelings are that communism doesn't work in practise.

Suppose there was a country where a Marxist revolution was sucsessful, and they found a way to prevent their leaders/organizers from becoming dictators (think daily injection of the chemical COMMUNAL 3j9). So the country would function communaly just as Marx intended it to without the corruption and centralization that has plauged former 'communist' countries.

Would capitalists here be in favor of such a country, or would they remain opposed because they feel that capitalism is a superior system of political government?

They would still oppose it because the very concept demands the sacrifice of an individuals freedom and makes them a slave for the state. No matter how you dress it up and make it sound all noble and compasionate, the population still become property of the state. Ask yourself, how many times you have heard it implied over the past 30 years that your government knows best, and then think in hindsight how many times it was actually true. The rights of the individual with the freedom to succeed or fail are all we need to ensure growth and prosperity on a continuing basis. Government is not your friend. It never has been and never will be, despite what they may tell you on Government owned TV.

I think you'd have to extend that series of injections to the rest of the population. Human nature just doesn't support communist principles. People just aren't satisfied with 'enough' and 'sharing'. Some want to excel and be recognized for it, while others are content to contribute nothing.
I was wondering.. is this some kind of naturalistic fallacy?

They would still oppose it because the very concept demands the sacrifice of an individuals freedom and makes them a slave for the state. No matter how you dress it up and make it sound all noble and compasionate, the population still become property of the state. Ask yourself, how many times you have heard it implied over the past 30 years that your government knows best, and then think in hindsight how many times it was actually true. The rights of the individual with the freedom to succeed or fail are all we need to ensure growth and prosperity on a continuing basis. Government is not your friend. It never has been and never will be, despite what they may tell you on Government owned TV.

How are they a slave to the state?

How are they a slave to the state?

There has to be a central administration to ensure the injections were administered regularly and to everyone, and since they don't have a choice on whether or not to recieve them, they are effectively the property of the state.

There has to be a central administration to ensure the injections were administered regularly and to everyone, and since they don't have a choice on whether or not to recieve them, they are effectively the property of the state.

I thought only the leaders got the injections.:confused:

This is why I don't like hypothetical scenarios, I get so confused.

I thought only the leaders got the injections.:confused: This is why I don't like hypothetical scenarios, I get so confused.

But if only the leaders got the injections, the people would still be able to resist the system and commit the abuses that doomed it in the past...I think?

But if only the leaders got the injections, the people would still be able to resist the system and commit the abuses that doomed it in the past...I think?

Surely the whole question is void because Communism isn't meant to have a government at all, it's meant to be a central pool of resources which everyone contributes to and takes from, there is no government.

I find it a little idealistic which is why I follow democratic socialism, it's more pragmatic.

Would capitalists here be in favor of such a country, or would they remain opposed because they feel that capitalism is a superior system of political government?

Holy crap. You don't have to be a capitalist to find the compulsory drugging of a population frightening and unethical. I'd be just as against such a system regardless of what it was trying to achieve.

Even doping the leaders is very dodgy. Would you really want some team of shambling chemical zombies to be telling you what to do?

Some hypotheticals, like this one, are too outlandish and unreasonable to draw any significant conclusions about real life.

True Communism IS possible. Difficult, but possible. You would have to get all the people in the world, who are dedicated to making communism work, in a new place for a new country. Then you'd have to use alot of technology to ensure that everyone has an equal say in the running of the country.
So what when their off spring decide that they don't like this form of a state? Then what? Mindwash them? :rolleyes:

communism can't work with individual freedom.

i tend to value individual freedom.

I think you'd have to extend that series of injections to the rest of the population. Human nature just doesn't support communist principles. People just aren't satisfied with 'enough' and 'sharing'. Some want to excel and be recognized for it, while others are content to contribute nothing.
Precisely. I hate the idea of flat systems where people are all the same...how DULL.

The reason I've often heard on this forum for the anti-communist feelings are that communism doesn't work in practise.

Suppose there was a country where a Marxist revolution was sucsessful, and they found a way to prevent their leaders/organizers from becoming dictators (think daily injection of the chemical COMMUNAL 3j9). So the country would function communaly just as Marx intended it to without the corruption and centralization that has plauged former 'communist' countries.

Would capitalists here be in favor of such a country, or would they remain opposed because they feel that capitalism is a superior system of political government?
Even if it did work, I would always be against it because communism excludes democracy and I would never want to live under a system where merit is irrelevant.

Even if it did work, I would always be against it because communism excludes democracy and I would never want to live under a system where merit is irrelevant.
Me neither.

Communism is impractical in all its forms, the worse being anarchism, the new name for it. How could a society possibly function without laws is beyond me...

Me neither.

Communism is impractical in all its forms, the worse being anarchism, the new name for it. How could a society possibly function without laws is beyond me...
I agree, anarchism is even worse because it's even more irresponsible and naive.

Even if it did work, I would always be against it because communism excludes democracy and I would never want to live under a system where merit is irrelevant.
Well, to be fair merit is irrelavent in democracy.

Well, to be fair merit is irrelavent in democracy.
If you want to secure a position of power you usually have to prove your merit.

is this perfect communist society occuring on the macro or micro political scale?

You can discuss the merits of hypothetical communism until you're blue in the face, and not make a single useful point. It would be more useful to discuss the merits of hypothetical oligarchical dolphinism (a political system I made up about 1 minute ago in which a small group of dolphins become our leaders, and seafood becomes acceptable for the payment of taxes). If you want to have a useful discussion of communism, you must concentrate on the attempts to reconcile the utter balderdash of communism with reality.

The only viable entity that even approaches real communism, and works, is the traditional family, which of course depends entirely on trade with members of a capitalist society outside to produce the wealth necessary.

Well, to be fair merit is irrelavent in democracy.

True. What is relevant in a democracy (usually) is how much you promise to pay people to vote for you.

Communism is the worst political system ever invented, utterly destructive to liberty, and a complete failure.

That country wouldn't work either, because the CIA would topple it's goverment and install a dictator.

Even if it did work, I would always be against it because communism excludes democracy and I would never want to live under a system where merit is irrelevant.

Of course Communism excludes democracy, there is no government.:rolleyes:

That country wouldn't work either, because the CIA would topple it's goverment and install a dictator.

*hands DrunkenDove several cookies*

Utopian socialism is not communism.
Tribalism is not communism.
The traditional family is not communism.
Capitalists oppose communism, OF COURSE. A capitalist not opposing communism is non-sense. It would be like a king opposing monarchy.

*hands DrunkenDove several cookies*

I shall cherish them.

Suppose there was a country where a Marxist revolution was sucsessful

Enough bad things have happened because of Karl Marx's ideas of Communism. His form of it is perverted and corrupt, and it usually only results in a dictatorship.

So, no.

I was wondering.. is this some kind of naturalistic fallacy?
Explain or elaborate. I'm not sure what you are asking.

Of course not.

a) As someone previously stated, you'd have to drug the entire population. Human nature and its permutations don't allow for long-term acceptance of communism. Flat equality, lack of right to self, total dependency on others, sharing of everything, lack of merit-based advancement, etc. isn't something most people can tolerate, and there are of course the ones (possibly just as prevalent) who will maximize their need, etc. to obtain more value for themselves.

So basically, you have an entire system that only continues because the population is chemically brainwashed into blind conformity. What a wonderful idea....

b) Whatever you do, however you dress communism up, it's still essentially a complete and universal loss of freedom. The people are slaves to either the state (practically) or the masses (hypothetically). They have no rights to themselves, their output/produce, their property, (or what would be their property if such a thing existed) or any form of dissent or exit out of the system. Because of course, anyone who wasn't doped into acceptance would want to leave for climes where they could actually advance themselves above the state of "equally miserable".

c) Eventually, communism as an economic system will still fail. Even if the people are drugged into allowing it, I doubt that drug will also spark creativity and give them personal motivation to do their best. The system will be redistributing goods in a process that hurts the inflow of value - maximal entropy. A tightening downwards spiral. In the end, it'll still just twist lower and lower and eventually collapse.

I think capitalists would still support their own system, and I don't think drugging leaders is necessary, just make a government with weak executive power, strong legislative power, and a strong federal government with reps from every "city-state" or regional area. I think true capitalists believe that even if communism worked, capitalism would still be preferable.

Look, it's not like capitalism is all peachy either. You are always whining about communism "omg guys it's so cruel it will never work omgzz" just stop and think for a second. There is corruption in any political system. Communism can work well in practice, and I believe it is favorable to capitalism, even with its problems.

I think you'd have to extend that series of injections to the rest of the population. Human nature just doesn't support communist principles. People just aren't satisfied with 'enough' and 'sharing'. Some want to excel and be recognized for it, while others are content to contribute nothing.

Once again, there is no human nature. People are taught, since birth, that sharing is bad, and that selfishness is good. They are taught, since birth, that they need to be "the best", that their bretheren are competitors, if not foes. They are taught, since birth, than the whole society is about winners and losers. They are taught, since birth, than the more reckless, shameless, egoisitic people will win, and see it daily.

How could you except people in that situation to be good, generous, helping each other ?

But... wait... they do it ! Even if capitalism, where selfishness and greed is the rule and the key, they still share ! They still donate to charity ! They still give music to their friend, even if they know they face prison for it ! They still help the woman to make her babycar enter the bus ! They still give out, freely, direction to passerby asking them.

Why ? Because men ARE social. Because men ARE nice, kind, sharing. Because helping others, working together, sharing, is as much, if not more, human nature than being selfish and greedy.

It's the capitalist system which encourages people to show their darkest side. It's the capitalist system which teaches us greed, selfishness, disloyality, manipulation. It's the capitalist system which makes us see our bretheren as competitors and not as brothers.

And it's the capitalist system, which, through the "power to the wealty" mechanism of the stock market, give most of the power to the most selfish, reckless, greedy of the men !

Would capitalists here be in favor of such a country, or would they remain opposed because they feel that capitalism is a superior system of political government?

nay, I feel that even if it worked out well communism would still infringe on our rights

They would still oppose it because the very concept demands the sacrifice of an individuals freedom and makes them a slave for the state.

You should learn what communism is before saying that ;)

In a truly communist system, there is no more state. State, according to marxism, is a tool to use for the transition from capitalism to communism, transition known as socialism. But once communism is reached, there is no state anymore.

The rights of the individual with the freedom to succeed or fail

Freedom to fail, what a very gentle way of speaking of starving to death if you're not lucky enough...

are all we need to ensure growth and prosperity on a continuing basis.

Growth is destroying the planet itself. We NEED to go past growth. And capitalism is completly unable to sustend to the needs of people without this "growth". So either capitalism is overthrown, or we'll pay the ultimate price when we'll see it's too late to undo the damages we are doing to our planet.

Government is not your friend. It never has been and never will be, despite what they may tell you on Government owned TV.

Strange, our governement owned TV says exactly the same that what you do ;)

communism can't work with individual freedom.

Only communism can guarantee individual freedom. Capitalism can grant theorical freedom, but not actual freedom. And what is a theorical freedom you can't really have, because you're forced to sell your workforce, or even your own body, just to be able to eat ? What's freedom if you don't have access to knowledge ? What's freedom when you don't have free time ? What's freedom when you're forced to accept any condition your boss put in your working contract or else you die from cold the next winter ?

i tend to value individual freedom.

Me too. That's why I'm communist. Because capitalism is not freedom, but exploitation.

Once again, there is no human nature. People are taught, since birth, that sharing is bad, and that selfishness is good. They are taught, since birth, that they need to be "the best", that their bretheren are competitors, if not foes. They are taught, since birth, than the whole society is about winners and losers. They are taught, since birth, than the more reckless, shameless, egoisitic people will win, and see it daily.

How could you except people in that situation to be good, generous, helping each other ?

But... wait... they do it ! Even if capitalism, where selfishness and greed is the rule and the key, they still share ! They still donate to charity ! They still give music to their friend, even if they know they face prison for it ! They still help the woman to make her babycar enter the bus ! They still give out, freely, direction to passerby asking them.

Why ? Because men ARE social. Because men ARE nice, kind, sharing. Because helping others, working together, sharing, is as much, if not more, human nature than being selfish and greedy.

It's the capitalist system which encourages people to show their darkest side. It's the capitalist system which teaches us greed, selfishness, disloyality, manipulation. It's the capitalist system which makes us see our bretheren as competitors and not as brothers.

And it's the capitalist system, which, through the "power to the wealty" mechanism of the stock market, give most of the power to the most selfish, reckless, greedy of the men !

What unscientific bullshit. Go ask any neurologist, evolutionary biologist, or behavioral psychologist (even though the last is rather soft-science) if there are hardwired predilections, predispositions, common behaviors, etc. in the human species. The human mind has a mental architecture built by evolution, which is driven by survival of the fittest. Therefore, the predisposition is towards self-advancement, not self-denial.

Reality check: Total generosity and sharing, and denial of the self, are NOT survival behaviors. Default self-interest, with use of sharing and generosity when it is beneficial, is the best survival paradigm. Not only that, but for those who actually THINK, reason also tells us that capitalism and self-interest are the best format for interactions and behavior.

Being the best is a positive trait - therefore, it aids existence and is a positive act to be the best. Unless their product is stolen from them or they are forced into equality, those who work harder and/or are more skilled succeed more - therefore, it is natural justice that he who works harder deserves greater reward. If everyone is encouraged to do their best, and is rewarded accordingly, then everyone falls into a hierarchy of beneficial existences which allows all to be completely independent and confident in their merit, and allows any person not below minimal intelligence standards for Homo sapiens to at least not starve, assuming they actually try. Competition allows the best products and services to be given to others, and allows the best individuals to rise to their just positions - therefore, competition is useful and positive.

Even if it did work, I would always be against it because communism excludes democracy and I would never want to live under a system where merit is irrelevant.

People should really learn what communism is before speaking about it...

Communism _requires_ democracy. Communism even empower a democratic level unthinkable under capitalism, because in capitalism, vast and fundemantal fields of the society are left out of the democratic process, and controlled by the markets, which are, inherently, antidemocaratic (at bast, ploutocratic, which means your decision power depends directly of your wealth).

Only communism can guarantee individual freedom. Capitalism can grant theorical freedom, but not actual freedom. And what is a theorical freedom you can't really have, because you're forced to sell your workforce, or even your own body, just to be able to eat ? What's freedom if you don't have access to knowledge ? What's freedom when you don't have free time ? What's freedom when you're forced to accept any condition your boss put in your working contract or else you die from cold the next winter ?



Me too. That's why I'm communist. Because capitalism is not freedom, but exploitation.

Umm....do you have a virus or something? You've made this exact same post about 4 times...

Umm....do you have a virus or something? You've made this exact same post about 4 times...

There was a database problem on NS forums, and my attempts to post failed on my side (timeout) but seems they were completed on the server side. I deleted all the duplicates, sorry for the troube.

Comrade Kilobugya, are you active in the UDCP. If not, we could use another realistic communist like yourself.

As for human nature:
Perhaps it does exist, but it includes the good qualities along with the bad. Capitalism happens to allow the bad qualities to flourish. Using the same logic as capitalists, murder should be legalized because it's sometimes human nature to kill. I know no capitalist would admit this, but it's the same logic they're using when they allow greed thrive.

Well, the answer to the original question really depends on scale. Small scale communes are often sucessful, although they function inside of a capatalist country.

Large scale communism though, has time and time again proved itself impractical and ended in dictatorships. Perhaps if this revolution (sp) took place on a small island...

What unscientific bullshit. Go ask any neurologist, evolutionary biologist, or behavioral psychologist

Exactly. They would teach you that the one quality evolution selectionned in homo sapiens spaiens, one that for example failed to homo sapiens neanderthalensis, is the capacity to _adapt_ to the environement, which is mostly the society.

Men are the animals who know the less at birth, and who need to learn the most. Men are the less hard-wired of the animals, and the ones able to adapt, learn, the most.

And all anthropologist would explain to you that what human behavior differs a lot from one culture to another. In some cultures, even the concept of lying is unheard of.

The human mind has a mental architecture built by evolution, which is driven by survival of the fittest. Therefore, the predisposition is towards self-advancement, not self-denial.

The predisposition is towards adaptability. This is the ultimate form of "survival of the fittest".

Reality check: Total generosity and sharing, and denial of the self, are NOT survival behaviors. Default self-interest, with use of sharing and generosity when it is beneficial, is the best survival paradigm.

False. The best survival paradigm, as a SPEICE (which is what evolution do, first of all, before selecting individuals, it selects speices), is sticking together, and altruism towards the community. Hive and packs are the most successful structures in evolution, far more than individualism.

Being the best is a positive trait - therefore, it aids existence and is a positive act to be the best.

No. Being the best is not positive. Being good is positive. Being the best can as easily be acheived by being good, or by preventing others to be good.

Unless their product is stolen from them

This is exactly what capitalism do daily. Workers see the product of their work stolen by the stock holders, it's one of the core principles of capitalism.

those who work harder and/or are more skilled succeed more

No. Those who succeed more are first the lucky ones. Then it's the ones who were the most selfish, reckless, lying, manipulating. You can see a brilliant example in Bill Gates. The ability to make other believe your lies, to manipulate them, to have them accept agrements that are not good for them, to betray them at the correct time, ... all that matter far more than raw skill or working harder, in capitalism.

Competition allows the best products and services to be given to others, and allows the best individuals to rise to their just positions - therefore, competition is useful and positive.

Competition allows the most selfish to raise into power, while more kind, sharing, respecting, honest people are left at the bottom. It gives more power to more reckless and selfish, making the whole society even worse. And it creates at the same time enormous waste (advertising, duplication of infrastructure, duplication of research efforts, industrial spying, ...)

And if you were not completly blind to the world, you would see that it's not "the best products" which succeed, but the ones with the best marketing plan (best advertising, most aggressive campaign, contracts with the best companies, put into the market at the best timining, ...). Once again, it's not quality which determinate success, but the ability to deceive and manipulate.

Competition leads to low quality, easily breakable stuff, instead for enduring stuff, because they are cheaper. It leads to more effort being invested to external outlook (what people can judge and see when in hurry in a shop) and less to the internal capacity. Competition leads CPU makers to run the GHz race, which is technically speaking insane, instead of investing on better CPU designed. Same goes in photo cameras, where the insane megapixel race is followed, leading to lower quality photos because of lower-size censors. That's what competition leads to.

And worse of all, competition doesn't teach the most fundamental of the skills, which is working _together_. The most important engine of human progress is the sharing of knowledge, the "working together" of the scientific community. Just look at what Free Software was able to do, or at wikipedia success, despite all the problems of wikipedia (vandalism, ...) which are due to the fact that wikipedia is more akin to anarchism than to communism.

Comrade Kilobugya, are you active in the UDCP. If not, we could use another realistic communist like yourself.

The Kilobugya Communist Party is not yet member of the UDCP, but we are looking forward it.

Where can we find more information about it, so we can discuss about it in all the local soviets, before taking the decision to join it (or not) ?

And all anthropologist would explain to you that what human behavior differs a lot from one culture to another. In some cultures, even the concept of lying is unheard of.


And they would also explain to you the similarities common to all cultures. For example, the concept of the individual.


False. The best survival paradigm, as a SPEICE (which is what evolution do, first of all, before selecting individuals, it selects speices), is sticking together, and altruism towards the community. Hive and packs are the most successful structures in evolution, far more than individualism.


Uh, evolution doesn't care about species. Evolution is made up of individuals acting to their own DNA and their own genetic interests.

And yeah, hives are successful... in insects. Your cute conclusion here seems to forget that we're not insects and we don't have a hive form of genetic reproduction. The only reason ants give themselves to the collective is because, for them, it IS in their best genetic interests. A worker ant is selfless not "for the species" (ant colonies make war on other ant colonies even of the same species) but because it is sterile, and it's only hope in reproduction is insuring it's queen survives to continue the genetic line. So even your lauded "hive" is based on a capitalistic idea of self-interest.


This is exactly what capitalism do daily. Workers see the product of their work stolen by the stock holders, it's one of the core principles of capitalism.

Blah blah blah capitalism is theft blah blah blah.

Apparently you don't know what "theft" or "stolen" actually means. Come back to you when you've been mugged or robbed... or read a dictionary.

Right here Comrade: http://www.udcp.org/

Santa Barbara, don't be so close-minded as to not realize things aren't always so black and white. Stealing isn't always literally attacking someone in the streets and taking their wallet. Stealing can also be profiting from somebody else's labor without properly rewarding them.

Communism is only practical on a small scale. Why?
When you involve two people, sharing is relatively easy. They know eachother. They trust eachother.
A few dozen: not as easy, but if there is some form of trust, it can work.
A few million: Now, you've got a problem. You've got a system that depends on sharing, but you can't really trust people to just give much to total strangers. In small groups, people can share and tolerate people. In large groups, you have many personalities clashing with eachother. The commune has gotten too big and is unstable. You need a strong government now to control the masses. You need to keep that democracy from turning into mob rule.

Capitalism works not as well as communism on a small scale, but it is incredibly stable at a much larger scale. You have people competing to be the best. Sure, you'll have muggers and thieves, but you'll also have innovators and truly compassionate people. You'll have small communes working together to thrive. You'll have more Sam Waltons(Sam Walton is the guy who created Wal-mart and became the rishest man in the world thanks to his "lower prices=higher profits" theory) and Thomas Edisons. You have a system built to handle both sharing and competition.

The best system, imo, is to have small communist units working in a large, capitalistic society. You'll have small, stable groups working together while allowing for humanity's natural greediness to better the communes.

Santa Barbara, don't be so close-minded as to not realize things aren't always so black and white. Stealing isn't always literally attacking someone in the streets and taking their wallet. Stealing can also be profiting from somebody else's labor without properly rewarding them.

Yeah, how close-minded of me not to redefine the language so that anyone who works at a job where someone makes a profit is a victim of theft. :rolleyes:

The poster is not talking about cases where employees are ripped off. And that would technically be fraud or breach of contract, not theft.

Santa Barbara, don't be so close-minded as to not realize things aren't always so black and white. Stealing isn't always literally attacking someone in the streets and taking their wallet. Stealing can also be profiting from somebody else's labor without properly rewarding them.

Yes, that's called slavery. However, nowhere in the developed world is there a legal institutionalized system of slavery...all systems where profit occurs involve employees freely choosing their places of employment for compensation agreed upon prior to starting work.

I'm sorry, you're right, people can be sizzled in the capitalist's frying pan, or he can take a walk into the fire.

I'm sorry, you're right

Concession accepted!

You know that's not what I meant Comrade, please keep this conversation intelligent.

I'm sorry, you're right, people can be sizzled in the capitalist's frying pan, or he can take a walk into the fire.

No, you can also start your own company and be self employed...it's concievably possible to totally sustain yourself without outside aid if you are willing to put the effort in. No one is forced to work for a company, since the capitalist system gives them the freedom to start their own or develop their own means of living.

Yes, but if it were possible for Communism to work in theory perfectly, it would also be possible for pure capitalism to work perfectly.

Incorrect; capitalism can never be perfect (as in "not leading to the ocassional recession, stockmarket crash and so on"). On the whole however it sort of works - which is more than one can say for the "perfect on paper" communism.

People should really learn what communism is before speaking about it...

Communism _requires_ democracy. Communism even empower a democratic level unthinkable under capitalism, because in capitalism, vast and fundemantal fields of the society are left out of the democratic process, and controlled by the markets, which are, inherently, antidemocaratic (at bast, ploutocratic, which means your decision power depends directly of your wealth).

Actually, capitalism tends towards meritocracy, which can look like plutocracy to someone not observing quite deep enough.

Also, the fact is that communism in fact requires the opposite: totalitarianism. Two reasons:

a) For the system to work, everyone, or almost everyone, in it must either believe in the system or be intimidated or hoodwinked into at least following the system. Because human nature precludes that, totalitarian government is necessary to keep people intimidated or hoodwinked. Freedom of movement must be abolished, because exodus by the dissatisfied would undermine, if not wreck, the system. To keep people believing, propoganda must be pure and pervasive. There goes freedom of the press, and speech.

b) Whatever communism's claims of rule by the masses through some sort of democratic anarchy, that's impossible. It's just not a pragmatically possible system. For everyone to contribute to a 'central pool', someone has to regulate that activity, and the pool itself. Someone has to perform the redistribution; people obviously can't just take on their own initiative; some, maybe most, will take advantage.

The suprademocratic economic and sociopolitical anarchy proposed can't work because people are neither actually equal nor perfectly selfless, generous, and peaceful - precisely the opposite, in fact. Anarchy --> strongarm control-by-the-warlords. To keep that from happening, the desired state of flat equality must be facilitated/imposed by an overriding central authority; thus, a loss of rights. Communism requires totalitarianism to function; theft of property and produce, redistribution, and imposition of flat equality has to have a total-control-enabled central facilitator to achieve a steady-state that doesn't devolve even further into into barbarian rule-by-the-biggest-muscles-and-most-guns. Of course, that central totalitarian authority rules by central strongarm itself, so no matter how you play it, communism results in strongarm control of the populace.

Capitalism is the only system that doesn't require this; that protects individual rights and prevents anarchy at the same time, and doesn't have the mandatory either-or dichotomy of distributed-strongarm anarchy vs. central-strongarm totalitarianism. Each person has their own rights, that end where another person's rights begin, where no person or organization is a strongarm authority of any kind, and where no one has their existence dictated by the implied threat of a gun or a fist. You have your abilities, and you do what you can with them, as far as your own rights and their interaction with the rights of others extend. The system is functional, self-stable, and capable of growth, progress, advancement, etc.

Yes, that's called slavery. However, nowhere in the developed world is there a legal institutionalized system of slavery...all systems where profit occurs involve employees freely choosing their places of employment for compensation agreed upon prior to starting work.

The huge problem being that you have the choice being "agreeing" or starving to death.

A system where you have to chose between 2 (or 3 or 10) masters to be slave of, but if you don't chose any, you're left dying of starvation or of cold is not much better than pure slavery, and it's what pure capitalism is.

Of course, in not too inhuman countries, there is a welfare system that tries to correct the worst effects of capitalism, by both protecting the workers (maximal working hours, minimal wage, ...) and protecting the ones who don't have a salary (unemployment money, minimal income, free healthcare, ...). But that is already recognizing that capitalism is a failure, and just lowers the problem to a tolerable level, it doesn't fix it at all.

No, you can also start your own company and be self employed...it's concievably possible to totally sustain yourself without outside aid if you are willing to put the effort in. No one is forced to work for a company, since the capitalist system gives them the freedom to start their own or develop their own means of living.
Indeed but that's only during the development stage of capitalism. When capitalism is mature, there will be no more room for self-employed guys. The accumulation of the capital and the market dictates that the small joins the big or dies. It is logical because mass production is much more economically and financially effective than small scale production. As the market organises itself, the capital breeds the capital and competition is more and more irrelevant. At some point, capitalism itself becomes irrelevant, like all the previous class system. Look back a little in history and you'll see that all class systems have an end. The feodals competed with each other and helped civilization up to the point where they won and became irrelevant by not competing anymore, then they were replaced by bourgeois. Capitalism is not yet the end of history.

Indeed but that's only during the development stage of capitalism. When capitalism is mature, there will be no more room for self-employed guys. The accumulation of the capital and the market dictates that the small joins the big or dies. It is logical because mass production is much more economically and financially effective than small scale production. As the market organises itself, the capital breeds the capital and competition is more and more irrelevant. At some point, capitalism itself becomes irrelevant, like all the previous class system. Look back a little in history and you'll see that all class systems have an end. The feodals competed with each other and helped civilization up to the point where they won and became irrelevant by not competing anymore, then they were replaced by bourgeois. Capitalism is not yet the end of history.

The problem there is that you assume a steady-state; major changes and discoveries, paradigm shifts, market collapses/bubbles/trends/shifts, etc. all keep shaking things up. Not to mention that that's the point of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act - to prevent people from using capitalism against it, and to prevent capitalism basically eating itself, via barring of monopolies and the like.

Of course, in not too inhuman countries, there is a welfare system that tries to correct the worst effects of capitalism, by both protecting the workers (maximal working hours, minimal wage, ...) and protecting the ones who don't have a salary (unemployment money, minimal income, free healthcare, ...). But that is already recognizing that capitalism is a failure, and just lowers the problem to a tolerable level, it doesn't fix it at all.

It's not a failiure if the system requires protections to prevent it from causing damages; for example, an engine has a sealed fuel tank on it to prevent the gasoline from catching fire and exploding, but that doesn't mean the internal combustion engine is a failiure.

Capitalism works, but it requires protections to counteract the damages that occur.

The huge problem being that you have the choice being "agreeing" or starving to death.

A system where you have to chose between 2 (or 3 or 10) masters to be slave of, but if you don't chose any, you're left dying of starvation or of cold is not much better than pure slavery, and it's what pure capitalism is.

Of course, in not too inhuman countries, there is a welfare system that tries to correct the worst effects of capitalism, by both protecting the workers (maximal working hours, minimal wage, ...) and protecting the ones who don't have a salary (unemployment money, minimal income, free healthcare, ...). But that is already recognizing that capitalism is a failure, and just lowers the problem to a tolerable level, it doesn't fix it at all.

Ah, yes....that horrible thing of making people choose between working, and succeeding, or being lazy, and not succeeding. So you're trying to free people from the tyranny of self-responsibility?

Indeed but that's only during the development stage of capitalism. When capitalism is mature, there will be no more room for self-employed guys. The accumulation of the capital and the market dictates that the small joins the big or dies. It is logical because mass production is much more economically and financially effective than small scale production. As the market organises itself, the capital breeds the capital and competition is more and more irrelevant. At some point, capitalism itself becomes irrelevant, like all the previous class system. Look back a little in history and you'll see that all class systems have an end. The feodals competed with each other and helped civilization up to the point where they won and became irrelevant by not competing anymore, then they were replaced by bourgeois. Capitalism is not yet the end of history.

Self employment will always exist as long as there is demand for new products and technology, and as long as government exists to prevent abuses by larger companies. However, you are correct that capitalism will eventually evolve in to another system, but that system is certainly not going to be true Communism at least until technology and society have evolved to a state of perfection.

The problem there is that you assume a steady-state; major changes and discoveries, paradigm shifts, market collapses/bubbles/trends/shifts, etc. all keep shaking things up. Not to mention that that's the point of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act - to prevent people from using capitalism against it, and to prevent capitalism basically eating itself, via barring of monopolies and the like.
Anti-trust laws are conservative and inherently uneffective. They keep the market and civilization from evolving while not adressing the problem of the accumulation of the capital. What you need is the abolishment of inheritance as this is the only long term solution for a sustained shaking up of society.

Actually, capitalism tends towards meritocracy, which can look like plutocracy to someone not observing quite deep enough.

Not meritocracy. But law-of-strongest, which is usually the most selfish and reckless.

Also, the fact is that communism in fact requires the opposite: totalitarianism. Two reasons:

Because human nature precludes that,

Once again, there is no human nature. Or if there is one, it contains BOTH selfishness and altruism. Who makes "human nature" is what society is.

Freedom of movement must be abolished, because exodus by the dissatisfied would undermine, if not wreck, the
system.

Or the other way around ? You still think about communism as the cariracture that was applied in "eastern states". A true communist society requires popular support.

To keep people believing, propoganda must be pure and pervasive. There goes freedom of the press, and speech.

Because freedom of speech/press do exist in capitalism ? Do you know how hard it is, within capitalism, to make your opinion known if you are not supported by a big corporation or another ? You never realised how centralised are the newspapers/tv channels, and never asked yourself who controled them ? You never thought about the veto power advertisers about nearly all TV shows ?

True freedom of speech can only be empowered by communism.

Just look at France, which is, by far, not the worse. We had a referndum about a "constitution" last year, and ALL the massmedia were openly supporting the "YES". The only daily newspaper supporting the "NO" was the communist newspaper, l'Humanité, which survives painfully and only because we, french communists, invest a lot of our personnal energy and money to make it survive. And which is about to go bankrupt because, preparing for privatization, the gov increased the postal fees for press (promoting freedom of speach used to be considered a public service duty, and the press used to pay less than the real cost to the nationalised post service to carry the newspapers). Else, all the daily newspapers, all the TV channels, all the major radio stations were constantly supporting the "YES".

Bad luck for them, the left did a wonderful people-to-people, facts-against-facts campaign, and the "NO" won by 55% ! But still, the situation is here. Capitalism cannot enable free speach and free to exist, if it may allow it in theory.

b) Whatever communism's claims of rule by the masses through some sort of democratic anarchy, that's impossible. It's just not a pragmatically possible system. For everyone to contribute to a 'central pool', someone has to regulate that activity, and the pool itself. Someone has to perform the redistribution; people obviously can't just take on their own initiative; some, maybe most, will take advantage.

That's why participative budget is so praised in Brasil, and even the right wing doesn't dare to disband it when they take back a city which once implemented it ? (Like Porto Allegre).

The suprademocratic economic and sociopolitical anarchy proposed can't work because people are neither actually equal nor perfectly selfless, generous, and peaceful - precisely the opposite, in fact.

In a capitalist society, people tend to be selfish and reckless, true. That's a fault of capitalism.

[snipped of random rant about anarchy, which is not the subjet]

Capitalism is the only system that doesn't require this; that protects individual rights

That's a major, fatal mistake of your way of thinking. Capitalism doesn't PROTECT any individual right. Capitalism just theorically ALLOWs them. It doesn't, by any mean, make them real, nor PROTECT them. That's the fundamental difference. Capitalism can grant theorical rights, but can't do anything to make them real of everyone. Only a post-capitalist (socialist, communist, or maybe a real social-democratic one) society can PROTECT the freedom, making sure everyone can enjoy them.

The example of the press fits perfectly in there, but you could citate about anything. Saying "no one can be forbidden to learn how to read" is not granting a theorical right, but doesn't protect this right. Saying "everyone can receive free reading lessons, and the society has a duty to organise them" does more than granting a theorical right, it creates an actual right, that is protected. One is just theorical freedom, which doesn't mean much for those who are physically (by their economical, social, geographical, ... situations) prevented to enjoy it. The other creates a real right, a real freedom, that every single human being can decide to use.

where no one has their existence dictated by the implied threat of a gun or a fist.

The implied of threat of dyuing from starvation, dying for disease with known cure, or dying from cold in the street is not much better. Communism creates a society free from BOTH those kind of implied threat, while capitalism, inherently, makes everyone not born in a wealth enough family to live under this constant threat.

The system is functional

With half of the planet starving under it ? With millions of people suffering from poverty even in the richest of the countries ?

self-stable

Don't make me laugh. Capitalism is the most unstable system ever. Did you ever hear about a stock market crash ? Did you ever hear about economical crisis ? Did you ever hear about speculation and bubbles ?

Even under the Smith-Walras model the capitalists love so much, it is mathematically proven that capitalism is an highly unstable system. And history shows that, sadly, it's more than true.

and capable of growth

It is not only capable of growth. It REQUIRES growth to function. But endless growth means overusing of ressources, and destroying of the fragile equilibrium of the planet. In order to survive, capitalism requires more and more damages to our planet. It's more akin to a parasite than anything else.

progress, advancement, etc.

Strange that all the most important progress, inventions, discoveries, ... were made in non-capitalist models. The way the scientific community itself works, by sharing knowledge, is non-capitalist. The most important discoveries of the XXest century were easier made non-for-profit by scientists sharing their knowledge together, by state-runned, state-controlled or state-funded agencies, military or civilian (even the discovery of the transistor, which was made by AT&T, was made in ... state-paid, state-granted monopoly of AT&T bell labs).

Strange that all the most important progress, inventions, discoveries, ... were made in non-capitalist models. The way the scientific community itself works, by sharing knowledge, is non-capitalist. The most important discoveries of the XXest century were easier made non-for-profit by scientists sharing their knowledge together, by state-runned, state-controlled or state-funded agencies, military or civilian (even the discovery of the transistor, which was made by AT&T, was made in ... state-paid, state-granted monopoly of AT&T bell labs).

Yes, the inventions were made by people working in these facilities. However, they didn't become the efficent and high-quality devices of today in those companies; it was the later private innovaters that took the original concept and made it in to something far superior to the original invention.

Much of the invention comes from non-competitve sources, which is why funding for universities and the like is vital. However, from there the private sector makes the inventions in to useful devices and improves it many millions of times over.

Self employment will always exist as long as there is demand for new products and technology, and as long as government exists to prevent abuses by larger companies.
I don't really agree to call what they do abuse (if we are talking about the same thing). Large companies have more capital and are more effective than small companies. They always try to maximize the use of their capital and that's usually at the expense of small companies, but can and should the government prevent that? I find it conservative to try to prevent large companies to develop so as to make room for the small ones. If the large companies win the competition, that's because they produce more effectivelly. If the small ones can't compete, that's because they are irrelevant. In my opinion, the outgrowth of capitalism is a good thing. We shouldn't try to keep small capitalism and stop the natural evolution of society. We should try to look at the next stage instead. There is a superior system and an amazing civilization waiting for us after that.

I don't really agree to call what they do abuse (if we are talking about the same thing). Large companies have more capital and are more effective than small companies. They always try to maximize the use of their capital and that's usually at the expense of small companies, but can and should the government prevent that? I find it conservative to try to prevent large companies to develop so as to make room for the small ones. If the large companies win the competition, that's because they produce more effectivelly. If the small ones can't compete, that's because they are irrelevant. In my opinion, the outgrowth of capitalism is a good thing. We shouldn't try to keep small capitalism and stop the natural evolution of society. We should try to look at the next stage instead. There is a superior system and an amazing civilization waiting for us after that.

Abuse would be companies using their influence to intentionally suppress newer and better technology to prevent a threat to their influence. The best example is General Motors. They used their power to effectively crush any real innovation in the efficency of their engines or use of alternative fuels as a means of keeping their effective monopoly on the automotive sector. As a result, American automakers imploded during the 1970's and permanently damaged their influence worldwide.

Other than that, if a large company can do it better and for less cost, then they have every right to do so. It's only when they begin to suppress technological innovation that I have a problem.

If the large companies win the competition, that's because they produce more effectivelly.

No. It's because competition is all like a war, and in a war, the strongest nearly always win. A small company cannot resist against the marketing power of a big company. A small company cannot last long against very low prices a big company can do for awhile, losing money, but once the smalls are killed, they can raise the prices again. A small company is then completly unable to use the dirty strategies the big company can use (industrial spying, legal terrorism, forced agrements (like MS with "if you sell some computers with something else than windows, then all your windows copy will be more expensive" or Coca-Cola with "if you sell a non-Coca-cola soft drink in your restaurant, then you'll pay the Coca-cola ones at higher prices"), ...).

Under capitalism, small players can't compete against big ones. Not because they produce lower quality stuff, or because they have higher per-item production cost (can be true, but not always), but because they can't compete on the "dirty tricks" part. Sure, laws can limit the "dirty tricks". But then, it's no longer full capitalism. And the law can only limit them, not prevent them totally.

True Communism IS possible. Difficult, but possible. You would have to get all the people in the world, who are dedicated to making communism work, in a new place for a new country. Then you'd have to use alot of technology to ensure that everyone has an equal say in the running of the country.
Technocratic communism, eh? But that in turn leads me to ask the question: how safe will that technology be from hacking or corruption? It seems like hackers and the like would then gain an unequally large say. And even if the technology was somehow 100% error-free, what would happen if the technology gained sentience?

Technocratic communism, eh? But that in turn leads me to ask the question: how safe will that technology be from hacking or corruption? It seems like hackers and the like would then gain an unequally large say. And even if the technology was somehow 100% error-free, what would happen if the technology gained sentience?

100% error-free, human controllable, electronic voting is not that hard to implement. And it certainly does not require any technology complex enough to gain sentience.

I can think of several ways to implement it, depending of what you want to protect exactly (but even paper voting isn't 100% safe, nor 100% anonymous).

Abuse would be companies using their influence to intentionally suppress newer and better technology to prevent a threat to their influence. The best example is General Motors. They used their power to effectively crush any real innovation in the efficency of their engines or use of alternative fuels as a means of keeping their effective monopoly on the automotive sector. As a result, American automakers imploded during the 1970's and permanently damaged their influence worldwide.

Other than that, if a large company can do it better and for less cost, then they have every right to do so. It's only when they begin to suppress technological innovation that I have a problem.
Then I agree with you. Anyway, If General Motors has a monopoly and they have one, they are not competing anymore. What is the point of private ownership for General Motors then? Isn't it time to nationalize and use it for the general good now that they've won the competition and only profit for a few oligarchs?

I would not accept what was in the first post as that would be communism in a single country which would ultimately lead to an invasion from an outside force...which would only lead to a Dictatorship.

Now, if we had a worlwide Marxist revolution where every country was exacly as described in your first post I, a full fledge Fascist, would be happy to live like that.

But that will never happen, so I will continue my life as an anti-Communist.

No. It's because competition is all like a war, and in a war, the strongest nearly always win. A small company cannot resist against the marketing power of a big company. A small company cannot last long against very low prices a big company can do for awhile, losing money, but once the smalls are killed, they can raise the prices again. A small company is then completly unable to use the dirty strategies the big company can use (industrial spying, legal terrorism, forced agrements (like MS with "if you sell some computers with something else than windows, then all your windows copy will be more expensive" or Coca-Cola with "if you sell a non-Coca-cola soft drink in your restaurant, then you'll pay the Coca-cola ones at higher prices"), ...).

Under capitalism, small players can't compete against big ones. Not because they produce lower quality stuff, or because they have higher per-item production cost (can be true, but not always), but because they can't compete on the "dirty tricks" part. Sure, laws can limit the "dirty tricks". But then, it's no longer full capitalism. And the law can only limit them, not prevent them totally.
I agree with you too. But what's the solution? Dismantle General Motors?

I agree with you too. But what's the solution? Dismantle General Motors?

Abolish capitalism ;)

Create a society where being "being better than the other" is no longer the goal, but where "working together for mutual benefit" is.

Nationalising General Motors and running it under direct or semi-direct democracy could be a first step ;)

Abolish capitalism ;)

Create a society where being "being better than the other" is no longer the goal, but where "working together for mutual benefit" is.

Nationalising General Motors and running it under direct or semi-direct democracy could be a first step ;)Agreed.
The first step in my opinion is abolishing inheritance as a way to nationalize General Motors. When the baron dies, all his stock shares go to the state. When the state has more than 50% of General Motors, General Motors belongs to all the americans. Then General Motors must produce for the people and the dividends can be used to provide housing for the homeless and food for the hungry.

Then I agree with you. Anyway, If General Motors has a monopoly and they have one, they are not competing anymore. What is the point of private ownership for General Motors then? Isn't it time to nationalize and use it for the general good now that they've won the competition and only profit for a few oligarchs?

But nationalization often makes it worse, because that field is now totally closed to future competition and the result is almost undoubtedly going to be lower quality service (although not higher prices) and little innovation.

Generally, the experience of state-owned industry is one of bureaucratization, corruption, and incompetence because now you have the political factor involved in decisionmaking, and there is no accountability for failiure. If it were possible for an industry to nationalize but fully retain the accountability and eliminate the political aspect, it might be different.

Practically speaking, the government needs to forcibly break up companies that are abusing the market; if they aren't actually committing abuses like General Motors, then they don't need to be broken up.

Only communism can guarantee individual freedom

if by individual freedom you mean freedom to operate within whatever the state/masses allow you too, which with the overall guise of communism, is probably the equivilant of having the freedom to wearing your provided baseball hat backwards as opposed to forwards. want a cowboy hat instead? to bad, cowboy hat's are reserved for cowboys, when there are cowboy hats to be had, anyways.

some freeodm you got there.

Capitalism can grant theorical freedom, but not actual freedom. And what is a theorical freedom you can't really have, because you're forced to sell your workforce, or even your own body, just to be able to eat ?

i've never met anyone who has ever had it that bad. in some areas of the world this is true, but that is always due to corrupt/incompetent goernment.

What's freedom if you don't have access to knowledge ? What's freedom when you don't have free time ? What's freedom when you're forced to accept any condition your boss put in your working contract or else you die from cold the next winter ?

who doesn't have access to information? who doesn't have any free time? who has no control over their labor? why do you think this would be any different under a communist system? what's freedom when your forced to conform to a lifestyle that your state/collective gives to you?

Me too. That's why I'm communist. Because capitalism is not freedom, but exploitation.

communism is exploitation as well, even you have to see that.

Communism in any form reduces all men to the level of the lowest man, negates the utility of human endeavour, and engenders conformist mediocrity, all of which would imply quite the malignity of the fallacy of a political system Marx advocated.

But nationalization often makes it worse, because that field is now totally closed to future competition and the result is almost undoubtedly going to be lower quality service (although not higher prices) and little innovation.

Generally, the experience of state-owned industry is one of bureaucratization, corruption, and incompetence because now you have the political factor involved in decisionmaking, and there is no accountability for failiure. If it were possible for an industry to nationalize but fully retain the accountability and eliminate the political aspect, it might be different.

Practically speaking, the government needs to forcibly break up companies that are abusing the market; if they aren't actually committing abuses like General Motors, then they don't need to be broken up.That is a very good point. Maybe we need to make some progress on political democracy before that is possible. I'll change my first step. Let say the first step is to eliminate political heads and implement direct democracy. The political class is no better than the super-wealthy bourgeois dynasties.

But nationalization often makes it worse, because that field is now totally closed to future competition and the result is almost undoubtedly going to be lower quality service (although not higher prices) and little innovation.

The experience in France shows the exact opposite.

In what fields is France among world leaders ? High speed trains, nuclear power plants, aerospatial constructrion.

The national train company, SNCF, is under governement control since the 1930s. We had the first high-speed train of the world, and we still have one of the most reliable (no death of accidents in 30 years), most dense, cleanest train network of the world.

The eletric company, EDF, was nationalised in 1944, as asked for by the (communist and unionist controlled) National Council of Resistance. We have the cheapest electricity of Europe, and we even sell electricity to all our neighbours countries. With its capacity of overproduction (something completly unprofitable), EDF was able to support European electricity network during the 2003's heat wave, preventing a California-like blackout. While doing all that, EDF was still doing its duty as a public service, not cutting power (merely caping it, at worst) to people with real money problems. Saddly, it's was partly privatised in 2005, against the will of the majority of french people.

The aeronitic industry of France, which included the famous Concorde plane,was also mostly (if not completly) state-controlled until the late 90s. The SNECMA, world leader in civilian plane engines, producing the engines for most of both Airbus and Boeing planes, was owned and controlled by the French governement until 2004, when it was partly privatised.

So well, as far I can see from France, state-owned companies work better than private ones. And the profits, when there are some (like for EDF or SNECMA), go to the state, which can then use it for welfare and eduction, and not to stock holders.

Communism in any form reduces all men to the level of the lowest man

.. by saying we are all humans and can all contribute to society in our own unique way...

negates the utility of human endeavour

.. because "working to better yourself" is such a silly concept...

and engenders conformist mediocrity

.. because humans unfortunately are lazy.

...
You are french? I'm from Toulouse.
Anyway, I share the same opinion. Train systems in the UK were good until they privatized. Now they are crap. The train system, along with many big industries don't work well in the private sector. I believe that is because when there is no competition, there is no point is privatizing. What did they expect? If one company owns the railways, they abuse it, of course. On the other hand, I'd like to see more democracy in France. Sarkozy needs to go or be shot and we need a real left to replace the "socialist" barons.

.. by saying we are all humans and can all contribute to society in our own unique way...

However those who contribute in a menial manner or contribute little are rewarded every inch as much as those who assume the role of the trained professional or tradesman.


.. because "working to better yourself" is such a silly concept...

However within communism one does not better oneself and procure advancement since all exertion is equalled out for the "good" of society, and therefore endeavour is futile since one is not rewarded accordingly

.. because humans unfortunately are lazy.

No, since all humans are inherently selfich, and it is an evident that in a communist society it is better to possess a menial, mindless and facile job, or be unemployed, than to assume a role of some qualification or difficulty, since the rewards, unlike the exertion, are equal.

However within communism one does not better oneself and procure advancement since all exertion is equalled out for the "good" of society, and therefore endeavour is futile since one is not rewarded accordingly
Your logic is flawed because you assume that people are not part of society. The 'good' of society is actually a reward for everyone.

However those who contribute in a menial manner or contribute little are rewarded every inch as much as those who assume the role of the trained professional or tradesman.

So ? They get the reward of fulfilling a usefull function. And of course there is some advantage in being a doctor over being a poopcleaner.

However within communism one does not better oneself and procure advancement since all exertion is equalled out for the "good" of society, and therefore endeavour is futile since one is not rewarded accordingly

So you do not believe that doing a job well, and knowing how many benefit from your work, can be its own reward ? Or that "beating yourself" by surpassing your previous achievements can be fullfilling (to rephrase: you have never played a computer game with score) ?

No, since all humans are inherently selfich, and it is an evident that in a communist society it is better to possess a menial, mindless and facile job, or be unemployed, than to assume a role of some qualification or difficulty, since the rewards, unlike the exertion, are equal.

While I *personally* disagree with the lack of motivation thingy, as I assume most of the core research scientific community would, I fear you are right for many other people. Which is why communism doesn't work.

You are french? I'm from Toulouse.

Oh, hi ! I'm from Paris' suburb (Epinay/Seine in the (in)famous 93) ;)

On the other hand, I'd like to see more democracy in France.

Indeed. The fifth republic never was that democratic, and it got worse since 2002... the presidential election first was a dramatic mistake, it makes people mater more than idea, and tend to give a lot of power to the president :(

We really need a sixth republic, far more democratic...

Sarkozy needs to go or be shot

Well, I wouldn't go that far (shooting people is Sarkozy's ways of doing things, it shouldn't be ours), but he is indeed a real danger for french democracy. Far more dangerous than Le Pen, because while Le Pen has (hopefully) no chance of winning, Sarkozy could...

and we need a real left to replace the "socialist" barons.

I completly agree with that. I hoped for once that after the wonderful campaign for the NO to the EU "constitution" the "left of the left" (from the left of the PS to the LCR, including PCF, MARS, MRC, the left of les Verts, les Alternatifs, ...) would unite, but it seems not very realistic in the current situation... sadly, because it would be the only hope for a real left to win in 2007. I'm very afraid 2007 while look like 2002 in worse, now :(

Oh, hi ! I'm from Paris' suburb (Epinay/Seine in the (in)famous 93) ;)



Indeed. The fifth republic never was that democratic, and it got worse since 2002... the presidential election first was a dramatic mistake, it makes people mater more than idea, and tend to give a lot of power to the president :(

We really need a sixth republic, far more democratic...



Well, I wouldn't go that far (shooting people is Sarkozy's ways of doing things, it shouldn't be ours), but he is indeed a real danger for french democracy. Far more dangerous than Le Pen, because while Le Pen has (hopefully) no chance of winning, Sarkozy could...



I completly agree with that. I hoped for once that after the wonderful campaign for the NO to the EU "constitution" the "left of the left" (from the left of the PS to the LCR, including PCF, MARS, MRC, the left of les Verts, les Alternatifs, ...) would unite, but it seems not very realistic in the current situation... sadly, because it would be the only hope for a real left to win in 2007. I'm very afraid 2007 while look like 2002 in worse, now :(

I must be odd, I have a passing interest in French politics and consider him to be an impeccable minister who merely requires more ministerial support, and force to utilise.

I must be odd, I have a passing interest in French politics and consider him to be an impeccable minister who merely requires more ministerial support, and force to utilise.
Sarkozy? Impeccable minister?
I believe Chirac was a good minister when I compare him with Sarkozy.
In Toulouse, this man fired top policemen for playing rugby with young people Sarkozy calls 'scum' (because they live in poor/problematic areas, actually it is because they don't vote for him). He also expelled a lot of immigrants, including my best romanian friend who was living in France since more than 10 years just for not being legally french (they have a negative impact on his polls).
He is also pushing for something like the affirmative action in France and he created a muslim council with consulting power, effectively breaking french secularist constitution and giving power to the one of the most backward elements of society (because he wants muslim votes).
Really this guy is only interested in his political carreer and is pushing France backward.

Sarkozy? Impeccable minister?
I believe Chirac was a good minister when I compare him with Sarkozy.
In Toulouse, this man fired top policemen for playing rugby with young people Sarkozy calls 'scum' (because they live in poor/problematic) areas. He also expelled a lot of immigrants, including my best romanian friend who was living in France since more than 10 years just for not being legally french.
He is also pushing for something like the affirmative action in France and he created a muslim council with consulting power, effectively breaking french secularist constitution and giving power to the one of the most backward elements of society.
Really this guy is only interested in his political carreer and is pushing France backward.

I must attest to considerable ignorance upon the issue, however he was the sole minister to assume a stance of any fortitude over the rioting.

The aforementioned information does, however, illustrate a political character more concerned with self aggrandizing than beneficient adminsitration, and yopu may accordingly consider yourself the first poster to have altered an opinion of mine upon NS.:)

So ? They get the reward of fulfilling a usefull function. And of course there is some advantage in being a doctor over being a poopcleaner.

However no such sentiment is tangible, and frankly, faced with the exertion of being a professional, in precedent to a "poopcleaner", "the reward of being usefull" is somewhat frivolous no?



So you do not believe that doing a job well, and knowing how many benefit from your work, can be its own reward ? Or that "beating yourself" by surpassing your previous achievements can be fullfilling (to rephrase: you have never played a computer game with score) ?

In relation to a career, unequivocally not. Ambition compels humanity to better itself, ambition to earn more money drives social mobility, ambition to be recognised and materially rewarded drives academia, and in the absence of any tangible reward for ambition, both humanity and society become stagnant.



While I *personally* disagree with the lack of motivation thingy, as I assume most of the core research scientific community would, I fear you are right for many other people. Which is why communism doesn't work.

The reason I've often heard on this forum for the anti-communist feelings are that communism doesn't work in practise.

Suppose there was a country where a Marxist revolution was sucsessful, and they found a way to prevent their leaders/organizers from becoming dictators (think daily injection of the chemical COMMUNAL 3j9). So the country would function communaly just as Marx intended it to without the corruption and centralization that has plauged former 'communist' countries.

Would capitalists here be in favor of such a country, or would they remain opposed because they feel that capitalism is a superior system of political government?

Firstly, I presume you've read the Communist Manifesto by Marx. A Marxist Revolution implies violence, bloodshed and a significant degree of civil liberty curtailment even without taking into account your property being seized by the state. It is written as such in Marx's own words. Nobody should be in favour of such a thing. It has nothing to do with superiority -- it has to do with basic liberty, something which many of my own and likely your own ancestors have fought to preserve in varying ways throughout history.

Secondly, the second that hypothetical becomes practical is the second it becomes impractical. There isn't any wonder injection, and if there was you would need everyone to take it. And you can't possibly administer a wonder injection to every person on the planet. And the ones that avoided it, would take advantage of the ones who hadn't. It... doesn't... work. Never will. Neither does pure capitalism, which is why it hasn't existed anywhere for at least a century.

Santa Barbara, don't be so close-minded as to not realize things aren't always so black and white. Stealing isn't always literally attacking someone in the streets and taking their wallet. Stealing can also be profiting from somebody else's labor without properly rewarding them.

Or, it can be the state, or the masses, or whatever the authority in your version of communism is, taking people's produce and property from them, denying them the right to individual advancement, and forcing them to give up what is theirs and submit to the "redistribution" of others via the depraved, entropy-loving "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." maxim. No one is made to have a job in a capitalistic society; on the other hand, no one in communism has a choice about having everything that makes them a socioeconomic individual robbed from them.

Or, it can be the state, or the masses, or whatever the authority in your version of communism is, taking people's produce and property from them, denying them the right to individual advancement, and forcing them to give up what is theirs and submit to the "redistribution" of others via the depraved, entropy-loving "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." maxim. No one is made to have a job in a capitalistic society; on the other hand, no one in communism has a choice about having everything that makes them a socioeconomic individual robbed from them.

Good man.:)

I must attest to considerable ignorance upon the issue, however he was the sole minister to assume a stance of any fortitude over the rioting.

He actually provoked the riotings, by constantly provoking and insluting the people living the poorest of the subrubs.

Also remember that what started the riotings is the death of two teens, who were so afraid of the police (which, under Sarkozy's control, has an habit of creating a lot of trouble to anyone being not white enough, going even to beatings, or spreading kids' school bag content all over the wet ground, ...) that, when pursued by the police when they hadn't done anything, they prefered to cross a "!! WARNING !! High voltage transformer. No trespassing. !! DANGER OF DEATH !!" pancart than allowing the cops to catch them.

And then, as if it were enough, the police fired a teargas grenade inside a mosquee during a ramadan prayer, and instead of denoucing the police, he covered it first with a lie ("it was not a teargas grenade police from police") and once it was proved that it was the police who fired it, by pressuring the media to not speak about it anymore.

Sarkozy is the one who put fire into the suburbs, because the social and economical policies of his governement are so hated by the french people (their popularity rate falled below 30% for months) that his only chances to win the 2007 elections is to have french people feel in complete insecurity and want harsh repression. Else, he has no chance of winning. So he's creating fear, by provoking the desperate youth of the suburbs, who have no future anyway, into stupid violent actions.

A Marxist Revolution implies violence, bloodshed and a significant degree of civil liberty curtailment

That's false. Paris' Commune was a "Marxist Revolution", and the only bloodshed that happened was when the counter-revolution, the capitalists, took back Paris by the strength of weapons. During the first phase of Paris' Commune, the Revolution itself, only two people were killed. Generals of the regular french army who order their men to open fire upon civilians, and when they refused to do it, the generals threatened to send them all to force labour. Some of the soldiers then turned their guns and killed the generals. That was the only blood spilled during Paris' Commune, until the capitalist counter-revolution attacked Paris.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" that Marx spoke about had nothing to do with stalinism. He said later on that Paris' Commune what he intended when he spoke of the "dictatorship of the proletariat". And Paris' Commune was the most democratic governement France ever had.

Firstly, I presume you've read the Communist Manifesto by Marx. A Marxist Revolution implies violence, bloodshed and a significant degree of civil liberty curtailment even without taking into account your property being seized by the state. It is written as such in Marx's own words. Nobody should be in favour of such a thing. It has nothing to do with superiority -- it has to do with basic liberty, something which many of my own and likely your own ancestors have fought to preserve in varying ways throughout history.

The manifesto talks about a peaceful transition if possible, violent one if not.

Or, it can be the state, or the masses, or whatever the authority in your version of communism is, taking people's produce and property from them, denying them the right to individual advancement, and forcing them to give up what is theirs and submit to the "redistribution" of others via the depraved, entropy-loving "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." maxim. No one is made to have a job in a capitalistic society; on the other hand, no one in communism has a choice about having everything that makes them a socioeconomic individual robbed from them.
Communism is based on the fact that they all accept it. If it is forced on people, it is not communism, it is a transition stage. Capitalism for instance is a transition between the feodal stage and the socialist one. In Marx's theory, the violent/forced stage occurs during capitalism, not during communism.

The manifesto taks about a peaceful transition if possible, violent one if not.

What is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat then, an intermittent side show, or do the Bourgeoise deserve to be eradicated?

The manifesto taks about a peaceful transition if possible, violent one if not.

What is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat then, an intermittent side show, or do the Bourgeoise deserve to be eradicated?

What is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat then, an intermittent side show, or do the Bourgeoise deserve to be eradicated?
It is a stage where the proletariat dictates his rule. The bourgeoisie is eradicated peacefully or violently. If the bourgeois accept to work they become part of the proletariat.

It is a stage where the proletariat dictates his rule. The bourgeoisie is eradicated peacefully or violently. If the bourgeois accept to work they become part of the proletariat.

And why on earth would they feel and volition to do so?

Because freedom of speech/press do exist in capitalism ? Do you know how hard it is, within capitalism, to make your opinion known if you are not supported by a big corporation or another ? You never realised how centralised are the newspapers/tv channels, and never asked yourself who controled them ? You never thought about the veto power advertisers about nearly all TV shows ?

Yet somehow, we end up with opinions ranging from the far left to the far right being broadcasted - just because, at the end of the chain or hierarchy, there are only a few companies, doesn't mean that each of the news outlets owned by a particular company are all micromanaged to have the exact same opinions and stances.

Just look at France, which is, by far, not the worse. We had a referndum about a "constitution" last year, and ALL the massmedia were openly supporting the "YES". The only daily newspaper supporting the "NO" was the communist newspaper, l'Humanité, which survives painfully and only because we, french communists, invest a lot of our personnal energy and money to make it survive. And which is about to go bankrupt because, preparing for privatization, the gov increased the postal fees for press (promoting freedom of speach used to be considered a public service duty, and the press used to pay less than the real cost to the nationalised post service to carry the newspapers). Else, all the daily newspapers, all the TV channels, all the major radio stations were constantly supporting the "YES".

What exactly is the point? That a small newspaper supported an initially unpopular opinion that eventually became a more popular one? Some sort of David-and-Goliath story? The fact that the newspaper is communist doesn't make the story relevant.

In a capitalist society, people tend to be selfish and reckless, true. That's a fault of capitalism.

That's the fault of nature. The first principle of a self-aware mind is "survival of the self". Derived from that is "advancement of the self". From that second principle, altruism and egoism can be derived, but in sum, it is all geared towards the advancement of the self, which is primarily egoistic. "Selfishness" = default survival trait. Even altruism is in the full chain of thought based on egoism. We're social animals, true, which means to a certain degree altruism is a self-advancing/protecting survival trait, but lacking a fundamentally egoistically motivated altruistic impulse, self-interest is the default behavior.

That's a major, fatal mistake of your way of thinking. Capitalism doesn't PROTECT any individual right. Capitalism just theorically ALLOWs them. It doesn't, by any mean, make them real, nor PROTECT them. That's the fundamental difference. Capitalism can grant theorical rights, but can't do anything to make them real of everyone. Only a post-capitalist (socialist, communist, or maybe a real social-democratic one) society can PROTECT the freedom, making sure everyone can enjoy them.

The example of the press fits perfectly in there, but you could citate about anything. Saying "no one can be forbidden to learn how to read" is not granting a theorical right, but doesn't protect this right. Saying "everyone can receive free reading lessons, and the society has a duty to organise them" does more than granting a theorical right, it creates an actual right, that is protected. One is just theorical freedom, which doesn't mean much for those who are physically (by their economical, social, geographical, ... situations) prevented to enjoy it. The other creates a real right, a real freedom, that every single human being can decide to use.

So you guarantee access to some freedoms by abolishing the very possibility of others, instead of keeping all rights and freedoms possible for all people, in a system that uses successful traits and behaviors as the currency for obtaining the fact of said freedoms. That makes no sense. So you guarantee the supposed "right to equality" and "freedom from self-responsibility" at the cost of the right to one's own property, the right to free interactions between people, the right to one's own produce and the ability to give it away, trade it, keep it, etc. as one desires, the right to advance oneself as best as possible, basically the right to be a socioeconomic individual.

The implied of threat of dyuing from starvation, dying for disease with known cure, or dying from cold in the street is not much better.

Sort of like the threat of dying by meteor, or dying by tsunami - these aren't threats forced on you by other people. Communism's power relies on holding each person at the gunpoint of everyone else. Capitalism's principle is to work at your own internal gunpoint telling you to work and try harder, and to avoid the gunpoint of the world that everyone has to live under, but which different people manage to evade to different degrees, based upon personal merit.

Communism creates a society free from BOTH those kind of implied threat, while capitalism, inherently, makes everyone not born in a wealth enough family to live under this constant threat.

Communism creates a society free of personal responsibility and of the self.

Don't make me laugh. Capitalism is the most unstable system ever. Did you ever hear about a stock market crash ? Did you ever hear about economical crisis ? Did you ever hear about speculation and bubbles ?

Even under the Smith-Walras model the capitalists love so much, it is mathematically proven that capitalism is an highly unstable system. And history shows that, sadly, it's more than true.

Ah, excuse me. I was unclear in my terms. By self-stable, I meant that the fundamental model of the system has net stability over time given positive dynamic conditions.

It is not only capable of growth. It REQUIRES growth to function. But endless growth means overusing of ressources, and destroying of the fragile equilibrium of the planet. In order to survive, capitalism requires more and more damages to our planet. It's more akin to a parasite than anything else.

All progress, advancement, and activities of sapient intelligences are parasites, by that bar. Not to say I don't accept that bar; I do. The point is that the "parasite" is necessary, and the stage at which it seems negative on a natural scale is transitory. At the moment, energy is vomited uselessly into the vacuum and entropy is running riot. Sapient life acting on an expand-and-convert-to-extropic-value paradigm is necessary to cease energy wastage and counter entropy.

Once we get into space and hit the final cascade of technological inflation and information surge, our destiny as "parasites" becomes apparent: the universe is going to waste at an accelerating rate. Our purpose is to do something with/about it. A steady-state socioeconomic model like communism can never do that.

Strange that all the most important progress, inventions, discoveries, ... were made in non-capitalist models. The way the scientific community itself works, by sharing knowledge, is non-capitalist. The most important discoveries of the XXest century were easier made non-for-profit by scientists sharing their knowledge together, by state-runned, state-controlled or state-funded agencies, military or civilian (even the discovery of the transistor, which was made by AT&T, was made in ... state-paid, state-granted monopoly of AT&T bell labs).

Umm....wrong. Every revolutionary discovery in science was made by individuals. Einstein, Newton, Watson and Crick, (a pair, but not a group; still fundamentally individualistic) Mendel, Galileo, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Bohr, Pasteur, Darwin - all individuals. They built on each other's work, whether years or centuries apart, but each new discovery was that of an individual. The fact that they "stood on the shoulders of giants" is not incompatible with capitalism; some infrastructure requires other infrastructure, and new ideas build off of old ones.

Would capitalists here be in favor of such a country, or would they remain opposed because they feel that capitalism is a superior system of political government?
Would the country still be taking my stuff and making me work for the greater good and such?
If so, no way.

What is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat then

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a strong governement, controlled by the proletariat (working class), which starts the transition from capitalism to communism, transition known as socialism.

A strong governement doesn't necesseraly mean a violent one. Paris' Commune was indeed a strong governement, able to do major changes in a very short time frame (they implemented direct democracy, free and mandatory school, abolished death penalty, granted women and immigrants the right to vote, separated the church from the state, created the basis of a working code, and many other great things, all that in 70 days), but they didn't really upon violence - except in self-defense when the Versaillais marched against Paris. And saddly, they lose the civil war.

Hugo Chavez' governement can be considered a "dictatorship of the proletariat" too. It's the most democratic gov Venezuela ever had (with recall referendum, direct democracy for many things, ...), and Chavez won with a fair margin (close to 60%) a bunch of elections (8 in 7 years, or something like that), and they don't really upon violence (the only death happened when the CIA-backed counter-revolution did a military coup against Chavez - who was put back into power 48h laters by a massive mobilisation of the people of his country - and mostly among Chavez supporters).

an intermittent side show, or do the Bourgeoise deserve to be eradicated?

Eradicating the Bourgeoisie can be done in two ways. The first way is to slaughter them all. It may be the way chosen by stalinist, but it is not, at all, the way Marx spoke about, nor the way we, democratic communists, support. The second way is just to turn them into proletariat, by removing from them the control they have over means of production. Which does not imply any kind of physical violence against them.

And why on earth would they feel and volition to do so?
Because they see they are powerless.

Because they see they are powerless.

Only if they possess no means of couner-revolution, which, int he modern world, they would.

Only if they possess no means of couner-revolution, which, int he modern world, they would.
If they wouldn't, the world would already have the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The role of the communists today is to raise the conscience of the workers about their common interests so as to suppress the means of counter-revolution.

Would the country still be taking my stuff and making me work for the greater good and such?
If so, no way.

Occam's Razor at work. Sometimes, the simplest explanation really is the best.

People should really learn what communism is before speaking about it...

Communism _requires_ democracy. Communism even empower a democratic level unthinkable under capitalism, because in capitalism, vast and fundemantal fields of the society are left out of the democratic process, and controlled by the markets, which are, inherently, antidemocaratic (at bast, ploutocratic, which means your decision power depends directly of your wealth).
I disagree. A state-planned economy takes away freedom from the people, therefore it cannot be democratic, period.

Well, to be fair merit is irrelavent in democracy.
It's not, because, throughout the times, people from all over the world have generally been voting and approving for systems that encourage merit in one way or another...

Capitalism will fail because it fails to take into account the Pyrmaid base it is built on is finite.

Communism fails because the inherent nature of humanity makes some people better leaders than others; therefore either the leaders or the followers are repressed.

Liberalism fails because of similar arguments to Communism.

Green fails because it would require a collapse of intellectual advances that take place on "Anti-Green" advances; Thus removing all the advances that are required to deal with all the previous generations of "Anti-Green" changes to the landscape.

Utopia fails because we'd get bored :)

Religion fails because a mortal cannot comprehend an immortal.

Government fails because it is Government. The best we can hope for is a Governmental brain that, like a human brain, doesn't actually use 80% of it's potential.

And that's what we have so far.

Prolificacy']Capitalism will fail because it fails to take into account the Pyrmaid base it is built on is finite.

Communism fails because the inherent nature of humanity makes some people better leaders than others; therefore either the leaders or the followers are repressed.

Liberalism fails because of similar arguments to Communism.

Green fails because it would require a collapse of intellectual advances that take place on "Anti-Green" advances; Thus removing all the advances that are required to deal with all the previous generations of "Anti-Green" changes to the landscape.

Utopia fails because we'd get bored :)

Religion fails because a mortal cannot comprehend an immortal.

Government fails because it is Government. The best we can hope for is a Governmental brain that, like a human brain, doesn't actually use 80% of it's potential.

And that's what we have so far.
What would suggest that the Pyramid's base is finite?

As for religion, if the immortal is omnipotent, what does it matter if we comprehend it or not?

We use 8% of our potential by the way.

snip

I think the main reason for the success of French nationalization, in particular the civil nuclear program, lies primarily with the sheer amount of experience the nation has had with nationwide public engineering.

Unlike many nations, the French have had an institutionalized and meritocratic civil engineering establishment for centuries, and I think that ingrained a cultural element that has made so many of their programs so successful. It works, and it's pretty hard to argue otherwise. However, I fear that a similar situation would be all but impossible in a lot of places.

What would suggest that the Pyramid's base is finite?

As for religion, if the immortal is omnipotent, what does it matter if we comprehend it or not?

We use 8% of our potential by the way.

Given that the Pyramid is based on resources, and that resources are destroyed by their use, the Pyramid's resources and thus it's base is finite.

If the Immortal is Omnipotent, and we cannot comprehend it, then the Religion is simply a Tenet of Beliefs that has no relation to the Omnipotent One. Therefore, we are following a Tenet that has no basis in the actual "God"; therefore references to the "God" are null and void.

Only 8%? Jeez...we're in worse shape than I thought :)

I personally would not mind a communist society if it worked. However, I believe that the possibility you were suggesting would not be achievable by any human beings. There is an inherent human wish to have power. There would be no way to ensure that labor and supplies were divided fairly (on a tangent, people have different definitions of fair which would lead to problems) and inevitably strive would arrive. In general it is not possible.

Prolificacy']Given that the Pyramid is based on resources, and that resources are destroyed by their use, the Pyramid's resources and thus it's base is finite.

If the Immortal is Omnipotent, and we cannot comprehend it, then the Religion is simply a Tenet of Beliefs that has no relation to the Omnipotent One. Therefore, we are following a Tenet that has no basis in the actual "God"; therefore references to the "God" are null and void.

Only 8%? Jeez...we're in worse shape than I thought :)
What about recycling resources, or finding forms that are 100% renewable or infinite? Energy is never lost and always changes forms. This principle could apply to resources as well.

That would not stop an omnipotent immortal from ruling us though...

Yeah, and some scientists say it could be even less...around 2-3%

What about recycling resources, or finding forms that are 100% renewable or infinite? Energy is never lost and always changes forms. This principle could apply to resources as well.

That would not stop an omnipotent immortal from ruling us though...

Yeah, and some scientists say it could be even less...around 2-3%

Recycling fails for the same reason Communism fails. Some of us just won't do it.

100% Renewable or Infinite? Well, apart from breaking the "Energy is never lost" theoreum; if we did find this, then Capitalism would break down because it's based on the rarity of certain ideals/resources.

No, it wouldn't stop a being from ruling us. But the difference between being ruled and not being ruled wouldn't be comprehendable; therefore mute.

As well as it eliminating any real necessity in the Belief of God; and our 'gift' of Choice. Thus eliminating Religion as we'd be unable to choose.

Given the human brain can only use less than 10% of it's natural resources; is it any wonder the Government can only effectively solve less than 10% of our problems.

Prolificacy']Recycling fails for the same reason Communism fails. Some of us just won't do it.

100% Renewable or Infinite? Well, apart from breaking the "Energy is never lost" theoreum; if we did find this, then Capitalism would break down because it's based on the rarity of certain ideals/resources.

No, it wouldn't stop a being from ruling us. But the difference between being ruled and not being ruled wouldn't be comprehendable; therefore mute.

As well as it eliminating any real necessity in the Belief of God; and our 'gift' of Choice. Thus eliminating Religion as we'd be unable to choose.

Given the human brain can only use less than 10% of it's natural resources; is it any wonder the Government can only effectively solve less than 10% of our problems.
Then we are doomed to fail no matter what we do...hardly the case.

If your mind is so limited, to 10% or less, then isn't it possible you (or any human) lacks the ability to realise the existence of an ideal form of government? Likewise, is it appropriate for us to assume, using logic deriving from our limited perception, to understand a deity, or a concept such as infinite resources? What if a deity, say, gave us the power to comprehend it, something which would be within its grasp of omnipotence.

BTW, what if we reach the point that we can create all resources, then why would Capitalism break down?

Then we are doomed to fail no matter what we do...hardly the case.

If your mind is so limited, to 10% or less, then isn't it possible you (or any human) lacks the ability to realise the existence of an ideal form of government? Likewise, is it appropriate for us to assume, using logic deriving from our limited perception, to understand a deity, or a concept such as infinite resources? What if a deity, say, gave us the power to comprehend it, something which would be within its grasp of omnipotence.

BTW, what if we reach the point that we can create all resources, then why would Capitalism break down?

We are all destined to die. That doesn't make living any worse.

Using logic, there is a palpable difference between the Finite and the Infinite. If we were given a "hotline" to the Deity, then part of our mind would be capable of Infinite Expression, which would raise us to the ranks of Godhood.

At this point, our mortality is non-existent; so we are removed from the argument. Even if we didn't have the power to change things, why would we bother to spend a lifetime in finite space rather than Eternity in Infinite Space?

If, at the point of being able to create any resources we need, Capitalism would collapse under the basis that there is no longer a need for us to have leaders, as leaders are defined as having the ability to give to followers something they do not have; these can now be "replicated".

With infinite resources; we no longer need to work, no longer need to buy, and have no struggle against anything that we do not create in opposition to ourself. Therefore Capitalism descends into Anarchy.

From that point, Capitalism may be reborn, but only if there's a finite resource to line the bottom of the Pyramid.

What about recycling resources, or finding forms that are 100% renewable or infinite? Energy is never lost and always changes forms. This principle could apply to resources as well.

That's in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Of course, it's theoretically possible to stretch out the universal energy budget for many times its natural possible timespan, but in the end, no resource or use of resource is infinite.

That would not stop an omnipotent immortal from ruling us though...

Except for the fact that the entire concept of imnipotency is a logical paradox, and the generally associated tag of 'supernatural' is equally a logical self-contradiction.

BTW, what if we reach the point that we can create all resources, then why would Capitalism break down?

Capitalism, communism, capitalism - all are bickering children of scarcity, and will die when it dies. Within 4-6 decades, nanotech will make scarcity of matter and material goods effectively an anachronism, and make the entire idea of a market confined solely to information and energy, primarily the former, which allows for an entire new evolutionary tree of economic systems. Postscarcity economies will be weirdass, and as they evolve at incredible rates due to the singularity, human-level intelligences won't even be able to participate.

Except for the fact that the entire concept of imnipotency is a logical paradox, and the generally associated tag of 'supernatural' is equally a logical self-contradiction.

I disagree, because logical paradoxes can be overcome by hypothesising a new boundary that the Omnipotent or Supernatural has dominion over that we don't; whilst having a dominion that neither of us can acheive. Hardly Omnipotent, but it would appear to be from our perspective.

Prolificacy']We are all destined to die. That doesn't make living any worse.

Using logic, there is a palpable difference between the Finite and the Infinite. If we were given a "hotline" to the Deity, then part of our mind would be capable of Infinite Expression, which would raise us to the ranks of Godhood.

At this point, our mortality is non-existent; so we are removed from the argument. Even if we didn't have the power to change things, why would we bother to spend a lifetime in finite space rather than Eternity in Infinite Space?

If, at the point of being able to create any resources we need, Capitalism would collapse under the basis that there is no longer a need for us to have leaders, as leaders are defined as having the ability to give to followers something they do not have; these can now be "replicated".

With infinite resources; we no longer need to work, no longer need to buy, and have no struggle against anything that we do not create in opposition to ourself. Therefore Capitalism descends into Anarchy.

From that point, Capitalism may be reborn, but only if there's a finite resource to line the bottom of the Pyramid.
Using logic has one little problem...our minds are limited. Extremely limited. We assume logic gives us all the answers. We assume our logic is correct. Our logic is merely the limits of our very limited minds. Anyway, we would of course choose to ascend to Infinite Space.

As for capitalism, point conceded, yet reaching such a stage would take aeons, and therefore capitalism is the ideal form of economic system until we reach such a stage.

Does this not mean that the basis for the existence of any form of government then is the need for it to exist, ie its inability to cure this need?

Using logic has one little problem...our minds are limited. Extremely limited. We assume logic gives us all the answers. We assume our logic is correct. Our logic is merely the limits of our very limited minds. Anyway, we would of course choose to ascend to Infinite Space.

As for capitalism, point conceded, yet reaching such a stage would take aeons, and therefore capitalism is the ideal form of economic system until we reach such a stage.

Does this not mean that the basis for the existence of any form of government then is the need for it to exist, ie its inability to cure this need?

Logic is the basis for all our presumptions. Without logic we would have no basis for thought.

Given the rate certain of our resources are decreasing, I would say that an aeon is approximately 50 years in length. Therefore, Capitalism has already started to crack.

The basis for any Governement is like the basis for Stable Cleaners. You need someone to blame for all the manure and tidy it away where you won't notice it. :)

Within 4-6 decades, nanotech will make scarcity of matter and material goods effectively an anachronism, and make the entire idea of a market confined solely to information and energy, primarily the former, which allows for an entire new evolutionary tree of economic systems. Postscarcity economies will be weirdass, and as they evolve at incredible rates due to the singularity, human-level intelligences won't even be able to participate.

Funny, because I thought the basis of Nanotech was originally described as the Destruction of Mankind, as we are unable to conceive more than about 8% of what the world is actually trying to do.

That's without looking into the problems of micro-physical laws like Surface Tension.

Suppose there was a country where a Marxist revolution was sucsessful

you dont realy need to think hypotheticly Under lennins rusha it was almost a marxist country and it was around for almost 2 years befor stallin took over and in those 2 years dispite a war lennin was able to nearly abolish the uninployment problem in rusha and its economic downfall.

Prolificacy']Logic is the basis for all our presumptions. Without logic we would have no basis for thought.

Given the rate certain of our resources are decreasing, I would say that an aeon is approximately 50 years in length. Therefore, Capitalism has already started to crack.

The basis for any Governement is like the basis for Stable Cleaners. You need someone to blame for all the manure and tidy it away where you won't notice it. :)
I am just saying it seems ludicrous to believe that logic is the be-all and end-all of everything. A bit naive in fact.

That is assuming that alternative resources are not found/created by then. If anything, humans are inventive. Capitalism won't vanish that quickly.

you dont realy need to think hypotheticly Under lennins rusha it was almost a marxist country and it was around for almost 2 years befor stallin took over and in those 2 years dispite a war lennin was able to nearly abolish the uninployment problem in rusha and its economic downfall.
Hypothetically, Lenin, Russia, before, despite, unemployment...

Learn to spell :rolleyes:

I am just saying it seems ludicrous to believe that logic is the be-all and end-all of everything. A bit naive in fact.

That is assuming that alternative resources are not found/created by then. If anything, humans are inventive. Capitalism won't vanish that quickly.

Naive, yes. But apart from perception (which can be equally fooled), that's all we have at the moment.

Well, Capitalism has it's time-bomb ticking anyway. Once Oil runs low, people might start to go to War over it :p

Prolificacy']Naive, yes. But apart from perception (which can be equally fooled), that's all we have at the moment.

Well, Capitalism has it's time-bomb ticking anyway. Once Oil runs low, people might start to go to War over it :p
As long as people realise that even logic has its imperfections and is by no means absolute. It is, after all, the conception of imperfect minds.

Once capitalism dies though, what follows? With no resources, how would we continue to exist?

As long as people realise that even logic has its imperfections and is by no means absolute. It is, after all, the conception of imperfect minds.

Once capitalism dies though, what follows? With no resources, how would we continue to exist?

We would still have resources, just not directly usable ones. Society would collapse again into the Bartering System (Step down from Capitalism), until there was a way to provide Safety, Shelter and Replenisment.

At that point, there would probably be a return to Heirarchical Rule with pockets of Humanity leaving their possessions to their descendants.

From there, Reclamation would bring a need for Governmental Advice and we would have one of the Upper State Governments described in Nation States.

Which one? Depends on how they view History.

Prolificacy']We would still have resources, just not directly usable ones. Society would collapse again into the Bartering System (Step down from Capitalism), until there was a way to provide Safety, Shelter and Replenisment.

At that point, there would probably be a return to Heirarchical Rule with pockets of Humanity leaving their possessions to their descendants.

From there, Reclamation would bring a need for Governmental Advice and we would have one of the Upper State Governments described in Nation States.

Which one? Depends on how they view History.
So in other words we would recede to older forms of government...

True Communism IS possible. Difficult, but possible. You would have to get all the people in the world, who are dedicated to making communism work, in a new place for a new country. Then you'd have to use alot of technology to ensure that everyone has an equal say in the running of the country.

Or....they could just move to Switzerland with its direct democracy and capitalism, where every single person has a say in the government.

So in other words we would recede to older forms of government...

Quite so. Having no other way to govern ourselves, we would revert to the "Parent" to tell us what to do. Over time, the Parent would grow into the Government. Having no real idea how to Govern a country, the Leader would focus on bringing it up as if it was a "Child".

Capitalism "I'll do the chores if I can go out early"
Communism "HE got more than I did!"
Liberalism "Here's something for being upset"

Intellectualism, as differing to the Norm, is seen as a minority and seldom listened to; whilst Minority opinions given power are useless as they lose their balancing factor of the Majority.

"You know why they call it a Revoloution? It's because it always goes in circles." - Woody Allen, Sleeper.

Prolificacy']Quite so. Having no other way to govern ourselves, we would revert to the "Parent" to tell us what to do. Over time, the Parent would grow into the Government. Having no real idea how to Govern a country, the Leader would focus on bringing it up as if it was a "Child".

Capitalism "I'll do the chores if I can go out early"
Communism "HE got more than I did!"
Liberalism "Here's something for being upset"

Intellectualism, as differing to the Norm, is seen as a minority and seldom listened to; whilst Minority opinions given power are useless as they lose their balancing factor of the Majority.

"You know why they call it a Revoloution? It's because it always goes in circles." - Woody Allen, Sleeper.
Intellectualism, or rather true aristocracy (as in the best rule, the most capable), would be an ideal form of government, yet it does have that flaw; that it would require oppressive rule by the minority.

This cyclical theory is the same that I often counter anarchism with...that it would lead to the eventual reversion to older, more "parental" forms of government.

Intellectualism, or rather true aristocracy (as in the best rule, the most capable), would be an ideal form of government, yet it does have that flaw; that it would require oppressive rule by the minority.

This cyclical theory is the same that I often counter anarchism with...that it would lead to the eventual reversion to older, more "parental" forms of government.

Agreed, a nice discussion. *shakes your hand* :)

The reason I've often heard on this forum for the anti-communist feelings are that communism doesn't work in practise.
Have them define 'doesn't work' first.

Prolificacy']Agreed, a nice discussion. *shakes your hand* :)
Wow, an intelligent discussion on NS :eek: :fluffle:

Prolificacy']I disagree, because logical paradoxes can be overcome by hypothesising a new boundary that the Omnipotent or Supernatural has dominion over that we don't; whilst having a dominion that neither of us can acheive. Hardly Omnipotent, but it would appear to be from our perspective.

That I'll give you. My assertion of a logical paradox only covered a truly, literally omnipotent being. An entity that only appears omnipotent because it has some sort of management ackles to our universe, but still is a normal, explicable material being in another universe, does not fall under the true categories of omnipotence or supernaturality.

Prolificacy']Funny, because I thought the basis of Nanotech was originally described as the Destruction of Mankind, as we are unable to conceive more than about 8% of what the world is actually trying to do.

Could you clarify? Are you asserting that nanotechnology will be the destruction of mankind? Do you mean a "dumb grey goo eats us all" destruction, or a "posthuman uploads and AIs replace us" destruction? What does the 8% statistic come from, and what exactly is it a statistic of? What fraction of sensory input we analyze? How much of our brain we use?

Communism is too fragile for a national scale while true capitalism is true anarchy(at least in economy). Capitalism evolves into socialism, which in turn becomes communism. Communism eventually breaks down, thanks to man's desire to succeed and survive with any means possible. So, communism disintegrates into anarchy. Anarchy cools down and tribes are established. Eventually, trade is established once each tribe has something all the others desperately need. Trade starts out as simple bartering. Then, currency is introduced and we're back to capitalism. It's a cycle, really. If we can stop the wheel before the communists taste asphalt, the economy/government stabalizes and a somewhat permanant system is introduced. BTW, semi-communism(China, Soviet, etc.) is not real communism.


What is it with communists and their hate with capitalism? I mean, it nearly get us all killed in a nuclear war.